Seeking Compatibility in Preventing Crime with Artificial Intelligence and Ensuring a Fair Trial

Kelly Blount


The justice system is increasingly reliant on new technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI). In the field of criminal law this also extends to the methods utilized by police for preventing crime. Though policing is not explicitly covered by Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, this article will demonstrate that there can be adverse effects of policing on fair trial rights and make the analogy to criminal investigations as a recognized pre-trial process. Specifically, it will argue that policing that relies on AI to predict crime has direct effects on fair trial processes such as the equality of arms, the presumption of innocence, and the right to confront the evidence produced against a defendant. It will conclude by challenging the notion that AI is always an appropriate tool for legal processes.


Artificial Intelligence; Fair Trial; European Convention on Human Rights; Predictive Policing

Full Text:


Show references Hide references

Amnesty International (2018) Trapped in the Matrix: Secrecy, Stigma, and Bias in the Met’s Gangs Database. United Kingdom: Amnesty International. May.

Ashworth, A. (2006) Four Threats to the Presumption of Innocence. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 10, pp. 241–279.

Barocas, S. and Selbst, A. (2016) Big Data’s Disparate Impact. California Law Review 104 (3), pp. 671–732.

Barrett, L. (2017) Reasonably Suspicious Algorithms: Predictive Policing at the United States Border. N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change, 41 (3).

Bayamlıoğlu, E. and Leenes, R. (2018) The ‘Rule of Law’ Implications of Data-Driven Decision-Making: A Techno-Regulatory Perspective. Law, Innovation and Technology, 10 (2), pp. 295–313, Available from: [Accessed 27 December 2020].

Brantingham, J. et al. (2018) Does Predictive Policing Lead to Biased Arrests? Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial. Statistics and Public Policy, 5 (1), pp. 1–6.

Brennan-Marquez, K. (2017) ‘Plausible Cause’: Explanatory Standards in the Age of Powerful Machines. Vanderbilt Law Review,70 (4), pp. 1249–1301.

Campbell, L. (2012) A Rights-Based Analysis of DNA Retention. Criminal Law Review, 12, pp. 889-905.

Campbell, L. (2013) Criminal Labels, The European Convention On Human Rights And The Presumption of Innocence. The Modern Law Review, 76 (4), pp. 681-707.

Christian, G. (2020) Artificial Intelligence, Algorithmic Racism and the Canadian Criminal Justice System. Slaw, 26 October 26. Available from: [Accessed 27 December 2020].

Cleve. v. Germany (2015). No. 48144/09, ECHR.

Council of Europe. (2020) Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; Right to a Fair Trial (Criminal Limb). Available from: [Accessed 27 December 2020].

de Jong, F. and van Lent, L. (2016) The Presumption of Innocence as a Counterfactual Principle. Utrecht Law Review, 12 (1), pp. 32–49.

Ellis, A. and Allenbaugh, M. (2020) INSIGHT: Does Presumption of Innocence Preclude Use of Acquitted Conduct at Sentencing? Bloomberg Law, 31 January. Available from: [Accessed 27 December 2020].

European Commission High Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence (2019) Draft Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. Available from: [Accessed 27 December 2020].

The European Convention on Human Rights, 1952. Available from:[Accessed 27 December 2020].

Ferguson, A.G. (2011) Crime Mapping and the Fourth Amendment: Redrawing ‘High-Crime Areas’. Hastings Law Journal, 63 (1), pp. 179–232.

Ferguson, A.G. (2012) Predictive Policing and Reasonable Suspicion. Emory Law Journal, 62 (259), pp. 261–325.

Ferguson, A.G. (2015) Big Data and Predictive Reasonable Suspicion. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 163 (2), pp. 327–410.

Ferguson, A.G. (2017) Policing Predictive Policing. Washington University Law Review, 94 (5), pp. 1109-1189.

Ferguson, P. (2016) The Presumption of Innocence and Its Role in The Criminal Process. Criminal Law Forum, 27, pp. 131–58.

Galetta, A. (2013) The Changing Nature of the Presumption of Innocence in Today’s Surveillance Societies: Rewrite Human Rights or Regulate the Use of Surveillance Technologies? European Journal of Law and Technology, 4 (2).

Gless, S. (2018) Predictive Policing - In Defense of ‘True Positives.’ In Bayamlioglu et al. (eds) Being Profiled: Cogitas Ergo Sum; 10 Years of Profiling the European Citizen. Amsterdam University Press, pp. 76–83.

Gstrein, O.J. et al. (2019) Ethical, Legal and Social Challenges of Predictive Policing. Catolica Law Review, 3 (3), pp. 77–98.

Haggerty, K. and Ericson, R. (1997) Policing the Risk Society. University of Toronto Press.

Harcourt, B. (2015) Risk as a Proxy for Race: The Dangers of Risk Assessment. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 27 (4), pp. 237–243.

Hardyns, W. and Rummens, A. (2018) Predictive Policing as a New Tool for Law Enforcement? Recent Developments and Challenges. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 24 (1), pp. 201–218.

