Artificial Intelligence and Law(s)

In Philip K. Dick’s book “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep” – made into the brilliant movie “Bladerunner” directed by Ridley Scott – the genetically engineered replicants, indistinguishable from human beings, were banned from Earth and set to do work on off-world colonies. There was a fear of the threat that these “manufactured” beings could pose to humans.

Isaac Asimov’s extraordinarily successful “Robot” series of short stories and books had a similar premise –  that intelligent robots would pose a threat to humans. In “Androids” the way that the replicants were regulated was that they were shipped off-world and if they returned to Earth they were hunted down and “retired”. Asimov’s regulatory solution was a little more nuanced. Robots, upon the creation of their positronic brains, were programmed with the Three Laws of Robotics. These were as follows:

  1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

These three laws were the foundation of all the tensions that arose in Asimov’s stories. How were the Three Laws to be applied? What happens when there is a conflict? Which rule prevails?

The stories are classified as science fiction. I prefer to treat them as examples of statutory interpretation. But underpinning the Three Laws and the reason for them was what Asimov called “The Frankenstein Complex” – a term he coined for fear of mechanical men or created beings that resemble human beings. And his answer to that fear and how it could be mitigated was the Three Laws.

A similar call recently went out about how we should deal with Artificial Intelligence. A report entitled “Determining Our Future: Artificial Intelligence”  written collaboratively by people from the Institute of Directors and the law firm Chapman Tripp, whilst pointing out the not insubstantial benefits that artificial intelligence or “smart systems” may provide, has a significant undertone of concern.

The report calls for the Government to establish a high-level working group on AI which should consider

“the potential impacts of AI on New Zealand, identifying major areas of opportunity and concern, and making recommendations about how New Zealand should prepare for AI-driven change.”

The writers consider AI is an extraordinary challenge for our future and the establishment of a high level working group is a critical first step to help New Zealand rise to that challenge. It seems to be the New Zealand way to look to the Government to solve everything, problematical or otherwise which says interesting things about self-reliance.

The report is an interesting one. It acknowledges the first real problem which is how do we define AI. What exactly does it encompass? Is it the mimicking of human cognitive functions like learning or problem solving. Or is it making machines intelligent – intelligence being the quality that enables an entity to function appropriately and with foresight in its environment.

Even although there seems to be an inability to settle upon a definition a more fruitful part of the examination is in the way in which “smart” computing systems are used in a range of industries and there is the observation that there has been a significant increase in investment in such “smart” systems by a number of players.

The disruptive impact of AI is then considered. This is not new. One of the realities of the Digital Paradigm is continuing disruptive change. There is little time to catch breath between getting used to one new thing and having to confront and deal with a new new thing. Disruption has been taking place from before the Digital Paradigm and indeed back to the First Industrial Revolution.

There is a recognition that we need to prepare for the disruptive effects of any new technology, but what the report fails to consider is the way in which disruptive technologies may ultimately be transformative. There is some speculation that after an initial period of disruption to established skills and industries, AI may lead to greater employment as new work becomes available in areas that have not been automated.

The sense of gloom begins to increase as the report moves to consider legal and policy issues. Although the use of AI in the legal or court process – I prefer to use the term expert legal systems – is not discussed, issues such as whether AI systems should be recognised as persons are mentioned. In this time of Assisted Birth Technologies and other than purely natural creation of life, it is not an easy question to answer. “Created by a human” doesn’t cut it because that is the way that the race has propagated itself for millennia. “Artificially created by a human” may encompass artificial insemination and confine people who are otherwise humans to some limbo status as a result.  But really what are we talking about. We are talking about MACHINE intelligence that is driven by algorithms. I don’t think we are talking about organic systems – at least not yet.

But it is the last question in that section that gives me cause for pause. Are New Zealand’s regulatory and legislative processes adaptive enough to respond to and encourage innovations in AI? What exactly is meant by that? Should we have regulatory systems in place to control AI or to develop it further? That has to be read within the context of the introductory paragraph

“AI presents substantial legal and regulatory challenges. These challenges include problems with controlling and foreseeing the actions of autonomous systems.”

Then the report raises the “Frankenstein Complex.” The introductory paragraph reads as follows:

“Leaders in many fields have voiced concerns over safety and the risk of losing control of AI systems. Initially the subject of science fiction (think Skynet in the Terminator movies), these concerns are now tangible in certain types of safety-critical AI applications – such as vehicles and weapons platforms – where it may be necessary to retain some form of human control.”

The report goes on to state:

Similar concerns exist in relation to potential threats posed by self-improving AI systems. Elon Musk, in a 2014 interview at MIT, famously called AI “our greatest existential threat”.
Professor Stephen Hawking, in a 2014 interview with BBC said that “humans, limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete and would be superseded by AI”.

Stanford’s One-Hundred Year Study of AI notes that

“we could one day lose control of AI systems via the rise of superintelligences that do not act in accordance with human wishes – and that such powerful systems would threaten humanity”.

