back to article Senior judge: Put AI in charge of reviewing social media evidence

A senior British judge has said that "technology has created many of our current [evidence] disclosure problems" – and then added that AI will fix them. Lord Justice Gross, a Court of Appeal judge, gave a speech last night to the Criminal Bar Association of England and Wales in which he reviewed the ongoing scandal of …

  1. }{amis}{
    Alert

    Magic Wand

    I hope for all our sakes that this is the ranting of an individual and not the entire government thought that AI will magic everything better.

    I can't think of a worse use for AI at this time than legal enforcement you would just end up handing, everything over to a total black box that nobody understands.

    If you cannot understand the decision-making process you cannot defend it, thus any legal decision made by any current AI would fail at appeal, and in the meantime, some poor sod has their life destroyed by the penal system or a violent criminal walks free.

    1. Mark 85

      Re: Magic Wand

      I recall a science fiction tale where the courts used computers to determine guilt or innocence. It didn't end well. There probably never will be an infallible computer/AI. The reality is that there's just too many ways for any AI system to go wrong.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Magic Wand

        Yeah, they are always created by fallible humans being the main one :D

    2. Nick Kew

      Re: Magic Wand

      some poor sod has their life destroyed by the penal system

      That's traditional. The system ruins lives fairly indiscriminately, for accused people, for victims of crime, and in some cases for witnesses and jurors. A lot of victims of false allegations have been in the news recently (probably a consequence of and backlash against actions taken when the warcry was "more rape convictions"), which is probably what provoked the speech.

      If an automated system does no more than a fuzzy[1] grep for the accused's name on all the accuser's accounts and highlights places for a human investigator to look, that could be a huge improvement on the present system.

      [1] as in, able to deal with a realistic level of variants and misspellings.

      1. MonkeyCee

        Re: Magic Wand

        "A lot of victims of false allegations have been in the news recently (probably a consequence of and backlash against actions taken when the warcry was "more rape convictions"), which is probably what provoked the speech."

        I've only noticed a couple of stories, and false accusations usually get a lot of press (especially about sexual assault), in part because if a criminal solicitor get someone off a serious crime, then they would like other potential clients to know.

        One case (as mentioned elsewhere in the comments) was mainly about the prosecutor and investigators either missing or attempting to bury evidence the defence was relying on. So less about false accusations and more about incompetence, which was blamed on there being "too much data" to go through.

        While false accusations can fuck up a person's life, the flip side is that almost every sexual predator has been accused multiple times before they get caught. If they are even moderately intelligent they can game the system (eg John Worboy's parole).

        "more rape convictions"

        I personally think this was more of "stop dumping sexual assaults to duke the stats". Rape and sexual assault is one of the few serious crimes against a person that you can make "go away" by persuading the victim to not report it or be prepared to go to court*. Or you make it a specialist crime, then ensure you don't have enough specialist officers to investigate, then let the files quietly rot away. One NZ police district went six years without a child sex crime investigator, so they simply didn't investigate any complaints. No investigation, no charge, no conviction, no crime.

        * In NZ there was a case were the cops claimed, repeatedly, that the victims were not prepared to go to court, hence why they didn't do anything. Even when one of the victims gave them copies if her letters saying exactly the opposite, they continued with the "after we strongly discouraged them they didn't want to go on, so we dropped it. Not our fault".

    3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Magic Wand

      "I hope for all our sakes that this is the ranting of an individual and not the entire government thought that AI will magic everything better."

      You haven't read it, have you?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why not just give the evidence to the defence in the first place? I can guarantee they will go through every part of it or is this some way to avoid sharing evidence? The AI has checked it so we're good to go with the trial.

    1. Cav Bronze badge

      "In another and more straightforward rape case, where complainant and defendant met on Tinder and there were only two mobile phones to consider, 150 officer hours were required to examine 20,000 items of data,"

      Perhaps, if the police had been able to review the 20,000 items more swiftly, there wouldn't be the need for a defence, as no charges would be brought?

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      "Why not just give the evidence to the defence in the first place?"

      I think this is what he refers to as the keys to the warehouse solution in para 17 (judges making speeches apparently can't get out of the habit of numbering their paragraphs). He points out that it simply transfers the problem and doesn't solve it.

    3. Adam 52 Silver badge

      "Why not just give the evidence to the defence in the first place?"

