What is the difference between documentary admission and computer records admission?

Documentary admission and computer records admission are governed by different legal standards under the Evidence Act. In general, computer records admission is designed to be less onerous, making it easier for parties to introduce evidence.

In many jurisdictions, the admissibility of computer records can be established by demonstrating that the computer used to create the records was operating correctly, and that proper procedures were in place for data entry. This relatively straightforward process often leads to a broader acceptance of such evidence compared to more traditional documentary admissions, which usually require a higher threshold of authentication.

Given that computer records can often be more readily verified through existing technological systems and practices, the bar for their admissibility is lower. This means that, in practical terms, it is generally easier for a party to admit computer records into evidence than it is for traditional documentary evidence, which may require more detailed proof of its authenticity and accuracy.

The other options do not accurately reflect the distinctions. For example, while some admissions may allow for certain exceptions regarding hearsay, it is not a defining feature exclusively of computer records admission. Hence, when considering the differences in requirements and procedures for each type of admission, it's clear that computer records admission is indeed less onerous than documentary admission.