Google’s DeepMind lab has developed an AI ‘off-switch’, while others are developing a principles-based framework to address security.

Then the question is asked

“What controls and limitations should be placed on AI technology.”

I think the answer would have to be as few as possible consistent with human safety that allow for innovation and continued development of AI. It must be disturbing to see such eminent persons such as Hawking and Musk expressing concerns about the future of AI. The answer to the machine lies in the machine as Google has demonstrated – turn it off if need be.

The report closes with the following observation.

The potential economic and social opportunities from AI technologies are immense. The public and private sectors must move promptly and together to ensure we are prepared to reap the benefits, and address the risks of AI.

And regulation is the answer? I think not.

Artificial Intelligence as a Tool for Lawyers

My particular interest in AI has been in its application to the law so let’s have a brief look at that issue. Viewed dispassionately the proposals are not “Orwellian” nor do they suggest the elevation of “Terminator J” to the Bench. It may also serve to put a different perspective on AI and the future.

In a recent article, Lex Machina’s Chief Data Scientist observed that data analytics refined information to match specific situations.

“Picture this: You’re building an antitrust case in Central California and want to get an idea of potential outcomes based on everything from judges, to districts, to decisions and length of litigation. In days of law past, coming up with an answer might involve walking down the hall and asking a partner or two about their experiences in such matters, then begin writing a budget around a presumed time frame. “

Howard says that analytics change the stakes. “Not only are you getting a more precise answer,” he attests, “but you’re getting an answer that is based on more relevant data.”

Putting the matter very simplistically legal information either in the form of statutes or case law is data which has meaning when properly analysed or interpreted. Apart from the difficulties in location of such data, the analytical process is done by lawyers or other trained professionals.

The “Law as Data” approach uses data analysis and analytics which match fact situations with existing legal rules.

Already a form of data analysis or AI variant is available in the form of databases such as LexisNexis, Westlaw, NZLii, Austlii or Bailii. Lexis and Westlaw have applied natural language processing (NLP) techniques to legal research for 10-plus years. The core NLP algorithms were all published in academic journals long ago and are readily available. The hard (very hard) work is practical implementation. Legal research innovators like Fastcase and RavelLaw have done that hard work, and added visualizations to improve the utility of results.

Using LexisNexis or Westlaw, the usual process involves the construction of a search which, depending upon the parameters used will return a limited or extensive dataset. It is at that point that human analysis takes over.

What if the entire corpus of legal information is reduced to a machine readable dataset. This would be a form of Big Data with a vengeance, but it is a necessary starting point. The issue then is to:

  1. Reduce the dataset to information that is relevant and manageable
  2. Deploy tools that would measure the returned results against the facts or a particular case to predict a likely outcome.

Part (a) is relatively straight forward. There are a number of methodologies and software tools that are deployed in the e-Discovery space that perform this function. Technology-assisted review (TAR, or predictive coding) uses natural language and machine learning techniques against the gigantic data sets of e-discovery. TAR has been proven to be faster, better, cheaper and much more consistent than human-powered review (HPR). It is assisted review, in two senses. First, the technology needs to be assisted; it needs to be trained by senior lawyers very knowledgeable about the case. Second, the lawyers are assisted by the technology, and the careful statistical thinking that must be done to use it wisely. Thus, lawyers are not replaced, though they will be fewer in number. TAR is the success story of machine learning in the law. It would be even bigger but for the slow pace of adoption by both lawyers and their clients.

Part (b) would require the development of the necessary algorithms that could undertake the comparative and predictive analysis, together with a form of probability analysis to generate an outcome that would be useful and informative. There are already variants at work now in the field of what is known as Outcome Prediction utilising cognitive technologies.

There are a number of examples of legal analytics tools. Lex Machina, having developed a set of intellectual property (IP) case data, uses data mining and predictive analytics techniques to forecast outcomes of IP litigation. Recently, it has extended the range of data it is mining to include court dockets, enabling new forms of insight and prediction. Now they have moved into multi-District anti-trust litigation.

LexPredict developed systems to predict the outcome of Supreme Court cases, at accuracy levels which challenge experienced Supreme Court practitioners.

Premonition uses data mining, analytics and other AI techniques “to expose, for the first time ever, which lawyers win the most before which Judge.”

These proposals, of course, immediately raises issues of whether or not we are approaching the situation where we have decision by machine.

As I envisage the deployment of AI systems, the analytical process would be seen as a part of the triaging or Early Case Assessment process in the Online Court Model, rather than as part of the decision making process. The advantages of the process are in the manner in which the information is reduced to a relevant dataset performed automatically and faster than could be achieved by human means. Within the context of the Online Court process it could be seen as facilitative rather than determinative. If the case reached the decision making process it would, of course, be open to a Judge to consider utilising the “Law as Data” approach with, of course, the ultimate sign-off. The Judge would find the relevant facts. The machine would process the facts against the existing database that is the law and present the Judge with a number of possible options with supporting material. In that way the decision would still be a human one, albeit machine assisted.

Conclusion

As we embark down this road let us ensure that we do not over-regulate out of fear. Let us ensure that innovation in this exciting field is not stifled and that it continues to develop. The self-aware, self-correcting, self-protecting Skynet scenario is not a realistic one and, in my view, needs to be put to one side as an obstruction and recognised for what it is – a manifestation of the Frankenstein complex. And perhaps, before we consider whether or not we travel the path suggested in the report we should make sure that the Frankenstein complex is put well behind us.

 

Technological Competence for Lawyers

The rise of technology and its pervasive effect on all our lives – whether we like it or not – has implications for everyone involved in the practice of law. Conveyancing transactions are done on-line. Some company documents can only be filed on line. The use of computer systems, on-line legal research, networked communications and the Internet all feature to some extent in legal offices.

Yet, how technologically aware are lawyers.

This is a matter that has been addressed as a matter of competence to practice in the United States. In 2012 the American Bar Association made several changes to its Model Rules and commentary.

The starting point is basic competence. Rule 1.1 states:

“A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.”

Comment 8 to the Rule states what is required to achieve that level of competence.

“To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.”

On this basis, lawyers cannot plead ignorance or inability regarding the use of technology and its associated risks.

So what is the technology that needs to be understood? First is the equipment that forms part of day-to-day legal practice such as computers, tablets, smart phones, scanners, printers or copiers. This category also includes the use of email, and the electronic storage of documents and other information.

Then there is an understanding of the software and programs that are used that may streamline or simplify legal practice. This may include programs for storing, managing and reviewing electronically stored information as well as law practice and management software including matters such as client information, contacts, time entry, billing, document management, docketing and calendaring.

Lawyers also need to be aware of the technology used by their clients and how that has an impact upon business as well as technology that may  impose liability on clients, such as, for example, GPS technology, electronic logging, or automated driving technology.

For litigators there has to be knowledge of and familiarity with  courtroom technology.

All of this may seem pretty intimidating but in today’s technological age, beset as we are with continuing disruptive change, it is necessary.

If practitioners are concerned at the ABA proposals the Florida Bar has gone one step further. Application was made to the Supreme Court of Florida in September 2016 to amend the Bar Rules to require all lawyers to maintain technological competence by undertaking 3 CLE hours of approved technological education courses. Florida lawyers have to complete 33 hours every 3 years. The standard comes into effect on 1 January 2017

Interestingly enough there was been little resistance from Florida practitioners. The benefits seem to have made themselves clear.

The question that comes to mind is whether or not there should be a technological competence requirement along the lines proposed by the ABA for New Zealand law practitioners or whether the New Zealand Law Society should adopt some form of advisory about technological competence and upskilling for practitioners.

Rozenberg QC on the Online Court – A Review

Joshua Rozenberg QC is an English journalist and commentator on matters legal. I have read his articles and commentaries now for some time. He is thoughtful and balanced, unafraid to call it as he sees it. He practiced as a barrister before moving into journalism and was appointed honorary Queens Counsel for his work as the “pre-eminent legal analyst or modern times.”

So it was that I saw a reference to his monograph entitled “The Online Court – will it work?” on his Facebook page. Rozenberg conceded that it was too long for any of his normal outlets to publish but this piece was available for download from Amazon. He hastened to point out that although much of his work is available at no charge the essay was not commissioned, sponsored nor supported by advertising so a small charge of £1.99 was levied at the UK Amazon store and $US2.49 at Amazon.com. A reasonable fee under the circumstances. Just one problem. The essay was available only to UK customers.

I have written before about the bizarre practice of geoblocking in an on-line borderless world. My earlier encounters with this loathsome practice have been in attempts to purchase software and video content. The physical product isn’t a problem. A proxy forwarding address in the US or UK solves most difficulties. However, additional issues arise when one is dealing solely with digital content. Without an English address, obtaining the content seems nigh impossible. What I cannot understand is why Amazon would want to restrict distribution in this way. After all, place doesn’t matter in the delivery of online content. No greater delivery or packaging costs are incurred. No explanation is given for restricting distribution.

However, that said, Rozenberg’s essay makes fascinating reading. He opens his discussion with the background to the current reforms starting with early attempts which were not very successful because they were not judge-led – indeed an essential requirement in any proposed reform of the Courts process. After all, next to Court staff Judges are the principal users of the Court system. Furthermore, when I talk about “Judge-led” I don’t mean that judges should be kept informed about what the IT people are doing, but that the judges actively lead the process. This was enabled in England by the formation of the Judicial Office which was set up in 2006 under leadership of the Lord Chief Justice. The development of a single courts service further assisted. Rozenberg sets out the way in which the current judicial leadership role came to be in a helpful overview.

He then passes on to cover the reform programme of Her Majesty’s Courts Service (HMCTS) and the three strands of work suggested by Lord Justice Briggs

  • The use of modern IT
  • Less reliance on Court buildings
  • The allocation of some work done by Judges to case lawyers

The allocation of funding in 2014 has remained in place, an achievement Rozenberg attributes to the influence of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.

