For some background. The legal presumption dates from 1997. "Previously, section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 required anyone introducing co

For some background. The legal presumption dates from 1997. "Previously, section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 required anyone introducing computer-generated evidence to show the system was operating correctly and not being used improperly. The change followed the Law Commission’s 1997 review of the law on hearsay evidence."[1] from https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/it-experts-call-for-review-of-computer-is-always-right/5118414.article https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/it-experts-call-for-review-... [1] review https://cloud-platform-e218f50a4812967ba1215eaecede923f.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/30/2015/03/lc245_Legislating_the_Criminal_Code_Evidence_in_Criminal_Proceedings.pdf https://cloud-platform-e218f50a4812967ba1215eaecede923f.s3.a... (page 197) --- Another interesting briefing note: "The legal rule that computers are presumed to be operating correctly – unforeseen and unjust consequences": https://www.benthamsgaze.org/2022/06/30/the-legal-rule-that-computers-are-presumed-to-be-operating-correctly-unforeseen-and-unjust-consequences/ https://www.benthamsgaze.org/2022/06/30/the-legal-rule-that-... They suggest, when requested, that a party gets: - records of known errors and bugs in the system, their effect, and the actions taken in response - description of information security and other relevant standards and processes followed - reports of audits performed on the system and how it is managed, - evidence showing that reports of errors are managed properly and that changes to the system are properly controlled - evidence confirming that the search for documents was performed adequately, and was done so by a person with appropriate authority and knowledge, and - assurance that reasonable steps have been taken to establish that the evidence presented has not been tampered with.