<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>PBL is to be much thanked for posting this. ... A POS it was
indeed!</p>
<p>Sadly, this is not the only example of people being convicted on
the basis of unreliable computer-abstracted evidence. A couple of
years ago, I attended a lecture - under Chatham House rules - that
described similar weaknesses in a healthcare system. The lecturer
is himself on this list but I will not presume to second-guess him
as regards what may be publicly discussed about that system.</p>
<p>Thank God for a return to sanity after posting ping-pong re the
737 MAX.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Happidaze,</p>
<p>Olwen</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/12/2020 16:26, Peter Bernard
Ladkin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6258c8b0-eac7-ec12-61c8-19a925a81e39@causalis.com">A
couple of decades ago, the Post Office introduced a new WAN'd POS
called Horizon. Various of its franchisees in the early years were
accused of fraud; many were prosecuted and convicted; some were
unable to offer any plausible defence except to say "I didn't do
it; really I didn't; there must be some mistake".
<br>
<br>
A class action Bates et al v Post Office was heard in 2019 before
Mr. Justice Fraser. Fraser J conducted a superb judicial-forensic
investigation from the bench, which determined more or less that
the Horizon system was in fact itself capable of much of the
erroneous behaviour which had been attributed to franchisee
malfeasance in many, possibly even most, of the criminal cases
which had been prosecuted. Subsequent to Fraser J's ruling, the
Criminal Cases Review Commission determined quickly that many of
the convictions were unsafe.
<br>
<br>
Some of the problem lies in how UK law treats "electronic"/digital
evidence, which includes evidence about the behaviour of digital
systems. There is a history to this. Barrister Paul Marshall
recently approached the Ministry of Justice about it. A paper with
recommendations on how the law should approach this kind of
evidence in the future was submitted on request to the Ministry in
November 2020 and a slightly modified version has been published
in an open access journal (indirect link below).
<br>
<br>
Some of us on this list have been involved. I must say I am proud
to have been able to help. I am sure my colleagues feel the same
way. Pro bono publico. There is nothing more rewarding.
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ials.blogs.sas.ac.uk/2020/12/16/recommendations-for-the-probity-of-computer-evidence-requested-by-the-ministry-of-justice-now-published/">https://ials.blogs.sas.ac.uk/2020/12/16/recommendations-for-the-probity-of-computer-evidence-requested-by-the-ministry-of-justice-now-published/</a>
<br>
<br>
PBL
<br>
<br>
Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bielefeld, Germany
<br>
ClaireTheWhiteRabbit RIP
<br>
Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319 <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.rvs-bi.de">www.rvs-bi.de</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
The System Safety Mailing List
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:systemsafety@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE">systemsafety@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE</a>
Manage your subscription: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/listinfo/systemsafety">https://lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/mailman/listinfo/systemsafety</a></pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>