This would still concern me. It isn't hard to imagine the police assuming any file they don't understand is that way because it is encrypted and, being that they are police and not scientists or engineers, that number could be quite high.
So now, you may actually know what's in that file. Great, no problems (other than the headache of dealing with explaining files in the first place).
The real danger is what if you don't know about the file, either? "I have no clue" is not going to cause reasonable doubt. The problem here is the law starts from a presumed guilt, which is problematic if you are, in fact, innocent.
But it really does come down to how the first clause of the law gets interpreted. Is it reasonably interpreted or not? I have lost faith in any chance of governments sticking to reasonableness when it comes to their threat of terrorism, protecting their "children", etc.
> It isn't hard to imagine the police assuming any file they don't understand is that way because it is encrypted
True, but they have to prove they have reasonable grounds for believing, not just that it's encrypted, but also that you have the key to it.
> "I have no clue" is not going to cause reasonable doubt
It doesn't need to cause reasonable doubt, it just has to raise an issue about whether or not you have they key. In which case the police have to prove you do beyond reasonable doubt.
But you are right - it is ambiguous, and that evidential presumption is in danger of being interpreted in a very anti-defendant way.
But:
> I have lost faith in any chance of governments sticking to reasonableness
Thankfully, it's not up to the government to interpret legislation, it's up to the courts. And they have to interpret criminal legislation (a) in favour of the defendant (common law principle), and (b) compatibly with the human rights act.
That second one is powerful, and has resulted in anti-defendant statues being interpreted almost out of all recognition by a court happy to interpret stuff compatibly with the HRA right to a fair trial. See e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/may/18/lords.politics .
So now, you may actually know what's in that file. Great, no problems (other than the headache of dealing with explaining files in the first place).
The real danger is what if you don't know about the file, either? "I have no clue" is not going to cause reasonable doubt. The problem here is the law starts from a presumed guilt, which is problematic if you are, in fact, innocent.
But it really does come down to how the first clause of the law gets interpreted. Is it reasonably interpreted or not? I have lost faith in any chance of governments sticking to reasonableness when it comes to their threat of terrorism, protecting their "children", etc.