https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/issue/feed Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review 2023-10-18T14:27:15+00:00 Dr Allison Stanfield a.stanfield@lanternlegal.com.au Open Journal Systems <p>The<strong><em> Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review</em></strong> brings articles, legal developments and case reports to academics, practitioners and the industry in relation to digital evidence and electronic signatures from across the world. The review also seeks to include reports on technical advances and book reviews, and is issued once a year, in October/November, although we publish articles throughout the year once they are accepted for publication.</p> <p>This freely available Open Access version of<em> Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review</em> has been developed by Stephen Mason with the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (IALS), School of Advanced Study, University of London on the SAS Open Journals System.</p> https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5654 General Editors and Editorial Board 2023-10-18T14:27:15+00:00 Volume 20 Credits stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk 2023-10-18T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2023 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5647 Set one 2023-10-18T14:08:15+00:00 Document Supplement Set One stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk 2023-10-18T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2023 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5648 Set two 2023-10-18T14:12:13+00:00 Document Supplement Set Two stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk 2023-10-18T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2023 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5649 Set three 2023-10-18T14:13:53+00:00 Document Supplement Set Three stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk 2023-10-18T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2023 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5652 Table of Electronic Signature Legislation 2023-10-18T14:22:49+00:00 World Electronic Signature Legislation stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk 2023-10-18T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2023 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5605 Industry Contribution: Digital signature as a method to strengthen enterprise risk management practices across the US government 2023-04-03T11:10:21+00:00 David Santiago stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk Israel Nery stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk <p><span class="TextRun SCXW55779797 BCX0" lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" data-contrast="auto"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW55779797 BCX0">US government agencies employ a variety of techniques to manage risk, but often struggle with maintaining appropriate documentation about their risk-based decision-making processes. Many of the most important decisions made in government agencies are done through manual and paper-based processes that complicate the way decisions are documented, stored, and reported on, and inadvertently add risk to the enterprise. This is where workflow-driven digital signatures can add value, by helping to streamline and automate the way that decisions are documented for transparency and accountability purposes.</span></span><span class="EOP SCXW55779797 BCX0" data-ccp-props="{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559738&quot;:120,&quot;335559739&quot;:120,&quot;335559740&quot;:480}">&nbsp;</span></p> <p><span class="EOP SCXW55779797 BCX0" data-ccp-props="{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559738&quot;:120,&quot;335559739&quot;:120,&quot;335559740&quot;:480}"><span class="TextRun SCXW111800478 BCX0" lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" data-contrast="auto"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW111800478 BCX0"><strong>Index words</strong>: United States of America; government agencies; risk; management; digital signatures</span></span><span class="EOP SCXW111800478 BCX0" data-ccp-props="{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559738&quot;:120,&quot;335559739&quot;:120,&quot;335559740&quot;:480}">&nbsp;</span></span></p> 2023-04-03T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2023 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5650 Book Reports 2023-10-18T14:15:31+00:00 Book Reports stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk 2023-10-18T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2023 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5565 Authenticating the administrative contract in electronic form and its legal force in Jordanian law 2023-02-28T21:08:48+00:00 Nayel AlOmran stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk Maen Al-Qassaymeh stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk <p>The administrative contract is one of the transactions that may be concluded electronically. For this reason, it is important that it is legally regulated. The electronic contract is created by special procedures via electronic certification bodies. This article considers the authentication of the electronic administrative contract in Jordan. It also examines the legal value of the contract before the Jordanian judiciary. </p> <p><strong>Index words: </strong>Jordan; Electronic Transactions Law No 15 of 2015; Jordanian Evidence Law; electronic administrative contract; electronic journals; electronic signature; electronic certification</p> 2023-02-28T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2023 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5566 An analysis of the judicial and legislative attitude to hearsay electronic data in South Africa 2023-02-28T21:13:34+00:00 Rilwan Mahmoud stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk <p>This article analyses the judicial and legislative attitude in relation to electronically stored information presented as evidence in South Africa. The article also evaluates the adequacy of the regulation of admissibility and weight ascription to electronic information particularly the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act (ECTA) 2002. The paper suggests that electronically stored information might not sufficiently be analysed and assessed using the rules of documentary evidence and recommends some amendments including clearer definitions of electronic information which are statements, electronic information that is contained in documents, and electronic information that are created wholly by electronic algorithms and software. </p> <p><strong>Index words:</strong> South Africa; electronically stored information; admissibility; hearsay; Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 2002 </p> 2023-02-28T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2023 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5608 Electronic evidence in arbitration proceedings 2023-05-30T16:54:28+00:00 Daniel B. Ferreira stephencwmason@protonmail.com Elizaveta A. Gromova stephencwmason@protonmail.com <p><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW118317589 BCX0">This paper addresses electronic evidence focusing on arbitration rules of the leading ADR providers. It also narrows the topic to an empirical assessment using six categories of electronic evidence in a sample of 92 arbitration proceedings. The paper aims to offer the concept of electronic evidence in international arbitration, its admissibility and relevance criteria, and reach conclusions from an empirical analysis of a large sample of arbitration proceedings gathered from the Centro Brasileiro de </span><span class="NormalTextRun SpellingErrorV2Themed SCXW118317589 BCX0">Mediação</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW118317589 BCX0"> e </span><span class="NormalTextRun SpellingErrorV2Themed SCXW118317589 BCX0">Arbitragem</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW118317589 BCX0"> (Brazilian </span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW118317589 BCX0">Center</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW118317589 BCX0"> for Mediation and Arbitration). We conclude that electronic evidence is </span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW118317589 BCX0">regularly used</span><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW118317589 BCX0"> in arbitration and is relevant to the arbitrators’ reasoning. We propose a revision on the 2016 Draft Convention on Electronic Evidence to include arbitration.