Digital evidence increasingly shapes charging decisions and judicial outcomes, yet its technical complexity raises concerns for equality of arms. This paper presents a comparative case study replicating a previous analysis of prosecutors with practising defence lawyers. Using identical materials and scenarios, it examines how role, access to information, and institutional assumptions shape evidentiary assessment. We compare prosecutors’ and defence lawyers’ judgements on the relevance, evidential weight, and verification needs of four types of digital evidence. Prosecutors in the original study accepted police-reported evidence at face value, integrating it into a coherent narrative of guilt. Defence lawyers likewise acknowledged its potential significance but adopted a verification-led stance, granting high weight only with access to raw data, provenance checks, synchronisation, and independent expertise. The findings raise concerns under Article 6 of the ECHR, highlighting systemic imbalances. We recommend reforms, including clearer reporting, early disclosure, institutionalised quality assurance of digital evidence, enhanced training, and expert support.
BaugeRK (2023) Risks and quality control in Norwegian police’s digital forensics process: The digital forensics examiner’s tightrope walk. Master’s thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3079082 (accessed 28 September 2025).
2.
BaugeRKRyserESundeNHorsmanG (2025) Evaluating the scope of peer review in digital forensics: Insights from Norway and the UK. Science & Justice65(2): 139–148.
3.
BraunMWrightRFTurnerJI (2025) Defense use of digital discovery in criminal cases: A quantitative analysis. Justice Quarterly43: 53–77. Epub ahead of print 2025.
4.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3(2): 77–101.
5.
Council of Europe, European Court of Human Rights (2022) Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Right to a fair trial (criminal limb). Available at: www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-guide-on-article-6-criminal-eng (accessed 28 September 2025).
6.
CrimminsDM (2021) Lawyers’ knowledge of, attitudes towards, and experience with digital evidence. Doctoral dissertation. Purdue University, USA. DOI: 10.25394/PGS.17159204.v1.
7.
ErlandsenTE (2019)Fallacies when evaluating digital evidence among prosecutors in the Norwegian Police Service. Master’s thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2617771 (accessed 28 September 2025).
GoodisonSEDavisRCJacksonBA (2015) Digital evidence and the US criminal justice system: Identifying technology and other needs to more effectively acquire and utilize digital evidence. Report, Rand Corporation, USA. Available at: www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248770.pdf (accessed 28 September 2025).
10.
HeitmannOFrankeK (2023) Systematically assessing the competence level of digital evidence handling. Norsk IKT-Konferanse for Forskning og Utdanning, 3. https://www.ntnu.no/ojs/index.php/nikt/article/view/5453
11.
HorsmanGSundeN (2020) Part 1: The need for peer review in digital forensics. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation35: 301062.
12.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2025a) ISO 21043-3:2025 Forensic sciences – Part 3: Analysis.
13.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2025b) ISO 21043-4:2025 Forensic sciences – Part 4: Interpretation.
14.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2025c) ISO 21043-5:2025 Forensic sciences – Part 5: Reporting.
15.
JahrenJH (2020) Is the quality assurance in digital forensic work in the Norwegian police adequate?Master’s thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/11250/2781174 (accessed 28 September 2025).
PattonMQ (2014) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publications.
19.
RajapakseR (2024) Between Science and Subjectivity: An Assessment of the Misinterpretation of Forensic Evidence by Legal Professionals in Canada and Beyond. Justice Institute of British Columbia, School of Criminal Justice & Security, New Westminster, Canada.
20.
StoykovaRAndersenSFrankeKAxelssonS (2022) Reliability assessment of digital forensic investigations in the Norwegian police. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation40: 301351.
21.
SundeN (2017) Non-technical sources of errors when handling digital evidence within a criminal investigation. Master’s thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2472259 (accessed 28 September 2025).
22.
SundeNDahlO (2025) From intuitive to structured quality control: Implementing checklist-based peer reviews of reports in Norwegian digital forensic units. Science & Justice65(5): 101298.
23.
SundeNDrorI (2019) Cognitive and human factors in digital forensics: Problems, challenges, and the way forward. Digital Investigation29: 101–108.
24.
SundeNDrorI (2021) A hierarchy of expert performance (HEP) applied to digital forensics: Reliability and biasability in digital forensics decision making. Forensic Science International: Digital Investigation37: 301175.
25.
Wilson-KovacsDHelmRGrownsBRedfernL (2023) Digital evidence in defence practice: Prevalence, challenges and expertise. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof27(3): 235–253.
