![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
The use of computers and digital media in unlawful activities has increased so dramatically that investigation of any criminal activity may nowadays produce electronic evidence. However, the rapid growth in the number of criminal cases involving electronic evidence has all‐too‐often found law enforcement and the judiciary badly prepared to deal with the new issues created by this evidence. The gathering, conservation, communication and presentation of the computer‐derived evidence must fulfil legal requirements with regard to the admissibility of the evidence. Electronic evidence that was gathered in a way that was not in accordance with the law will be declared inadmissible and be ruled out of court. This report aims to briefly present the core principles of the law when handling electronic evidence. Therefore, this paper examines the conditions of admissibility of evidence in four European countries. In order to be complete and to give an interesting pan‐European view on the question, the English law system has been chosen to illustrate the functioning of the rules relating to the evidence in a country ruled by common law.
Notes
Correspondence: Olivier Leroux, Centre de Recherches Informatique et Droit (CRID), University of Namur, Rue de Bruxelles, 61 B5000 Namur, Belgium. Email: [email protected].
This paper has been written in the context of the CTOSE project (IST programme), and it is an adaptation and briefing of deliverable 3.1 ‘Admissibility of electronic evidence’. It was the basis for the presentation at the CTOSE Conference. This paper, however, is solely the responsibility of the author and does not represent the opinion of the other contributors to the CTOSE project or of the European Community (EC). Its purpose is to present, as clearly as possible for people who are unfamiliar with legal matters, the main principles of the admissibility of evidence. To this end, some legal concepts have been simplified. I am particularly grateful to Antoine Misonne, Assistant in Criminal Law at the Faculty of law in Namur, for his substantial help and valuable comments during the drafting of this report. I also wish to express my gratitude to María Verónica Pérez Asinari and Jean‐Marc Dinant for their enjoyable and highly professional collaboration on the CTOSE project.
M Robins ‘Computers and the discovery of evidence—a new dimension to civil procedure’ Journal of Computer & Information Law, Vol 17, p 412, 1999.
Because of new technical developments and the growing use of computers in all areas of economic and social life, courts and prosecution authorities depend to an increasing extent on evidence stored or processed by modern information technology. Aware of this development, the EC published in the Official Journal in 1995 a public tender on computer‐related crime, finally awarded to the University of Würzburg in October 1996. This university presented on 1 January 1998, a report written under the direction of Professor U Sieber entitled: ‘Legal aspects of computer‐related crime in the information society—COMCRIME study’. This report presents the legal aspects of the computer crime in several EU member States as well as in countries outside of the EU.
D Morrow ‘The IT security professional as investigator’, online: http://www.gocsi.com/sec.pro.htm (1 May 2000).
Sieber, op cit, note 3, p 101.
P Sommer ‘Evidence in Internet paedophilia cases’, p 2.
Sieber, op cit, note 3, p 32.
Sommer, op cit, note 6, p 2.
D Brezinski and T Killalea ‘Guidelines for evidence collection and archiving’, p 4, on‐line: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3227.txt.
Law of evidence is probably one of the most complex legal issues.
Sieber, op cit, note 3, p 101.
For a deeper study of the legal matters relied to the handling of electronic evidence and the protection of the privacy, see María Verónica Pérez‐Asinari ‘Legal constraints for the protection of privacy and personal data in electronic evidence handling’ International Review of Law Computers and Technology, Vol 18, No 2, 2004, pp 231–250.
Because of our oversimplification, many concepts may appear simpler than they really are. It is thus recommended, for further examination of legal issues, to refer to legal theoretical studies.
G S Takach, Computer Law, p 366, Irwin Law, Toronto, 1998.
A Kean The Modern Law of Evidence 5th edn, p 1, Butterworths, London, 2000.
