The Law Should Not Presume Computers Are Reliable: Stephen Mason

Lawyers seem determined not to want to know about the reliability of electronic (computer) evidence, despite our all-pervasive dependence on information technology in daily life. The presumption, applied in the courts of England and Wales, that computers are reliable, has facilitated the appalling miscarriages of justice in the Post Office Scandal, in banking and in many other areas of civil life. As anyone who has used a computer systems knows, they are prone to bugs and malfunctions. It has been unjust to lay the burden of proof on the defendant when they cannot get access to the necessary information in the complex world of software development and administration.
Stephen Mason is a barrister with an interest in all these matters.
He, with Daniel Seng, is the editor of 'Electronic Evidence and Electronic Signatures', 5th Edition. He is the editor of 'International Electronic Evidence' and the founder, general editor and publisher of the open source international journal 'Electronic Evidence and Electronic Signatures' (humanities-digital-library.or...)
Other useful links:
Job v Halifax plc: journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/art...
Regina v Seema Misra: journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/art...
Recommendations for the probity of computer evidence: journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/art...

[@gustavderkits8433]

Excellent. Should be more widely known. The automotive case referred to around 37:00 is now a classic of computer reliability.

[@europhile2658]

Very good video. Amazing that these ideas have not been picked up by the Law Commission. All Software is developed by people who are capable of making mistakes just as in any other human endeavor. At the very least the law schools should teach this