Identification, Categorisation and Forecasting of Court Decisions

Masha Medvedeva’s PhD dissertation ‘Identification, Categorisation and Forecasting of Court Decisions’ focuses on automatic prediction and analysis of judicial decisions. In her thesis she discusses her work on forecasting, categorising and analyzing outcomes of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and case law across Dutch national courts. Her dissertation demonstrates the potential of such research, but also to highlight its limitations and identify challenges of working with legal data, and attempts to establish a more standard way of conducting research in automatic prediction of judicial decisions. Medvedeva provides an analysis of the systems for predicting court decisions available today, and finds that the majority of them are unable to forecasts future decisions of the court while claiming to be able to do so. In response she provides an online platform JURI Says that has been developed during her PhD, and is available at jurisays.com. The system forecasts decisions of the ECtHR based on information available many years before the verdict is made, thus being able to predict court decisions that have not been made yet, which is a novelty in the field. In her dissertation Medvedeva argues against ‘robo-judges’ and replacing judges with algorithms, and discusses how predicting decisions and making decisions are very different processes, and how automated systems are very vulnerable to abuse

JURI SAYS:An Automatic Judgement Prediction System for the European Court of Human Rights

In this paper we present the web platform JURI SAYS that automatically predicts decisions of the European Court of Human Rights based on communicated cases, which are published by the court early in the proceedings and are often available many years before the final decision is made. Our system therefore predicts future judgements of the court. The platform is available at jurisays.com and shows the predictions compared to the actual decisions of the court. It is automatically updated every month by including the prediction for the new cases. Additionally, the system highlights the sentences and paragraphs that are most important for the prediction (i.e. violation vs. no violation of human rights)

Automatically identifying eviction cases and outcomes within case law of Dutch Courts of First Instance

In this paper we attempt to identify eviction judgements within all case law published by Dutch courts in order to automate data collection, previously conducted manually. To do so we performed two experiments. The first focused on identifying judgements related to eviction, while the second focused on identifying the outcome of the cases in the judgements (eviction vs. dismissal of the landlord’s claim). In the process of conducting the experiments for this study, we have created a manually annotated dataset with eviction-related judgements and their outcomes

Legal Judgement Prediction for UK Courts

Legal Judgement Prediction (LJP) is the task of automatically predicting the outcome of a court case given only the case document. During the last five years researchers have successfully attempted this task for the supreme courts of three jurisdictions: the European Union, France, and China. Motivation includes the many real world applications including: a prediction system that can be used at the judgement drafting stage, and the identification of the most important words and phrases within a judgement. The aim of our research was to build, for the first time, an LJP model for UK court cases. This required the creation of a labelled data set of UK court judgements and the subsequent application of machine learning models. We evaluated different feature representations and different algorithms. Our best performing model achieved: 69.05% accuracy and 69.02 F1 score. We demonstrate that LJP is a promising area of further research for UK courts by achieving high model performance and the ability to easily extract useful features