Rozenberg then goes on to summaries the various projects, numbering in total 21, some of which, like the eJudiciary service, are already up and running. For those of us looking at the English IT reforms from the outside, this is an invaluable snapshot of where things are and where it is hoped they may go. Most of the publicity that one sees about the reforms focus upon the Online Court proposals but Rozenberg makes it clear that this is only a part of the story. I was impressed with the scope of the proposals. I was familiar with the eJudiciary service, having had it demonstrated to me by His Honour Judge John Tanzer in 2015. I was also familiar with the Rolls project but other elements were new.

Rozenberg then passes to deal with the online court which is probably the most revolutionary proposal.  He covers the initial proposals by Professor Richard Susskind and Lord Justice Briggs. The Online Court involves the innovative use of technology. Two paths were available. One was to use technology to imitate the existing system. This would merely be a digital replication of a system that would be recognisable to William Garrow or Charles Dickens. Digital technologies allow for disruptive change. Disruption in and of itself cannot be seen to be an end. But transformation by means of disruption, especially if that transformation improves, in this case, just outcomes is to be applauded.

The Susskind and Briggs proposals change the emphasis of the Court process. In the past, the process has been geared towards getting the case before the Court. That can be somewhat complex and that complexity will invariably involve the participation of lawyers, assisting the litigants through the procedural shoals to a hearing.

The online process is geared towards introducing the possibility of resolution from the very beginning. At all stages of the process resolution is the objective, rather than waiting for the judge to resolve the matter. This the various stages of the process offer opportunities for resolution, rather than being milestones that have to be passed on the way to a hearing.

The issue that has given cause for concern is that lawyers are not seen as essential to the process. Rozenberg covers this real area of concern by pointing out that lawyers will have a different role in the process, rather than being excluded from it all together. The use of an App will assist litigants although there is nothing to prevent a litigant seeking legal assistance or advice. But one of the objectives of the new process is to improve access to justice and if that can be achieved it will be a significant accomplishment and a validation of the use of IT.

Rozenberg examines the feasibility of the system uner the ambiguous heading “Will IT work”. There are two questions posed here. Will I(nformation)T(echnology) work which puts the focus upon the way in which the IT projects are put together. Or will IT (the big strategic plan) work. It is the first question that Rozenberg attempts to answer although, because the projects are IT dependent the answer to one will answer the other.

Rozenberg ends on a cautious note, stating, correctly in my view, that digitising the courts is the biggest challenge to the judicial system in 150 years and it is a reform that must not fail, if the restoration and maintenance of access to justice for those who need it most is to take place.

The essay or publication is an excellent example of the enabling power of technology. A close examination of highly significant and innovative approaches to the justice system by England’s leading legal commentator adds to informed debate. Rozenberg is to be congratulated for taking the initiative to put the information on line. It is a pity that Amazon’s policies limit its accessibility.

But for me the essay was extremely valuable in that it provides meaningful context to the on-line court – an innovation in which I have been very interested since I met and spoke with Professor Susskind about it in May of last year. That broader view, and the scope of the IT projects that are in train for the English system give added weight to Rozenberg’s conclusion. It is clearly written, as one would expect, well worth the £1.99 from Amazon and valuable assessment of the state of English Courts IT at the cross roads.

District Court Decisions Online?

Recently David Farrar in Kiwiblog commented on the decision of the Government to step back from a provision – Clause 401 – of the Judicature Modernisation Bill requiring final decisions of the District Court to be published online. I thought I would expand on his piece.

The deleted Clause 401 reads:

(1) Every final written judgment of the court (excluding the Family Court, the Youth Court, and the Disputes Tribunal) must be published on the Internet as soon as practicable unless there is good reason not to publish the complete judgment.

(2) Good reason not to publish a judgment or part of it includes the following:

(a) non-publication is necessary because of a suppression order or statutory requirement that affects publication or continued publication:

(b)the judgment falls into a category of judgments that are of limited public value:

(c) taking into account the presumption in subsection (1) in favour of publication, a Judge nevertheless determines that the judgment or any part of it should not be published because publication or the effect of publication would be contrary to the interests of justice.

(3) In this section, final written judgment means a written decision that determines or substantially determines the outcome of any proceedings and is either—

(a) a written reserved judgment; or

(b) an oral judgment transcribed by an official transcription service.

 

I was gratified when I saw this section was to be part of the Act. It was the culmination of a process in which I had been involved since 1996 to have the decisions of all the New Zealand Courts made available online.

The proposition is not that revolutionary. In common law countries – those that have inherited or adopted the English system of justice – the decisions of the Courts interpret and develop the law. The Internet meant that the decisions of the Courts could be released from the restrictions of paper and library shelves and be available for distribution to all. As a society that holds that ignorance of the law is no excuse it seemed perverse that there should still be obstacles to knowing what the law was.

The path to publication of the decisions of the Courts was not an easy one. I won’t traverse that story here. Suffice to say there was resistance from a number of unexpected quarters and a lack of understanding of the importance of the concept of the transparent operation of the Courts.