      Two reasons:

      1. Would you want the entire contents of your phone to be given to the defense if you accuse someone of a crime?

      2. You don't really want the accused rapist knowing the names and addresses of the victim, her sister, her daughter, her mother and the refuge she went to.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Two reasons

        I don't want the police or prosecutor to have the information either, but I must trust them with it if I want them to do their jobs. The defense attorney ought to be similarly privileged, even if they are obligated to withhold incidentally discovered irrelevant but confidential info from their client. What's good for the goose...

    4. strum

      > I can guarantee they will go through every part of it

      You can't guarantee any such thing. Defence solicitors are on tight budgets. They can't invest much time or money in any one case - just on the off-chance there'll be something useful.

      The Crown is bringing the prosecution. The Crown wants to lock someone up. It is the Crown's responsibility to investigate both sides of the case.

  3. Flakk

    A Modest Proposal

    A senior judge has said that "technology has created many of our current disclosure problems" – and then added that AI will fix them.

    Even if that was possible, doubling down on stupid is never a great idea, even if it is a thinly-veiled ploy to absolve meatbags of any responsibility to manage the unintended consequences of their misguided policies.

    Here's a modest proposal: perhaps judges should be replaced by AI? AI judges would be less expensive to operate and maintain, would render much quicker judgments, and wouldn't be any more biased or bigoted than their human counterparts. To the future!

    1. MiguelC Silver badge

      Re: A Modest Proposal

      But that's what they're already doing with dire consequences (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/18/crime_prediction_software/)

      At least the ICO knows better than that (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/23/ico_head_says_human_intervention_still_needed_in_ai_decision_making/)

  4. dnicholas

    AI Judge "How guilty do you plead?"

    Defendant "erm... Your honour?"

    AI Judge "Guilty, sentence pending deliberation"

    ...

    AI Judge "10 years imprisonment"

    1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

      ...AI Judge "10 years imprisonment"...

      Surely that should be 42?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Alert

    Hahahahahahahahahahaha...

    I'd laugh if it was not so tragic I'll cry.

    I understand "evidence too big to sift by hand", but calling an automated search/sort "ai" is joking right?

    1. deive

      Re: Hahahahahahahahahahaha...

      Again, this is just the press and the public calling machine learning, artificial intelligence. It is not artificial intelligence - it is machine learning and I think The Reg really should be doing better on that front.

      As so many call it AI, now people think it is actually AI... but it isn't.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hahahahahahahahahahaha...

        Even then, machine learning is being given far too much credit. If most gamers and kids can find exploits to it, the mathematicians can publish proofs of it's failure, what do we do against those exploiting it's weaknesses?

      2. MonkeyCee

        Re: Hahahahahahahahahahaha...

        "As so many call it AI, now people think it is actually AI... but it isn't."

        While I agree with your sentiment, at least the beak was specific with what he meant, rather than saying "AI" or "with technology". So at least some of the judiciary are more on to that the gentlemen of the press :)

        He also seems to have used an almost exact definition of machine learning. Which is certainly one of the aspects of AI, but is certainly not intelligent by any means.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Holmes

    I'm waiting for this to travel over here in the US. How would you handle the defendant having a right to face their accuser?

    As for the AI/ML question, you've got people assuming that the trained software knowing the context of whatever it is analyzing and nothing could be further from the truth. Any meaning about what the inputs, as well as the outputs, are assigned by humans. It's just like the case of male being assigned the value zero and female assigned to one. Or is that supposed to be red is zero and green is one? Outputs work the same way. Just because you throw a metric fuckton of data at a collection of processors doesn't mean anything at all.

    I know, preaching to the converted. From my very first consulting contract to the very last project I've done professionally, predictive analysis, machine learning, and artificial intelligence have been tools used where it made sense. Thinking about it,,,, yeah, bring it on! I can see $$$ testifying for the defendant whenever AI/ML is used anywhere in a case. One of my statistics professors used to make a ton of money testifying for either side of a paternity suits. That he could argue either side should tell everyone how accurate those were back in the early '70's.

  7. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
    Mushroom

    This won't end well

    See Icon

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Can't be any worse than the CPS

    For whom finding evidence is apparently too difficult.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "...ongoing criminal cases disclosure scandal"

    Ah, you mean another corrupt police cover up story.

  10. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    I wonder how many commentards have bothered to read the speech. It turns out that he has several time been involved in attempts to get disclosure put on a proper footing. The AI bit comes in the penultimate paragraph where he deals with the massive amounts of data generated by social media users with verbal diarrhoea (my description not his) and he seems to be looking for technological solutions "including AI" to help, not to dictate.

