And that's the flaw in the system - the presumption is guilty unless proven innocent unlike others areas where it is innocent till proven guilty.
I'm a bit late in the discussion here, but just to say that is an unfair characterisation of the system.
First off, there is no guilt involved here, it's not a criminal matter.
The burden of proof initially lies with the claimant to prove what they are seeking. Here, the Tribunal was satisfied that the Ahmed had proved that she was paid at a lower rate to a comparator man (Vine) and that discrimination existed because it was also satisfied by her argument that it was for similar work.
The burden of proof then shifts to the respondent (BBC) to rebut that position by providing an objective justification for that discrimination.
That all being said, there are obviously still questions about the Tribunal's decision on the facts which are open to debate.