Judges do not believe their jobs will be taken over by artificial intelligence - yet

The country’s judges are not keen on conducting hearings fully online, have issues with the wifi available in courtrooms across the country and do not believe their jobs will be taken over by artificial intelligence just yet, according to a survey of 55 judges.

Conducted by Dr Brian Barry of Technological University Dublin (TUD) and Dr Rónán Kennedy from the University of Galway, the survey found that despite significant progress in incorporating technology into the courts, the overall picture “is one of patchy internet access and wifi availability, particularly in the lower tiers of the court system”.

Published in the Irish Judicial Studies Journal, the survey found the vast majority of judges used a computer to prepare judgments, for remote video conferencing platforms, audio playback and accessing online legal databases. They were also broadly positive about the standard of IT equipment they used but the study found that “Judges’ personal internet access in courtrooms and general availability of wifi in court buildings came in for varying degrees of criticism”.

“While 38 of 54 (70 per cent) said that personal internet access in courtrooms was either adequate, good or excellent, some 15 judges (28 per cent) said that internet access was poor, and one District Court judge said there was no internet access available.

Election campaigns well under way as Ming pips the first televised debate

---

They say ‘Dublin 1 is for the far-right’ and threaten to kill a politician, yet Ireland ignores the threat

---

Your top stories on Tuesday: Gardaí to use lorry to see into cars and catch distracted motorists; plan to extend Dart to Drogheda

---

Unregulated student digs: A home away from home or an isolating experience?

---

“Judges on the District Court and Circuit Court generally rated internet access poorer than judges on the High Court and Court of Appeal did. 13 of 52 (25 per cent) judges reported that wifi was not available in courtrooms, while 18 of 49 (18 per cent) reported that wifi was not available in all other parts of the building.”

Most judges were “relatively positive” about the technology in use for online remote trials or hearings. However, judges were strongly in favour of in-person hearings, with one judge commenting: ‘the outcome may be fair but the perception of a hearing online is that it is something less than a formal court hearing.’

Regarding a possible reduction in face-to-face hearings, 19 per cent of judges said they were ‘extremely concerned’ and 36 per cent said they were ‘somewhat concerned’ by the prospect.

“What is clear is that there is no appetite for wholesale replacement of in-person hearings with online proceedings,” the authors said. “Indeed, it is noteworthy that more participating judges preferred wholly in-person proceedings over a hybrid model mixing online and in-person elements.”

A suggestion that some judges might be replaced by AI technology within 10 years “was met with considerable scepticism”, with 88 per cent of judges believing this would not happen, although this fell to 57 per cent when the prospect of being replaced within 30 years was posed. “The widely-held view that their own (or other judges’) roles were not under particular threat in the short-to-medium future was perhaps the most significant trend here.”

The Courts Service is already undertaking a range of actions to upgrade ICT systems under its current strategy. As for the 55 judges who participated in the survey – 32 per cent of all judges in the country – 38 per cent served in the District Court, 24 per cent were Circuit Court judges, 29 per cent were High Court judges and nine were Court of Appeal judges.

Co-author of the study, Dr Brian Barry, said there was “sizeable support” from judges for a hybrid model whereby some hearings could be heard online, and this “demands investigation into where and when such a model is appropriate”.

As for the relatively rapid introduction of online technology into the courts system due to the pandemic, he said: “Certainly the rapid shift to hearing by video conference technology was challenging and judges had to acquire skills and experience of that technology without the comprehensive training there would otherwise have received, given that necessity was the mother of invention “The question now is to take a step back and reflect on what worked well and what didn’t work well.”

As for AI, Dr Barry said it was already used to support judges but that it was a “balancing act”, adding: “It is important for the courts system and judges themselves to examine its potential while realising the inherent dangers in rushing its integration into the system.”