Although division of common law systems into private and public law is referred to infrequently (a division is more often noted in terms of the law of tort or the law of property, all part of what is known as substantive, as opposed to procedural law) this report has been built on this main classification. In terms of evidence, there have always been significant differences between the rules of evidence in civil cases and those that govern criminal cases. In 1968, the Civil Evidence Act introduced major reforms that made it possible for hearsay to be admitted in civil courts in many circumstances where it would remain inadmissible at common law. These reforms were not, on the whole, matched by comparable changes to the hearsay rule in criminal cases. Were the system to be classified as public and private law, private law would include the law of contracts, tort and property. Additionally so categorized would be family law, succession and trusts. Criminal law would constitute a major part of the public law, which would further embody constitutional and administrative law, and procedure.
This principle has been confirmed as well in national constitutions (e.g. Italy) as in international treaties (ECHR).
There are some exceptions to this principle. In some legal systems, the judge and the defendant do not always remain passive. The Belgian and French criminal codes procedure so institutes the ‘juge d’instruction'. This is a judge empowered to interview witnesses and defendants after police enquiries and before the hearing, or to order a search or request for an expertise. Article 190 of the Italian procedure code uses the term of ‘right of the proof’ for the accused and article 38 of the law of application of this code provides the notion of ‘defensive inquiry’ permitting the lawyer to seek evidence or witnesses.
G Stefani, G Levasseur and B Bouloc Procédure pénale 13th edn, pp 34–35, Dalloz, Paris.
M Antoine, J‐F Brakeland and M Eloy ‘Droit de la preuve face aux nouvelles technologies de l’information' Cahiers du CRID, No 7, p 55, 1991.
Kean, op cit, note 15, p 20.
Continental law systems distinguish two different relevant concepts: la valeur probante and la force probante.
J F Stephen Digest of the Law of Evidence, 12th edn, art. 1.
M Storme, De bewijslast in het belgisch privaatrecht, Gand, Faculté de droit de l'Université de Grand, 1962.
Art. 1315 Code civil: ‘celui qui réclame l’exécution d'une obligation doit la prouver; celui qui se prétend libéré doit justifier le paiement ou le fait qui a produit l'extinction de son obligation'.
M Clavie, ‘La charge de la preuve: questions choisies en matière contractuelle’, La preuve, Vol 54, p 12, March 2002.
Art. 1316‐4 of the French civil code, introduced by the Loi n° 2000‐230 du 13 mars 2000 portant adaptation du droit de la preuve aux technologies de l'information et relative à la signature électronique (J.O. n° 62 of 14 March 2000, p 3968).
Commercial law is separately administered in civil law nations.
G Raymond, Droit civil 3rd edn, Litec, Paris, p 59, 1996.
Ibid.
Ibid, pp 59–60.
Art. 5 of the Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures lays down that: ‘1. Member States shall ensure that advanced electronic signatures which are based on a qualified certificate and which are created by a secure‐signature‐creation device: (a) satisfy the legal requirements of a signature in relation to data in electronic form in the same manner as a handwritten signature satisfies those requirements in relation to paper‐based data; and (b) are admissible as evidence in legal proceedings. 2. Member States shall ensure that an electronic signature is not denied legal effectiveness and admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings solely on the grounds that it is in electronic form, or not based upon a qualified certificate, or not based upon a qualified certificate issued by an accredited certification service‐provider, or not created by a secure signature‐creation device’ (Official Journal L 013, 19/01/2000 pp 12–20).
See notably the project of the European directive, Common position (CE) n° 28/1999 taken by the Council on the 28 June 1999, O.J.E.C., C 243/33, 27 June 1999 and the type‐law on electronic commerce, adopted by the CNUCID in 1996.
J.O. n° 62 of 14 March 2000, p 3968.
Loi du 9 juillet 2001 fixant certaines règles relatives au cadre juridique pour les signatures électroniques et les services de certification, Moniteur Belge, 29.09.2001.
