- Email: [email protected]
Legal admissibility of evidence held in digital form
Electronic
Document
Management
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT LEGAL ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE HELD IN DIGITAL FORM Amanda J. Kearsley
Organizations faced with voluminous paper documents are increasingly turning to technology, scanning the paper documents and then destroying the originals, placing increased reliance on electronic document management systems for subsequent retrieval. One key difficulty these organizations face is the uncertain legal status of the electronic record, and whether, if necessary, the digital copy of the original paper document can be used in evidence in legal proceedings. This first part of a two part article considers the effects of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 and also examines current and recommended practices for ensuring the admissibility of digital evidence.
BACKGROUND Storage of p a p e r d o c u m e n t s is an increasingly e x p e n s i v e o p t i o n for businesses w h i c h n e e d b o t h to store and retrieve i n f o rm at i o n for t h e effective r u n n in g of their organizations. Electronic d o c u m e n t m a n a g e m e n t systems arc b e c o m i n g m o r e cost effective in the handling of vast quantities of information. Electronic d o c u m e n t s are n o w the basis for many business transactions and are p r o d u c e d , s t o r e d and t r a n s m i t t e d globally in u n p r e c e d e n t e d numbers. A key difficulty for those organizations w h i c h store their business records electronically is that at some time in the future, the original d o c u m e n t s may be n e e d e d as evidence in a legal dispute. The cost of rejection of d o c u m e n tar y evidence in a court case may be substantial. Until recently there has been no clear authoritative guidance for organizations to maximize the chances of documents being accepted as legally admissible with the same weight of evidence as the original. However, compliance with Codes of Practice issued by the British Standards Institute may offer significant evidential benefits for businesses w h o rely on electronic documents.
LEGAL PERSPECTIVE In determining admissibility of evidence, English courts have long adopted the 'best evidence rule'.This rule means that the court will give most c r e d e n c e to the best evidence available, such as original d o cu m e n ts or oral testimony. Evidence w h i c h is more remote is merely hearsay and traditionally has been inadmissible as p r o o f of either the contents or authenticity of a document.
In recognition of commercial reality, recent statutory intervention means that the courts are n o w more readily prepared to accept hearsay documents in evidence, such as authenticated copies of original documents. The rule against hearsay was effectively abolished in relation to civil evidence by the Civil Evidence Act 1995 (the '1995 Act'), w h i c h was brought into force in January 1997. The 1995 Act provides that evidence shall not be excluded merely on the ground that it is hearsay, provided that reasonable notice of a party's intention to rely on the hearsay evidence is given. The Act also sets out a n u m b e r of factors the court shall have regard to w h e n deciding the weight (if any) to be given to the hearsay evidence.These include: • w h e t h e r it would have been reasonable and practicable to have produced the maker of the original statement as a witness; • w h e t h e r the original evidence was made contemporaneously with the o c c u r r e n c e or existence of the matters stated; • w h e t h e r the evidence involves multiple hearsay (a copy, or a copy of a copy); • w h e t h e r any person involved had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters; and • w h e t h e r the original statement was an edited account, or was made in collaboration with another or for a particular purpose. Image-processed d o c u m e n t s are currently treated as hearsay evidence and although they are technically admissible under the 1995 Act, the opposing party may attempt to discredit either the integrity of the electronic d o c u m e n t or the co n t en t itseff or both. Section 9 of the 1995Act provides that w h e r e a d o c u m e n t is sh o w n to form part of the records (in w h a t e v e r form) of a
Computer Law & Security Report Vol. 15 no. 3 1999 ISSN 0267 3649/99/$20.00 © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
185
Electronic
Document
Management
