Joe O'Toole (Independent)

That statement has troubled me very much. There is almost a "prove your innocence" aspect to it. It does not seem to fit with the general approach in legislation that a person would have to prove he or she did not act out of spite, for whatever reason. The first part of the subsection refers to reasonableness but how does one prove one did not act out of spite? How can one quantify the burden of proof in such a situation?