Neil Barrett

I have one of the most interesting jobs in the world - or rather, as a writer, an academic and a technical director, perhaps three of them. But among that collection is an activity that is my absolute favourite: I often appear in court as a computer expert witness, usually for the prosecution, usually in the most interesting of cases of computer crime.

Computer hacking isn't the only form of computer crime, not by a long way. My caseload has included fraud (where the records are usually computerised), paedophilia (my least favourite cases), and denial-of-service attacks (increasingly involving an element of blackmail). In a way, though, these are the most obvious of crimes: increasingly, I have found myself working on other cases of "real world" crime in which computer records have figured.

Stalking, rape and even murder have all featured aspects of computer-derived evidence: such as mobile phone records, chat sessions and even the web sites browsed by the defendant. My job is to try to explain to the jury what is involved in understanding computer evidence, to try to help the prosecution to create workable and correct arguments, and to ensure that the evidence itself has been properly and accurately handled.

Expert witnesses have a tough job. When the court is sitting, the expert witnesses are "servants of the court", there to ensure that the technology which is beyond most peoples' understanding is not presented in a confusing way. Experts for the defence and the prosecution are allowed - encouraged, in fact - to meet and agree their arguments and presentation before the trial begins. We sit through all of the evidence and assist our counsel in cross-examination; and we have to ensure that the jury is not confused by the evidence simply because it was derived from a computer.

It's a wonderfully interesting and important job, and a very difficult one - which is why it is puzzling and worrying that, in computing, there is no formal qualification required of an individual presenting themselves as an expert witness.

All that a witness has to do is to be accepted by a court as an "expert", and they are then an "expert witness" - allowed to express an opinion, influence the operation of the court, even allowed (via the counsel) to interrupt the court proceedings. For medical witnesses there is at least a formal body responsible for accrediting those members of the profession whose standing allows them to be "experts". For computer scientists there is nothing: in some recent cases, expert witnesses have had no more an impressive qualification than a "European Computer Driving Licence" - in effect, a qualification that shows they can boot a computer, open an application, change a file and then shut the computer down. A far cry from the medical experts, who require a doctorate and decades of experience.

For computer evidence - required now in such a broad range of cases - to be trusted and relied upon, we need the individuals presenting that evidence to be trustworthy. The only way to assure this is through the involvement of a professional body to certify qualified individuals for court work.

Like this story? Spread the news by clicking below:

 del.icio.us     Digg this     reddit!