Civil and family litigation · digital evidence in Hull
Contested finances in a divorce. A director locked out of the company's records. A partnership argument where the file everyone relies on has been deleted. A probate dispute. A neighbour's camera that turns out to be the only witness. An argument about who altered a document, and when. None of it is criminal work, so the Forensic Science Regulator's statutory Code does not reach it. CPR Part 35 does, and the report is written to that.
Ring us, in confidence
0800 6890668
| The provision | What the rule asks | What we do about it |
|---|---|---|
| CPR 35.3 — the duty to the court | An expert is there to help the court, and the rule says that duty overrides any obligation to the person who gave the instructions or pays the bill | It goes at the head of the report, and the conclusions follow from it |
| CPR 35.4 — you need the court's permission | The application names the field, the issues and a costs estimate | You get a written scope and one fixed figure, in time to put both in the application |
| PD35 3.2 and 3.3 | Nine content requirements, the range of opinion where there is one, and a statement of truth in the words the direction sets | Every one answered, including who ran the examination |
| Joint expert, 35.7 | The court may direct that one expert gives the evidence for both sides | We take joint instructions, and both sides get the same report |
| CPR 35.6 questions | Written questions, once, within 28 days, to clarify | They are answered in writing, and the answers then form part of the report itself |
It begins with a conversation in confidence, and there is no charge for it. Three answers shape the rest: what happened, how far it reaches — the machines, the accounts — and what the evidence has to prove. Between them they fix the scope. The scope fixes the one written price, and you have that before any device is touched.
Nothing is opened until a complete copy exists. That is not ceremony. Looking through folders moves the very dates the case may turn on, and it hands the other side an easy question: who decided what was worth looking at? Nobody filters it here.
The original is put away and stays put away. On the copy we look at the documents in issue and what the file system says about them, at deleted material that can still be carved out, and at the records the machine keeps of drives, accounts and syncing. Where two dates disagree, we say which and why.
It is addressed to the court, not to you. Qualifications, the material relied on, the substance of the instructions, who did the work, the range of opinion where one exists, and the statement of truth PD35 requires. Our accreditation position is on page one.
A report nobody can test is worth little. So the bundle carries the working with it: every exhibit, the images it was read from, a log of each handover, the hash of everything, and what was written down at the time. The other side's expert can repeat it and land where we did.
The part solicitors ask about most: CPR 35.10 makes the report state the substance of all material instructions, written or oral, on which it was written — and those instructions are not privileged. The court will not order disclosure of the documents behind them, or allow cross-examination on them, unless it is satisfied the statement is inaccurate or incomplete. Worth knowing before the letter of instruction is drafted. PD35 3.3 then fixes the statement of truth in set words, with a warning about contempt for a false statement made without an honest belief in it.
A Beverley partnership fell out over a set of accounts. One side produced a document said to predate the split. The file had been created on a machine bought after it, and the internal record agreed with the disk. We reported the date and how we reached it, and said plainly that nothing on the drive showed who typed the thing. The claim settled soon after.
No. The Forensic Science Regulator's statutory Code governs criminal proceedings in England and Wales, and sets ISO/IEC 17025 as the standard there. A financial remedy application, a boundary claim and a director dispute are none of those. We hold no accreditation in any event, and every report says so on page one.
Only where somebody entitled to authorise it has done so. Unauthorised access to a computer is an offence under section 1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, and that binds this lab as much as it binds you. A shared machine, one bought by both of you and one that is plainly his are three different answers. Ask your solicitor first.
That the file reached that volume at that moment. Not that the words were typed then, and not by whom. Copying resets it. The clock can be put back by hand. Modified and accessed shift for reasons nobody intended. A date earns its weight only when the rest of the machine agrees with it.
It depends where they were kept. We work on computers and storage media, not on handsets. Where a desktop client, a browser profile or a phone backup sits on a machine we hold, deleted entries can survive in the free space of the database until it is reused. Once that space is written over they are gone.
In a family or civil matter the device is often the one thing both sides will accept, so it is worth capturing cleanly before anyone builds a case on it. Log a job. The first look costs nothing, and what you tell us stays private.