header-logo header-logo

22 June 2018
Issue: 7798 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-detail

AI key to resolving disclosure problems in criminal law

Artificial intelligence (AI) could help resolve the recurring disclosure scandals in criminal cases, Lord Justice Gross has suggested

Speaking at a Criminal Bar Association event this week, Gross LJ said the Metropolitan Police recently spent 630 hours reviewing the content of three complainants’ mobile phones and Facebook accounts in one complicated rape case. In another case, where complainant and defendant met on Tinder, and there were only two phones to consider, 150 officer hours were required to examine 20,000 items of data.

‘It can fairly be said that technology has created many of our current disclosure problems,’ he said.

‘I am confident that technology, including AI, will ultimately—if not imminently—go a long way to solving them; I do not say all the way because trust and confidence in the process will remain essential ingredients. As to technology, please consider, by way of examples: advanced search methods; using technology to sort/list/group material; automatic rejection of poorly completed schedules and signposting to help the prosecution make the right decisions; true AI—computers learning from feedback to make accurate decisions.’

Gross LJ emphasised that disclosure must be seen as ‘integral to the criminal justice process—not as a tiresome add-on’, that ‘robust case management is essential’ and ‘the police need an “investigative mindset”’.

He said the test for prosecution disclosure—material ‘which might reasonably be considered capable of undermining the case for the prosecution against the accused or of assisting the case for the accused’—remains ‘fit for purpose’ despite the explosion of digital and social media.

Issue: 7798 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll