Horizon - The Fujitsu/Post Office Scandal

You'll notice there's no reference as to what particular legislation is being referred to...

"The current legal rule stipulates that courts should presume a computer system has operated correctly unless there is explicit evidence to the contrary.
It replaced a law which said that prosecutors using evidence derived from computers had to verify that the system it came from was working correctly. It was introduced in 1999 by the then Labour government following a Law Commission recommendation."

There is no such law. There used to be a law from 1984 to 2000 that said computer evidence wasn't admissible unless there were no reasonable ground for believing it was inaccurate. Of course, the prosecution in these cases would have said there was no reasonable grounds...

It's referring to the 1999 repeal of s69 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as recommended by the Law Commission, because it explicitly overturned the usual civil law rules of evidence...
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/69/1991-02-01
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/23/section/60

"69 Evidence from computer records.
(1)In any proceedings, a statement in a document produced by a computer shall not be admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein unless it is shown—
(a)that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the statement is inaccurate because of improper use of the computer;
(b)that at all material times the computer was operating properly, or if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents; and
(c)that any relevant conditions specified in rules of court under subsection (2) below are satisfied.
(2)Provision may be made by rules of court requiring that in any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section such information concerning the statement as may be required by the rules shall be provided in such form and at such time as may be so required."

Now, any such evidence is admissable, but the usual tests of evidence apply, so those reasonable grounds could still be introduced by the other side.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/computer-records-evidence
www.benthamsgaze.org/2022/06/30/the-legal-rule-that-computers-are-presumed-to-be-operating-correctly-unforeseen-and-unjust-consequences/

Umm, that's only one law. s69 PACE 1984.

It didn't exist before 1984. It existed between 1984 and 1999. It didn't exist after 1999.

During that 1984-1999 period, computer evidence was treated differently to other evidence.
Before and after, computer evidence was and is treated the same as any other evidence.

he is point blank refusing to appear

AIUI He's not, so far his 3 scheduled appearances have been postponed due to the PO dumping lots of extra docs on him at very short notice requiring a postponement.(PO acting to prevent?) He is seeking immunity from AG that any evidence could be used against him, not from attending, but that has been denied by the Chairman twice. He has submitted various witness statements & the Chairman is of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence in relation to his role from other sources that his specific evidence will not add greatly to the knowledge if he declined to answer questions that might incriminate.

www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/matter-undertaking-attorney-general-gareth-jenkins-ruling-2

Thats just sloppy journalism ... the legal document I provided is clear he is seeking (twice) immunity from evidence being used in a prosecution

'an undertaking that any evidence given by Mr Jenkins to the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry (“the Inquiry”) would not be used in any criminal proceedings brought against him.' not an undertaking not to prosecute.

This morning's session concentrates on electronic (specifically email) document disclosure failings.

How is it possible, in 20xx, that an organisation like the Post Office (which is significantly a financial services organisation) can't even retain and access comprehensive backups of email archives / servers???

Well we can now add to the 'data retrieval' issues the following, apparently:

"The Crown Prosecution Service has admitted it may have been involved in 99 Post Office prosecutions involving the defective Horizon IT system, according to a leaked letter seen by The Telegraph.....

Laura Tams, the CPS head of legal services, further revealed in the memo that two-thirds of the files concerning the 99 cases had been destroyed, meaning that “the evidence is now scarce”.


The letter was sent by Ms Tams to Prof Chris Hodges, the chairman of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, on Oct 3 last year, a little over a month after the CPS was asked about its “actions… and procedures and rules which apply to the process of overturning wrongful convictions”.

The scale of possible cases outlined in the letter is much higher than the 11 cases of fraud, theft and false accounting that the CPS has so far confirmed it had prosecuted that involved the Horizon IT system.

Courtesy of the Telegraph