On 24/05/2013,
you requested for the version in force on 24/05/2013
incorporating all amendments published on or before 24/05/2013.
The closest version currently available is that of 20/12/1997.
36.
—(1) Where a court is not satisfied that the computer output sought to be admitted in evidence under section 35 accurately reproduces the relevant contents of the original document, the court may, in its discretion, call for further evidence.
[8/96]
(2) Where further evidence is called for under subsection (1), such evidence may be produced by an affidavit made —
(a)
by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation or management of the certifying authority appointed under section 35(5);
(b)
by any other person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the computer at the relevant time;
(c)
by the person who had control or access over any relevant records and facts in relation to the production of the computer output;
(d)
by the person who had obtained or been given control or access over any relevant records and facts in relation to the production of the computer output; or
(e)
by an expert appointed or accepted by the court.
[8/96]
(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), the court may, if it thinks fit, require that oral evidence be given of any matters concerning the accuracy of the computer output, and may call a deponent of an affidavit under subsection (2) or any person responsible for a certificate issued under section 35(3), (4), (6), (7) or (8) for this purpose.
[8/96]
(4) In estimating the weight of any computer output admitted under section 35, regard shall be had to all the circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the accuracy or otherwise of the output and, in particular —
(a)
whether or not the information which the output reproduces or is derived from was supplied to the relevant computer, or recorded for the purpose of being supplied to it, contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the facts dealt with in that information, if such contemporaneity is relevant;
(b)
whether the supplier of the information or any person involved in the processing of such information had any incentive or motive to conceal or misrepresent the information so supplied.
[8/96]
(5) Without prejudice to subsections (1) to (4), whenever any computer output is proved under section 35, all matters may be proved in order —
(a)
to contradict or to corroborate it; or
(b)
to impeach or support the credibility of the person by whom it was made, or by whom the information was processed.
(6) Evidence may not be given under subsection (5) of any matter of which, if the person had been called as a witness and had denied that matter upon cross-examination, evidence could not have been adduced by the cross-examining party.
[8/96]