电子证据:定义文件和记录

Dr. Charles Kato
{"title":"电子证据:定义文件和记录","authors":"Dr. Charles Kato","doi":"10.55662/ajmrr.2022.3404","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper aimed at examining definition of document and record in the law of evidence in different jurisdictions. This is due to the fact that the meaning of document and record as regards to their uses in legal matters has remained contentious in different jurisdictions. The paper has made a comparative analysis of definition of document with the aim of coming with the definition that is comprehensive enough to cover the further development of technology. Moreover, the study aimed at discussing the application of document in the court proceedings. Design/Methodology This paper has used descriptive study design. Empirical comparative analysis method has been employed by analysing definition of document as enshrined in different legislations of different countries and their application in court proceedings. The surveyed countries include Tanzania, Canada, US and Australia. The criteria for selection of countries involved in this study were based on convenience and availability of information needed. This study employed empirical juridical approach. Different court decision were obtained and examined. With the use of this study design, the paper has been able to meet its objectives. In general, the study used both purposive (probability) and judgement (non probability\\) sampling design technique Findings This paper has found that there is a need of having a comprehensive definition of document and record that accommodates even further technological development. This reduces unnecessary amendments in the future. It was found vital to retain the dichotomy between public and private documents as regards to their admissibility to the court proceedings. It was further observed that the business documents be admissible in the same way as are public documents but their admissibility must be compounded by procedural guidance. Original/Value This study is important as it alerts the government on the need of having extensive and wide definitions of document that will be comprehensive and future orientated. Through this study, the government will observe the importance of treating the public document and private document differently in judicial proceedings. Finally, it is expected that, this study can be used by other countries to modify their internal legislations as regard to legal definition of document and record and their admissibility in legal proceedings respectively..","PeriodicalId":348282,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research & Review","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Electronic Evidence: Defining Document And Record\",\"authors\":\"Dr. Charles Kato\",\"doi\":\"10.55662/ajmrr.2022.3404\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper aimed at examining definition of document and record in the law of evidence in different jurisdictions. This is due to the fact that the meaning of document and record as regards to their uses in legal matters has remained contentious in different jurisdictions. The paper has made a comparative analysis of definition of document with the aim of coming with the definition that is comprehensive enough to cover the further development of technology. Moreover, the study aimed at discussing the application of document in the court proceedings. Design/Methodology This paper has used descriptive study design. Empirical comparative analysis method has been employed by analysing definition of document as enshrined in different legislations of different countries and their application in court proceedings. The surveyed countries include Tanzania, Canada, US and Australia. The criteria for selection of countries involved in this study were based on convenience and availability of information needed. This study employed empirical juridical approach. Different court decision were obtained and examined. With the use of this study design, the paper has been able to meet its objectives. In general, the study used both purposive (probability) and judgement (non probability\\\\) sampling design technique Findings This paper has found that there is a need of having a comprehensive definition of document and record that accommodates even further technological development. This reduces unnecessary amendments in the future. It was found vital to retain the dichotomy between public and private documents as regards to their admissibility to the court proceedings. It was further observed that the business documents be admissible in the same way as are public documents but their admissibility must be compounded by procedural guidance. Original/Value This study is important as it alerts the government on the need of having extensive and wide definitions of document that will be comprehensive and future orientated. Through this study, the government will observe the importance of treating the public document and private document differently in judicial proceedings. Finally, it is expected that, this study can be used by other countries to modify their internal legislations as regard to legal definition of document and record and their admissibility in legal proceedings respectively..\",\"PeriodicalId\":348282,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research & Review\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research & Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.55662/ajmrr.2022.3404\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research & Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55662/ajmrr.2022.3404","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文旨在考察不同法域证据法中文书和记录的定义。这是由于文件和记录在法律事项上的用途的含义在不同的司法管辖区仍然存在争议。本文对文献的定义进行了比较分析,以期得出一个足够全面、涵盖技术进一步发展的定义。此外,本研究旨在探讨文书在法庭诉讼中的适用问题。设计/方法学本论文采用描述性研究设计。本文采用实证比较分析的方法,分析了各国不同立法对文件的定义及其在法院诉讼中的适用。被调查的国家包括坦桑尼亚、加拿大、美国和澳大利亚。选择参与这项研究的国家的标准是根据所需资料的便利性和可得性。本研究采用实证法学方法。获得并审查了不同的法院判决。通过使用这种研究设计,论文已经能够达到其目的。总的来说,该研究使用了有目的(概率)和判断(非概率)抽样设计技术。研究结果本文发现,有必要对文件和记录进行全面定义,以适应进一步的技术发展。这减少了将来不必要的修改。委员会认为,在法庭诉讼的可接受性方面,必须保留公共文件和私人文件的二分法。有人进一步指出,商业文件与公共文件一样可予受理,但其可受理性必须辅以程序指导。这项研究很重要,因为它提醒政府需要有广泛和广泛的文件定义,这将是全面和面向未来的。通过本研究,政府将观察到在司法程序中区别对待公共文件和私人文件的重要性。最后,希望本研究可以为其他国家在文书和记录的法律定义以及其在法律程序中的可采性方面修改其国内立法提供借鉴。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Electronic Evidence: Defining Document And Record
This paper aimed at examining definition of document and record in the law of evidence in different jurisdictions. This is due to the fact that the meaning of document and record as regards to their uses in legal matters has remained contentious in different jurisdictions. The paper has made a comparative analysis of definition of document with the aim of coming with the definition that is comprehensive enough to cover the further development of technology. Moreover, the study aimed at discussing the application of document in the court proceedings. Design/Methodology This paper has used descriptive study design. Empirical comparative analysis method has been employed by analysing definition of document as enshrined in different legislations of different countries and their application in court proceedings. The surveyed countries include Tanzania, Canada, US and Australia. The criteria for selection of countries involved in this study were based on convenience and availability of information needed. This study employed empirical juridical approach. Different court decision were obtained and examined. With the use of this study design, the paper has been able to meet its objectives. In general, the study used both purposive (probability) and judgement (non probability\) sampling design technique Findings This paper has found that there is a need of having a comprehensive definition of document and record that accommodates even further technological development. This reduces unnecessary amendments in the future. It was found vital to retain the dichotomy between public and private documents as regards to their admissibility to the court proceedings. It was further observed that the business documents be admissible in the same way as are public documents but their admissibility must be compounded by procedural guidance. Original/Value This study is important as it alerts the government on the need of having extensive and wide definitions of document that will be comprehensive and future orientated. Through this study, the government will observe the importance of treating the public document and private document differently in judicial proceedings. Finally, it is expected that, this study can be used by other countries to modify their internal legislations as regard to legal definition of document and record and their admissibility in legal proceedings respectively..
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信