The decisions of the appellate Courts such as the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court are available from the Courts of New Zealand Website as well as the clunky and difficult to navigate Judicial Decisions Online (JDO) where the decisions of the High Court may be found. Decisions are also available from the excellent if underfunded and little appreciated NZLII (New Zealand Legal Information Institute) where the search capabilities are a little easier in terms of analysing results than JDO and the databases are larger.

All that remained was for the decisions of the District Court to be made available online. Having a requirement in legislation made compliance mandatory. It was going to be a large task but there were a number of alternative ways in which it could be accomplished. But  mandatory publication will now not take place.

All is not lost. The District Court recently launched its own website and selected decisions of the District Court will be made available. Upon its release

Chief District Court Judge Jan-Marie Doogue said that from now on, a Publications Unit working under an editorial board of senior judges, will select for online publication those decisions considered of high public or legal interest and which meet criteria for publication. This calendar year, the website expects to publish about 2500 decisions, rising to about 4000 next year.

That is to be applauded. But if Clause 401 had remained it would have required funding. And that seems to have been an important driver. Recently the Minister of Justice released a statement explaining why Clause 401 had been removed. I reproduce it below along with my comments and critique.

“The Justice Ministry has advised me that each year the District Court (excluding the Family Court and Youth Court) delivers 15,300 final decisions that would fall within the scope of the requirement in the Bill.

 They are made up of:

*       300 written decisions (reserved judgments), mainly delivered in the civil jurisdiction; and

*       15,000 transcribed oral decisions, including civil and criminal judgments, and sentencing notes.

 The District Court doesn’t publish its judgments online, because it does not have the judicial resource that senior courts have in the form of Clerks and other judicial staff.

This is the first problem. The publication of decisions should have been properly resourced from the beginning rather than be left to existing internal arrangements. That said, there is in existence a database of decisions available on the internal Court system where decisions are collected and indexed. This is done as decisions are transcribed either by the transcription service or Judges’ PAs.

 The sheer volume of decisions by the District Court alone make it difficult for every decision to be published, especially due to the fact 15,000 oral decisions would need to be transcribed, checked, and for each Judge to sign off on each decision before they are published.

Believe it or not a large number of decisions are transcribed and must be signed in hard copy by Judges. Included in these are decisions declining bail and sentencing decisions. If one looks at the proposed clause 401(3) the definition of a final written judgement reduced the volume quite considerably. I recall when we were discussing the publishing criteria for judgements in the early phases of the campaign for putting decisions online the test was “a final decision of a contested issue between the parties or the sentence imposed in criminal matters.” Furthermore the provisions of Clause 401(2)(a) – (c) provided a further filter. This seems to have been overlooked.

 The resourcing of staff alone to begin publishing final judgments would result in an increase of at least 10 FTE publication staff, at approximately $1 million. This does not take into consideration other staffing increases, training, overhead costs, equipment, and increases in workload. The vast majority of these decisions are also oral, meaning transcribing services would need to be resourced and serviced.

That is probably correct if it is done internally. Given that the Courts are an arm of Government I would have thought that the obligation of making law available to the people in a free and democratic society would be something that should be provided at a reasonable cost. In the overall scheme of things $1 million is a small price to pay for transparent justice.

 Considering there is essentially no precedent value (i.e. decisions do not bind the higher courts, and they are often just a straight declaration of sentence rather than reasoning) in the decisions made by the District Court, the time, effort and resource that transcribing would take would add little value to access to justice.

This is a red herring. True, the decisions of a District Court are not binding on the higher courts although they can be helpful if the issue has been considered below and needs to be critiqued on appeal or in other proceedings higher up the hierarchy. Precedent brings with it consistency, and a consistent approach has been a touchstone of our justice system. By and large, like cases should be treated alike. And so it is that the availability of District Court decisions enhances consistency. Not only do the public get a chance to see that a consistent approach has been adopted. Lawyers are able to access to database to properly advocate a position based on earlier similar outcomes thus maintaining and ensuring consistency.

I can recall that for many years counsel and law researchers have struggled with the fact that sentencing decisions of the District Court in Health and Safety prosecutions, Fisheries prosecutions and other prosecutions by Government departments have not been available so that a position may be advocated on the basis of earlier cases or clients can be advised of likely outcomes. A central database of decision would have been helpful in this regard.

Furthermore, to say that a sentencing decision is just a straight declaration of sentence rather than reasoning may happen for a run of the mill excess blood alcohol case, but the minute a judge is looking at anything more than a fine or low level community work, a complex analytical process is required involving identifying the circumstances of the offence, culpability levels, aggravating and mitigating circumstances both of the offence and the offender along with adjustments for guilty pleas, remorse and the like and stating them. All of these are very valuable in ensuring consistency of approach as appeal courts have often observed.

So to say that there is little value added to access to justice completely ignores the importance of consistency of approach in the decisions of the Courts which can be better informed by making decisions available online for the public and lawyers, rather than being closeted on an internal database.