</span></p> <p><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW118317589 BCX0"><strong><span class="TextRun SCXW136950733 BCX0" lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" data-contrast="auto"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW136950733 BCX0">Index words</span></span></strong><span class="TextRun SCXW136950733 BCX0" lang="EN-GB" xml:lang="EN-GB" data-contrast="auto"><span class="NormalTextRun SCXW136950733 BCX0">: alternative dispute resolution; arbitration; electronic evidence; admissibility; relevance; weight; empirical analysis</span></span><span class="EOP SCXW136950733 BCX0" data-ccp-props="{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559738&quot;:120,&quot;335559739&quot;:120,&quot;335559740&quot;:480}">&nbsp;</span></span></p> 2023-05-30T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2023 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5610 Involving LLMs in legal processes is risky 2023-06-08T08:17:27+00:00 Peter Bernard Ladkin stephencwmason@protonmail.com <p><span data-contrast="auto">The availability of large language models (LLM), a form of AI correspondence agent, on the Internet raises questions about their possible use in legal processes. For they seem often to introduce into their output arbitrary assertions which are untrue. This is ‘new’ behaviour (a Google search, for example, returns correct information on a semantically similar query). I give examples in which use of an LLM is both tempting and could subvert a legal process.</span><span data-ccp-props="{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}">&nbsp;</span></p> <p><strong><span data-contrast="auto">Index words</span></strong><span data-contrast="auto">: large language model; LLM; artificial intelligence; AI; ChatGPT; law; legal processes; lying; r-lying</span><span data-ccp-props="{&quot;201341983&quot;:0,&quot;335559739&quot;:160,&quot;335559740&quot;:259}">&nbsp;</span></p> 2023-06-08T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2023 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5636 Electronic title certificate as legal evidence 2023-07-27T12:24:43+00:00 Iwan Permadi stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk Herlindah stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk <p>This paper analyzes the increasing use of electronic title certificates in the land administration system. On 12 January 2021, the Minister of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/Head of the National Land Agency issued Regulation No. 1 of 2021 on Electronic Certificate. This Regulation marks a turning point in the reformation of the system of land governance and security of tenure in Indonesia. By streamlining the land registration and dispute-resolution procedures, the use of the digital land title could increase the legal certainty of the Indonesian system of land tenure. It is possible that the digital certificate might transform the present method of a negative publication system with positive elements – the present mechanism for demonstrating ownership of land rights – into a positive publication system.</p> <p><strong>Index words:</strong> Indonesia, electronic title certificate, land tenure, land registration system, systems theory, <em>girik</em> rights, <em>garapan</em> rights</p> 2023-07-27T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2023 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5642 The Law Commission and section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 2023-09-22T14:44:34+00:00 James Christie stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk <p>In 2000 section 69 of the Police and Criminal Act 1984 was repealed. The result was that a common law presumption came into effect that computer evidence was considered reliable unless there was evidence to the contrary. The Law Commission had recommended repeal of section 69 without any replacement. This article demonstrates that the Law Commission either misunderstood, or misrepresented, the sources it cited to justify its recommendation that computer evidence should be considered reliable. Two of the three main experts whose work was cited have confirmed that they were misrepresented. The recommendation and the resulting presumption therefore lack any factual or evidential basis.</p> <p><strong>Index words:</strong> Law Commission; England &amp; Wales; Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; section 69; repeal; presumption computers are reliable; misunderstood; misrepresented</p> 2023-09-22T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2023 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5643 Independent Review, Miscarriages of Justice, and Computer Evidence 2023-09-22T14:50:27+00:00 Richard Moorhead stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk Karen Nokes stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk Rebecca Helm stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk <p>Brian Altman KC reviewed unreliable expert evidence on the Horizon software system. The Post Office denied, including to Parliament, that there was any evidence of miscarriages of justice revealed before the Court of Appeal in 2021. In his review, Brian Altman KC indicated the prosecutions was fundamentally sound; this paper looks at the quality of the judgments arrived at to come to that conclusion.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Index words:</strong> Altman General review; Post Office Limited; Horizon IT system; unreliable evidence; Clarke Advice; Swift Review; Bates litigation; Hamilton appeals</p> 2023-09-22T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2023 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5653 Cumulative Index 2004 - 2023 2023-10-18T14:24:39+00:00 Cumulative Index stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk 2023-10-18T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2023 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5646 Editorial 2023-10-18T14:06:13+00:00 Stephen Mason stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk 2023-10-18T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2023 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5651 PhD Completed 2023-10-18T14:19:49+00:00 PhD Research stephenmason@stephenmason.co.uk 2023-10-18T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) 2023 Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review