Baroness Kidron:

Moved by Baroness Kidron

68: After Clause 132, insert the following new Clause—“Reliability of computer-based evidence(1) Electronic evidence produced by or derived from a computer, device or computer system (separately or together “system”) may be relied on as evidence in any proceedings —(a) where that electronic evidence is not challenged;(b) where the court is satisfied that the electronic evidence is derived from a reliable system or otherwise the court is satisfied that the evidence is reliable.(2) Rules of Court must provide that electronic evidence sought to be relied upon by a party in any proceedings may be challenged by another party as to its correctness.(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), Rules of Court must provide for the circumstances in which the Court may be satisfied that the admissibility of electronic evidence cannot reasonably be challenged. (4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), the matters that may be taken into account by the court in determining if a system is to be considered reliable include—(a) whether the evidence is wholly obtained from a regulated system (such as a speed camera and DVLA database);(b) the errors that have been reported in the system, the actions taken to correct them, and any errors that remain uncorrected (these may include the Known Error Log and Release Notices);(c) the measures taken to ensure that the electronic evidence accurately records the facts that are being claimed (including measures to block, record and manage cyberattacks);(d) the forensic measures taken to ensure that the electronic evidence has not been affected by accidental, privileged or unauthorised access;(e) the route that the electronic evidence has taken from the originating system to the court and the measures taken to ensure its integrity;(f) external independent audit of the system.(5) If the materials under subsection (4) are not available or if the materials produced for the purposes of subsection (4) are considered by the court to be insufficient for the court to conclude that the system is reliable for the purposes of subsection (1)(b), the party seeking to rely upon the electronic evidence must otherwise satisfy the court that that evidence is reliable.(6) For the purposes of this section—“computer” means any device capable of performing mathematical or logical instructions;“device” means any apparatus or tool operating alone or connected to other apparatus or tools, that processes information or data in electronic form;“electronic evidence” means evidence derived from data contained in or produced by any device or computer the functioning of which depends on a software program or from data stored on a computer, device or computer system or communicated over a networked computer system.”

My Lords, I move Amendment 68 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Arbuthnot, Lord Holmes and Lord Clement-Jones. This amendment has been debated several times within this Bill and its predecessor; however, this version differs slightly in approach. The objective remains the same: to overturn the common-law assumption in both civil and criminal law that computers are infallible.

This assumption has led to untold injustice. Innocent people have lost their lives, freedom and livelihoods because the law wrongly assumed that computers are never wrong. This of course is nonsense, as explained in detail in our last debate, at column GC 153 of Hansard. In summary, computer systems are very susceptible to both human and technological error. Indeed, the presence of bugs is normal, anticipated and routine in all contexts other than the court.

As with previous iterations of this amendment, Amendment 68 overturns that common-law assumption, but the drafting now closely mirrors provisions under the Electronic Trade Documents Act 2023, which was enacted in recognition that the majority of trade documents are now electronic.

The ETDA ensures and assures the integrity of electronic trade documents. It was put in place to protect those on both sides of the trade, so I am curious, at the very least, as to why we will be able to consider the efficacy of computer evidence in relation to trade but not in our legal system. I am also concerned that the MoJ, under several Governments, has been so slow to recognise the scale of the problem of this assumption, which one of my most experienced computer science colleagues described as “wicked nonsense”.

In brief, the amendment provides that the electronic evidence produced by or derived from a computer may be relied upon as evidence where that evidence is not challenged and where the court is satisfied that the evidence can be relied upon. The rest of the amendment is carefully drafted by legal experts and computer scientists with legal expertise to support the court in coming to a meaningful assessment of whether to be satisfied, or not, that the evidence can be relied upon.

This proposal has been tried and tested within our legal system. We know that it works, and I therefore see no reason why the Government should not simply accept it. However, rather than discuss it, the Government chose to announce, last week, a consultation on computer evidence. The call for evidence is a source of significant frustration for those of us who have championed this issue, as is the fact that the promised meeting with the MoJ did not happen before that announcement, in spite of repeated requests.

In her introductory remarks to the consultation, the Minister for Justice, Sarah Sackman, says that the purpose of the consultation is to help her department

“better understand how the current presumption concerning the admissibility of computer evidence is working in practice, and whether it is fit for purpose in the modern world”.

This is a backward step. The evidence that presumption is not working and is not fit for purpose is overwhelming and decades long; what are needed now are solutions, one of which is before us tonight.

