It is clear in section 4(4) that the prosecution could say that "it is a defence to prove that the licensee took reasonable steps to prevent the drunkenness concerned taking place." That is better than section 4(1)(c) which is like a piece of calculus. What is the Minister's view, as a lawyer, of section 4(3) which goes close to damaging the principle of presumption of innocence? It does not quite do this but it is so close that it may have that outcome.