 To argue that all 15,000 final decisions should be made online simply for the sake of it would require significant funds and resources. That would mean less money for supporting victims, putting police on the beat, and keeping our communities safe.

For the reason just articulated – consistency of approach – the decisions would not be there “simply for the sake of it”

 It’s worth noting that the judiciary have launched a new website (www.districtcourts.govt.nz<http://www.districtcourts.govt.nz>) which has started publishing judicial decisions from the District Courts. Criteria for publication in the criminal jurisdiction include sentencing notes and reserved decisions from judge-alone trials in cases of more serious offending, or cases where there has been discussion of high-level principles.

I have already commented on this. A commendable judge-led move but there are certain self-limiting factors imposed for the very reason the Minister identified earlier in her statement

All decisions resulting from proceedings brought under the Harmful Digital Communications Act will be published automatically because this is a requirement of that legislation.”

As they should be, along with all the other decisions of the District Court.

Is there an alternative way to comply with the former Clause 401? Yes there is.

Perhaps the Minister and her Department could have considered taking the online dissemination of judgments out of the hands of her Ministry and the Judiciary and, as is done in Australia and England where decisions are automatically made available to the Australasian Legal Information Institute (AUSTLII) or the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII), direct the necessary funding and the database of decision to the New Zealand Legal Information Institute (NZLII) who have established expertise in this area. The resources that would be freed up in the Ministry could be translated into funding for NZLII to provide the service. It is not hard. It has been done elsewhere. There is no need to re-invest the wheel. I have advocated such an outcome for years. Once again, an opportunity has been lost.

 

Live Streaming the High Court

The United States’ efforts to extradite Kim Dotcom and his associates from New Zealand has provided a fertile field for litigation and interpretation of the law. Issues such as the validity of search warrants and whether and to what extent there should be disclosure of information in addition to the Requesting State’s Record of the Case have been as far as the Supreme Court.

Last year the District Court conducted an Eligibility Hearing – a hearing which considers whether or not the Request for Extradition conforms with legal requirements. If so, the matter is passed on to the Minister who will make an Order for Extradition. The hearing concluded that Mr Dotcom and his associates were indeed eligible for extradition.

Unsurprisingly there has been an appeal against that decision, together with an application for judicial review and the appeal commenced before the High Court on 29 August. The case has been set down for four weeks

In yet another ground-breaking development an application to live stream the argument was made on behalf of Mr Dotcom and after argument and opposition from the United States, the application was granted, subject to conditions. The decision of Justice Gilbert can be found here.

This is the first occasion that the proceedings of the High Court have been live streamed – indeed, it is the first time that any New Zealand Court proceedings have been live streamed. There is a considerable amount of interest world-wide in the case, although that said it should be noted that the appeal is highly technical and involves lawyers putting their cases and developing their legal arguments. If you are looking for high drama this is not the place, but if you enjoy highly nuanced and carefully developed legal argument, it is certainly worth a look. The stream is on Youtube Live and the last URL is here.

Live streaming Court proceedings happens in other parts of the world. The UK Supreme Court live streams its  proceedings and archives them as well so that, as Lord Neuberger said, “justice may be seen to be done at a time that suits you.” Other appellate Courts live stream. The Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals live streams argument – all part of open justice and bringing the proceedings of the Court to the people using new communications technologies.Courts such as the US Supreme Court have yet to follow.

Is this likely to become the norm in New Zealand? That is difficult to say. The In-Court Media Guidelines certainly don’t prohibit live streaming but whether or not we are going to see a live stream of a full-scale trial will depend upon a number of factors. An appellate argument involves only the lawyers. No one is giving evidence. There is no cross-examination. There are no issues of privacy or witness anonymity that could be claimed by participants – be they members of the jury or witnesses. A whole range of different factors will have to be taken into account.

Nevertheless, the decision to live stream in and of itself is significant and important. As an example of access to an arm of government – the Court in action – it is excellent and furthers the concept of open justice. It allows anyone with a computer and an internet connection anywhere to see the High Court in action conducting a hearing, minute by minute. That is a dramatic step forward in bringing the business of the Court to the people and is an example of the enabling power of the Internet – a great step forward for the New Zealand Courts.

The Confrontation Right and Technology

The case of New Mexico v Thomas came across my desk this morning. The  blog post that alterted me to it was primarily about judicial use of social media but the first sentence caught my eye. It stated that an appeal against conviction in a murder case was overturned because an expert witness for the prosecution testified via Skype, which the Court held violated the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution.

The “confrontation clause” requires the physical presence of witnesses at a criminal trial. There was a proposal to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2004, allowing unavailable witnesses to testify via two-way video. Justice Scalia said:

I cannot comprehend how one-way transmission . . . becomes transformed into full-fledged confrontation when reciprocal transmission is added. As we made clear in Craig, [497 U.S.] at 846-47, a purpose of the Confrontation Clause is ordinarily to compel accusers to make their accusations in the defendant’s presence—which is not equivalent to making them in a room that contains a television set beaming electrons that portray the defendant’s image. Virtual  confrontation might be sufficient to protect virtual constitutional rights; I doubt whether it is sufficient to protect real ones.