Decreto legislativo 23 gennaio 2002, n. 10 ; Attuazione della direttiva 1999/93/CE relativa ad un quadro comunitario per le firme elettroniche (G.U. n. 39 del 15 febbraio 2002). In order to conform its legislation to European standards, the Italian legislator adopted on the 23 January 2002 a Decreto legislativo (decree) transposing the European Directive 1999/93/CE on electronic signature. An electronic document is now considered as a mechanical reproduction in the sense of article 2702 of the Codice civile and has the same relevance as of the handwritten document. Moreover, the electronic signature linked to an electronic document gives it the same effect it would have in the paper world, as far as the signature obey to the conditions of advanced signature and has been guaranteed by an assented certificate provider.
E Caprioli ‘Le juge et la preuve électronique’, on‐line: www.Juriscom.net, 10 January 2000, p 7; V Sédallian ‘Preuve et signature électronique’, on‐line: www.Juriscom.net, 9 May 2000, p 2.
Caprioli, op cit, note 37, pp 8–10; Sédallian, op cit, note 37, p 2.
Directive européenne 1999/93/CE du Parlement et du Conseil, du 13 décembre 1999, sur un cadre communautaire pour les signatures électroniques, J.O., n°L013, 19.01.2000, pp. 12–20.
Caprioli, op cit, note 37, pp 14–20; Sédallian, op cit, note 37, pp 3–6.
Ibid, pp 60–61.
Ibid, pp 61–62.
Caprioli, op cit, note 37, pp 10–13; Sédallian, op cit, note 37, pp 2–3.
M‐A Glendon and M W Gordon Comparative Legal Traditions in a Nutshell 2nd edn, West Group, St Paul, MN, p 236, 1999.
B Amory and Y Poullet ‘Computers in the law of evidence—a comparative approach in civil and common law systems’ International Computer Law Adviser, No 4, p 7, 1987.
Takach, op cit, note 14, p 367.
The ‘best evidence rule’ is also called the ‘primary evidence rule’.
It would be wrong to assume that computer evidence can only ever be admitted by way of some such exceptions. Not all computer evidence is hearsay: some can be classified as original or even ‘real’ evidence and can then be admitted on largely the same basis as a photograph or a tape recording of an incident. It depends on the way in which the computer has been operating, and in some cases, on the availability of supporting oral testimony relating to the input of data.
U Sieber The International Handbook on Computer Crime, Computer‐related Economic Crime and the Infringements of Privacy Wiley, Chichester, 1986, p 111.
For most purposes, the question of whether a given device is a computer has been left to be decided on a case by case basis.
Several common law jurisdictions have expressly taken cognisance of computer‐generated evidence in their evidence law statutes. See e.g. law statutes in Quebec and New Brunswick.
Takach, op cit, note 14, p 372.
The Belgian Supreme Court declared ten years ago that: ‘le juge apprécie la culpabilité du prévenu selon son intime conviction; il le condamne lorsqu’il a la certitude humaine qu'il s'est rendu coupable du fait mis à sa charge' (Cass, 10 November 1992, Pas, 1992, I, p 1247). Unauthorized translation: ‘The judge freely appreciates the guilt of the defendant according to his personal appreciation of the evidence; he can only convict when he is convinced that the accused effectively committed the offence for which he is prosecuted’.
Even if the continental law countries adopted procedural codes, unlike the common law countries.
The judge has to weigh the extent to which he can rely on the evidence (especially his own observations, the statements of suspects, witnesses and experts, as well as written documents).
P Henry ‘De l’intime conviction' in Les droits de la défense en matière pénale—Actes du colloque des 30, 31 mai et 1er juin 1985 Barreau de Liège, pp 201–236; A L Fettweis ‘La charge de la preuve en matière pénale et la présomption d’innocence' in Les droits de la défense en matière pénale—Actes du colloque des 30, 31 mai et 1er juin 1985 Barreau de Liège, pp 133–157; P E Trousse ‘La preuve des infractions’ Rev. dr. pén, pp 731–766, 1959; R Screvens ‘La preuve pénale en droit belge’ in La présentation de la preuve et la sauvegarde des libertés individuelles Bruylant, Bruxelles, 1977, pp 55–90. See, contra, R Legros ‘La preuve légale en droit pénal’ J.T., 1978, pp 589–595; J Messine ‘La vie privée et le droit de la preuve en matière pénale’ Ann. Dr. Louv., 1984, pp 403–425.
