The Law Commission presumption concerning the dependability of computer evidence
An invited paper
In this paper Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bev Littlewood, Harold Thimbleby and Martyn Thomas CBE consider the condition set out in section 69(1)(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) that reliance on computer evidence should be subject to proof of its correctness, and compare it to the 1997 Law Commission recommendation that a common law presumption be used that a computer operated correctly unless there is explicit evidence to the contrary (LC Presumption). The authors understand the LC Presumption prevails in current legal proceedings. They demonstrate that neither section 69(1)(b) of PACE 1984 nor the LC presumption reflects the reality of general software-based system behaviour.
Copyright, licence and acknowledgement
The author retains copyright and grants the publishers of the Review a licence to publish the article in the Review and to create and maintain digital copies on the internet at the discretion of the publisher and via third parties in subscription databases. The author warrants that they are the owner of all rights of copyright in the article.
Work published in the open access version of Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review on the SAS Open Journals System is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.Where the author subsequently publishes the article, the author is requested to acknowledge the article first appeared in the Review, in whatever format it is subsequently published.
Those who contribute items to Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review retain author copyright in their work but are asked to grant two licences. One is a licence to the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, School of Advanced Study of the University of London, enabling us to reproduce the item in digital form, so that it can be made available for access online in the Open Journals System and repository and website. The terms of the licence which you are asked to grant to the University for this purpose are as follows:
'I grant to the University of London the irrevocable, non-exclusive royalty-free right to reproduce, distribute, display, and perform this work in any format including electronic formats throughout the world for educational, research, and scientific non-profit uses during the full term of copyright including renewals and extensions'
The other licence is for the benefit of those who wish to make use of items published online in IALS Student Law Review and stored in the e-repository. For this purpose we use a Creative Commons licence allowing others to download your works and share them with others as long as they mention you and link back to your entry in Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review and/or SAS-SPACE, but they can't change them in any way or use them commercially.
For the avoidance of doubt, the author is not granted permission to publish the article in the format in which the Review publishes it. The publisher own the copyright to the text as it appears in the published journal. The author may only publish the article in word format or html, unless the author pays the publisher for a licence to re-publish as it is printed.