Changes to law on digital evidence in criminal cases must not go too far, says CILEX

14 April 2025

In the light of the Post Office Horizon scandal, a review of the common law presumption that ‘the computer is always right’ in criminal proceedings is welcome, says CILEX (Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) – but should not go too far the other way.

Responding to the call for evidence issued by the Ministry of Justice on the use of evidence generated by software in criminal proceedings, CILEX acknowledges the importance of scrutinising all digital evidence, particularly in the light of technological developments such as artificial intelligence, and says reforms must “ensure trials are fair and convictions are safe”.

CILEX stresses, however, that “forcing all computer-generated evidence to be proven to be working correctly for each trial, could be an unnecessary burden on parties, and especially on prosecutors. This would result in substantial costs for whichever party is seeking to introduce the evidence and additional costs for parties who are required to instruct expert witnesses”.

This, CILEX cautions, is a key consideration given the current criminal court backlog stands at over 74,000 cases.

Both experts and statements of truth will be key to ensuring judges have “the necessary confidence” in the evidence and that it is “suitably probative”. CILEX stresses the need for “suitable renumeration and support” to minimise the burden on practitioners and on parties.

Despite these concerns, CILEX acknowledges the difficulties would lessen over time as “it would quickly become established practice that certain thresholds and evidence are required to demonstrate the integrity and condition of the computer-generated evidence”. Once established, practitioners would adjust.

CILEX supports defining computer-generated evidence within the Criminal Procedure Rules and advocates for the re-introduction of a considered and amended s69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, with some caveats, namely that evidence should not be treated as computer generated if it is merely typed on a computer, duplicated electronically or is held or stored on a computer.

CILEX President Yanthé Richardson says: “The devastating miscarriages of justice that resulted from the use of flawed computer-generated evidence in the Post Office Horizon prosecutions, along with the significant developments in technology we have seen over the last 20 years, mean a review of this area of the law is much needed.

“It is vital we make the changes necessary to ensure our laws are fit for the modern age and that digital evidence can be trusted and relied upon in court. We must, however, take into account the additional cost and resources that would be required by those submitting digital evidence, ensuring the definition of such evidence is not drawn too widely and that necessary training and support is available to practitioners ahead of any change.”

—

ENDS

For further information, please contact:

Louise Eckersley, Black Letter Communications on 0203 567 1208 or email at [email protected]

Kerry Jack, Black Letter Communications on 07525 756 599 or email at [email protected]

Notes to editors:

CILEX (The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) is one of the three main professional bodies covering the legal profession in England and Wales. The approximately 18,000 -strong membership is made up of CILEX Lawyers, Chartered Legal Executives, paralegals and other legal professionals.

CILEX pioneered the non-university route into law and recently launched the CILEX Professional Qualification (CPQ), a new approach to on-the-job training that marries legal knowledge with the practical skills, behaviours and commercial awareness needed by lawyers in the 2020s.

The CPQ is a progressive qualification framework that creates a workforce of specialist legal professionals, providing a career ladder from Paralegal through to Advanced Paralegal and ultimately full qualification as a CILEX Lawyer. CILEX Lawyers can become partners in law firms, coroners, judges or advocates in open court.

CILEX members come from more diverse backgrounds than other parts of the legal profession:

77% of its lawyers are women
16% are from ethnic minority backgrounds
- 8% are Asian or Asian British
- 5% are Black or Black British
- 3% are from a mixed ethnic background
77% attended state schools
66% are the first generation in their family to attend university
Only 3% of its members have a parent who is a lawyer.
85% attended state schools
33% are the first generation in their family to attend university
Only 3% of its members have a parent who is a lawyer.

CILEX members are regulated through an independent body, CILEx Regulation. It is the only regulator covering paralegals.