Research on the Legitimacy and Procedural Efficiency Challenges in Electronic Data Examination
Sichuan Police College, China
Abstract
With the rapid advancement of information technology, electronic data has become increasingly integrated into all aspects of social life and judicial practice. As a new type of evidence, electronic data plays a crucial role in criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings. Yet, its application raises profound challenges concerning legality, procedural efficiency, and standardization. This paper explicitly situates itself within procedural law, evidentiary reform, and judicial governance, highlighting its dual contribution to theory and practice. Methodologically, it adopts literature review, comparative analysis, case studies, doctrinal research, and selected empirical data. The study identifies three core challenges: insufficient legal legitimacy of examination procedures, procedural inefficiency caused by technological and institutional fragmentation, and the absence of nationwide technical standards. Drawing on international experiences—particularly from the United States, the European Union, ASEAN, and selected Asian jurisdictions—the paper proposes a framework to enhance legality, efficiency, and cross-border cooperation. The findings enrich the discourse on procedural justice in the digital age and provide targeted recommendations for strengthening China’s evidentiary system and smart court development.
Keywords:
Electronic data; Judicial practice; Legitimacy; Procedural efficiency; StandardizationData Availability Statement
This study does not rely on personal data or confidential information. All referenced legal texts, policy documents, and case examples are publicly accessible. No proprietary data were used.
Copyright Notice & License:
All articles published in Journal of Law, Psychology, and Communication Studies are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
This license permits:
-
Unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium;
-
Commercial and non-commercial use;
-
Adaptation and transformation, including derivative works;
provided that appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and source, and a link to the license is included.
Authors retain full copyright of their work and grant the journal the right of first publication.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
PDF Downloads
Journal Info
How to Cite
References
Biasiotti, M. A., Cannataci, J., & Turchi, F. (2018). Balancing privacy and security in the digital era: The European approach to electronic evidence. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(2), 289–302.
Casey, E. (2011). Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensic science, computers, and the internet (3rd ed.). Academic Press.
Chen, R. (2022). The procedural legitimacy of electronic evidence in China’s judicial practice. Peking University Law Journal, 34(2), 145–163.
Christakis, T. (2020). Cross-border access to electronic evidence: The European Union’s e-evidence proposal and its impact on fundamental rights. Journal of Cyber Policy, 5(1), 1–20.
European Commission. (2018). Proposal for a regulation on European production and preservation orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters. COM(2018) 225 final.
Federal Rules of Evidence. (2019). Federal rules of evidence. United States Courts.
Goodison, S. E., Davis, R. C., & Jackson, B. A. (2015). Digital evidence and the U.S. criminal justice system: Identifying technology and other needs to more effectively acquire and utilize digital evidence. RAND Corporation.
Huang, J., & Li, X. (2019). Blockchain-based preservation of electronic data: Legal feasibility and technical design. Tsinghua Law Journal, 13(4), 112–129.
Kim, S. (2021). Blockchain for digital evidence preservation: A South Korean perspective. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 8(1), 121–140.
Kerr, O. S. (2005). Searches and seizures in a digital world. Harvard Law Review, 119(2), 531–585.
Liu, H. (2020). Electronic evidence in China: Current practice and future directions. Journal of East Asia and International Law, 13(2), 423–444.
Liu, R., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Artificial intelligence and electronic evidence in China’s judiciary. Journal of Law and Technology, 15(2), 45–63.
Mason, S., & Seng, D. (Eds.). (2017). Electronic evidence (4th ed.). Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London.
NPC (National People’s Congress). (2012). Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (Amended 2012).
OECD. (2023). Cross-border access to electronic evidence: Global challenges and policy options. OECD Publishing.
Shionoiri, K. (2019). The development of electronic evidence in Japanese criminal procedure. Keio Law Review, 96(3), 55–72.
SPC, SPP, & MPS (Supreme People’s Court, Supreme People’s Procuratorate & Ministry of Public Security). (2016). Provisions on several issues concerning the collection, extraction, examination and judgment of electronic data in handling criminal cases.
Sun, Q. (2020). The shortage of forensic resources in Chinese courts: An empirical analysis. China Legal Science, 38(3), 211–229.
Wang, Y. (2019). The legitimacy dilemma of electronic data evidence and its judicial regulation. China Criminal Law Review, 11(2), 98–115.
Zhang, L. (2021). Procedural safeguards in electronic data examination: Challenges and reforms. Journal of Comparative Law, 45(1), 76–94.
Zhou, M. (2020). Procedural justice in digital evidence examination: Problems and countermeasures. Peking University Law Review, 22(4), 67–83