    In fact, he makes some excellent points about the prosecution adopting a proper investigative mindset - by which he means considering multiple possibilities rather than just assuming a given person is guilty and concentrating on that. He also makes a good point about differentiating between a complainant and a victim - the difference being whether there has actually been a crime, a factor that an investigator needs to consider. It's just a pity he doesn't extend that terminological debate to differentiate between a culprit and a suspect.

    TL;DR It's actually good stuff. Read it for yourselves.

  11. Adam 52 Silver badge

    Sifting through the evidence is a big thing. Think how many text messages, emails and Twitter messages are on your phone. Since Liam Allan every single one of them has to be reviewed and analysed for relevance. That can take a detective days. Detectives were already overstretched to the point where even some murders are being handled by shift not CID and fitted in around their response duties.

    In effect there's been a complete halt to new investigations while CID process their backlog.

    Quality justice is expensive.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      "Since Liam Allan every single one of them has to be reviewed and analysed for relevance. That can take a detective days."

      Unless that can receive some automated assistance on the lines the speech suggested it's a requirement that clearly needs to be reviewed. It's not always appreciated that the vast majority of lab time spent in criminal investigations is occupied by irrelevant material. A directive that casually adds to that without understanding the consequences is asking for trouble. As per sillyfudder's comment below it would be far more sensible to let the investigation be guided by the statements in the case unless there's good reason to think that material more distant from the time of the offence would be relevant.

      1. Adam 52 Silver badge

        That was, of course, the position taken before Liam. However policy makers are often driven by the press and public opinion rather than common sense.

        In Liam's case the judge ordered a review, various lawyers slung abuse and he's sueing the Police.

        So whilst you are absolutely correct, it isn't going to happen.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So, will Scandalising AI

    now become an offence ?

    1. dnicholas

      Re: So, will Scandalising AI

      That's logical, Dave

  13. sillyfudder

    For a discussion of the root of the issue (in the UK), everyone should read: The Secret Barrister: Stories of the Law and How It's Broken.

    I'm tempted to believe (Like Dr. Syntax) that the comments in the speech were not as completely tone deaf as they appear. But the speech was definitely misleading about some aspects of the size of the task.

    From the press coverage, in at least one of the recent cases referred to, the accused and his defence actually told the police exactly what messages to look for (messages sent to the accused by the complainant after the alleged offence had taken place).

    They kept asking for the same evidence for (I recall) 2 years. only for it to be "discovered" the day before the trial, which was then cancelled.

    Reading messages from a few days either side of the alleged crime should not take hundreds of hours (for the types of offence being discussed between people who claim to have met only recently).

    Its like suggesting that the police collect all available cctv in the area for the last 2 years, and then watch it from the start, instead of looking at the time of the crime.

    Nonsense on stilts.

    (PS I can understand the difficulty if you were investigating e.g. a financial crime that may have taken place over several months or years, through several different messaging services. But that is not most cases)

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      They kept asking for the same evidence for (I recall) 2 years. only for it to be "discovered" the day before the trial, which was then cancelled.

      Parts of the explanation might lie in Adam52's post, a requirement to go through everything and then the subsequent backlog. Unfortunately everyone only sees their own case and doesn't realise what else investigators are dealing with. That doesn't just apply to complainants and accused; I remember having a couple or so murders in my caseload and being chased by a uniform constable for a result on a taking and driving away as he wanted to get it finished before he went on leave!

      I wonder what proportion of complaints actually get to court these days. Back in my day one would come in to work on a Monday morning, look though the weekend's new cases and realise that most if not all were never going to proceed beyond a report on the medical samples. Are the police and/or CPS being set targets as to the number of cases to go to court regardless of merit?

      1. Adam 52 Silver badge

        "that most if not all were never going to proceed beyond a report on the medical samples."

        Well these days pretty much everything has to have an initial case file for CPS to review. It can't be done on a conversation between police and CPS any more. And if "your day" was prior to CPS charging decisions I can't help.

        " Are the police and/or CPS being set targets as to the number of cases to go to court regardless of merit?"

        There are targets for outcomes. As far as possible everything either has to go to CPS or proved not to be a crime. And yes, there are targets and those targets affect pay rises.

        I've commented here many times before; the grey area in the middle "probably not a crime", "not enough evidence" or "not in the public interest" has been made really hard. There is an Inspector whose sole job is to reject those cases and force a referral to CPS.

        Custody sergeants still can, and do, decide that charging isn't in the public interest; and peculiarly the case Inspector - as a more senior officer - will give the Custody Sergeant a bollocking but can't lawfully override their decision.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like