Admissibility of Computer-Generated Evidence: Director of Public Prosecutions v McKeown and Jones (1997): United Kingdom House of Lords

Introduction

The case of Director of Public Prosecutions v. McKeown and Jones ([1997] 2 Cr App R 155) represents a pivotal moment in the interpretation of electronic evidence within the UK legal system. Heard by the House of Lords on February 20, 1997, this conjoined appeal addressed significant concerns regarding the reliability and admissibility of computer-generated evidence in cases involving the Road Traffic Act 1988.

The appellants, McKeown and Jones, were convicted of driving offences related to alcohol consumption as measured by the Lion Intoximeter 3000 installed at Widnes Police Station. Both convictions were challenged on the grounds of inaccuracies in the Intoximeter's computer clock, which displayed incorrect times during the breath tests. This commentary delves into the complexities of the judgment, examining its implications for the legal treatment of computerized evidence.

Summary of the Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions' appeals in both cases. The core issue revolved around whether the time discrepancies in the Intoximeter's clock rendered the breath test results inadmissible under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Lord Hoffmann delivered the principal opinion, supported by Lords Goff, Mustill, Steyn, and Clyde. The Lords concluded that despite the clock inaccuracies, the breath test results were admissible. They interpreted section 69(1) of PACE 1984 to require only that the computer component of the device operated correctly in processing and recording the breath samples, not necessarily that ancillary features like the clock were precise.

Consequently, the convictions of both Ms. McKeown and Mr. Jones were upheld, affirming the reliability of the Lion Intoximeter 3000's breath analysis despite minor discrepancies in its time display.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment referenced several key precedents that influenced the court’s reasoning:

Castle v. Cross [1984] 1 W.L.R. 1372: Established that real evidence from mechanical devices is admissible at common law.
The Statue of Liberty [1968] 1 W.L.R.: Reinforced the principles related to mechanical and electronic evidence.
Reg. v. Skegness Magistrates' Court, Ex parte Cardy [1985] R.T.R.: Addressed the limitations of document discovery in magistrates' courts.

These cases collectively underscored the judiciary's approach to technological evidence, balancing reliability with practical admissibility.

Legal Reasoning

The Lords meticulously parsed the statutory framework governing evidence admissibility. Central to their analysis was section 69(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), which outlines conditions under which computer-generated statements can be admitted as evidence.

Section 69(1): States that a computer-generated statement is inadmissible unless it's proven that:
- No reasonable grounds exist to believe the statement is inaccurate due to improper computer use.
- The computer was operating correctly at all material times, or any malfunction did not affect the document's production or accuracy.
Section 16 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988: Allows evidence of alcohol proportion in breath specimens through certificates signed by constables, under specified conditions.

The crux of the Lords' reasoning was interpreting whether the Intoximeter's clock inaccuracies undermined these statutory requirements. They distinguished between malfunctions affecting information processing and ancillary errors like time displays that do not impact the core functionality of breath analysis.

Furthermore, the Lords evaluated the admissibility of expert testimony from non-electronics experts (e.g., Dr. Williams) and officers (e.g., Sergeant O'Dell), concluding that firsthand operational knowledge was sufficient to attest to the device's reliability.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for future legal proceedings involving computerized evidence:

Clarification of Section 69(1) PACE: The decision delineates the boundaries of computer evidence admissibility, focusing on the functionality of information processing rather than peripheral device features.
Reliance on Operational Certificates: Courts can accept certified statements from officers regarding device operation, provided they meet statutory criteria, even if minor discrepancies exist in unrelated device components.
Expert Testimony Flexibility: The ruling allows non-specialist witnesses familiar with device operation to provide admissible evidence regarding technological reliability.
Technological Assurance in Legal Processes: Encourages the use of approved technological devices in law enforcement, reinforcing their legal standing when properly maintained and certified.

Overall, the judgment fosters a balanced approach, ensuring technological advancements are effectively integrated into legal frameworks without compromising the integrity of judicial processes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

The judgment navigates several intricate legal and technical concepts, which are elucidated below for clarity:

Section 69(1) PACE: Governs the admissibility of computer-produced documents in court, stipulating that evidence must demonstrate the computer's reliable operation concerning the information presented.
Hearsay Rule: A legal principle that prohibits the use of out-of-court statements to prove the truth of the matter asserted, with certain exceptions such as Section 16 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act.
Certificate Under Section 16: A document affirming that a breath sample was analyzed by an approved device at a specific time, used to present alcohol level evidence without direct witness testimony.
Admissible Evidence: Evidence that is permissible under the rules of evidence and can be considered by the court in making its decision.
Real Evidence: Physical evidence presented in court, such as devices or objects used in the commission of an offense.
Conclusive Evidence: Evidence that is so strong it is accepted as irrefutable unless disproven by clear and convincing evidence.

Understanding these concepts is essential for grasping the judgment's significance in the context of electronic evidence and its treatment within the legal system.

Conclusion

The Director of Public Prosecutions v. McKeown and Jones (1997) judgment stands as a landmark decision in the realm of electronic evidence admissibility within the UK legal framework. By affirming the reliability of computer-generated breath test results despite peripheral device inaccuracies, the House of Lords provided clear guidance on interpreting legislative provisions related to technological evidence.

This ruling not only upholds the integrity of law enforcement procedures involving advanced technological tools but also ensures that judicial processes remain adaptable to evolving technological landscapes. Consequently, the judgment reinforces the balance between embracing technological advancements and maintaining rigorous standards for evidence admissibility, thereby shaping future legal discourse and courtroom practices concerning electronic evidence.

Admissibility of Computer-Generated Evidence: Director of Public Prosecutions v McKeown and Jones (1997)