should not replace human judgment
As criminal courts succumb to sustained pressure, an independent review urges the introduction of AI to improve efficiency and reduce growing backlogs.
The second part of Sir Brian Leveson’s Independent Review of the Criminal Courts, the first of which was published in July last year, focuses on improving the efficiency of the court system to tackle the backlog that has plagued the court system for many years.
In it, Mr Leveson, a former chair of the Queen’s Bench Division, outlines a wide range of recommendations aimed at restoring efficiency to a system in which the judiciary is increasingly “delayed and therefore denied”.
Most notably, Leveson pays significant attention to the integration of AI into the criminal justice system, from common automation and productivity tools to its use in translation for non-English speaking defendants, as part of a whopping 135 recommendations.
In his report, Leveson is careful to highlight good use cases for AI, warning against what he calls “predictive tools” – the use of AI to analyze data to predict future outcomes. Leveson said such systems have too much potential for bias and should not be used as a substitute for human judgment. He also discusses the broader risks that AI poses due to the limitations of the technology, such as the potential for hallucinations and bias.
Of the recommended uses for AI, Leveson argues that AI should be deployed “solely to augment, rather than replace, human decision-making” and that acceptable applications fall into three broad categories: productivity tools, insight tools, and accessibility tools.
First, AI can be used to increase efficiency by automating routine administrative tasks, such as drafting documents and summarizing case files, by integrating tools such as Microsoft Co-pilot, which “helps staff manage their day-to-day responsibilities.”
Mr. Revson also outlines specific recommendations for each stage of the criminal justice process.
For example, under Recommendation 80, Mr Leveson outlined the potential for the use of AI in the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), saying it could help prosecutors analyze evidence and material to support decision-making, as well as spot gaps in case files, such as missing documents.
Mr Leveson also discusses potential use cases for AI in disclosure, particularly in relation to the processing and analysis of large amounts of material.
He also highlights the potential of AI-enabled translation tools in public hearings and the potential of AI-enabled transcription tools to produce accurate transcriptions faster and at lower cost.
Leveson also recommended using AI to summarize the initial details of prosecution cases, arguing that this could “facilitate the pre-screening role of His Majesty’s Court staff and other relevant partners”.
Given the wide scope of the review, Mr Revson also recommended the use of artificial intelligence within the wider criminal justice system, such as the process by which police witness statements are prepared.
These recommendations come at a time of growing concern about the role of AI in the judiciary, with the outgoing Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Lord Reid, warning that AI could threaten trust in the court system, along with growing concerns about the effects of hallucinations and “slant” on experts.
