MP calls for review of computer evidence rule which led to subpostmasters being wrongly convicted

Labour MP Darren Jones has requested the minister in cost of the courts to look into the appropriateness of the rule on the use of computer evidence in courtroom, in mild of miscarriages of justice within the Post Office IT scandal.

He wrote to Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk urging him to contemplate the problem personally after the federal government earlier disagreed that the principles must be modified.

Jones is the chair of the House of Commons Business and Trade Select Committee, which has been investigating the Post Office and its behaviour in regard to the Horizon IT scandal.

In 2009, a Computer Weekly investigation revealed that subpostmasters have been being blamed for unexplained accounting shortfalls, which they believed to be brought on by software program errors (see all Computer Weekly articles on the scandal beneath).

Many of these subpostmasters have been despatched to jail, and people prosecuted suffered enormous monetary difficulties and stress, with many struggling chapter. As the Post Office scandal was uncovered, it emerged that the evidence from the Post Office’s Horizon computer system, utilized in 1000’s of branches, was error-prone, with figures that ought to not have been relied on in courtroom.

A High Court group litigation order in 2018/19 noticed a bunch of subpostmasters show that computer errors brought about unexplained accounting shortfalls. A complete of 86 former subpostmasters have to date had legal convictions overturned, and extra are anticipated. It is in the present day seen as one of the largest miscarriages of justice in British historical past, one which was made attainable as a result of of a change to the principles round computer evidence introduced in on the identical time the Horizon system was rolled out to 1000’s of Post Office branches.

In 1999, on the identical time the Horizon computer system automated handbook accounting processes in branches, a presumption was launched into legislation on how courts ought to contemplate digital evidence. The rule adopted a Law Commission suggestion for courts to presume {that a} computer system has operated accurately except there may be specific evidence to the opposite. This authorized presumption changed a piece of the PACE Act 1984, which acknowledged that these introducing computer evidence ought to give you the chance to show that it was in reality working correctly.

The new rule made it simpler for the Post Office, via its non-public prosecution powers, to convict subpostmasters for monetary crimes when there have been accounting shortfalls primarily based on knowledge from the Horizon system. As Computer Weekly revealed in 2021, following a response to a freedom of data (FoI) request made by computer scientist Steven Murdoch at University College London, the Post Office wrote to the Law Commission in 1995 when the legislation change was being proposed. It stated the rule on the time, which stated computer evidence must be topic to proof that it was in reality working correctly on the time, was “somewhat onerous” when prosecuting folks charged with crimes, such because the subpostmasters that run and personal its branches.

Jones wrote: “The law, in short, says that the computer evidence must be deemed true unless a defendant can prove otherwise.” He added that “this is clearly out of date and needs review”.

He questioned whether or not the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee has the mandatory assets to “proactively consider the issue”, including: “I ask you to personally look at the issue, not least given the much wider implications today, to accelerate an appropriate review.”

In May final 12 months, Kevan Jones, Labour MP and long-time campaigner for justice for the subpostmasters affected by the Horizon scandal, requested the secretary of state for justice whether or not the federal government deliberate to assess the authorized presumption of reliability of computer evidence.

In response, Conservative MP and Parliamentary under-secretary of state for justice, James Cartlidge, stated: “We have no plans to review the presumption, as it has wide application and is rebuttable if there is evidence to the contrary.”

He stated the present public inquiry into the Post Office Horizon scandal would advise the federal government on the matter.

The authorities has stated the Ministry of Justice will work with the Criminal Procedures Rules Committee to guarantee classes are learnt from the general public inquiry in relation to the use of computer evidence.

There is a big physique of opinion, in IT and authorized circles, that agrees that change to the steering on the use of computer evidence in courtroom have to be made to keep away from miscarriages of justice corresponding to these skilled by subpostmasters.

Barrister Paul Marshall and others, who represented subpostmasters who efficiently overturned wrongful convictions by the Post Office, was invited in August 2020 by MP Alex Chalk on the Ministry of Justice to submit a paper to the division on strategies for bettering the present strategy to the proof in courtroom proceedings of computer-derived evidence. The paper was submitted to the MoJ and printed. 

It beneficial that when digital evidence is utilized in authorized proceedings, the get together counting on the digital evidence ought to mechanically present ample particulars of their techniques to reveal that they’re professionally managed.

Marshall instructed Computer Weekly that “it is difficult to imagine a more wrong-headed set of propositions” than these used to help and justify the change to legislation on computer evidence that was launched in 1999. He stated the judgements of High Court choose Peter Fraser within the 2019 group litigation motion, the place subpostmasters proved that computer errors have been to blame for unexplained losses, uncovered “the fundamental flaws in the Law Commission’s analysis and in its conclusions. It also exposes, tragically, how strikingly unfairly the presumption that a computer is working properly may operate in legal proceedings.”

“No computer scientist or expert would support or endorse the position in English law because it is simply wrong.”

He stated that for the reason that change to the principles, it has been assumed as a matter of legislation “that the computer worked properly unless it can be shown that that assumption cannot safely apply”, and that this places an evidential burden on somebody, responding to computer evidence, that in lots of instances they’re merely incapable of doing, “for the simple reason they do not – and cannot – know”.

“The Horizon scandal in large part is the consequence of the Law Commission’s misconceived recommendations to parliament that PACE 1984 should be repealed,” stated Marshall.

“The timeline of Post Office prosecutions matches exactly the period from which it was repealed. The Post Office had supported repeal – presumably to make its prosecutions for alleged ‘shortfalls’ easier and reversing the burden of proof was of immense practical value to the Post Office.”

Read extra on Software improvement instruments

• CCRC refers two extra subpostmaster convictions for enchantment

  

  By: Karl Flinders

• Former Fujitsu IT chief evidence postponed after late Post Office disclosure

  

  By: Karl Flinders

• Post Office is not going to oppose potential Horizon conviction appellants

  

  By: Karl Flinders

• Post Office lawyer bragged how crew ‘destroyed attack on the Horizon system’ and put lady in jail

  

  By: Karl Flinders