The Use of AI in Judicial Systems: Threats and Possible Solutions The example of Quantitative Legal Prediction and Judicial Independence Prof. Serena Quattrocolo – University of Piemonte Orientale – Ital-IA, 18.3.19

On Dec. 4th 2018 the CEPEJ (body of the Council of Europe focusing on the effectiveness of justice in Europe) released the Charter The Charter is a soft-law instrument (is not binding, neither for rulers nor for stakeholders) The Charter is a canvas for legislation and private policies The Charter may become a Convention in the future The European Ethical Charter for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their Environments Prof. Serena Quattrocolo – University of Piemonte Orientale – Ital-IA, 18.3.19

1 Principle of respect for fundamental rights: ensure that the design and implementation of artificial intelligence tools and services are compatible with fundamental rights. 2 Principle of non-discrimination: specifically prevent the development or intensification of any discrimination between individuals or groups of individuals. 3 Principle of quality and security: with regard to the process- ing of judicial decisions and data, use certified sources and intangible data with models elaborated in a multi-discipli- nary manner, in a secure technological environment. 4. Principle of transparency, impartiality and fairness: make data processing methods accessible and understandable, authorise external audits. 5. Principle “under user control”: preclude a prescriptive approach and ensure that users are informed actors and in control of the choices made. 5 PRINCIPLES Prof. Serena Quattrocolo – University of Piemonte Orientale – Ital-IA, 18.3.19

1 MAIN RULE: MULTI- DISCIPLINARITY ALL 5 PRINCIPLES UNDERPIN MULTI- DISCIPLINARITY IN RESEARCH- AND WORKING-TEAMS 1 MAIN RULE: MULTI- DISCIPLINARITY Prof. Serena Quattrocolo – University of Piemonte Orientale – Ital-IA, 18.3.19

CRUCIAL IMPACT ON THE BASIC PILLARS OF A JUDICIAL SYSTEM QUANTITATIVE LEGAL PREDICTION based on open data allowed by many jurisdictions, Quantitative Legal Prediction is aimed to FORESEE THE OUTCOME OF FUTURE JUDICIAL DECISIONS This can appear a neutral or even positive outcome, for an intriguing exercise in L.A.I.: helps law-firms in selecting cases suggests how to focus resources in the best way points out in which jurisdiction the applicant can have better chances However, this can have CRUCIAL IMPACT ON THE BASIC PILLARS OF A JUDICIAL SYSTEM A BASIC EXAMPLE Prof. Serena Quattrocolo – University of Piemonte Orientale – Ital-IA, 18.3.19

PREDICTION VS. INDEPENDENCE EUROPEAN AND CIVIL-LAW JURISDICTION ARE NOT BASED ON THE RULE ‘STARE DECISIS’, I.E. THE PRECEDENT IS BINDING QLP IS EXCLUSIVLEY BASE ON PRECEDENTS QLP IS AIMED TO PREDICT THE OUTCOME OF A DECISION BEFORE IT IS DEIVERED BY THE COURT FACING THE PREDICTION, WILL THE COURT BE INDEPENDENT ENOUGH TO IGNORE THE PREDICTION? IGNORING THE PREDICTION MAY BECOME A SOURCE OF CIVIL AND DISCIPLINARY LIABILITY FOR JUDICIARY? IS PREDICTION A VALUE OR A THREAT? PREDICTION VS. INDEPENDENCE Prof. Serena Quattrocolo – University of Piemonte Orientale – Ital-IA, 18.3.19

AT THE TIME BEING: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR A LEGAL DISCUSSION ON THE USE OF AI, ESPECIALLY IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE TRYING TO POINT OUT THE RISKS REFLECTING UPON THE EXISTING FUNADAMENTAL RIGHTS PROMOTING AWARENESS IN COMPUTER SCIENTISTS ESTABLISHING MINIMUM STANDARDS OF MULTI- DISCIPLINARITY MY RESEARCH Prof. Serena Quattrocolo – University of Piemonte Orientale – Ital-IA, 18.3.19