In the United States it is very difficult in light of the strength of the confrontation clause to have a witness testify via video-link. Technology can provide the necessary ability to “confront” via video link. Many of the obstructions to the proper evaluation of information needed by a fact-finder to arrive at a conclusion arise from practices rooted in the ritualised oral procedures of evidence giving that have surrounded the criminal jury trial. These procedures were perfectly satisfactory in an era where communication imperatives and an absence of the range of communication technologies present today mandated the “physical presence participation” model of the criminal jury trial.

It is my argument that the essential elements of the confrontation right may be maintained through the use of information technologies whilst dispensing with the inconveniences and costs of the “physical presence participation” model.

The justification for witnesses to be physically present in the Court for examination is no longer relevant when “virtual presence” by means of a high definition screen can enable a better and clearer view of a witness than is possible from a jury box across a courtroom to the witness stand. The questionable value of demeanour suggests that this justification for presence is at best arguable and in reality is a fallacy.[1] One could go so far as to suggest that video-conferencing technology may make it possible for witnesses to give evidence from remote locations and for the accused to be “virtually present” without compromising rights. “Visual presence” may replace “physical presence.”

Audio-visual (or videoconferencing) technology dispenses with the need for physical presence because it maintains the essential aspects of the confrontation right. The accused is able to hear the evidence that is given. There is the ability for cross examination. The availability of high definition screens means that there will be little if any image distortion for the accused or other participants located elsewhere.

In addition the provision of technology should pose little difficulty. There are a number of “video-conference” technologies available. At the moment New Zealand Courts use a dedicated Voice\Video over IP system that is effective but expensive and is not widely available.

In late May 2014 I participated in a test of video-conferencing software and electronic bundle software in a mock international trial.[2] All the participants were scattered – Auckland, New Zealand, Washington DC, London, Croydon and Edinburgh. The communications software used was Microsoft Lync  – now Skype for Business – and the Electronic Bundle was provided by Caselines, a product of Netmaster Solutions, an English company. The trial rapidly established the feasibility of the software tools, both of which are reasonably priced and are browser based which meant that no additional software needed to be installed on a user’s computer. In addition, the software meant that place did not matter – a classic example of the application of spatial technologies. From a technological and practical point of view, a remote hearing is possible, practical and feasible.

The use of video-conferencing or audio-visual technology is relatively common throughout the English and Commonwealth Courts. Section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (UK) allows evidence to be given by a witness (other than the accused) by way of “live television link.” Leave is required if the witness is overseas. There is provision for pre-recorded testimony pursuant to section 27 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Rules in England allow for evidence in civil proceedings to be given via video-link.[3]

The criminal Code of Canada contains provisions governing the reception of evidence by video and audio. The Canada Evidence Act applies to non-criminal matters under Federal law and if provincial statutes are silent, federal law is adopted. Individual Courts may have rules relating to the reception of evidence.[4] Australian Courts have deployed video-conferencing for court proceedings and the taking of evidence and for pre-trial matters – not unsurprising given the vast distances in that country.

However, despite what is clearly widespread use of video-conferencing in a number of jurisdictions there is still hesitancy, even among legislators. In the debate about the introduction of the Courts Remote Participation Act 2010 objections to AVL use had two major themes. The first, as may be expected, related to the confrontation right and the “physical presence” rule implied by s.25(e) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The other related to some of the technological shortcomings surrounding the use of AVL. There was little opposition to AVL being used for procedural hearings but there was considerable objection to its use for a substantive hearing.

One suggestion was that without physical presence an accused could not keep tabs on the “cozy” conversation between counsel, the inattentive or snoozing juror or, worse still, the sleeping judge or that the camera may not be playing on the key participants at a vital stage. Such a suggestion ignores split screen and multi camera technology, along with voice activated cameras and swivelling cameras. The days of a single static camera are long gone. At no stage in the debate did there seem to be a consideration of the advantages or shortcomings of the use of technology to fulfil the purposes of the Bill of Rights Act or the Evidence Act. Rather, the visceral reaction was based upon the outrageous suggestion that a trial could take place other than in the physical presence of the accused.[5] A proper and informed debate on the use of technology in the Court system would have been preferable..

[1] Robert Fisher QC “The Demeanour Fallacy” [2014] NZ Law Review 575 at 582. See also Chris Gallavin “Demeanour Evidence as the backbone of the adversarial process” Lawtalk Issue 834 14 March 2014 http://www.lawsociety.org.nz/lawtalk/issue-837/demeanour-evidence-as-the-backbone-of-the-adversarial-process (last accessed 20 June 2014); Professor Ian R Coyle “How Do Decision Makers Decide When Witnesses Are Telling The Truth And What Can Be Done To Improve Their Accuracy In Making Assessments Of Witness Credibility?” Report to the Criminal Lawyers Association of Australia and New Zealand” 3 April 2013 p. 8; On the subject of demeanour generally see Professor Coyles extensive bibliography. See also Lindsley Smith” Juror Assessment of Veracity, Deception, and Credibility,” http://www.uark.edu/depts/comminfo/CLR/smith1.html

