Does it actually say Guilty until proven innocent.

The effect of what it says, 579, is that if it is alleged that the defendant said "Good morning" to the plaintiff, and further alleged that it was said by the defendant with the intention of sexually harrassing the plaintiff, then the defendant is assumed to have had that intent until he proves otherwise.

The defendant is guilty until he proves his innocence.

We are still awaiting further input from our legal expert, Rhosty, who is no doubt giving it his full consideration, and will advise us in due course.

Perhaps he is awaiting assistance from the Attorney General, the only lawyer who has asserted that Slipper is innocent until proven guilty.

Convention is subject to evolution. Edward VIII was forced to abdicate when he chose to marry a divorcee, because convention required this. Would this apply today, less than eighty years later?

The criteria of a serious criminal conviction before an MP can be expelled from parliament has no bearing on the Slipper situation. Slipper's stepping aside has been fully in accord with convention. He has acted because he has lost the confidence of the House and can only retain the speaker's chair if he waits out the legal process now in train. Had he failed to step aside a motion of no confidence would have been successful and he would have lost the chair permanently rather than having the admittedly remote possibility of returning. The Speaker has always required the confidence of the House.

Defendants always take up a legalistic position when their defence is otherwise weak. In the case of Thomson there is a strong prima facie case of wrong-doing - whether this amounts to criminal conduct remains to be tested, but it may well not (given the chronic maladministration of the HSU). That is to say - he may well have done everything that he has been found to have done by FWA but not be convicted because the HSU did not have proper rules covering expenditure. Would the result of this be that we consider him a fit and proper person to be a member of parliament, utilizing the test that he has not been convicted of a serious criminal offense?

I would suggest not, whatever convention or law might have to say on the matter.