Our email submission to the Government in response to the Call for Evidence on Computer Evidence.
| Computer Evidence – Submission from Spoken Injustice C.I.C. |
| Spoken injustice <admin@spokeninjustice.net> | 12 April 2025 at 15:28 |
| To: computer.evidence@justice.gov.uk | |
| I am writing in response to the Government’s Call for Evidence on the use of computer evidence in criminal proceedings published on 21st January 2025. While we welcome the initiative to address the reliability of such evidence, we are deeply concerned about the proposed limitations on its scope. The proposed reforms appear to apply only to a narrow range of systems, namely evidence which is generated by software, including Artificial Intelligence and algorithms (such as accounting software, automated fraud or plagiarism detection tools, and digital record-keeping in sectors like healthcare). However, the Government proposes not to extend the reforms to other critical areas of digital evidence, including: – Text messages and instant messaging apps (e.g., WhatsApp, iMessage) – Social media content and direct messages – Emails – Digital photographs and videos – Mobile phone extraction reports – Breathalyser outputs This exclusion is deeply problematic, as these very forms of digital evidence are routinely central to serious criminal cases, including: – Rape and sexual assault (e.g., messages or photos used as evidence of consent or coercion) – Hate crime and online abuse – Terrorism and incitement to violence – Domestic abuse and stalking Digital evidence is often treated as inherently trustworthy, yet in reality: – Metadata (e.g., timestamps, location tags) can be altered or spoofed. – Photographs and videos can be manipulated or deepfaked. – Mobile data extraction tools can produce partial or inaccurate records, and may be misunderstood in court. Presuming the reliability of such evidence, without scrutiny of how it was generated, stored or accessed, creates in our view a dangerous risk of injustice. It invites courts to treat digital outputs as neutral “facts” when they may, in fact, be flawed, corrupted or intentionally altered. In our view, it is inconsistent and illogical to apply enhanced scrutiny to accounting or system-generated data, while exempting digital communications and media. If anything, the latter is more prone to manipulation and misinterpretation and often more contested in court. We strongly urge the Government to: – Extend the scope of the proposed reforms to include all types of computer-generated or computer-mediated evidence, not just those involving accounting or automation. – Require courts to assess the reliability of digital evidence, not assume it. – Introduce clear standards for disclosure, including the technical context and chain of custody of digital data. – Provide training for judges and legal professionals on the interpretation and limitations of digital evidence. Thank you for considering this submission. Regards, Anna Doherty Founder and Director https://spokeninjustice.net/ | |