Moreover, the Government’s preference for doing everything behind doors has sunk their own consultation. Had experts been consulted, the first thing they would have pointed out is that the scope is insufficient because it does not address civil proceedings but only criminal proceedings, even though the presumption is the same for both. This means that, at best, the Government’s consultation can lead only to a partial solution.

We in this House have discussed this issue in the case of the postmasters; it is a case that is front of mind. This approach may have spared those postmasters who were subject to criminal prosecutions, but not those such as Lee Castleton who was subject to civil proceedings by the Post Office, which chased him to bankruptcy. He was also branded a thief, spat at and verbally abused in the street. He developed post-traumatic stress disorder. His wife developed epilepsy from stress, his daughter developed an eating disorder and his son remains so traumatised that he cannot be in a room where someone says the words “Post Office”. A solution that does not prevent the injustice done to Lee and his family from happening to others is not fit for purpose. If the MoJ had done us the courtesy of a meeting, this could have been avoided.

I am sure the Minister will assure us that the Government are acting, but for those whose lives have been ruined, those who have fought for too many years on this issue, the consultation creates the spectre of yet another battle and further delay when the solutions are here and at hand. I want nothing more than to be wrong on this, and for the Government to prove me wrong. But for past victims, for lawyers and experts who have given their time so generously, and for those whose lives will be ruined because the computer got it wrong, half a consultation on a matter so well-established and urgent is a pretty poor result. I beg to move.

My Lords, as so often, I listened with awe to the noble Baroness. Apart from saying that I agree with her wholeheartedly, which I do, there is really no need for me for me to add anything, so I will not.

My Lords, I too am lost in admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—still firing on all cylinders at this time of night. Current law is clearly out of touch with the reality of computer systems. It assumes an untruth about computer reliability that has led to significant injustice. We know that that assumption has contributed to miscarriages of justice, such as the Horizon scandal.

Unlike the amendment in Committee, Amendment 68 does not address the reliability of computers themselves but focuses rather on the computer evidence presented in court. That is a crucial distinction as it seeks to establish a framework for evaluating the validity of the evidence presented, rather than questioning the inherent reliability of computers. We believe that the amendment would be a crucial step towards ensuring fairness and accuracy in legal proceedings by enabling courts to evaluate computer evidence effectively. It offers a balanced approach that would protect the interests of both the prosecution and the defence, ensuring that justice is served. The Government really must move on this.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her amendments. The reliability of computer-based evidence, needless to say, has come into powerful public focus following the Post Office Horizon scandal and the postmasters’ subsequent fight for justice. As the noble Baroness has said previously and indeed tonight, this goes far beyond the Horizon scandal. We accept that there is an issue with the way in which the presumption that computer evidence is reliable is applied in legal proceedings.

The Government accepted in Committee that this is an issue. While we have concerns about the way that the noble Baroness’s amendment is drafted, we hope the Minister will take the opportunity today to set out clearly the work that the Government are doing in this area. In particular, we welcome the Government’s recently opened call for evidence, and we hope Ministers will work quickly to address this issue.

Amendment 68 from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, aims to prevent future miscarriages of justice, such as the appalling Horizon scandal. I thank the noble Baroness and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for the commitment to ensuring that this important issue is debated. The Government absolutely recognise that the law in this area needs to be reviewed. Noble Lords will of course be aware that any changes to the legal position would have significant ramifications for the whole justice system and are well beyond the scope of this Bill.

I am glad to be able to update the noble Baroness on this topic since Committee. On 21 January the Ministry of Justice launched a call for evidence on this subject. That will close on 15 April, and next steps will be set out immediately afterwards. That will ensure that any changes to the law are informed by expert evidence. I take the point that there is a lot of evidence already available, but input is also needed to address the concerns of the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, and I am sure they will consider the important issues raised in this amendment.

I hope the noble Baroness appreciates the steps that the Ministry of Justice has taken on this issue. The MoJ will certainly be willing to meet any noble Lords that wish to do so. As such, I hope she feels content to withdraw the amendment.

The Minister did not quite address my point that the consultation is not broad enough in scope, but I will accept the offer of a meeting. Although the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, spoke very briefly, he is my partner in crime on this issue; indeed, he is a great campaigner for the postmasters and has done very much. So I say to the Minister: yes, I will have the meeting, but could it happen this time? With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.