AEB & Ors, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

The prosecution applied for leave to appeal against a Crown Court judge's ruling that certain evidence was inadmissible hearsay in proceedings where four defendants are jointly charged with a money laundering offence, to which they have pleaded not guilty. The trial had not yet begun. The prosecution sought to rely on a spreadsheet containing data obtained from Company A (Apple) pursuant to a production order, which identified bank and gift card transactions relevant to the case. The spreadsheet was produced through a process involving an internal tool used by a retail fraud specialist at Company A, based on raw transactional data automatically recorded by Company A’s systems. The Crown Court judge ruled that the spreadsheet constituted hearsay evidence and was inadmissible because the prosecution failed to satisfy statutory requirements for admissibility under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003). The prosecution appealed that ruling. The appellate court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and ordered that proceedings may continue in the Crown Court against the defendants.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the information contained in the spreadsheet obtained from Company A constituted hearsay evidence or real evidence.
2. If the spreadsheet was hearsay, whether it was admissible under the statutory exceptions, specifically section 117 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
3. If admissible, how the evidence was to be produced and interpreted at trial.
4. Whether the Crown Court judge erred in ruling the spreadsheet inadmissible hearsay and in assessing compliance with the statutory requirements.

Arguments of the Parties

Prosecution's Arguments

• The spreadsheet was effectively a printout of raw data automatically recorded by Company A’s systems and thus constituted real evidence, not hearsay.
• The involvement of a human mind was limited to selecting and extracting relevant data, which did not alter the character of the data as raw evidence.
• The judge erred in treating the spreadsheet as hearsay and applying section 117 of CJA 2003 incorrectly.
• Even if the spreadsheet was hearsay, all statutory conditions under section 117 were satisfied, including that the relevant persons with personal knowledge were the customers and shop assistants involved in the transactions.

Defendants' Arguments

• The spreadsheet was not raw data but a report produced after human intervention involving searching, sifting, selecting, and collating data by unidentified persons at Company A.
• The process of producing the spreadsheet involved the application of the human mind, rendering it hearsay evidence.
• The prosecution had not provided the underlying raw data despite requests, undermining their case.
• The prosecution failed to identify the relevant person for the purposes of section 117, and the evidence should be excluded on grounds of hearsay or fairness.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that the raw data held by Company A were recorded automatically during the relevant transactions. The prosecution identified relevant data subsets by specifying gift card reference numbers, and Company A personnel used an internal tool to select and extract corresponding transaction records.

The pivotal legal question was whether the selection and extraction process involved human intervention sufficient to transform the data from raw evidence to hearsay. The court found no such transformation occurred. The process of selecting and extracting data, including setting parameters and presenting the data intelligibly, did not alter the fundamental character of the data as raw evidence.

The court distinguished between inadmissible hearsay and admissible evidence that may be excluded on relevance or fairness grounds. Here, the evidence of the officer and the Company A employee was sufficient to establish that the spreadsheet data were raw and not manipulated by human intervention, supporting admissibility as real evidence.

The court identified that the judge erred in ruling the spreadsheet hearsay and in assessing the statutory conditions under section 117 of CJA 2003, as the prosecution had satisfied the requirements either way. The court accepted that if section 117 applied, the relevant persons with personal knowledge would be customers and shop assistants involved in the transactions, fulfilling statutory conditions.

Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the judge’s ruling and allowed the appeal.

Holding and Implications

The court allowed the prosecution's appeal and reversed the Crown Court judge's ruling that the spreadsheet evidence was inadmissible hearsay.

The court held that the spreadsheet constituted real evidence as it was a selection and extraction of raw data automatically recorded by Company A’s systems without human intervention altering the data. The proceedings in the Crown Court may continue against the defendants with this evidence admissible.

No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles from R v Spiby. The decision clarifies the distinction between raw data as real evidence and hearsay statements, particularly regarding computer-generated evidence involving selection and extraction processes.