3 ms·

I don't know what the standards are in the UK, but certainly in the USA (and most law is based on English law) you have to "lay a foundation" for any documentar

I don't know what the standards are in the UK, but certainly in the USA (and most law is based on English law) you have to "lay a foundation" for any documentary evidence that you introduce at trial. The crux of this is essentially having a witness with knowledge of the document taking the stand and swearing that the document is true and accurate. (to lie about it would technically be perjury) p.s. my accuser received his share of karma very shortly afterwards when his misdeeds caused him to be sued out of existence by several major multinationals he tried to bully. [I can't find much about the guy any longer, but I found his name in Google Books just now in a book titled Business Law where he is used as an example of how not to be]

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
(My below remark is a tangent and isn't meant to judge your experience.) My unqualified understanding is that UK's injurious laws (eg:defamation) are somewhat more favorable for prosecuting malicious behavior, than their US counterparts. The differences can be said to reflect a shift toward prosecuting an offender (UK) vs protecting the innocent (US). I think we can see this whenever US govs tweak law to ease prosecutions. It's non-powerful people who can expect to feel the brunt of it. Stated differently, for each newly enabled prosecution of a well-protected person, an exponentially greater number of vulnerable people will prosecuted. This is far from an absolute principle. It's more a comment about the trends that occur in the absence of ethics - which describes most moments in most justice systems.