There is a paper here [1] based a lot on these cases calling for a review of the presumption that computer evidence is correct. It is an absolutely crazy situa

There is a paper here [1] based a lot on these cases calling for a review of the presumption that computer evidence is correct. It is an absolutely crazy situation where the onus is on the person disputing the computer evidence to show that something is wrong. Even in the middle ages they had a system in place where both parties would have reliable evidence to deal with non reputation in financial transactions. They used a split wooden tally sticks [2], yet now because it is on a computer, and computers are supposedly rarely wrong the courts will allow an organisation to produce something from essentially their own 1 sided ledger and it is up to the other side to prove it wrong. The sub postmasters had no evidence, no ledgers or paper receipts of their own, they were expected to rely entirely on this system to be correct, when it wasn't the entire justice system was rigged against them with the only possibility of winning was to prove that a multi million £ IT system was not working correctly. This would have been hard enough anyway, but the company who built it and the one using it were both willing to lie to cover up its failings. [1]https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5240 https://journals.sas.ac.uk/deeslr/article/view/5240 [2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick