Legal experts are calling for immediate changes to the law to recognize that the computer was at fault, otherwise risking a repeat of the Horizon incident.
Under English and Welsh law, computers are presumed to be ‘trusted’ unless proven otherwise, leading to criticism that it reverses the burden of proof in criminal cases.
Stephen Mason, a barrister and electronic evidence expert, stated, “If someone says, ‘There’s something wrong with this computer,’ they’re supposed to have to prove it, even if it’s the person accusing them who has the information.”
Mason, along with eight other legal and computer experts, proposed changes to the law in 2020 after the High Court’s ruling against the Post Office. However, their recommendations were never implemented.
The legal presumption of computer reliability comes from the old common law principle that “mechanical instruments” should be presumed to be in good working order unless proven otherwise.
An Act in 1984 ruled that computer evidence was admissible only if it could be shown that the computer was working properly, but this law was repealed in 1999.
The international influence of English common law means that the presumption of reliability is widespread, with examples from New Zealand, Singapore, and the United States supporting this standard.
Noah Weisberg, CEO of legal AI platform Zuva, emphasized the urgency of re-evaluating the law in the context of AI systems and the need to avoid assuming error-free computer programs.
Weisberg also stated, “It would be difficult to say that it would be reliable enough to support a conviction.”
James Christie, a software consultant, suggested two stages of changes to the law, requiring those providing evidence to demonstrate responsible development and maintenance of the system, as well as disclosing records of known bugs.
The Ministry of Justice declined to comment on the matter.
Source: www.theguardian.com
