Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter

A criminal case, in which the prosecution relied on computer-generated documents to prove its case, has been thrown out by the Court of Appeal. The appeals court said the evidence was inadequate.

Based on the court's ruling, Suzette McNamee, cashier of Chudleigh, Manchester, had her convictions for larceny as a servant quashed and verdicts of acquittal entered.

McNamee was given a suspended sentence in March 2001 after she was convicted in the Mandeville Resident Magistrate's Court of 10 counts of larceny as a servant involving $80,000.

It was alleged that McNamee used fictitious credit notes to obtain the money from her employer, Shields Enterprises Ltd.

Specific conditions

Attorney-at-law Keith Bishop, who represented McNamee on appeal, argued that the resident magistrate failed to recognise and adhere to the Evidence Act. Bishop submitted that the act stated that computer-generated statements could only be admitted in evidence if certain conditions were met.

He said every aspect of the act must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt when reliance was being placed on computer records. He submitted that there was no evidence that the computer was working properly because the person who gave evidence to that effect did not write the programmes and could not give evidence that it was properly programmed.

He also submitted that there was no evidence to indicate that there was no error in the preparation of the data from which the documents were produced. There was no evidence that each computer station was working properly. He also submitted that the credit notes exhibited by the prosecution failed to link McNamee with any wrongdoing.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Justice Seymour Panton, president of the Court of Appeal, Justice Hazel Harris and Justice Mahadev Dukharan (acting), upheld the submissions. The court said it was quite clear that the resident magistrate did not consider that the requirements of Section 31(G) of the Evidence Act ought to have been looked at conjunctively and that all aspects of the section must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.

barbara.gayle@gleanerjm.com