In the UK CJS you may be prosecuted and all or part of the “evidence” against you is generated by Software. The original concept was devices like intoximeters, they are some sort of measuring device in which some embedded Software is used to measure and or report some aspect that is regulated by law. The obvious example being that amount of alcohol you have consumed before driving a car. The original idea was sound and intended to stop people simply asserting that a measured value was wrong.
One problem with this is that people tend to under estimate the extent to which Software is used in those devices. The other problem is that the extent to which that Software may contain BEDS (Bugs Errors and Defects) is not popularly understood. An idea has developed that as long as the reporting device is used correctly it will contain no BEDS and the readings they produce can be relied upon in a court of law. When this is explained to developers they will react with incredulity. The goal of developing Bug free Software is treasured by all institutions that engage in that activity but, so far, it has not been met. In fact the extent to which web development has taken over application development means that goal is farther into the future.
The Law Commission developed the idea that a particular device could be entitled to a Presumption that is is correct.
There was recently a Public Inquiry to investigate false prosecutions of Postmasters by the British Post Office. They (Post Office) used some Software called “Horizon” to help determine whether Postmasters had committed False Accounting. The Postmasters collaborated on a Group Litigation Order (GLO) and in Civil Court they got the Post Office to pay a large settlement to close the case. Prior to the GLO some Postmasters were taken to Court and some were even sent to prison. It was suggested that the “Presumption” was used to help convict them. That being true it represents a further expansion to the use of the Presumption from “simple” systems to complex integrated systems. The Presumption that simple systems are correct was absurd but for complex systems it is ridiculous.
A recent event is the Ministry of Justice accept that the Presumption needs to be revised and have sent out call for evidence as to how the current system might be improved. This author believes that is a good idea and is to be welcomed. A response will be given in good time.
There is a problem however, upon reading the Call for Evidence it is obvious that they seek a better Presumption rather than scrapping the idea altogether. Why have the Presumption at all? An obvious, though no necessarily correct, reason is it helps Lawyers and Police to participate in a Prosecution with very limited technical knowledge.
This author looks to how the Post Office conducted Prosecutions in the Horizon cases and finds that were conducted poorly. One reason being that there was very limited technical oversight. Assuming the existing Presumption applies, exactly what did it apply to? The Postmasters, the investigators and Lawyers looked to the system or systems that were present in the Post Office Branch. However what did the Post Office use in the Prosecutions? This came into question over the Inquiry evidence sessions in 2024 and specifically in the last session by the head of Fujitsu Services William Paul Patterson on Day 196 PM 11th November 2024. Paul did not refute the idea that Fujitsu had contributed some errors but he did point out that Post Office systems POLSAP and Credence also were contributors.
At their Post Office interviews Postmasters were shown a multipage document that looked very much as though it was generated from a spreadsheet. Although it was the key piece of evidence (allegedly) the Inquiry never examined its provenance any further. This author believes that it could be a manually generated document from POLSAP, Credence and Message store from post office Horizon systems. Was it even covered by the existing Presumption at all?
It is possible that this was raised at the Inquiry by witness Gareth Jenkins. There was a bit of a duel that I hope to comment on after further study.