RLITO000062
RLITO000062
mmission
onquest House
37/38 John Street
Theobalds Road
LONDON WCIN 2BQ
3ist July 1995
Dear Madam
EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
HEARSAY AND RELATED TOPICS
(LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER NO. 138)
Thank you for your letter and enclosure of 10th July 1995.
After considering this matter, I take the view that Option 2 is to be preferred.
In practice, the operation of Section 69 of the 1984 Act is somewhat onerous
from a prosecution viewpoint. I consider that computer evidence is, in principal, no
different from any other sort of evidence and it should, in general terms, be admissible
so that any argument in Court would relate to its weight rather than its admissibilit
I therefore consider that there should be a presumption that the machine is in working
order etc. and if the Defence wish to argue otherwise, then clearly, they should be able
to do so. At present, I therefore consider the evidential requirements to be far too
strict and can hamper prosecutions.
Yours faithfully
HEAD OF CRIMINAL LAW DIVISION
RLITOO00062
RLIT0000062
GRO I
; "PD/12500/TB
Law Commission
Conquest House
37-38 John Street 26 October 1995
Theobalds Road fi an I
Dear Madam
LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER NO. 138
"CRIMINAL LAW" EVIDENCE _IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: HEARSAY _AND
RELATED TOPICS
This Office inter alia prosecutes offenders who have committed offences against the
Post Office. The offenders can be employees, Sub-Postmasters or members of the
public. Typical offences prosecuted by this office include theft of money from the till
or false accounting by counter clerks or Sub-Postmasters and wilful delay and/or theft
of mail by Royal Mail staff. This list of offences is not exhaustive,
A senior lawyer in this office has reviewed the above mentioned Consultation Paper.
This Office welcomes your proposals especially in relation to repealing Section 69 of the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and repealing the discretionary provisions of
Sections 25 and 26 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1988.
With regard to the present potential evidential problems caused by Section 69 of the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a large number of Sub-Postmasters now
complete their cash accounts and other accounting records by using a computer. The
Sub-Postmaster is often the only person working in the Sub-Post Office or the only
person who uses the computer. In the event of the Sub-Postmaster being prosecuted for
theft or false accounting, the Post Office may need to rely upon the computerised
accounting records. The Sub-Postmaster is frequently the only person who can give the
evidence required by Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In the
absence of admissions or other direct evidence the Post Office may not be able to prove
the case solely on the ground of being unable to satisfy the technical requirements of
Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984,
RLITO000062
RLITO000062
Computer e€ now being u ithin Branch Post Offices, Parcelforce De