We should have the person presenting any report like that be personally responsible for the contents. If they aren't willing, it shouldn't be presented.
I don't think making it personal works at scale. You can't reasonably expect everyone giving evidence in court, say every individual police officer who is a witness to a speeding offence, to be a technical expert on the technological tools they are given to do their job.
Instead, as you implied in the previous paragraph, the weight given to any evidence derived from technology should be proportionate to the credibility of that technology. If it's a device that has to be vetted and approved according to strict regulatory standards and in court there are two other concurring sources of evidence, that's clearly a much stronger case than a single reading from a single device whose calibration has reasonably been called into question at trial that is being presented as the only evidence in that trial.
> say every individual police officer who is a witness to a speeding offence, to be a technical expert on the technological tools they are given to do their job.
That's what I was going for. If the officer doesn't understand the limitations of their tool, they shouldn't testify in court beyond "I pointed it that way and read the number, as trained".
There are existing cases where the speed reading is contested because the handheld speed cameras can move slightly and bounce first off the side mirror then off the reg plate giving you "extra speed".
My point was that if you say "that person was speeding" you should be responsible for that statement afterwards, but you can say "I used the provided tool and got reading X", at least the doubt is there.
FWIW, I'm reasonably sure that's exactly what does normally happen in that particular case. Police officers sometimes speak in a slightly stilted way in court here in the UK, partly because they use words carefully chosen to be statements of fact as they know them and not to draw conclusions that are a matter for the court to decide.
I don't think making it personal works at scale. You can't reasonably expect everyone giving evidence in court, say every individual police officer who is a witness to a speeding offence, to be a technical expert on the technological tools they are given to do their job.
Instead, as you implied in the previous paragraph, the weight given to any evidence derived from technology should be proportionate to the credibility of that technology. If it's a device that has to be vetted and approved according to strict regulatory standards and in court there are two other concurring sources of evidence, that's clearly a much stronger case than a single reading from a single device whose calibration has reasonably been called into question at trial that is being presented as the only evidence in that trial.