[2] For reports see http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/5041446.article?utm_source=dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GAZ020614   http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-etrials-of-the-future-judges-take-part-in-pilot-that-could-revolutionise-court-system-9474101.html and for an interview with Judge Simon Brown QC on the effectiveness of the trial see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7r8RUwORvkc&feature=youtu.be

[3] Information on video-conferencing in the English Courts can be found here https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/video-conferences

[4] For example the Court in Ontario may order that a hearing be conducted in whole or in part by means of a telephone conference call, video-conference or any other form of electronic communication, and “The Court may give directions to facilitate the conduct of a hearing by the use of any electronic or digital means of communication or storage or retrieval of information, or any other technology it considers appropriate.”

[5] For the debates see  Hansard Vol 664, p. 12266 http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/49HansD_20100629_00001172/courts-remote-participation-bill-%E2%80%94-second-reading ; Hansard 30 June 2010 Vol 664 p. 12349 http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/49HansD_20100630_00001105/courts-remote-participation-bill-%E2%80%94-in-committee ;

 

A Digital Progress – Court Technology – A Twenty-Seven Year Overview

This is a post that I wrote as a Guest blogger for the IITP Blog under the title “Courting Technology” and it subsequently appeared in the National Business Review.

When I left practice to join the District Court Bench at the end of 1988, computers were being used primarily for word processing and office administration and accounting, although some of us were developing uses for computers to put together database and legal reference materials. There was no publicly accessible Internet. But some of us saw the potential for computer use within the law. Upon appointment to the Bench I gave some thought to the way that computers could become part of judicial activity.

A very helpful tool that is provided for Judges upon appointment is what is called a Benchbook. This may consist of a number of helpful or summarised guides for commonly encountered issues or problems that a Judge may need to address. Benchbooks were provided in hardcopy and sometimes ran to several volumes depending upon specialist jurisdictions or Courts over which a Judge may preside. Benchbooks are now provided in electronic format.

One of the first things that I did was transform Benchbook material into digital format and I began to develop a number of other electronic reference materials as well.

I was not the only judge who could see a digital future for the Judiciary and within a year of my appointment there were discussions among some Judges to bring computers if not onto the Bench at least into Judges Chambers. There was a reasonably positive response from the Ministry of Justice and a “Computers for Judges” program was put in place. Early laptop computers – orange screen Toshiba “luggables” began to find their way on to judicial desks. Although these machines may not stack up beside today’s high powered slim line notebooks, they were certainly the newest and latest technology at the time.

A group of Judges led by Justice Robert Fisher developed a set of judicial case management and record-keeping tools known as the Judicial Workstation. This utility also had a facility to store decided or completed cases to which reference might later be made. About the time that there were discussions about setting up LANs and WANs for the Courts and the Judges to enable sharing of materials and cases. Then the Internet arrived.

By the early 2000’s computerisation was a vital part of the Court process. Case management systems were in place in the back office, decision databases were being developed and digital systems designed to make judicial working more efficient were being developed.

One of the essential tools for lawyers and judges is an accurate reliable database of caselaw. Pre-digital paradigm, this material was made available in print in law reports but the development of caselaw databases such as LexisNexis and Westlaw provided a larger quantity of material that could be the subject of targeted searches. The Ministry of Justice and the Judiciary began to develop databases of decided cases which would be made available for reference by Judges and in time much of this material was made publicly available via the Judicial Decisions Online website https://forms.justice.govt.nz/jdo/Introduction.jsp

Parliamentary Counsel’s office developed a website providing on-line access to New Zealand legislation. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/ The project was not without its difficulties but the site is reliable, authoritative and provides free access to legislation to all New Zealand citizens who are connected to the Internet.

Sadly some of the early promises of technological innovation have not yet been realised. The paperless court – a goal that has been on the books for many years – has not eventuated, and although there are informal processes available for filing documents electronically, a one-stop website for filing case materials has not yet eventuated. Another tool that was to provide a fully electronic court was the E-Bench which would enable Judges to record the progress of a case electronically rather than on a paper. It is to be hoped that these innovations will be realised in the future.

In my time on the Bench I have seen remarkable developments in the use of technology. When I was appointed virtually all the processes involving the running of the Court were manual, involving handwritten or typed records. Today there are evidence presentation technologies used regularly in Court. The use of audio-visual technologies allows “appearances” by parties and witnesses to take place via video-link. Technology is employed to make the process of giving evidence less traumatic for vulnerable witnesses. Media guidelines have been developed by Judges to enable cameras in Court to cover trials. The Courts have developed a website – the Courts of News Zealand http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/ which provides a one-stop shop to ascertain details of the Courts, the Judges, recent decisions of public interest and court sitting calendars and case summaries. In a very recent innovation, the Courts of NZ have a twitter presence @CourtsofNZ.

The future is promising for the continued innovative use of technology to improve Court processes and provide proper access to justice for New Zealanders.