WITN06740104 - Article by Michael Turner re reliability of computer evidence

Evidence on official site

WITN06740104

WITNO06740104

COMPUTER WEEKLY

COMPUTER WEEKLY JANUARY 28 1993

Computing 28 January 1993

A case for
reconsideration

I was disturbed to read the
report of the House of Lords
ruling on the admissibility of
computer evidence in Regina
vs Shephard (1992), The
Times, December 17, 1992.

The requirement in section
69(1) of the Police and Crim-
inal Evidence Act 1984 to
give evidence of acomputer’s
reliability was held to have
been satisfied ‘by oral evi-
dence given by a Marks &
Spencer store detective, who
was also the main witness for
the prosecution.

This witness did not pre-

tend to have any technical
understanding of the com-
puter’s operation.

It is equally worrying that
the House of Lords consid-
ered the computer to be “of
the simplest kind”.

This decision has disman-
tled what had previously
been considered to be a well-
balanced set of evidential
hurdles. Ipstead the law will
in future follow the dictum,
“It has been printed by a
computer, soit must be true”.

MY LEARNED FRIEND
1S INCAPABLE
OF LYING.

Clearly ‘something has
gone very wrong in this case.
If there is to be no effective
test of the admissibility of
computer evidence in future,
defence lawyers will have to

adduce expert evidence of
the reliability of computer
documents, whenever there
is any reason to question
their authenticity,

MICHAEL TURNER
Hereford

Is computer
always right?

I was disturbed to read the
report of the House of Lords’ :
ruling on the admissibility of
computer evidence in Regina
v Shephard (1992), The
Times, 17 December 1992.

The requirement in section
69(1) of the Police and Crim-
inal Evidence Act 1984 to
give evidence of a computer's
reliability was held to ,have
been satisfied by oral
evidence given by a Marks &
Spencer store detective, who
was also the main witness
for the prosecution. This
witness did not pretend to
have any technical under-
standing of the operation of
the computer.

It is equally worrying that
the House of Lords is re-
ported to have considered the
computer, which was “‘con-_
nected to a central computer
which fed in the date, time,
customer number and till
number”, to be “of the
simplest kind”,

This decision has dis-
mantled what had previously
been considered to be a well-
balanced set of evidential
hurdles.

Instead the law will in
future follow the dictum
“it’s been printed by a com-
puter, so it must be true”.

Clearly something has gone
very wrong in this case. If
there is to be no effective test
of the admissibility of com-
puter evidence. in future,
defence lawyers will have to
adduce expert evidence of the
reliability of computer docu-
ments, whenever there is any
reason to question their
authenticity.

Michael Turner
Hereford
HRI ITH

A case for
consideration

From Michael Turner
Iwas disturbed to read of the
House of Lords’ ruling on the
admissibility of computer
evidence in Regina v Shep-
hard (1992), The Times, 17
December 1992.

[Shephard was questioned
by a Marks & Spencer store
detective after failing to pro-
duce a till receipt for goods in
her possession. As she
claimed to have lost the
receipt the store’ detective
went through the store’s own.
till receipts to verify Shep-
hard’s story.]

The requirement in” sec-
tion 69(i) of the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984
to give evidence of a:com-
puter’s reliability, was held to
have been satisfied by oral
evidence given by the store
detective, the main witness
for the prosecution. The wit-
ness did not pretend to have
any technical knowledge of
computers.

It’s worrying that ‘the
House of Lords {s reported to
have considered the com-

puter, ‘connected to a central
computer which fed in the
date, time, customer number
and till number’, to be ‘of the
simplest kind’,

This decision has disman-
tled a well balanced set of evi-
dential hurdles.

Instead the law will in
future follow the dictum ‘it’s
been printed by a computer,
soitmustbetrue”

Without an effective test of
the admissibility of computer
evidence, defence lawyers
will have to adduce expert
evidence of the reliability of
computer documents, when-
ever their authenticity is
questioned.

Michael Turner
Hereford