![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Notes
1 A tribunal case, relating to a Freedom of Information Act request for certain information relating to the operation of that algorithm, is ongoing. See the First-tier Tribunal’s decision (EA/2021/0234), which is understood to be subject to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
2 <https://trackautomatedgovernment.shinyapps.io/register/> accessed 25 October 2023.
3 <https://hodigital.blog.gov.uk/2022/01/31/analysing-data-to-identify-risks-at-the-uk-border/> accessed 25 October 2023.
4 <https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Report-on-Accounts-Department-for-Work-and-Pensions.pdf> accessed 25 October 2023.
5 M. Oswald, J. Grace, S. Urwin and G.C. Barnes, ‘Algorithmic Risk Assessment Policing Models: Lessons from the Durham HART Model and “Experimental” Proportionality’ (2018) 27(2) Information & Communications Technology Law 223.
6 [2020] EWCA Civ 1058; [2020] 1 WLR 5037.
7 <https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/viewsonic-s-myviewboard-sens-brings-uk-s-first-ai-powered-classroom-to-smestow-academy-896798309.html> accessed 25 October 2023.
8 G. Misuraca and C. Van Noordt, ‘AI Watch – Artificial Intelligence in public services’ (2020) EUR 30255 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, identified 230 initiatives using artificial intelligence in public services across Europe; this was only a sample <https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC120399> accessed 25 October 2023.
9 <https://www.durham.police.uk/News/News-Articles/2022/January/AI-can-predict-reoffending-university-study-finds.aspx> accessed 25 October 2023.
10 J. Burrell, ‘How the Machine “Thinks”: Understanding Opacity in Machine Learning Algorithms’ (2016) 3(1) Big Data & Society.
11 Simon Chesterman gives the example of AlphaGo, a computer programme developed by Google to play the complex board game ‘Go’. The programmer could not explain how it devised the strategies it used to defeat a grand master in 2016: S. Chesterman, We, the Robots? Regulating Artificial Intelligence and the Limits of the Law (CUP 2021) 65.
12 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016).
13 [2021] UKSC 17, [2021] 1 WLR 2811.
14 ibid [51].
15 Taxes Management Act 1970 s 118(7).
16 HMRC v Tooth (n 13) [49].
17 Amato v The Commonwealth of Australia, VID611/2019. See consent order at <https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/VID611/2019/3859485/event/30114114/document/1513665> accessed 25 October 2023.
18 Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2021] FCA 634. See approval of settlement at <https://gordonlegal.com.au/media/1365/prygodicz-v-commonwealth-of-australia-no-2-2021-fca-634-11-june-2021.pdf>.
19 See the inquiry website: <https://robodebt.royalcommission.gov.au/> accessed 25 October 2023.
20 J. Susskind, Future Politics (OUP 2020) 280.
21 Qing and Lim give the hypothetical example of technology that is trained to grade examination papers. There is research indicating that human essay markers have ‘prejudices on the linguistic choices of students which signify membership in demographic groups'; accordingly they argue that ‘automatic essay grading models might then be trained on a dataset of essays with the corresponding scores assigned by such human essay graders, thus incorporating the biases of the humans into the models': J. Qing and E. Lim, ‘A Legal Framework for Artificial Intelligence Fairness Reporting’ (2022) CLJ 610.
22 J. Susskind, Future Politics (OUP 2020) 282.
23 S. Cassesse, ‘“Le Droit Tout Puissant et Unique de la Société”: Paradoxes of Administrative Law’ (2010) 22(1) European Review of Public Law.
24 Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No 3) [2009] UKHL 28, [2010] 2 AC 269 [72].
25 Osborn v Parole Board [2013] UKSC 61, [2014] AC 1115.
26 J. Waldron, ‘How Law Protects Dignity’ (2012) CLJ 200.
27 M. Bovens and S. Zouridis, ‘From Street-Level to System-Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology Is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control’ (2002) 62:2 Public Administration Review 174.
28 See the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 reg 4(2)(b)(ii).
29 Loomis (n 12) [35].
30 ibid [53].
31 ibid [63].
32 ibid [66].
33 ibid [109].
34 M. Zalnieriute, L. Bennett Moses and G. Williams, ‘The Rule of Law and Automation of Government Decision-Making’ (2019) 82(3) Modern Law Review 425.
35 Data Protection Act 2018 s 142.
36 ibid s 162.
