151 / 436
GAZETTE
A
PRIL
1990
The Committee was of the view
that where substantial doubts may
arise as to the propriety of a
conviction the establishment of an
independent body with statutory
powers of inquiry was by far the
most effective manner of dealing
with the situation. The independent
Inquiry Body should be established
by statute with evidential powers
similar to those at present given to
Public Inquiries by the Tribunal of
Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921
and 1979. The Committee con-
sidered that the Inquiry Body might
consist of one or more than one
person, sitting with or without an
assessor or assessors. It was
considered by the Committee that
the Attorney General was the
appropriate person to whom appli-
cation should be made in the first
instance by an aggrieved party. It
would be for the Attorney General,
having considered the documenta-
tion presented to him, having
sought such clarification as might
be necessary and having made any
enquiries which to him appeared
desirable, to decide in a particular
case whether the matters pre-
sented to him were such as to
warrant investigation by the Inquiry
Body, and in that event to advise
the Government accordingly. The
Committee considered that the
terms of reference of the Inquiry
Body would be to inquire into all the
available facts and circumstances
surrounding the conviction and to
express its opinion as to whether
doubt existed as to the propriety of
the conviction giving full reasons
for such opinion. Having con-
sidered and received the opinion of
the Inquiry Body it would then be
a matter for members of the
Government and for them alone to
decide whether the case called for
action on their part and, in that
event, the nature of such action.
The Report also stated that
additional safeguards were needed
to ensure that inculpatory ad-
missions by accused persons were
properly obtained and recorded.
The Committee strongly recom-
mended, as a safeguard towards
ensuring that inculpatory admis-
sions to the Garda Siochana are
properly obtained and recorded,
that the questioning of suspects
take place before an audio-visual
recording device. The Committee
also recommended an amendment
to the Criminal Justice Act, 1984
(Treatment of Persons in
Custody in Garda Siochana
Stations) Regulations 1987 (SI
No. 119 of 1987).
The Report of the Committee is
available from the Stationery Office
at £3.10.
PR I NTOUTS ADMI SS I BLE AS
REAL EVIDENCE
The Court of Appeal (England and
Wales) has held in the case of
Regina -v- Spiby (The Times
March
16th, 1990) that where a computer
installed in a hotel recorded, by
mechanical means and without the
intervention of a human mind,
information about telephone calls
made by hotel guests, evidence of
printouts from that computer was
admissible as real evidence. In the
absence of evidence to the
contrary, courts would presume
that such a computer was in
working order at the material time.
The Court of Appeal (Taylor LJ,
Mars-Jones and Waite JJ) so held
when dismissing an appeal of John
Eric Spiby against his conviction on
February 24 1989 in Portsmouth
Crown Court (Mr. Recorder
Moriarty QC and a jury) of an
offence contrary to section 170(2)
of the Customs and Excise
Management Act, 1979 of being
knowingly concerned with others
in the fraudulent evasion of the
prohibition on importation of a
class B controlled drug, cannabis
resin, imposed by section 3(1) of
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
He was sentenced to two and a
half years imprisonment.
Taylor LJ in his judgment stated
that for the purposes of the appeal
the most important evidence in the
case related to some telephone
calls made from a hotel in
Cherbourg, in which was fixed a
computerised machine which
metered guests' telephone calls,
recorded them and worked out the
charges.
Evidence was given by a
manager at the hotel who produced
copy printout sheets from the
machine, covering a period of days
during which it was shown that
eight calls had been made to the
appellant's home number, and two
to the number of his club.
Taylor LJ stated that some of
those calls were made from a room
occupied at the time by a particular
guest, some were made from
another room to which that guest
had moved and one was made from
the public telephone box in the
foyer of the hotel.
The manager gave evidence that
he was familiar with the function of
the machine. He did not profess to
be a computer engineer but said
that the machine had been working
satisfactorily and no one had com-
plained about the resulting bills.
The recorder ruled that the
evidence was admissible saying
that in the light of
Castle -v- Cross
[1984] 1 WLR 1372 he concluded
that the documents were real
evidence. Reference was made in
the judgment of the Court of
Appeal to Professor J.C. Smith's
article " T he admissibility of
statements by computer" ([1981]
Crim LR 387,390) where he had
said:
"Where information is recorded
by mechanical means without
the intervention of a human
mind the record made by the
machine is admissible in evi-
dence, provided, of course, it is
accepted that the machine is
reliable . . . . The computer differs
from [a thermometer or a
camera] only in that it can
perform a variety of functions
instead of only one. For that
reason, it is necessary to have
evidence, such as that which
was admitted in
R -v- Pettigrew,
(1980) 71 Cr App R 39 to
establish the nature of the
operations which the computer
had been programmed to
perform. It performs those
operations just as mechanically
as the thermometer or the
camera.
"Of course the programmer
may make a mistake but so may
Northern Ireland
Agency Work
Undertaken by Solicitors
Donnelly, Neary & Donnelly
I, Downshire Road,
Newry, Co Down.
Phone: 08 - 0693 - 64611.
Fax: 08-0693-67000.
PROMPT REPLIES ASSURED
FEE SPLITTING ARRANGED
135