b u s i n e s s o r p u b l i c authority, t h a t d o c u m e n t m a y b e r e c e i v e d in e v i d e n c e w i t h o u t f u r t h e r p r o o f . A d o c u m e n t will b e t a k e n to f o r m p a r t of t h e r e c o r d s o f a b u s i n e s s o r p u b l i c a u t h o r i t y if a c e r t i f i c a t e to t h a t effect is p r o d u c e d t o t h e c o u r t s i g n e d b y a n officer o f t h e b u s i n e s s o r a u t h o r i t y to w h i c h t h e r e c o r d s b e l o n g . In t h e c o n t e x t o f e l e c t r o n i c d o c u m e n t s , this w o u l d i n c l u d e s o m e o n e w h o is r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e o p e r a t i o n o f a d o c u m e n t m a n a g e m e n t system. W h i l s t S e c t i o n 9 allows t h e c o u r t to d i r e c t t h a t this p r o v i s i o n d o e s n o t a p p l y in r e l a t i o n to a p a r t i c u l a r d o c u m e n t o r r e c o r d , this is o n l y likely to h a p p e n w h e n t h e r e is a g e n u i n e r e a s o n to d o u b t t h a t a r e c o r d is complete or accurate. S e c t i o n 8 of t h e 1995 Act p r o v i d e s that, w h e r e a s t a t e m e n t c o n t a i n e d in a d o c u m e n t is a d m i s s i b l e as e v i d e n c e in civil proceedings, the original document or copies of originals can b e a d m i t t e d as e v i d e n c e , e v e n if t h e d o c u m e n t is n o l o n g e r in e x i s t e n c e , p r o v i d e d it is a u t h e n t i c a t e d in s u c h a m a n n e r as t h e c o u r t a p p r o v e s . It is i m m a t e r i a l h o w m a n y t i m e s r e m o v e d t h e c o p y is f r o m t h e o r i g i n a l . T h e issue t h e r e f o r e is d e t e r m i n ing w h a t m a n n e r o f a u t h e n t i c a t i o n t h e c o u r t s are p r e p a r e d to a p p r o v e . T h i s is c o n s i d e r e d below. It will b e n e c e s s a r y to d e m o n s t r a t e to t h e c o u r t t h a t a digital d o c u m e n t is b o t h t h e ' b e s t e v i d e n c e ' available a n d is reliable. U n d e r s e c t i o n 5 o f t h e Civil E v i d e n c e A c t 1968, a s t a t e m e n t in a d o c u m e n t p r o d u c e d b y a c o m p u t e r shall, subject to r u l e s o f c o u r t , b e a d m i s s i b l e as e v i d e n c e o f a n y fact s t a t e d in it o f w h i c h d i r e c t oral e v i d e n c e w o u l d b e admissible, if it is s h o w n t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n s m e n t i o n e d in S e c t i o n 5(2) are satisfied in r e l a t i o n to t h e s t a t e m e n t a n d c o m p u t e r in q u e s t i o n . T h e s e c o n d i t i o n s are: • that the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the c o m p u t e r w a s u s e d r e g u l a r l y t o s t o r e o r p r o c e s s information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or n o t , b y a n y body, w h e t h e r c o r p o r a t e o r n o t , o r b y a n y individual; • that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities i n f o r m a t i o n o f t h e k i n d c o n t a i n e d in t h e s t a t e m e n t o r o f t h e k i n d f r o m w h i c h t h e i n f o r m a t i o n so c o n t a i n e d is derived; • that throughout the material part of that period the comp u t e r w a s o p e r a t i n g p r o p e r l y or, if not, t h a t in a n y r e s p e c t in w h i c h it w a s n o t o p e r a t i n g p r o p e r l y o r w a s o u t of o p e r a t i o n d u r i n g t h a t p a r t o f t h a t p e r i o d w a s n o t s u c h as to affect t h e p r o d u c t i o n of t h e d o c u m e n t o r t h e a c c u r a c y o f its c o n t e n t s ; a n d • t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d in t h e s t a t e m e n t r e p r o d u c e s o r is d e r i v e d f r o m i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d to t h e c o m p u t e r in t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f t h o s e activities. All o f t h e s e c a n b e p r o v e d b y a p e r s o n w h o h o l d s a r e s p o n s i b l e p o s i t i o n in r e l a t i o n to t h e c o m p u t e r a n d its activities. U n d e r t h e Civil E v i d e n c e Act 1968 S e c t i o n s 1-10, film o r microfilm of the documents properly verified on oath by a p e r s o n able t o s p e a k as to t h e i r a c c u r a c y will b e a d m i t t e d as s e c o n d a r y e v i d e n c e o f d e s t r o y e d r e c o r d s . T h e 'Best E v i d e n c e Rule' still r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l d o c u m e n t s b e p r o d u c e d , u n l e s s e i t h e r s t a t u t e h a s e x p r e s s l y p e r m i t t e d a c o p y to b e r e l i e d on, o r t h a t t h e p a r t y t e n d e r i n g a c o p y is able to p r o v e
