"The burden of proving that there had been no improper use of the computer and that it was operating properly could be discharged without calling a computer expert. It may be discharged by calling someone familiar with its operation in the sense of knowing what the machine was required to do and who could say that it was doing it properly.

In other words, oral evidence may be given of the working of the computer in line with the provisions of Section 84(2). See: R v Shephard [1991] 93 Cr.App.R.139, in which the provisions of Section 69 of the U.K. Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 (now repealed by Section 60 of the U.K. Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999) were considered. Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011 is similarly worded with the said Section 69 of the U.K. Police and Criminal Evidence Act. 1984. In Dickson v Sylva (supra), the Supreme Court, per Nweze, JSC, at pages 23 -24 of the E-Report said:

"Interpreting provisions similarly worded like Section 84 (supra), the defunct House of Lords [per Lord Griffiths] had this to say in R v. Shepherd [1993] 1 All ER 225, 231, paragraphs A-C, [HL], Documents produced by computers are an increasingly common feature of all businesses and more and more people are becoming familiar with uses and operation. Computers vary immensely in their complexity and in the operations they perform.

The nature of the evidence to discharge the burden of showing that there has been no improper use of the computer and it was operating properly will inevitably vary from case to case. The evidence must be tailored to suit the needs of the case. I suspect that it will very rarely be necessary to call an expert and that in the vast majority of cases it will be possible to discharge the burden by calling a witness who is familiar with the operation of the computer in the sense of knowing what the computer is required to do and who can say that it is doing it properly. [Italics supplied for emphasis] In actual fact, Section 84 (supra) consecrates two methods of proof, either by oral evidence under Section 84(1) and (2) or by a certificate under Section 84(4).

In either case, the conditions stipulated in Section 84(2) must be satisfied. However, this is subject to the power of the Judge to require oral evidence in addition to the certificate. As the eminent Lord Griffith explained in the said case [R v. Shepherd]: Proof that the computer is reliable can be provided in two ways: either by calling oral evidence or by tendering a written certificate subject to the power of the Judge to require oral evidence. It is understandable that if a certificate is to be relied upon it should show on its face that it is signed by a person who from his job description can confidently be expected to be in a person to give reliable evidence about the operation of the computer. This enables the defendant to decide whether to accept at its face value or to ask the Judge to require oral evidence which can be challenged in cross examination [Italics supplied for emphasis]"

Thus, proof that the computer used to generate evidence is reliable can be provided in two ways: either by calling oral evidence, under Section 84(2) or by tendering a written certificate, under Section 84(4). The uncontroverted evidence of PW17 before the trial Court supplied the details required by Section 84(2). The computer generated evidence, Exhibit P7, tendered by PW17 was therefore admissible and rightly relied upon by the learned trial Judge."

Per OTISI, J.C.A.IN JUBRIL v. FRN CITATION: (2018) LPELR-43993(CA)