UK government to examine the presumption that computer evidence is always correct

The UK government is to examine the role of computer evidence in the criminal justice system through a call for evidence to prevent future miscarriages of justice.

There is a presumption that computers work correctly, and any evidence generated by software is accurate, unless there is evidence to the contrary.

But the government said the limitations of computer evidence were highlighted by the wrongful conviction of sub-postmasters in the Post Office Horizon scandal where accounting software proved the fallibility of digital evidence.

Over a 12-week period, the government is inviting views from the justice system and other authorities.

It said that the review will ensure that people are better protected from miscarriages of justice.
Computer evidence forms a substantial part of many modern prosecutions, particularly in crimes such as fraud, which can involve thousands of digital documents.

The government said that any change requiring the prosecution to prove any computer device works ‘correctly’ could impact how quickly cases can be completed so any reform implemented as a result of the consultation must be well thought out and future proofed.

The government added that in future, distinctions might need to be drawn between general digital evidence like text messages or social media posts, and evidence which has been specifically generated by a computer system or software.

While any changes to the presumption that computer evidence is correct would not protect against instances where parties mislead a court on the accuracy of the evidence, the government said that removing it could mean that defendants are better equipped to interrogate computer evidence against them.

“We must learn the lessons of the Post Office scandal, as a blanket ‘no questions asked’ acceptance of the accuracy of digital evidence can have a devastating impact on people’s lives” said justice minister Sarah Sackman KC. “We need to carefully consider how we can both use and interrogate digital evidence in court.”