186
t h e original is lost o r d e s t r o y e d o r u n o b t a i n a b l e a n d t h a t t h e c o p y is a t r u e c o p y o f t h e original. Strict p r o o f o f a m i c r o f i c h e d o c u m e n t i n v o l v e s p r o o f o f t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e original d o c u m e n t a n d t h a t t h e m i c r o f i c h e is a c o p y o f t h e original. T h e c o u r t m u s t t h e r e f o r e b e satisfied that: • t h e original d o c u m e n t existed; • its loss o r d e s t r u c t i o n h a s t a k e n place; a n d • a r e a s o n a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n o f this h a s b e e n given. In t h e c o n t e x t o f digital d o c u m e n t s , as t h e 'original' d o c u m e n t s are n o t t h e c o m p u t e r r e c o r d s b u t t h e d o c u m e n t s w h i c h t h e y r e c o r d , it is likely that, as in t h e case o f microfiche, p r o o f o f b o t h t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e original d o c u m e n t a n d its d e s t r u c t i o n m u s t b e p r o v e d b y s o m e b o d y w h o h a s first h a n d k n o w l e d g e o f t h e r e c o r d i n g o f t h e o r i g i n a l a n d its destruction. T h e r e is a l o n g t r a d i t i o n o f t r u s t in p a p e r d o c u m e n t s a n d l i m i t e d e x p e r i e n c e ( a n d t h e r e f o r e c o n f i d e n c e ) in e l e c t r o n i c d o c u m e n t p r o c e s s i n g . W h e r e a n e l e c t r o n i c d o c u m e n t is tend e r e d in e v i d e n c e , t h e c o u r t will w a n t t o d e t e r m i n e its history in o r d e r to e v a l u a t e b o t h its validity a n d its e v i d e n t i a l w e i g h t . T h e c o u r t m a y call w i t n e s s e s t o e x p l a i n t h e d e t a i l e d p r o c e d u r e s f o l l o w e d in r e c o r d i n g t h e d o c u m e n t a n d a n y subs e q u e n t p r o c e s s i n g o f t h e d o c u m e n t , in o r d e r to assess its admissibility.
BRITISH STANDARDS A consortium of industry and user groups has defined a British S t a n d a r d o n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f e l e c t r o n i c i m a g e s of d o c u m e n t s t h a t m a y b e r e q u i r e d as e v i d e n c e . T h e original draft s t a n d a r d w a s p u b l i s h e d as BS 7 7 6 8 in 1994, a n d advises document users on the technological aspects of scanning and s t o r i n g p a p e r d o c u m e n t s o n W r i t e O n c e Read M a n y W O R M ) o p t i c a l discs. F u r t h e r details o f BS 7 7 6 8 are b e y o n d t h e s c o p e o f this article. T h e I n f o r m a t i o n a n d C o m m u n i c a t i o n s T e c h n o l o g y division of t h e British Standards Institute (DISC) h a v e p u b l i s h e d a Code of Practice o n t h e legal admissibility of i n f o r m a t i o n s t o r e d o n e l e c t r o n i c d o c u m e n t m a n a g e m e n t s y s t e m s (DISC PD 0008), w h i c h a c c o m p a n i e s BS 7 7 6 8 . T h e C o d e sets o u t a n a g r e e d set o f p r o c e d u r e s for o r g a n i z a t i o n s to a d o p t a n d aims to i n c r e a s e t h e c h a n c e s o f e l e c t r o n i c d o c u m e n t s b e i n g a c c e p t e d as legally a d m i s s i b l e . T h e c o d e is divided into five parts:
Representation of Information S e c t i o n 2 o f t h e C o d e deals w i t h t h e classification o f information stored on a document management system into docum e n t life cycles, i n c l u d i n g : c r e a t i o n , r e t e n t i o n p e r i o d , access, r e v i s i o n s a n d d e s t r u c t i o n . T h i s s e c t i o n also r e q u i r e s a c c e s s a n d retrieval p r o c e d u r e s to b e d e f i n e d .
Duty of Care S e c t i o n 3 r e q u i r e s a n o r g a n i z a t i o n to" • b e a w a r e o f legislation a n d r e g u l a t o r y b o d i e s p e r t i n e n t to its i n d u s t r y ; • e s t a b l i s h a c h a i n o f a c c o u n t a b i l i t y a n d assign responsibility for activities i n v o l v i n g e l e c t r o n i c d o c u m e n t m a n a g e m e n t at all levels; a n d
Computer Law & Security Report Vol. 15 no. 3 1999 ISSN 0267 3649/99/$20.00 © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Electronic
Document
Management
Section 4 sets out the operating procedures required under the Code in order to demonstrate to external parties such as auditors or lawyers that the system c o n f o r m e d to the Code at appropriate times. It also provides for documentation of procedures in a user manual.