37 See Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust v Information Commissioner [2013] UKUT 0551 [50].
38 See R (Hope and Glory Public House Ltd) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2011] EWCA Civ 316, [2011] 3 All ER 579 [45] (Toulson LJ, as he then was), approved by the Supreme Court in Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60, [2016] 1 WLR 4799 [45] (Lord Reed).
39 See recital (4): ‘[t]he right to the protection of personal data is not an absolute right; it must be considered in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of proportionality.' See further Ittihadieh v 5–11 Cheyne Gardens [2017] EWCA Civ 121, [2018] QB 256 [95]–[103] (Lewison LJ).
40 art 5(1)(a).
41 R (Gallaher Group Ltd) v Competition and Markets Authority [2018] UKSC 25, [2019] AC 96 [41].
42 Johnson v Medical Defence Union Ltd (No 2) [2007] EWCA Civ 262, [2008] Bus LR 503 [141] (Arden LJ): ‘the very word “fairness” suggests a balancing of interests. In this case the interests to be taken into account would be those of the data subject and the data user, and perhaps, in an appropriate case, any other data subject affected by the operation in question.'
43 Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014, 1065B (Lord Diplock).
44 C. Knight, ‘Automated Decision-making and Judicial Review’ [2020] JR 21.
45 R (AAA and others) v Secretary of State or the Home Department [2022] EWHC 3230 (Admin) [143].
46 [2023] EWCA Civ 745 [378]–[400].
47 Data Protection Act 2018 s 14.
48 Lord Sales, ‘Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence and the Law’ [2020] JR 46.
49 C. Harlow and R. Rawlings, ‘Proceduralism and Automation’ in E. Fisher, J. King and A. Young (eds), The Foundations and Future of Public Law (OUP 2020), arguing that computerisation is ‘apt to change the nature of an administrative process, translating public administration from a person-based service to a dehumanised system'.
50 [2017] UKFTT 830 (TC).
51 ibid [27].
52 Social Security Act 1998 s 2(1)(a).
53 Taxes Management Act 1970 s 100(1).
54 Khan Properties (n 50) [23].
55 Finance Act 2020 s 103: ‘Anything capable of being done by an officer of Revenue and Customs by virtue of a function conferred by or under an enactment relating to taxation may be done by HMRC (whether by means involving the use of a computer or otherwise).'
56 [2018] FCAFC 793.
57 ibid [140].
58 News Corp UK & Ireland Ltd v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2023] UKSC 7.
59 Shahid v Scottish Ministers [2015] UKSC 58, [2016] AC 429 [68] (Lord Reed).
60 R (King) v Secretary of State for Justice [2015] UKSC 54, [2016] AC 384 [49] (Lord Reed).
61 Carltona Ltd v Commissioners of Works [1943] 2 All ER 560, 563 (Lord Greene MR).
62 Commissioner of the Independent Commission of Investigations v Police Federation [2020] UKPC 11 [29].
63 Central Digital and Data Office and Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, ‘Guidance for organisations using the Algorithmic Transparency Recording Standard’, 5 January 2023 <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-for-organisations-using-the-algorithmic-transparency-recording-standard> accessed 25 October 2023.
64 Lord Sales (n 48). R. Williams, ‘Rethinking Administrative Law for Algorithmic Decision Making’ (2022) 42 OJLS 468, suggests a ‘form of regulatory verification', whereby the verifying entity would have access to commercially sensitive data, as does for example the Patent Office, to carry out necessary checks, in something akin to a ‘kitemark' system. This is not dissimilar from the Commission proposal.
65 <https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/key-dp-themes/guidance-on-ai-and-data-protection/what-do-we-need-to-do-to-ensure-lawfulness-fairness-and-transparency-in-ai-systems/> accessed 25 October 2023.
66 Article 35(7) of the GDPR states that a Data Protection Impact Assessment should include ‘a description of the envisaged processing operations and the purposes of the processing', ‘an assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the processing', ‘an assessment of the risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects' and the measures envisaged to ‘address the risks' and ‘demonstrate compliance with this Regulation'.
67 Qing and Lim (n 21).
68 Bridges (n 6) [198].
69 R (A) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] UKSC 37, [2021] 1 WLR 3931.
70 See the range of positions referenced in Williams (n 64).
71 loi pour une République numérique, LOI no 2016–1321 du 7 octobre 2016 pour une République numérique, art 4 and Decret no 2017–330 du 14 mars 2017, art 1.
72 Williams (n 64).
73 Equality Act 2010 ss 13, 29.
74 ibid s 19.