Art. 154: ‘les contraventions seront prouvées soit par procès‐verbaux ou rapports, soit par témoins à défaut de rapports et procès‐verbaux, ou à leur appui’.
H‐D Bosly ‘La régularité de la preuve en matière pénale’ J.T., pp 121–128, 1992; A de Nauw ‘Les règles d’exclusion relatives à la preuve en procédure pénale belge' Rev. dr. pén. crim., 1990, pp 705–724.
The rule of the intimate conviction is hold in article 342 of the criminal procedure code.
The French criminal procedure code is available on‐line: http://www.adminet.com/code/index‐CPROCPEL.html.
The Italian criminal procedure code is available on‐line: http://www.camerapenale‐bologna.org/codice_procedura_penale/codice_di_procedura_penale_index.htm#cpbo.
Kean, op cit, note 15, p 49.
Cass., 27 February 1985, Rev. dr. pén. crim., 1985, p 694.
Cass., 13 May 1986, Rev. dr. pén. crim., 1986, p 905; Cass., 4 January 1994, Rev. dr. pén. crim., 1994, p 80: ‘Est illégale la preuve obtenue non seulement par un acte qui est expressément interdit par la loi, mais aussi par un acte inconciliable avec les règles substantielles de la procédure pénale ou avec les principes généraux du droit et, plus particulièrement, avec le respect des droits de la défense’.
Loi du 28 novembre 2000 relative à la criminalité informatique, Mon. b., 3 February 2001.
For a detailed approach of the law, see: T Laureys Informatica criminaliteit Mys & Breesch, Gand, 2001; C Meunier ‘La loi du 28 novembre 2000 relative à la criminalité informatique’ C.U.P., Liège, 2001; S. Dussolier and F de Villenfagne ‘La Belgique sort enfin ses armes contre la cybercriminalité: à propos de la loi du 28 novembre 2000 sur la criminalité informatique’, online: http://www.droit‐technologie.org/dossiers/analyse_loi_281100_criminalite_informatique.pdf.
María Verónica Perez Asinari ‘Legal constrains for the protection of privacy and personal data in electronic evidence handling’ pp 35–37.
Crim., 12 June 1952, J.C.P., 1952, II, p 7241.
Crim., 28 October 1991, Bulletin d'information de la Cour de cassation, 15 January 1992, p 11.
Loi 88–19 du 5 January 1988, relative à la fraude informatique, J.O., 6 January 1988.
T Verbiest and E Wéry Le droit de l'internet et de la société de l'information, Larcier, Bruxelles, 2001, pp 38–41.
Forum des droits sur Internet Dossier ‘cybercrime et démocratie’ www.foruminternet.org, October/November 2001, p 4; Verbiest and Wéry, op cit, note 72, pp 41–42.
Loi n° 2001‐1062 du 15 novembre 2001 relative à la sécurité quotidienne, www.assemblée‐nationale.fr.
Forum des droits sur Internet, op cit, note 73, pp 6–8; J‐W Noël Internet & enquête judiciaire, pp 3–4.
Forum des droits sur Internet, op cit, note 73, pp 8–11; Noël, op cit, note 75, pp 4–6.
Forum des droits sur Internet, op cit, note 73, p 11.
Ibid, pp 8–10.
L M Marini Internet e Intercettazioni, Internet e Legge Penale G. Giappichelli, Turin, 2001, pp 173–192.
Ibid, pp 44–48.
Cass., 6 September 1971, Pas., 1972, I, 12.
Scotland adopted the Criminal procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.
