Anyone know of any useful case law or other reference material on the use of computerised evidence without a signature, as per the unsigned IB85 in incapacity cases?

In my view IB85 is a legal documents that in appeal cases ends up before a court ( tribunal etc) and the court has to make a judgement on its contents. I don't know if this will help, but in CDLA/4127/2003 commissioner Williams was looking at a case where an EMP completed the original DLA 140. Later another doctor from SEMA send the form back to the EMP for further clarification. EMP amended his own findings by crossing out what he had written before and then with a pen (or was it a pencil!) wrote the new stuff, which were not to the advantage of the claimant. He did not sign it. Commissioner is not very happy about the whole thing and says that the unsigned new document with its alterations brings the whole of the medical report in to question.

A summary of CDLA/4127/2003, together with a link to the full decision itself, is available via the briefcase area of rightsnet.

NB - The above link will not work as from the 23 May.

This is because a new version of rightsnet briefcase will be launched with our subscriptions service, providing fully searchable and cross referenced summaries of commissioner's decisions.

Iv'e been bashing on about this issue on another thread in the incapacity related issues. Still havn't lost an appeal, so can't take a case to the commissioners yet.

I have a case that involves an altered IB85 that was computer generated, but not altered by the original EMP but by someone else. We applied to the Commissioners stating that this created a 'false instrument' citing Section I of the Forgery & Counterfeiting Act 1981, and the Tribunal should have taken account that this report was a flawed medical report and given it the appropriate weight accordingly.
Suffice to say the Secretary of State rejected this argument but I have now rec'd directions from the Commissioner that an oral hearing should be held at a local Magistrates Court!
I'd be grateful for any help or pointers on this;
(1) I didn't know Commissioners held oral hearings outside London
(2) Are there implications to be gleaned from the fact the
direction is for the hearing to be held in a Magistrates Court.
(3) I have never represented at an oral hearing before the
Commissioners, so any help about the procedure would be helpful
too.

In my view, CDLA/4127/2003 is still good law but for other issues regarding unsigned IB85’s then see R(IB)7/05, where the commissioner (after considering CIB/3984/04) held, among other things, that the Electronic Communications Act 2000 had no application to social security appeal tribunals and that there is no requirement for IB85’s to be signed. At para 11, the commissioner states: -

“However, even assuming that the electronic form IB85 does contain an electronic signature, section 7 of the Electronic Communications Act 2000 has no application to tribunals constituted under the Social Security Act 1998, for the simple reason that the strict rules of evidence do not apply to proceedings before those tribunals – see, in particular, the decision of Chief Commissioner Temple in R(U) 5/77 and the other cases referred to in my decision CDLA/2014/2004. The fact that the authenticity of the report is disputed therefore does not prevent a tribunal from receiving the report in evidence and it is open to the Secretary of State to establish the authenticity of an electronic signature by means of a certificate or by any other appropriate method, without recourse to the 2000 Act. I therefore cannot agree that in proceedings before appeal tribunals the procedure prescribed by section 7 of the 2000 Act must be used in every case where the authenticity of the electronic IB85 is challenged”.