Here in Brazil is guaranteed by the constitution that no one can be forced to produce any evidence against him/herself.
Isn't there something like this in the UK? You know... if someone says that you have ilegal encrypted data, they first would have to prove that it is really encrypted data and then that it is ilegal data.
There was a case where that defense was mounted, but failed [1]. The encryption keys were deemed to exist "separate from the will of the subject" i.e. they were deemed to be "physical". You can't use the defense against self-incrimination for physical keys either and the prosecution likened the encryption key to a physical key.
What hasn't been tested in court (afaik) is the refusal to hand over a passphrase that protects the encryption key. If the passphrase exists only in your head, it could be argued that it doesn't exist separate to your will.
Is it illegal to hand over passwords yet if it's self-incriminating? Because encasing the encryption key in a passworded file could get you out. You would be providing the key, but wouldn't be self-incriminating yourself.
It would be like handing over an virtually unbreakable safe and saying "open it".
Isn't there something like this in the UK? You know... if someone says that you have ilegal encrypted data, they first would have to prove that it is really encrypted data and then that it is ilegal data.