See inter alia the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984; sections 19, 20, 21 and 78), the Prosecution of Offences Act (1985), the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000), the Computer Misuse Act (1990; sections 1, 2, 3, 10 and 17), the Copyright Designs and Patents Act (1988; sections 107, 108 and 109), the Telecommunications Act (1984; sections 42, 42A, 43, 44 and 45), the Post Office Act (1953; section 11), the Data Protection Act (1984), the Interception of Communications Act (1985), the Protection of Children Act (1978, section 1), the Anti‐terrorism, Security and Crime Act (2001), etc. This list is by no means exhaustive.
The main historical sources of the English criminal procedure are: History of the Pleas of the Crown (Sir Matthew Hale, 1609–1676), A Treatise of the Please of the Crown (William Hawkins, 1673–1746), Please of the Crown (Sir Edward Hyde East), The Petition of Rights (7 June 1628), The Habeas Corpus Act (1679) and The Bill of Rights (13 February 1689).
The full text is available on‐line: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/CadreListeTraites.htm.
Kean, op cit, note 15, p 25.
M Delmas‐Marty Procédures pénales d'Europe P.U.F., Paris, 1995, p 516.
More than 70% of the cases judged by the Crown Court and more than 80% of the cases judged by the magistrates' courts.
There are a number of overlapping common law rules and statutory provisions, some specifically concerned with one particular kind of document and others concerned with a wide range of documents. None of these are specifically concerned with computer‐generated evidence. Because of the mainly jurisprudential character of these exceptions, it is rather difficult to list all of them in an exhaustive way. According to an English lawyer, there are 12 of them, while an American law writer distinguishes 45 exceptions. It is nevertheless true that in criminal cases, there is no legal statutory provision comparable to section 1 of the Civil Evidence Act, upon which the admissibility of computerized hearsay evidence can be said to depend.
However, the courts did not make a consistent distinction between documents that might or might not be hearsay. In R v Pettigrew, the court of appeal rejected a computer printout of banknotes on the ground that it did not come under the exception under hearsay. However, the court changed its position in a subsequent case.
Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984), a suspect has the right not to be held incommunicado, save in exceptional circumstances and to the advice of a lawyer. He also has the right to silence and rights intended to ensure his fair treatment. Breaches of these rights by the police may result in evidence being excluded at trial. In case of inadmissible evidence, English exclusionary rule does not render the evidence null and avoid but excludes it from the process.
The full text of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act is available on‐line: http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1984PoliceandCriminalEvidenceAct.html.
Reg v Samuel (1988) 87 Cr App R 233; Reg v Allardice (1988) 87 Cr App R 380.
L Leigh ‘Criminal law and procedure, common law jurisdictions’ Rev. int. dr. pén., p 424, 1992.
Reg v Chung (1991) 92 Cr App R 314; Reg v Dunford (1990) 91 Cr App R 1509; Reg. v Canale(1990) 91 Cr App R 1.
Leigh, op cit, note 94, p 424.
E.g. DPP v McGladrigan (1991) 155 JP 785.
Crompton J, en Leathem (1861) 8 Cox CC 498.
V Tilman ‘Arbitrage et nouvelles technologies: Alternative Cyberdispute Resolution’ Ubiquité, F.U.N.D.P., Namur, 1999, pp 47–64.
J El‐Hakim ‘Les modes alternatifs de règlement des conflits dans le droit des contrats’ R.I.D.C., 1997, p 347.
T Schultz ‘Online dispute resolution: state of the art, issues, and perspectives—where are we ? And where are we going?’ Report of the E‐law colloquium, 16 November 2001, Geneva.
A Bevan Alternative Dispute Resolution Sweet & Maxwell, London, 1992, pp 15–16.
P R Fisher ‘All you need to know about mediation but didn’t know to ask—a parachute for parties in litigation!', available online: http://www.mediate.com/articles/fisher2.cfm.
Walkinshaw v Diniz, Unreported decision, High Court of Justice—Commercial Court (19 May 1999) 1999, Folio No 522; J Thomas Arbitration International, Vol 17, No 2, 2001, pp 193–210.