Legal Measure of Admissibility of Digital Evidence

Abstract

This research is purposely aimed to compare Law of Evidence under Thai Law compare with Law of Foreign Countries that was recorded in the mobile phone and computer and to provide possible solution to the problem in acquisition of the Digital Evidence of Law of Evidence by conducting qualitative studies and research from sources such as research papers from legal textbooks, research and academic papers published in Thailand between 1987 and 2020, in total 40 volumes and published abroad. There are 20 books, 8 Thai laws and 15 foreign laws, and from interviews with four experts, selected from personnel in the main criminal justice department with powers and duties as well as work experience related to digital evidence, namely the Superintendent of Technology Crime Suppression Division Government Complex Commemorate, an independent lawyer with legal experience, prosecutor and judges. The tools used are document records and interview record forms, which consisted of 9 items. The results were analyzed for the validity of the questionnaire from collecting expert opinions data and analyzing the consistency index between the questionnaire and the objectives with IOC (Index of Item Objective Congruence). ) With individual mean values between 0.50 and 1.00.

       As a result of the research, 1) to compare Law of Evidence under Thai Law compare with Law of Foreign Countries that was recorded in the mobile phone and computer found that United States, United Kingdom and Japan does not specify another type of digital evidence as another type of evidence, similar to the other types of evidence currently used by the court in its consideration as Thailand. Moreover in the System of Thai Law, the procedures on the acquisition of the Digital Evidence are provided in many Laws and that each of them has differed from one another that are different from Foreign Countries. 2) to provide possible solution to the problem in acquisition of the Digital Evidence of Law of Evidence found that because of the Criminal Procedure Code has no provision to specifically curtail the Digital Evidence, but, to apply the analogy procedure in adapting for use with the other evidences which is not sufficient for the specific characteristics of the Digital Evidence. the Digital Evidence, it has caused a problem on the interpretation in the classification of the Digital Evidence as to what category it is supposed to be as well as the problem relating to the acquisition of the Digital Evidence which are provided in many Laws and that each of them has differed from one another, thus, resulting in  the collections of the Digital Evidence to be overlapped with regard to the rules on the acquisition of the information in accordance with many related Laws.

Moreover, there is no step on the verifications of the accuracy of the Digital Evidence, thus, resulting in the use of the discretion and weighing the evidence to be different. The conclusion derived from this research has a recommendation on the solution in solving the problem by the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code.