Computer Generated Evidence in Court
Introduction
We are living in what is usually described as an 'information society' and as
the business community makes ever greater use of computers the courts are going
to find that increasingly the disputes before them turn on evidence which has at
some stage passed through or been processed by a computer. In order to keep in
step with this practice it is vital that the courts are able to take account of
such evidence. As the Criminal Law Revision Committee recognised, 'the
increasing use of computers by the Post Office, local authorities, banks and
business firms to store information will make it more difficult to prove certain
matters such as cheque card frauds, unless it is possible for this to be done
from computers' (CLRC 1972, para 259).
Admissibility
The law of evidence is concerned with the means of proving the facts which are
in issue and this necessarily involves the adduction of evidence which is then
presented to the court. The law admits evidence only if it complies with the
rules governing admissibility. Computer output is only admissible in evidence
where special conditions are satisfied. These conditions are set out in detail
in section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 (see further
Nyssens 1993, Reed 1993 and Tapper 1993).
In general the principles of admissibility are that the evidence must be
relevant to the proof of a fact in issue, to the credibility of a witness or to
the reliability of other evidence, and the evidence must not be inadmissible by
virtue of some particular rule of law (Keane 1994, pp 15-20; Tapper 1990, pp 51-
61).
Real evidence usually takes the form of some material object (including computer
output) produced for inspection in order that the court may draw an inference
from its own observation as to the existence, condition or value of the object
in question. Although real evidence may be extremely valuable as a means of
proof, little if any weight attaches to it unless accompanied by testimony which
identifies the object in question and explains its connection with, or
significance in relation to, the facts in issue or relevant to the issue.
This is illustrated in the case of R v Wood (1982) 76 Cr App R 23 where the
appellant was convicted of handling stolen metals. In order to prove that metal
found in his possession and metal retained from the stolen consignment had the
same chemical composition cross-checking was undertaken and the figures produced
were subjected to a laborious mathematical process in order that the percentage
Reasonable doubt plays a significant role in this particular case, as it requires a standard of unsurpassable evidence in order to be able to convict the plaintiff in a criminal proceeding. This is required under the Due Process Section in the Fifth Amendment of the American Constitution, allowing a safeguard and circumvention
McCormick, Charles T. Handbook of the law of evidence. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1972. Print.
To the extent possible and practical, it is recommended that the court conduct meetings and phone conferences concerning media requests on the record and make all resulting orders on the record and/or in
*referred to in order to determine such cases as the validity of a contract or whether or not someone was guilty of murder
David Dyzenhaus and Arthur Ripstein, eds. Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy. (University of Toronto Press, 1996).
Reece H., ‘The paramountcy principle Consensus or construct?’ [1996] 49 Current Legal Problems p. 267-304
Relevant is the relevance attached to or associated among a proceeding with direction. Reliable is corroboration which occupies acceptable amplitude containing creditability, which can be if confirmation would be honest and legitimate. Competent includes relevant and reliable evidence anything else that is not concluded objectionable ((Gardner & Anderson, 2013).
H W R Wade ‘The Basis of Legal Sovereignty’ (1995) 172 Cambridge Law Journal 186.
...tz et. al. 1997). “The standard of proof in a trial is one such fundamental tenet of criminal law.” (Horowitz et. al. 1997).
The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales. - Counsel [24] See footnote 22 – but page 61 [25] GEOFFREY, Marshall, Constitutional Theory, Clarendon Law Series, Oxford 1971 Chapter1 – the Law and the constitution, part 3. Dicey’s doctrine and its critics. [26] REGINA v HER MAJESTY'S TREASURY, Ex parte SMEDLEY, [COURT OF APPEAL], [1985] Q B 657, 19 December 1984, (c)2001 The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England & Wales [27] MITCHELL, JDB, Constitutional Law, 2nd edition, Edinburgh, W Green & SON LTD, 1968, Convention, page 31 [28] See footnote 22 but page 64
Bailey Press --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] (2000) 2 All ER 289, [2] QB 133 [3] (1965) 2 QB 29 [4] 15 Ch D 96 [5] Law Com. No. 164 (1987), para.
On the night of January 13, 2013, Jeffrey Wright was killed after causing his wife, Susan Wright, years of distress and abuse. His body was disfigured after being stabbed approximately 193 times. The body lay on his former mattress which had become blood-soaked and cut up. Attached to his wrists are ties which had been used to anchor him to the bed, making him unable to escape. His last visual memory was the sight of his wife hovering over him with a knife, wondering how she had been able to do what she was about to do. How could she, his wife, betray him and kill him with no remorse?
Forensic evidence can provide just outcomes in criminal matters. However, it is not yet an exact science as it can be flawed. It can be misrepresented through the reliability of the evidence, through nonstandard guidelines, and through public perception. Forensic science can be dangerously faulty without focus on the ‘science’ aspect. It can at times be just matching patterns based on an individual’s interpretations. This can lead to a miscarriage of justice and forever alter a person’s life due to a perceived “grey area” (Merritt C, 2010) resulting in a loss of confidence in the reliability of forensic evidence.
part of the Doctrine Hedley Byrne and Co. Ltd V Heller and. Partners Ltd (1964), Rondel V Worsley (1969).
Firstly in this report, I will be giving the different definitions of rule of law by different philosophers; secondly, I will be applying the rule of law to the English Legal system and thirdly I will be explaining separation of powers with a focus on the impartial judiciary. Finally, I will be using cases to support every detailed point given.