I just had a read of the link, a bit over my head. Does it mean the burden of proof Beyond all Reasonable Doubt in criminal proceedings has been reppealed?

(Sorry for change of name, pw for my original stopped working). The suspect was apprehended by another motorist and two other men all white mid 30’s, in a side road and accused her hitting his car. The other motorist or one of his accomplices snatched her car keys from her car and she went home fearing she was about to me attacked. It was dark about 7pm. She lives 431 paced yards from the incident and left the car behind. The police later arrived at her home with her car kays and arrested her with drink driving. Police said they looked at the car but no evidence of accident damage. She was taken to a Police station (9.3 miles away 26 minutes non-stop with no traffic) and tested at 95mgs at 10.40pm and charged under S5 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 98mg. She was bailed to appear before Magistrates. She admits on her tape interview having two glasses of wine but the volume of the glass is unspecified on the tape, and neither is the length of time between drinking the wine and driving the car to the site where the car keys were snatched. No police offers have seen her driving a car. The person who snatched the keys has not been charged under Section 15 of the heft Act 1968 and no explanation has been offered. She thinks she will goto prison, very nervous, sleepless nights, 70 years old, just had double hip replacement, zimmer frame etc. There are no blood tests, just a breathaliser machine which gave a till receipt showing a test result and an actual result.