The 68 MB Judgment at 16:40: Compression, Naming and the Personal Inbox
At 16:40 a 42-page judgment in WP(C)/2317/2024 must be uploaded to the High Court website before 18:00. The scanner has produced one 68 MB PDF named scan0001.pdf; the pages are images only, so Ctrl+F finds nothing. The portal accepts files up to 20 MB and rejects file names containing spaces or the string 'scan'. A colleague proposes emailing the file to a personal Gmail account, compressing it there with a free online tool at 96 dpi, and uploading the result. Another proposes splitting it into four files named part1.pdf to part4.pdf. The certified copy stamp appears on page 1 and on the last page. The office register requires the uploader to record the file name, page count, file size and time of upload.
1. Evaluate both proposals and set out the sequence you would actually follow.
Read the worked answer
Reject the personal-email proposal outright. A judgment is a court record; sending it to a personal inbox and a free third-party site breaks custody, may breach the court's data-handling directions, and leaves a copy outside official control. The 96 dpi suggestion also destroys the stamp and the page numbering, and makes the document worse, not smaller in any useful sense.
Treat splitting as a fallback, not a first step. It breaks the single-document record, and generic names like part1.pdf cannot be matched to a case later.
Sequence:
- Retain the 68 MB original as the archival master; do not overwrite it.
- Run OCR on the master to create a searchable text layer.
- Produce a separate delivery copy at about 200 dpi with moderate JPEG compression until it is under 20 MB, checking that the page-1 and last-page stamps stay legible.
- Rename to a case-based convention, for example WP(C)_2317_2024_judgment.pdf.
- Upload, then verify.
- Split only if step 3 cannot reach 20 MB without illegibility, naming parts with the case number and 'part 1 of 4'.
2. What must you check immediately before and immediately after uploading, and what goes into the register?
Read the worked answer
Before: page count is 42 with no blank or duplicated page; both stamps are legible; the first and last pages match the certified copy; the text layer works, so a search for a party's name returns hits; the file is under 20 MB and the name is portal-compliant. Confirm that nothing in the file is subject to a sealing or masking direction - judgments are public, but a sealed-cover matter is not.
After: download the uploaded file and re-check page count, searchability and stamp legibility. An upload that reports success is not proof that the correct file was posted; the check is on the downloaded copy, because that is what the public sees. If the wrong version went up, replace it at once and record the correction.
Register entry: new file name, 42 pages, final size in MB, time of upload, and a one-line note that the searchable delivery copy was derived from the retained 68 MB master, with the master's location. That line is what allows a later correction without rescanning.
3. The colleague says a compressed copy is 'good enough' because the judgment is also available in the court's case information system. Respond.
Read the worked answer
Availability elsewhere does not lower the standard of what this office publishes. The website copy is often the version cited by counsel, journalists and applicants who cannot access the internal system, and a 96 dpi image of the stamp is exactly what a litigant will rely on to show a certified copy exists.
The two obligations are separate. Publishing a correct, searchable, complete copy is the office's own duty; the internal system is a different record with different access rules. 'Good enough' also hides a concrete risk: a compressed file that drops or blurs the last page cannot be detected from the portal listing, only by a complaint.
If time runs short, publish the single searchable delivery copy, even if slightly later than 18:00, and record the reason. A late correct filing can be explained; a posted defective record cannot be recalled from circulation.