Recently, I was a guest facilitator for a session on Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Justice under the auspices of the Pan African Centre for AI Ethics (Pacfaie) — Summer School. I shared experiences of the transformative nature of this technology in the administration and practice of criminal justice across Africa as well as how we can make sure to leverage it for the best while reducing the cons/negative impacts it actually and potentially poses towards the integrity of due process in Africa.
Incidentally, I am a notorious advocate for technology as a great enabler in the justice system on the continent. Technology was initially marketed for its ability to save cost and time in the majority of the sectors where it was piloted and eventually adopted; be it in manufacturing, finance, security, education, or medicine. So much so that in the legal sector, it has influenced the trajectory of practice and legislation. My two cents on how we can maximize the good these well-intended technologies wield are as hereinafter.
For starters, technology makes it very easy to break down issues and single out relevant pieces of literature in legal research. Technology also eases how we as legal academicians do comparative analyses, and it is these that inform best practices that we replicate in our legislation and administration of justice. This is owing to the ability of technology to enhance the speed with which we carry out certain tasks along the justice value chain.
Tech has the power to help judicial officers in researching for purposes of writing decisions on sets of facts and issues presented before them. It also helps legal scholars in analyzing legal precedent which can be tedious as some decisions have hundreds or even thousands of pages. Take an example of the recent controversial decision of the Constitutional Court around the constitutionality of the Anti-Homosexuality Act vide Hon. Fox Odoi & 21 Others v Attorney General & 3 Others (Consolidated Constitutional Petition 14 of 2023; Consolidated Constitutional Petition 15 of 2023; Consolidated Constitutional Petition 16 of 2023; Consolidated Constitutional Petition 85 of 2023) [2024] UGCC 10 (3 April 2024) that has over 200 pages.
In addition to using technology for deep analytics, we can and have recently used it for predictive policing. Technology also has the ability to change the game when it comes to foreseeability, usually reasonable foreseeability since it can study patterns and potential outcomes for certain aspects. Interestingly, technology in the justice system can study behavioral patterns and incident histories.
An example is the risk modelling functionality of the National Data Analytics Solution (NDAS) a data analytics, risk assessment, and crime prediction tool, created by West Midlands Police in England that uses machine learning and predictive analytics to conduct “behavioral analysis” and “predictive modelling” to create and provide individual predictions and profiles about people and their likely future actions. This makes it possible for police and other justice, law, and order sector partners to study the reasons that influence and predict criminality.
Technology makes it possible for practitioners to break down barriers, silos and dismantle the disparity when it comes to access to justice. This happens by using related technologies for information dissemination through very common options such as short message service (SMS). This enables the populace in informal settlements and rural areas who might not have access to the internet for reasons of cost or simply accessibility to access justice. It is a whole avenue of capacity building for these rural dwellers.
Another avenue is the development of chatbots that give free or subsidized legal advice to inform the initial courses of action that their users can take. And I think we have several legal tech solutions such as “Winnie”, a legal chatbot that is under development at Barefoot Law. Winnie is poised to increase access to justice for ordinary Ugandans at the grassroots level. We have seen other applications and algorithms like “Pulida” to mention but a few.
Another avenue is the development of chat bots that give free or subsidised legal advice to inform the initial courses of action that their users can take.
Technology presents a great opportunity for the bar/practitioners in the way we collect and handle evidence. It also improves how the bench understands and interprets key pieces of evidence. In law school, one thing that we appreciated was that everything in the adjudication process is about leverage but most importantly how one proves their case.
The most common avenue is adducing evidence with probative value. From surveillance for collection to storage and interpretation of evidence gathered to maintain its probative value, technology is central. Tech makes it possible for us to collect information, and data messages and to sift through large volumes of details.
Indeed, when it comes to complex aspects like deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), assistive technology such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) plays a key role in processing complex bio-evidence. For example, in some cases, there are possibilities of convolution where you have a spillover of DNA at a scene of crime. This can occur where at a scene of crime, authorities find DNA for party A that might not have anything to do with the crime under investigation getting mixed with that of party B and C who participated in the crime.
This usually poses a challenge for the justice system and forensic experts in telling the two apart, hence the process of deconvolution, a solution that permits the isolation of various DNA for analysis. In fact, we shall continue to see partnerships around research to pilot novel machine learning-based methods of mixture deconvolution. Interesting to see how this will continue to revolutionize the administration of justice.
Albeit the rosy advantages presented by the inclusion of technology, we must proceed cautiously. This speaks to the inculcation of responsible and ethical development, deployment, and use of these technologies in public and private practice as well as the administration of justice. So, questions around bias inherent in datasets used to train these technologies, issues around data privacy and protection as well as transparency and lack of human rights safeguards have resulted in these technologies being marred by distrust amongst the public.
Albeit the rosy advantages presented by the inclusion of technology, it is important that we proceed cautiously.
As I take leave of this very important subject, technology has hundreds, if not thousands, of ways it is transforming the administration of justice the world over. However, all these necessitate a concerted effort from society to ensure responsible development, ethical deployment, and informed use of the various technologies lest we drag the noble legal profession through the arena of disrepute and diminish public confidence in how justice is administered.
Judicial officers are encouraged to maintain independent thought processes and be prepared to prevail over some of these technologies even when they assist these officers in their day-to-day functions.
