The Department of Justice has opened a call for evidence to scrutinize how computer evidence plays a role in the criminal justice system, hoping to avoid a repeat of the Post Office scandal.
Hundreds of subpostmasters were wrongfully convicted due to mistakes in the Horizon computer system from Fujitsu, a system riddled with errors. This case stands as one of the largest miscarriages of justice in UK history and has sparked discussions about overruling the legal notion that computer evidence is inherently reliable.
Back in 1999, the law shifted to assume that computer systems operated correctly unless proven otherwise. This change replaced a previous law that required proof of a system’s proper operation before digital evidence could be accepted.
Now, the Department is reaching out for feedback over the next 12 weeks on this presumption, engaging participants from various fields, including tech experts. Justice Minister Sarah Sackman KC emphasizes the need to learn from the past: “A blanket acceptance of digital evidence can ruin lives.”
She highlighted the importance of examining how digital evidence is used and scrutinized in court, noting that preventing miscarriages of justice is a key part of the government’s reform agenda.
Stephen Mason, who has long advocated for abolishing this presumption, welcomes the call for evidence. He’s keen to engage in this crucial dialogue. Meanwhile, Peer James Arbuthnot, who has fought for justice on behalf of impacted subpostmasters for nearly 20 years, insists that just asking for evidence isn’t enough. “They must treat it properly and come up with real solutions,” he said, calling for action rather than just words.
Arbuthnot’s commitment stems from his efforts on behalf of Jo Hamilton, a constituent who was wrongfully convicted of false accounting by the Post Office. After years of campaigning, Hamilton’s conviction was overturned in 2012, and she strongly believes the burden of proof should shift. “It shouldn’t be on the accused to prove the computer was faulty; that’s the prosecution’s job,” she asserted.
According to the Ministry of Justice’s announcement, they’re seeking expert insights on how to define computer evidence and what legal adjustments might be necessary. They indicated that distinctions may need to be made between general digital evidence, like texts or social media messages, and evidence produced specifically by a computer system.
Justice Peter Fraser, who presided over the pivotal 2018 High Court case between the Post Office and former subpostmasters, recently discussed the issue at an Inner Temple event. He pointed out that the presumption from the Law Commission is outdated and needs replacing, but cautioned that finding a suitable alternative won’t be straightforward. “It’s tricky to predict how courts will handle computer-generated evidence in the future,” he noted, stressing the need for flexibility as complexities grow.
The Post Office scandal first emerged through Computer Weekly in 2009, spotlighting the harrowing experiences of subpostmasters caught in the web of faulty accounting software.