[DaveLond]

It's worse than that - in UK law you cannot question the evidence produced by a computer unless you can prove the computer is not operating correctly - it's an inversion of the normal burden of proof.

They've started the process of thinking about if that law makes sense given this case: https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/use-of-evid...

[foldr]

It’s only an inversion of the usual burden of proof if you assume that evidence from a computer can only ever be used to aid the prosecution. It can also be used to aid the defense, in which case this presumption makes it harder to convict someone, not easier.

[petercooper]

A juror can, and should IMHO, however consider that evidence based entirely upon computer records may potentially be erroneous and therefore unable to secure proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. If I were a juror, I'd default to non-guilty if a case were based entirely upon the results of an algorithm or computerised records because they introduce doubt.