Bill

In Australia there are complementary Federal and State Evidence Acts (in
most states) which say that electronic is just as good "best evidence" as
hardcopy, and the courts therefore cannot insist on paper. However the state
of Victoria has not passed complementary legislation so for them, hardcopy
is better evidence than electronic.

The situation in the Federal jurisdiction can be checked at

http://www.naa.gov.au/recordkeeping/overview/evidence/records_in_evidence.htm#READ

and in New South Wales at

http://www.records.nsw.gov.au/recordkeeping/rib_11_digital_imaging_801.asp

No doubt other states have similar guidelines. But you want information on
jurisdictions which require paper, so we have to look at Victoria.
Their situation can be assessed at

http://www.prov.vic.gov.au/publications/publns/PROVRMadvice2.pdf

This still doesn't absolutely require paper, but puts it nicely into a risk
assessment perspective which in most cases I suspect means that paper lives
(sorry Steve) at least in a small part of Oz. It is strange that the state
which produced the world's best football code is nevertheless hampered by an
out of date evidence act, but you can't have everything.

Cheers

Glenn

Glenn Sanders MRMA
[log in to unmask]
Australia

These views are mine alone. They may or may not be those of any
previous or present employers or clients. I don't know. If I'd asked
and they'd agreed, I would have signed it "Harry Peck and Co and
Glenn". Or whatever. But I haven't, so I didn't.

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance