At a recent talk at the Inner Temple, Judge Peter Fraser addressed the ongoing issues surrounding the Post Office Horizon scandal and its implications for digital evidence in court. He stated that current rules need updating but cautioned against simply reverting to older regulations.
Fraser, who presided over the pivotal High Court case between the Post Office and former subpostmasters, highlighted a significant problem: the existing assumption in law that computer systems work correctly, a presumption dating back to 1999. This rule emerged from a Law Commission recommendation that courts should assume computers function properly unless proven otherwise. It replaced the previous requirement for proof of proper operation, which wasn’t a perfect solution, especially given the complexity of modern systems.
Fraser noted the challenge in predicting how future courts will handle computer-generated evidence. As he said, the landscape is likely to grow more complicated, so we need a flexible approach. He mentioned that the Post Office, amid the scandal, has started to recalibrate its stance on these issues. John Bartlett, leading investigations at the Post Office, suggested returning to the previous requirement for verification of digital data—essentially revisiting the old ways of ensuring computer systems were reliable.
However, attendees at the Inner Temple event quickly dismissed the notion of merely reinstating Section 69 from earlier laws. One participant pointed out that doing so would be overly simplistic and wouldn’t address the complexities we now face. Fraser agreed, pointing out the significant differences between the straightforward systems of the 1990s and the intricate technology we deal with today.
Professor Stephen Murdoch from University College London shared his thoughts as well. He argued for change, but not a return to those outdated rules. Instead, he suggested that all testing documentation related to computer evidence should be made available for scrutiny, allowing for better assessment in court.
The Post Office scandal has shed light on the flaws in using computer evidence in judicial processes. Since Judge Fraser’s December 2019 ruling, many former subpostmasters have had their wrongful convictions overturned. Over 100 convictions linked to the Post Office’s Horizon system have been reversed since 2021. The Post Office, once firm in its claims about the reliability of Horizon, now faces a robust pushback against its assertions. Critics have drawn sharp analogies, with Fraser likening the Post Office’s unyielding stance to the flat-Earth theory.
Historically, the Post Office contended that its system was solid and robust, but substantial evidence has shown numerous bugs and errors within Horizon. The change in the law in 1999 only made it easier for them to prosecute without proper checks on the computer evidence. Before this, the Post Office had advocated for more leniency concerning the reliability of computer evidence, claiming that existing standards hindered necessary prosecutions.
Sam Stein KC, a leading counsel in the subpostmaster cases, reflected on the complexities of digital systems. He emphasized that while bugs are inevitable in any system, the IT used in public services often lacks the rigorous quality assurance seen in other sectors, such as gaming. He suggested that courts need to have solid, non-IT evidence to support cases heavily reliant on digital claims.
The full discussion at the Inner Temple provided a clear look at the intricate issues surrounding digital evidence and the urgent need for thoughtful reform. This scandal first captured public attention in 2009 when Computer Weekly reported on the injustices faced by subpostmasters due to the flawed Horizon software. The repercussions of these revelations continue to unfold, highlighting a critical juncture in the relationship between technology and the legal system.