The strongest is the State. If the doctrine of absolute liability does not apply when an individual is harmed by the State, it should not apply under any circumstances. The fact that an acquitted defendant might be guilty is a red herring. If you are guilty, you should take the due punishment and pay the cost of trying to avoid it. If you are innocent, you should escape the penalty and be recompensed for your losses.
Any intermediate outcome is guaranteed to be unjust.
Indeed, there are cases in which the possible guilt of an acquitted defendant actually strengthens the case for reimbursement of costs. If an offender is acquitted in a criminal trial, and if the victim subsequently wins a civil action against the offender, the capacity of the offender to pay damages is reduced by the costs incurred in the criminal trial. Any suggestion that the Crown cannot afford to pay costs or compensation to defendants is ridiculous. If you are acquitted by a jury, the Crown saves the cost of imprisoning you. The Crown is willing and able to meet this cost if you are convicted.