By following the r e c o m m e n d e d p r o c e d u r e , an organization will be able to demonstrate in a court of law, that a c o p y d o c u m e n t generated from the d o c u m e n t management system is an authentic copy of the original document. The Code provides a frame of reference to help users strengthen the perceived integrity of their data w hi c h may necessarily have to be p r o d u c e d in court as evidence, and to assist the court to evaluate the evidence. It is inevitable that judicial exposure to and e x p e r i e n c e of electronic evidence prepared using the Code of Practice will establish confidence and therefore more widespread acceptance of the evidence prepared under its regime. It is likely that many judges will look to the Code as a benchmark for their decisions.
Enabling Technologies
TECHNOLOGY AND THE CODE
Section 5 describes the use and control of technology for both n e w and existing systems including: • audit logs • image processing • compression techniques • d o c u m e n t deletion
The Code applies to electronic versions of d o cu m ent s stored on systems w h i c h comply with the Code throughout the lifetime of the electronic document. However, the Code only covers files stored on WORM optical storage systems, that is, secure, non-erasable media. Files may include text, images, C o m p u t e r Aided Design (CAD) data, moving and still video images and audio, or any combination of these data types. The use of the Code does not guarantee that the electronic image will be as good as the original, nor does it guarantee legal admissibility. Certain information will be vested uniquely in the original d o c u m e n t in the form of attributes that cannot be reproduced electronically.The Code r e c o m m e n d s that if there are such attributes, then the original d o c u m e n t should be retained. Whilst conversion of paper d o cu m en t s to digital format has evident advantages, it will be pointless recording information over a n u m b e r of years, only to discover that it cannot be read because either the media are corrupt or the software has been amended or replaced and is no longer capable of reading the document. Businesses will therefore need to ensure: • that there is suitable security for the data; • the adequacy of disaster recover procedures; and • that forward compatibility of both software and hardware is adequate.
•
keep abreast of developments by keeping in contact with the appropriate bodies and organizations. Furthermore, the organization should have appropriate levels of security for managing its information agreed and documented.
Business Procedures and Processes
Audit Trails Section 6 requires a detailed r e c o r d to be kept of e ver y significant activity on a d o c u m e n t m a n a g e m e n t system, in or de r to d em o n s t rat e that the p r o c e d u r e s have b e e n foll o w e d and maintained. This record w h i c h constitutes an audit trail should be created by the system itself and should be accessible. The Code describes procedures for the use of electronic d o c u m e n t management systems to store documents w h e r e the legal admissibility, authenticity and evidential weight of those documents are important.The Code also defines procedures and processes w h i c h should be used throughout the lifetime of the d o c u m e n t . T h e Code r e c o m m e n d s that organizations should devise and d o c u m e n t a procedure to satisfy the following criteria: • fixed procedures for use of the c o m p u t e r on w h i c h the do cu m en t s are stored should be established and should s h o w that the c o m p u t e r is used for originating, storing or monitoring a company's records on a regular basis; • records should be kept of all occasions w h e n the computer is not operating properly and, on those occasions, a record giving sufficient detail of the circumstances to show that the production and accuracy of the stored documents have not been adversely affected; • w h e r e d o cu m en t s are to be held on a computer, records should also be kept in the case of documents w h i c h are to be kept to s h o w w h i c h officers of the c o m pan y are responsible for keeping those records and operating the computer, together with the date each item was recorded; and • it w o u l d be p r u d e n t if the officers of a c o m p a n y w e r e made aware of the reason for the record keeping and the evidential i m p o r t a n c e of a full record c o v e r i n g all entries.
THE FUTURE The Code of Practice PD 0008 is currently under review. Proposed changes to extend the current Code of Practice to all electronic media (rather than just WORM technology) w e r e due for c o m m e n t during the w e e k c o m m e n c i n g 14 D e c e m b e r 1998. Amanda J. Kearsley Trainee Solicitor, Masons Solicitors Springfield House 76 Wellington Street Leeds LS1 2AY Tel: +44 113 2338905 Fax: +44 113 2454285 E-mail: [email protected] Internet:
Computer Law & Security Report Vol. 15 no. 3 1999 ISSN 0267 3649/99/$20.00 © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
187
Document
Management
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT LEGAL ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE HELD IN DIGITAL FORM Amanda J. Kearsley
Organizations faced with voluminous paper documents are increasingly turning to technology, scanning the paper documents and then destroying the originals, placing increased reliance on electronic document management systems for subsequent retrieval. One key difficulty these organizations face is the uncertain legal status of the electronic record, and whether, if necessary, the digital copy of the original paper document can be used in evidence in legal proceedings. This first part of a two part article considers the effects of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 and also examines current and recommended practices for ensuring the admissibility of digital evidence.
