If the result was, «
guilt by electronic device» because it was, in effect, granted an unchallenged «presumption of regularity,» it needs a new trial.
Perhaps there was an unfair trial due to the case law - driven inadequate opportunities to: (1) provide «evidence to the contrary»; and, (2) to challenge its all too easy acceptance of «
guilt by electronic device.»
Not exact matches
Otherwise, we must continue with: (1) justice that is no better than,
guilt and liability
by electronic systems and
devices — systems and
devices that are maintained only to a commercial standard and not to a standard that guarantees «proof beyond a reasonable doubt»; and, (2) case law that fails to provide an adequate opportunity for «full answer and defence.»