Editorial | Case for AI in courts

Chief Justice Bryan Sykes’ suggestion for the use of the artificial intelligence (AI) systems to help improve the efficiency of Jamaica’s courts is an inexpensive, low-hanging fruit that the authorities should grasp as a matter of urgency.

The benefit of such an outlay would, in the long run, be more than the social gains from having a faster disposition of cases. Judicial speed, if matched with trust in the system (which is not a major issue in Jamaica) can also help to lower transaction costs, leading to increased commercial activity and, ultimately, economic growth.

In fact, while the chief justice implied that customised AI tools are not yet formally part of the island’s judicial arrangements, this newspaper would be surprised if individual judges did not use some kind of AI programme to assist in their work, even if it were only a general document analysis tool, rather than one of the many available for judicial systems and legal professionals.

Speaking earlier this month at the launch of a new phase of reform project for the courts, Chief Justice Sykes placed machine-learning tools on the agenda as an obvious next step in the process.

He said, “The Court of Appeal is ideally placed to use artificial intelligence in the disposition of cases, because … it is a matter of getting the data to support them. But if you look at the decisions of the Court of Appeal … you will see very few of them that really break new ground.

“I always like to use the example of the Gun Court cases, and our gun murders, because in 99.9 per cent [of them] the issue is identification. The law in relation to identification is well settled. There is hardly anything new to be said about it. It has been heavily litigated for about three decades.

“It is a matter now of identifying the evidence and see whether the evidence comes up to the legal standard. AI can assist in that, because artificial intelligence is pattern recognition.

“We now have enough cases where it can be trained to work in our environment.

“That is how we call customisable artificial intelligence. It can be taught to go through a transcript and pick up the evidence relating to identification and match it to legal standards … .”

IS NOT BEYOND JAMAICA

We agree with Justice Sykes that implementing this system is not beyond Jamaica. And there is no reason why it cannot be done now.

Indeed, as the justice minister, Delroy Chuck, would know, while it might be appreciated or preferable if an AI programme specially designed for Jamaica and the wider Caribbean were available, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. There are a wide range of AI-based analytic tools, of varying quality, for legal professionals, including judges, that can be bought off the shelf and customised in the way suggested by Chief Justice Sykes. LexisNexis, Westlaw and Judicata are among the better known of the available systems, but are not the only ones. Some are used in Jamaica.

But even without these tools that are specifically designed for legal professionals, a judge or a lawyer, like anyone else with a long document to wade through, can make that process less tedious, by loading onto a document analysis program for synopses of the information contained therein. The document can be further interrogated for more specific details.

However, while The Gleaner expressly supports the use of these AI tools, there should be, prior to their broad, formal introduction to the judicial process, a robust discussion about their utilisation and any protocols or guardrails that should accompany them.

Put another way, expect AI systems to help judges and legal researchers to do their jobs more efficiently. We do not expect judges to outsource their obligations and responsibility to these systems. Or, as Chief Justice Sykes observed, AI ought not to be “a substitution for humans to read”.

BENEFITS

If they are good allies, and cases leave the courts quicker, there will be societal and economic benefits for Jamaica.

Justice Sykes has set for Jamaica the global benchmark of two years for cases to be completed at first-instance courts. Last year, an average 65 per cent of the cases made the target.

“All divisions of the Supreme Court need clearance rates ranging from 110.55 per cent to 135.5 per cent over the next ten years to achieve and maintain a backlog-free status, using a 24-month time standard,” the Supreme Court said in its annual statistical report for 2023.

The chief justice noted in his recent remarks that even if the clearance rate reached 99 per cent, but not the current target to clear the current backlog, that would add 32 days for each outstanding case, beyond the benchmark 24 months for their completion.

The system, therefore, can use all the help it can get in advancing citizens’ confidence in the efficacy of the justice system.

That confidence is important not only with respect to criminal matters. Several studies across myriad jurisdictions have shown that confidence by entrepreneurs that commercial/business disputes can be quickly resolved by competent courts encourages greater levels of investments, especially by foreign capital.