BACKGROUND Storage of p a p e r d o c u m e n t s is an increasingly e x p e n s i v e o p t i o n for businesses w h i c h n e e d b o t h to store and retrieve i n f o rm at i o n for t h e effective r u n n in g of their organizations. Electronic d o c u m e n t m a n a g e m e n t systems arc b e c o m i n g m o r e cost effective in the handling of vast quantities of information. Electronic d o c u m e n t s are n o w the basis for many business transactions and are p r o d u c e d , s t o r e d and t r a n s m i t t e d globally in u n p r e c e d e n t e d numbers. A key difficulty for those organizations w h i c h store their business records electronically is that at some time in the future, the original d o c u m e n t s may be n e e d e d as evidence in a legal dispute. The cost of rejection of d o c u m e n tar y evidence in a court case may be substantial. Until recently there has been no clear authoritative guidance for organizations to maximize the chances of documents being accepted as legally admissible with the same weight of evidence as the original. However, compliance with Codes of Practice issued by the British Standards Institute may offer significant evidential benefits for businesses w h o rely on electronic documents.
LEGAL PERSPECTIVE In determining admissibility of evidence, English courts have long adopted the 'best evidence rule'.This rule means that the court will give most c r e d e n c e to the best evidence available, such as original d o cu m e n ts or oral testimony. Evidence w h i c h is more remote is merely hearsay and traditionally has been inadmissible as p r o o f of either the contents or authenticity of a document.
In recognition of commercial reality, recent statutory intervention means that the courts are n o w more readily prepared to accept hearsay documents in evidence, such as authenticated copies of original documents. The rule against hearsay was effectively abolished in relation to civil evidence by the Civil Evidence Act 1995 (the '1995 Act'), w h i c h was brought into force in January 1997. The 1995 Act provides that evidence shall not be excluded merely on the ground that it is hearsay, provided that reasonable notice of a party's intention to rely on the hearsay evidence is given. The Act also sets out a n u m b e r of factors the court shall have regard to w h e n deciding the weight (if any) to be given to the hearsay evidence.These include: • w h e t h e r it would have been reasonable and practicable to have produced the maker of the original statement as a witness; • w h e t h e r the original evidence was made contemporaneously with the o c c u r r e n c e or existence of the matters stated; • w h e t h e r the evidence involves multiple hearsay (a copy, or a copy of a copy); • w h e t h e r any person involved had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters; and • w h e t h e r the original statement was an edited account, or was made in collaboration with another or for a particular purpose. Image-processed d o c u m e n t s are currently treated as hearsay evidence and although they are technically admissible under the 1995 Act, the opposing party may attempt to discredit either the integrity of the electronic d o c u m e n t or the co n t en t itseff or both. Section 9 of the 1995Act provides that w h e r e a d o c u m e n t is sh o w n to form part of the records (in w h a t e v e r form) of a
Computer Law & Security Report Vol. 15 no. 3 1999 ISSN 0267 3649/99/$20.00 © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
185
Electronic
Document
Management
b u s i n e s s o r p u b l i c authority, t h a t d o c u m e n t m a y b e r e c e i v e d in e v i d e n c e w i t h o u t f u r t h e r p r o o f . A d o c u m e n t will b e t a k e n to f o r m p a r t of t h e r e c o r d s o f a b u s i n e s s o r p u b l i c a u t h o r i t y if a c e r t i f i c a t e to t h a t effect is p r o d u c e d t o t h e c o u r t s i g n e d b y a n officer o f t h e b u s i n e s s o r a u t h o r i t y to w h i c h t h e r e c o r d s b e l o n g . In t h e c o n t e x t o f e l e c t r o n i c d o c u m e n t s , this w o u l d i n c l u d e s o m e o n e w h o is r e s p o n s i b l e for t h e o p e r a t i o n o f a d o c u m e n t