[g_p]

Given this appeal took place in England (and not in the Supreme Court), it was all English verdicts which were overturned as I understand.

The requirement for corroboration in such a situation would probably be met by having someone "speak to" the digital evidence and audit trail.

For example, if you have CCTV evidence, the CCTV is one piece of evidence, and it would be corroborated by a witness statement of the victim identifying them from the CCTV.

Corroboration is an important and useful safeguard, but I don't think it would necessarily have outright prevented this. Perhaps it would - maybe it would have raised the bar on scrutiny of the evidence, by there being a general higher expectation?

[JetSetWilly]

Hmn possibly. I suppose I am interested to see if there is a practical difference because there's some debate about whether corroboration is a good thing to have or not, when you can have one piece of evidence (like DNA evidence) which is very high certainty.

I'd expect there was prosecutions north of the border seeing as the post office is UK-wide so be good to see how they went.