ABSTRACT
A party who wishes to rely on a statement contained in a document as evidence supporting his case needs to consider, in addition to any other relevant evidence law, at least one further matter: proof of the contents of the document. In some cases, proof of due execution may have to be considered also.1 So far as criminal cases are concerned, the basic provision that deals with proof of the contents of a document is s 27 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. This provides that where a statement contained in a document is admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings, it may be proved either by the production of that document, or, whether or not the document is still in existence, by the production of a copy. A copy may be authenticated in such manner as the court may approve. It is immaterial how many removes there are between a copy and the original.2 A ‘statement’ is any representation of fact, however made; a ‘document’ is anything in which information of any description is recorded; and a ‘copy’, in relation to a document, is anything onto which information recorded in the document has been copied, by whatever means and whether directly or indirectly.3 Since the Civil Evidence Act 1995 has provisions in the same terms,4 proof of the contents of a document is now essentially the same in both civil and criminal proceedings. Where a copy is produced, the courts appear to have a wide discretion as to the manner in which it may be authenticated, but the best method is likely to be proof by the evidence of a person with custody and control of the copy that it is a true copy of the original.5 Given the broad terms of the present law, it is likely that the special provisions of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879, regulating proof of the contents of such books by a system of examined copies, will fall into disuse, and the rather complex provisions of that Act are therefore not considered further.