m a n a g e m e n t system. W h i l s t S e c t i o n 9 allows t h e c o u r t to d i r e c t t h a t this p r o v i s i o n d o e s n o t a p p l y in r e l a t i o n to a p a r t i c u l a r d o c u m e n t o r r e c o r d , this is o n l y likely to h a p p e n w h e n t h e r e is a g e n u i n e r e a s o n to d o u b t t h a t a r e c o r d is complete or accurate. S e c t i o n 8 of t h e 1995 Act p r o v i d e s that, w h e r e a s t a t e m e n t c o n t a i n e d in a d o c u m e n t is a d m i s s i b l e as e v i d e n c e in civil proceedings, the original document or copies of originals can b e a d m i t t e d as e v i d e n c e , e v e n if t h e d o c u m e n t is n o l o n g e r in e x i s t e n c e , p r o v i d e d it is a u t h e n t i c a t e d in s u c h a m a n n e r as t h e c o u r t a p p r o v e s . It is i m m a t e r i a l h o w m a n y t i m e s r e m o v e d t h e c o p y is f r o m t h e o r i g i n a l . T h e issue t h e r e f o r e is d e t e r m i n ing w h a t m a n n e r o f a u t h e n t i c a t i o n t h e c o u r t s are p r e p a r e d to a p p r o v e . T h i s is c o n s i d e r e d below. It will b e n e c e s s a r y to d e m o n s t r a t e to t h e c o u r t t h a t a digital d o c u m e n t is b o t h t h e ' b e s t e v i d e n c e ' available a n d is reliable. U n d e r s e c t i o n 5 o f t h e Civil E v i d e n c e A c t 1968, a s t a t e m e n t in a d o c u m e n t p r o d u c e d b y a c o m p u t e r shall, subject to r u l e s o f c o u r t , b e a d m i s s i b l e as e v i d e n c e o f a n y fact s t a t e d in it o f w h i c h d i r e c t oral e v i d e n c e w o u l d b e admissible, if it is s h o w n t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n s m e n t i o n e d in S e c t i o n 5(2) are satisfied in r e l a t i o n to t h e s t a t e m e n t a n d c o m p u t e r in q u e s t i o n . T h e s e c o n d i t i o n s are: • that the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the c o m p u t e r w a s u s e d r e g u l a r l y t o s t o r e o r p r o c e s s information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or n o t , b y a n y body, w h e t h e r c o r p o r a t e o r n o t , o r b y a n y individual; • that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities i n f o r m a t i o n o f t h e k i n d c o n t a i n e d in t h e s t a t e m e n t o r o f t h e k i n d f r o m w h i c h t h e i n f o r m a t i o n so c o n t a i n e d is derived; • that throughout the material part of that period the comp u t e r w a s o p e r a t i n g p r o p e r l y or, if not, t h a t in a n y r e s p e c t in w h i c h it w a s n o t o p e r a t i n g p r o p e r l y o r w a s o u t of o p e r a t i o n d u r i n g t h a t p a r t o f t h a t p e r i o d w a s n o t s u c h as to affect t h e p r o d u c t i o n of t h e d o c u m e n t o r t h e a c c u r a c y o f its c o n t e n t s ; a n d • t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d in t h e s t a t e m e n t r e p r o d u c e s o r is d e r i v e d f r o m i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d to t h e c o m p u t e r in t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f t h o s e activities. All o f t h e s e c a n b e p r o v e d b y a p e r s o n w h o h o l d s a r e s p o n s i b l e p o s i t i o n in r e l a t i o n to t h e c o m p u t e r a n d its activities. U n d e r t h e Civil E v i d e n c e Act 1968 S e c t i o n s 1-10, film o r microfilm of the documents properly verified on oath by a p e r s o n able t o s p e a k as to t h e i r a c c u r a c y will b e a d m i t t e d as s e c o n d a r y e v i d e n c e o f d e s t r o y e d r e c o r d s . T h e 'Best E v i d e n c e Rule' still r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l d o c u m e n t s b e p r o d u c e d , u n l e s s e i t h e r s t a t u t e h a s e x p r e s s l y p e r m i t t e d a c o p y to b e r e l i e d on, o r t h a t t h e p a r t y t e n d e r i n g a c o p y is able to p r o v e
186
