UKC

Calling all legal Eagles! re quality of evidence at court

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Sarah G 03 Mar 2014
Hi folks,

A quick query.

What is the level of quality of documentary evidence that is required to be presented at court in defending a claim? Is an electronic list good enough? Photocopies of documents? or actual live-signed orginal documents?

Context;
I train and advise on manual handling in my workplace. I have had many, many bunfights over the completion of attendance records and that I insist on retaining the original copy, secured in my office and older ones are archived again in locked cupboards. similarly i back archive original docs of all handouts, presentations, associated documents.

The admin team is given a photocopy of the attendance record which they use to enter up attenders' names on a central electronic register.

The NHSLitigation Authority, for purposes of assessing my workplace in terms of compliance with risk Management Standards is happy to work with the electronic register.

I am not.

This is due to, in the past, an admin assistant losing a months' worth of attendance registers and denying it (then she found them 3 hours later- phew), errors in uploading data, data missing. Therefore I have learned not to let originals leave my sweaty little paws. I have had a query regarding a certificate of attendace at one of classes, which was a forgery- hence I only "live-sign" printed certificates, as I have always done (said forger- an agency doctor- was reported to NHS Fraud). I also remember being told in the dim and distant past that a court only accepts original documentation as evidence. Has the legal system caught up with/accepted the electronic age yet? Are there continuing problems with electronic security?

Would appreciate some definitive opinion?

Best,

S
 Andy Hardy 03 Mar 2014
In reply to Sarah G:

[...]
> Would appreciate some definitive opinion?

From a lawyer? get your chequebook ready!

There are ways of digitally signing documents / emails which are the equivalent of a wet ink signature, but it doesn't come as standard on outlook (I don't think)

Having seen on the telly emails being used in evidence in the hacking case I'd say that emails would be used in compensation claim cases - given R Brooks is facing a prison term if found guilty rather than having a compo claim dismissed

(Not a lawyer myself, but I hope that helps, and anyway, it's a bump)
 pwo 03 Mar 2014
In reply to Sarah G:

Hi.
I can comment on this with the some degree of accuracy from previous experience. Computer records are admissable as evidence provided the copies are archived in a format which means they cannot be manipulated afterwards and that there is an audit trail for who looks them up and that the data is digitally 'stamped' with the date and time of archive. Speak with your IT advisor (if his mother will let him (or her) out). The Dtat Protection Act will give the background (if you can be bothered to read it) and there is home office advice available online along similar themes.
Sarah G 03 Mar 2014
In reply to pwo:

Wow, that's just the info I was looking for, thanks! I think our system might well have that level of security and traceability, becuase you have to be an authorised user to be able to view the records, and/or enter into them, via our network profiles; I only have authority to look at the attendace bookings for my classes, for example (and frankly, that's ALL I want!)I don't know though if there is a traceability about who viewed and when....

Yes, I agree about IT. They ALL look about 14.....

Cheers,

S

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...