The sheer scale of injustice and deceit in thescandal has forced the government to consider fast-tracking changes to the rules on using digital evidence in court. Following a Westminster Hall debate in March, a and update on progress before and after the summer recess of
Parliament. Westminster Hall debates allow MPs to raise issues and receive aminister. They force government ministers to the table and put flags in the ground to say, “We are looking at this, we are interested, and we expect to see some action”, according to , who triggered the debate on digital evidence last month. The Post Office Horizon scandal saw hundreds of people who own and run Post Office branches prosecuted, with some sent to prison based on that has since been proved wrong. ( ).
The scandal has already seen the most significant group referral of potential. There are , backed by evidence of its inadequacy.
Before 1999, prosecutors who relied on digital evidence in court had to prove that theas it should. However, the change to the rules that correctly unless there is explicit evidence to the contrary.
Jones said the Westminster Hall debate had a positive outcome, acknowledging action to be taken. “It looks like ministers think there is potential to improve this law more quickly for this calendar year,” he said.
The issue has already been raised with the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee chair, andunderstands that this has triggered a process of consideration that will take months. But Jones Committee has broad enough powers” and that it requires statutory intervention from ministers.
Jones is, however, optimistic that there could be a faster resolution. “TheMatt Warman about what we can do. I don’t know what the answer is about what you replace it with, but I .
“The minister suggested that takes too long, and this needs to be resolved urgently, which is a good answer from a minister in these circumstances because they normallyto bat you off,” he added.
Jones saidhave failed to keep pace with technological advances. Today, aspect of life and work involves some digital interaction, but there is little understanding of how computers work or why they fail to work correctly at times. The elephant in the room on this point is that the law has not been effectively the late 1990s, which in the context of technology is barmy,” said Jones. “Technology has been transformed in that time, but the rules around digital evidence have not.” He added that while there have been around concerns such as data and privacy, there has not been an update on the law on digital evidence