t h e original is lost o r d e s t r o y e d o r u n o b t a i n a b l e a n d t h a t t h e c o p y is a t r u e c o p y o f t h e original. Strict p r o o f o f a m i c r o f i c h e d o c u m e n t i n v o l v e s p r o o f o f t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f t h e original d o c u m e n t a n d t h a t t h e m i c r o f i c h e is a c o p y o f t h e original. T h e c o u r t m u s t t h e r e f o r e b e satisfied that: • t h e original d o c u m e n t existed; • its loss o r d e s t r u c t i o n h a s t a k e n place; a n d • a r e a s o n a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n o f this h a s b e e n given. In t h e c o n t e x t o f digital d o c u m e n t s , as t h e 'original' d o c u m e n t s are n o t t h e c o m p u t e r r e c o r d s b u t t h e d o c u m e n t s w h i c h t h e y r e c o r d , it is likely that, as in t h e case o f microfiche, p r o o f o f b o t h t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e original d o c u m e n t a n d its d e s t r u c t i o n m u s t b e p r o v e d b y s o m e b o d y w h o h a s first h a n d k n o w l e d g e o f t h e r e c o r d i n g o f t h e o r i g i n a l a n d its destruction. T h e r e is a l o n g t r a d i t i o n o f t r u s t in p a p e r d o c u m e n t s a n d l i m i t e d e x p e r i e n c e ( a n d t h e r e f o r e c o n f i d e n c e ) in e l e c t r o n i c d o c u m e n t p r o c e s s i n g . W h e r e a n e l e c t r o n i c d o c u m e n t is tend e r e d in e v i d e n c e , t h e c o u r t will w a n t t o d e t e r m i n e its history in o r d e r to e v a l u a t e b o t h its validity a n d its e v i d e n t i a l w e i g h t . T h e c o u r t m a y call w i t n e s s e s t o e x p l a i n t h e d e t a i l e d p r o c e d u r e s f o l l o w e d in r e c o r d i n g t h e d o c u m e n t a n d a n y subs e q u e n t p r o c e s s i n g o f t h e d o c u m e n t , in o r d e r to assess its admissibility.
BRITISH STANDARDS A consortium of industry and user groups has defined a British S t a n d a r d o n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f e l e c t r o n i c i m a g e s of d o c u m e n t s t h a t m a y b e r e q u i r e d as e v i d e n c e . T h e original draft s t a n d a r d w a s p u b l i s h e d as BS 7 7 6 8 in 1994, a n d advises document users on the technological aspects of scanning and s t o r i n g p a p e r d o c u m e n t s o n W r i t e O n c e Read M a n y W O R M ) o p t i c a l discs. F u r t h e r details o f BS 7 7 6 8 are b e y o n d t h e s c o p e o f this article. T h e I n f o r m a t i o n a n d C o m m u n i c a t i o n s T e c h n o l o g y division of t h e British Standards Institute (DISC) h a v e p u b l i s h e d a Code of Practice o n t h e legal admissibility of i n f o r m a t i o n s t o r e d o n e l e c t r o n i c d o c u m e n t m a n a g e m e n t s y s t e m s (DISC PD 0008), w h i c h a c c o m p a n i e s BS 7 7 6 8 . T h e C o d e sets o u t a n a g r e e d set o f p r o c e d u r e s for o r g a n i z a t i o n s to a d o p t a n d aims to i n c r e a s e t h e c h a n c e s o f e l e c t r o n i c d o c u m e n t s b e i n g a c c e p t e d as legally a d m i s s i b l e . T h e c o d e is divided into five parts:
Representation of Information S e c t i o n 2 o f t h e C o d e deals w i t h t h e classification o f information stored on a document management system into docum e n t life cycles, i n c l u d i n g : c r e a t i o n , r e t e n t i o n p e r i o d , access, r e v i s i o n s a n d d e s t r u c t i o n . T h i s s e c t i o n also r e q u i r e s a c c e s s a n d retrieval p r o c e d u r e s to b e d e f i n e d .
Duty of Care S e c t i o n 3 r e q u i r e s a n o r g a n i z a t i o n to" • b e a w a r e o f legislation a n d r e g u l a t o r y b o d i e s p e r t i n e n t to its i n d u s t r y ; • e s t a b l i s h a c h a i n o f a c c o u n t a b i l i t y a n d assign responsibility for activities i n v o l v i n g e l e c t r o n i c d o c u m e n t m a n a g e m e n t at all levels; a n d
Computer Law & Security Report Vol. 15 no. 3 1999 ISSN 0267 3649/99/$20.00 © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Electronic
Document
Management
Section 4 sets out the operating procedures required under the Code in order to demonstrate to external parties such as auditors or lawyers that the system c o n f o r m e d to the Code at appropriate times. It also provides for documentation of procedures in a user manual.
