Can somebody possibly remind me of the section of HSW which by virtue of the case being brought requires that innocence be proven rather than the other way round under most statutes? Thanks for any readers help

As the above post suggests it is Section 40 of HSWA - Reverse Burden of Proof. The defence to S40 is that it was not reasonably foreseeable... 40 Onus of proving limits of what is practicable etc. In any proceedings for an offence under any of the relevant statutory provisions consisting of a failure to comply with a duty or requirement to do something so far as is practicable or so far as is reasonably practicable, or to use the best practicable means to do something, it shall be for the accused to prove (as the case may be) that it was not practicable or not reasonably practicable to do more than was in fact done to satisfy the duty or requirement, or that there was no better practicable means than was in fact used to satisfy the duty or requirement.