The Previously the legal position was "In any proceedings, a statement in a document produced by a computer shall not be admissible as evidence of any fact s

The Previously the legal position was "In any proceedings, a statement in a document produced by a computer shall not be admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein unless it is shown. That at all material times the computer was operating properly, or if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents." they have now changed the position to "in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the courts will presume that mechanical instruments were in order at the material time... The principle has been applied to such devices as speedometers and traffic lights and in the consultation paper we saw no reason why it should not apply to computers." I have no earthly idea, where the assumption about not checking calculations, or "don’t need to show why it produced the results it did." comes from or how you arrived at that conclusion. your logical seems as daft as asking if I've ever used a computer system, on a computer system.