By following the r e c o m m e n d e d p r o c e d u r e , an organization will be able to demonstrate in a court of law, that a c o p y d o c u m e n t generated from the d o c u m e n t management system is an authentic copy of the original document. The Code provides a frame of reference to help users strengthen the perceived integrity of their data w hi c h may necessarily have to be p r o d u c e d in court as evidence, and to assist the court to evaluate the evidence. It is inevitable that judicial exposure to and e x p e r i e n c e of electronic evidence prepared using the Code of Practice will establish confidence and therefore more widespread acceptance of the evidence prepared under its regime. It is likely that many judges will look to the Code as a benchmark for their decisions.
Enabling Technologies
TECHNOLOGY AND THE CODE
Section 5 describes the use and control of technology for both n e w and existing systems including: • audit logs • image processing • compression techniques • d o c u m e n t deletion
The Code applies to electronic versions of d o cu m ent s stored on systems w h i c h comply with the Code throughout the lifetime of the electronic document. However, the Code only covers files stored on WORM optical storage systems, that is, secure, non-erasable media. Files may include text, images, C o m p u t e r Aided Design (CAD) data, moving and still video images and audio, or any combination of these data types. The use of the Code does not guarantee that the electronic image will be as good as the original, nor does it guarantee legal admissibility. Certain information will be vested uniquely in the original d o c u m e n t in the form of attributes that cannot be reproduced electronically.The Code r e c o m m e n d s that if there are such attributes, then the original d o c u m e n t should be retained. Whilst conversion of paper d o cu m en t s to digital format has evident advantages, it will be pointless recording information over a n u m b e r of years, only to discover that it cannot be read because either the media are corrupt or the software has been amended or replaced and is no longer capable of reading the document. Businesses will therefore need to ensure: • that there is suitable security for the data; • the adequacy of disaster recover procedures; and • that forward compatibility of both software and hardware is adequate.
•
keep abreast of developments by keeping in contact with the appropriate bodies and organizations. Furthermore, the organization should have appropriate levels of security for managing its information agreed and documented.
Business Procedures and Processes
Audit Trails Section 6 requires a detailed r e c o r d to be kept of e ver y significant activity on a d o c u m e n t m a n a g e m e n t system, in or de r to d em o n s t rat e that the p r o c e d u r e s have b e e n foll o w e d and maintained. This record w h i c h constitutes an audit trail should be created by the system itself and should be accessible. The Code describes procedures for the use of electronic d o c u m e n t management systems to store documents w h e r e the legal admissibility, authenticity and evidential weight of those documents are important.The Code also defines procedures and processes w h i c h should be used throughout the lifetime of the d o c u m e n t . T h e Code r e c o m m e n d s that organizations should devise and d o c u m e n t a procedure to satisfy the following criteria: • fixed procedures for use of the c o m p u t e r on w h i c h the do cu m en t s are stored should be established and should s h o w that the c o m p u t e r is used for originating, storing or monitoring a company's records on a regular basis; • records should be kept of all occasions w h e n the computer is not operating properly and, on those occasions, a record giving sufficient detail of the circumstances to show that the production and accuracy of the stored documents have not been adversely affected; • w h e r e d o cu m en t s are to be held on a computer, records should also be kept in the case of documents w h i c h are to be kept to s h o w w h i c h officers of the c o m pan y are responsible for keeping those records and operating the computer, together with the date each item was recorded; and • it w o u l d be p r u d e n t if the officers of a c o m p a n y w e r e made aware of the reason for the record keeping and the evidential i m p o r t a n c e of a full record c o v e r i n g all entries.
THE FUTURE The Code of Practice PD 0008 is currently under review. Proposed changes to extend the current Code of Practice to all electronic media (rather than just WORM technology) w e r e due for c o m m e n t during the w e e k c o m m e n c i n g 14 D e c e m b e r 1998. Amanda J. Kearsley Trainee Solicitor, Masons Solicitors Springfield House 76 Wellington Street Leeds LS1 2AY Tel: +44 113 2338905 Fax: +44 113 2454285 E-mail: [email protected] Internet:
Computer Law & Security Report Vol. 15 no. 3 1999 ISSN 0267 3649/99/$20.00 © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
187