Haskins, C. (2019) Dozens of Cities Have Secretly Experimented With Predictive Policing Software. Vice, 6 February. Available from:[Accessed 27 December 2020].

Henley, J. (2019) Denmark Frees 32 Inmates over Flaws in Phone Geolocation Evidence. The Guardian, 12 September. Available from: [Accessed 27 December 2020].

Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan (2014). No. 15172/13, ECHR.

Jansen, F. (2018) Data Driven Policing in the Context of Europe, Working Paper. Cardiff University: DATAJUSTICE. 7 May.Available from:[Accessed 27 December 2020].

Joh, E. (2014) Policing by Numbers: Big Data and the Fourth Amendment. Washington Law Review, 89, pp. 35–68.

Kehl, D. et al. (2017) Algorithms in the Criminal Justice System: Assessing the Use of Risk Assessments in Sentencing. Harvard Law School: Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. Available from: [Accessed 27 December 2020].

Lau, T. (2020) Predictive Policing Explained. [Online] New York: Brennan Center for Justice. Available from: [Accessed 27 December 2020].

Law Society Commission on the Use of Algorithms in the Justice System and The Law Society of England and Wales (2019) Algorithms in the Criminal Justice System. United Kingdom: The Law Society. Available from: [Accessed 27 December 2020].

Lehr, D. and Ohm, P. (2017) Playing with the Data: What Legal Scholars Should Learn About Machine Learning. U.C. Davis Law Review, 51 (2), pp. 653–718.

Lum, C. and Koper, C. (2017) Evidence-Based Policing; Translating Research into Practice. Oxford University Press.

Lum, K. and Isaac, W. (2016) To Predict and Serve? Significance. 7 October. Available from: [Accessed 27 December 2020].

McMichael v. United Kingdom, (1995). No. 16424/90, ECHR.

Meijer, A. and Wessels, M. (2019) Predictive Policing: Review of Benefits and Drawbacks. International Journal of Public Administration, 42 (12), pp. 1031–1039.

Mendola, M. (2016) One Step Further in the ‘Surveillance Society’: The Case of Predictive Policing. [online] Adv. LL.M. Leiden University Tech and Law Center.

Niiler, E. (2019) Can AI Be a Fair Judge in Court? Estonia Thinks So. Wired, 25 March. Available from: [Accessed 27 December 2020].

Nutter, P. (2019) Machine Learning Evidence: Admissibility and Weight. Journal of Constitutional Law, 21 (3), pp. 919–958.

Osoba, O. and Welser, W. (2017) An Intelligence in Our Image: The Risks of Bias and Errors in Artificial Intelligence. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. Available from: [Accessed 27 December 2020].

Park, R. et. al (1925) The City. University of Chicago Press.

Pasquinelli, M. (2019) How a Machine Learns and Fails - a Grammar of Error for Artificial Intelligence. Journal for Digital Cultures, Spectres of AI (5).

Perry, W. et al (2013) Predictive Policing: The Role of Crime Forecasting in Law Enforcement Operations. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation. Available from: [Accessed 27 December 2020].

Quattrocolo, S. (2019) An Introduction to AI and Criminal Justice in Europe. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, 5 (3), pp. 1519–1554.

Re, R. and Solow-Niederman, A. (2019) Developing Artificially Intelligent Justice. Stanford Technical Law Review, 22 (2), pp. 242–289.

Regner v. the Czech Republic (2017). No. 35289/11, ECHR.

Richardson, R. et. al (2019) Dirty Data, Bad Predictions: How Civil Rights Violations Impact Police Data, Predictive Policing Systems, and Justice. New York University Law Review, 94, pp. 192–233.

Roth, A. (2017) Machine Testimony. The Yale Law Journal, 126, pp. 1972–2053.

S. and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008). No 30562/04 and 30566/04, ECHR.

Sigurdur Einarsson a. o. v. Iceland (2019). No. 397517/15, ECHR.

Silveira, J. (2015) Equality of Arms as a Standard of Fair Trials. [Powerpoint] European Judicial Training Network Seminar on Human Rights and Access to Justice in the EU. Vilnius.

Van Sliedregt, E. (2009) A Contemporary Reflection on the Presumption of Innocence. Revue internationale de droit penal, 80 (1), pp. 247-267.

Vitkauskas, D. and Dikov, G. (2017) Protecting the Right to a Fair Trial Under the European Convention on Human Rights; A Handbook for Legal Practitioners. [online] 2nd ed. Council of Europe. Available from: [Accessed 27 December 2020].

Wasek-Wiaderek, M. (2000) The Principle of “Equality of Arms” in Criminal Procedure under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Its Functions in Criminal Justice of Selected European Countries. Leuven University Press.

Witten, I. and Frank, E. (2005) Data Mining, Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques. 2nd ed. Elsevier.

Završnik, A. (2020) Criminal Justice, Artificial Intelligence Systems, and Human Rights. ERA Forum, 20, pp. 567–583.

Copyright (c) 2021 Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology