In this case, State v Ndiki and others, the court ruled that computer-generated evidence labelled as hearsay according to the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988 (LEAA) could be allowed under specific parts of the Act. Evidence depending only on the trustworthiness of the computer itself counts as real evidence under the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 (ECTA), depending on certain other factors. The ruling stresses the importance of evaluating computer printouts individually to decide if they can be used as evidence, considering what they contain, how the computer works, and applicable laws to ensure fairness in trials.

Who should care about this judgment and why?

  • Members of the tech industry, such as computer scientists and forensic analysts, should be aware of how their work may be scrutinised in a court of law. They may need to provide technical expertise or knowledge regarding the reliability of computer systems.
  • Businesses and organisations that rely on computer systems for record-keeping or transactions should understand the implications of this ruling. They may need to ensure the integrity and accuracy of their digital records to comply with legal standards.

What could you do about it?

  • Reach out to the Michalsons team for assistance with electronic evidence.

Our insights on the judgment

This judgment set a precedent for the admissibility of electronic evidence (particularly computer-generated evidence) in legal proceedings. The case highlights the distinction between hearsay evidence and real evidence derived from computers, as well as the criteria for determining admissibility based on reliability, accuracy, and legislative provisions.

Another key issue is how the court interpreted the ECTA and LEEA to reach its decision. The ECTA regards a data message as real evidence under common law. The court extended this reasoning to include other electronic means, such as computer-generated evidence.

While certain criteria must be met for the admissibility of electronic evidence, the court plays a significant role in determining the relevance and reliability of such evidence, which must be looked at on a case-by-case basis. A key aspect of this judgment is that it will not apply generally to each similar case. The purpose of the evidence, its contents, and the function of the computer are all taken into account, highlighting the nuanced approach taken by the court.

Digest

Facts

In this case, the defendant objected to the State’s plan to use specific documents, which were computer-generated printouts, as evidence during the trial. They argued against their admissibility in court proceedings.

Reasoning

The court emphasised that assessing computer printouts as evidence should be based on the specific facts of each case, not just general computer characteristics, considering what the party aims to prove, the contents of the document, and relevant legal requirements.

Order

The court held that computer evidence considered hearsay under the LEAA may be admissible. Similarly, evidence relying solely on computer reliability is deemed real evidence under the ECTA. The court stressed that the admissibility of such evidence depends on specific case details, not just general computer traits, with discretion based on the evidence’s relevance and reliability.

Details of State v Ndiki

  • Universal Citation: [2007] 2 All SA 185 (Ck)
  • Case Number: CC35/2005
  • Full Name: S v Ndiki and others [2007] 2 All SA 185 (Ck)

Please note: The summary of this judgment is not intended for a general audience. It is specifically drafted for the members of the Cybercrime Programme.