Previous Document

6.3  Disclosure of computerised exhibit lists


It is valuable to the defence in a complex prosecution to obtain an exhibit
list in computerised form, as the ability to manipulate this list by its own
software will assist the defence to organise its own exhibits and other
aspects of its case. In the Rothwells prosecution, TITAN has been used to
produce an exhibit list which takes 7MB of disk space. A copy has been
provided on disk to the defence.

It is also necessary for both the Court and the defence to obtain such a list
if an image database of exhibits is to be used in court or provided to the
defence, because the image database itself provides no means by which
documents may be searched for by name or retrieved. As discussed in the
previous Chapter, it is necessary to have a document control database which at
least contains the name of each document and its exhibit number in order that
documents can be retrieved by something other than exhibit number alone. This
is to be done in the Rothwells trial. In the Equitycorp trial it seems that
the image databases used there were used without the benefit of any such
exhibit list being integrated, and Tompkins J considers it a disadvantage that
it was necessary to know the folder and page number to access an image of a
document (Tompkins (1992) p8).

The South Australian Supreme Court Rules have recently been amended by addition of
Rule 55.12(j) which provides that, in civil matters, the Court has the power
to order the parties or any of them to file and serve a list of all documents
which are to be proffered as exhibits, numbered to correspond with how they
will be marked to be tendered at the trial, and that any such list may be
ordered to be served either in typed form 'or in such electronic form as the
Court may specify, or both'. It has been proposed that the rules relating to
criminal matters should be amended so that the Court may make a similar order
to the prosecution. We prefer the term 'computer-readable' to 'electronic'.

   Aronson's recommendation 10(b)(i) that the prosecution may be directed
   to provide 'a list of exhibits... that the prosecution intends to have
   produced at the trial' (as per Victorian Crimes (Fraud) Bill 1992, cl
   13(3)(e)) should be supplemented by a provision similar to that in
   South Australia, whereby the Court may order that any such list may be
   ordered to be served either in typed form 'or in such computer-
   readable form as the Court may specify, or both'.
   
Such a provision would make it unnecessary for there to be imposed any general
and automatic obligation on the prosecution to disclose lists of proposed
exhibits in computerised form. Aronson has not recommended any such general
obligation to prepare lists, only to disclose the actual documents (Aronson
(1992) Recommendation 31).

                                                                        [PP89]

                                                            Next Document