Victims and Courts Bill

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

21: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—
“Admissibility and reliability of computer evidence(1) Evidence produced by or obtained from a computerised device or system may be admissible in proceedings, where—(a) it is not challenged,(b) it cannot reasonably in the view of the court, be challenged, or(c) the court is reasonably satisfied of the reliability of the evidence. (2) Rules of Court must provide for reasonable opportunity for the reliability of evidence referred to in subsection (1) above to be challenged, and for the factors to be taken into account in assessing both reliability and the weight to be given to any such evidence as is admitted.(3) The common law presumption of the reliability of evidence referred to in subsection (1) is removed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause replaces the current common law presumption of the reliability of computer evidence with a statutory and court rules’ scheme for the reasonable challenge and testing of such evidence.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I can be short on this important group, because of the detailed scrutiny and cross-party support that I enjoyed in Committee, because of my eminent co-signatories and because Report stage discipline is a courtesy to all noble Lords hoping to do their voting duty and get home at a reasonable time.

This group concerns two dangerous evidential practices that have already led to significant miscarriages of justice. Amendment 21 addresses computer evidence too easily presumed reliable without appropriate testing or proof—I give you the Horizon scandal and the postmasters. Amendment 22 addresses the pernicious and discriminatory police and prosecution practice of admitting evidence of people’s musical tastes. Young black men’s liking for rap and drill music, in particular, are somehow probative of criminal proclivity and intent, especially in joint enterprise cases—I give you Ademola Adadeji, the young, promising law scholar sent to prison in a case of total mistaken identity, a conviction overturned only after he served three years of his young life. My noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon explained that case in Committee. This practice is exacerbated by police officers holding themselves out as expert witnesses in rap and drill music. I shall say no more.

I am so grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her repeated and expert engagement with these concerns. I look forward hopefully to her response and I beg to move.

[Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)]

My Lords, on Amendment 21, which is about the reliability of computer evidence, I am grateful to Sam Stein KC for his advice on this difficult issue. I am also extremely grateful to the Minister for meeting me and other signatories to this group, which is quite remarkable given her workload. Earlier today, we were discussing modern slavery: I think that she has fallen foul of it. She understood the urgency of dealing with the issue of the reliability of computer evidence and I came away from that meeting with the impression that she is determined to address it through the Criminal Procedure Rules rather than through the legislative process that we propose today. Maybe that is right, but I have three questions for her.

First, will she agree to further meetings, perhaps involving Sam Stein KC, so that we can do our best to get these rules right, dealing not just with the issue of hearsay evidence but also with the issue of the admissibility of computer evidence?

Secondly, in the meeting that she and I had, we discussed an issue that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, in Committee—namely, international comparisons. The Minister kindly sent me a letter today setting out some of those international comparisons, in which she said that it was clear that, in France, digital evidence must be shown to be reliable and unaltered; in Germany, systems must meet formal test protocols before their output can be relied on; in India, it is required that evidence must be authenticated through a strict statutory process; and so it goes on. In other words, they are much more restrictive on computer evidence than we are and their criminal processes have not ground to a halt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very sorry to interject at this stage, but I am a bit puzzled as to whether changing the rules of the Supreme Court will impact on county courts and magistrates’ courts.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My noble friend will forgive me, because this has nothing to do with the rules of the Supreme Court and the county courts. He will forgive me.

I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions, not least for being an exemplar of how Report should be dealt with—notwithstanding the broken clock, which I hope will be fixed by tomorrow’s no doubt lengthy business. I am particularly grateful to the supporters and co-signatories of this amendment, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Arbuthnot and Lord Beamish, who have done, and continue to do, all that doughty work on behalf of the postmasters.

I am grateful also to Justice and Art Not Evidence for their help with both amendments. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend the Minister, because not all Ministers respond with this level of detail and positive engagement. The crack is how the light gets in. Of course, the devil will be in the detail of the rules and the CPS guidance, but I trust her to keep going with this. I certainly trust my noble friends and co-signatories to keep up their doughty campaigning and to accept her invitation to stay involved in the discussion. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 21 withdrawn.