When courts started publishing judgements, big data analysis within the legal domain became possible. By taking data from the European Court of Human Rights as an example, we investigate how natural language processing tools can be used to analyse texts of the court proceedings in order to automatically predict judicial decisions. With an average accuracy of 75% in predicting the violation of 9 articles of the European Convention on Human Rights our approach highlights the potential of machine learning approaches in (...) the legal domain. We show, however, that predicting decisions for future cases based on the cases from the past negatively impacts performance. Furthermore, we demonstrate that we can achieve a relatively high classification performance when predicting outcomes based only on the surnames of the judges that try the case. (shrink)

When courts started publishing judgements, big data analysis within the legal domain became possible. By taking data from the European Court of Human Rights as an example, we investigate how natural language processing tools can be used to analyse texts of the court proceedings in order to automatically predict judicial decisions. With an average accuracy of 75% in predicting the violation of 9 articles of the European Convention on Human Rights our approach highlights the potential of machine learning approaches in (...) the legal domain. We show, however, that predicting decisions for future cases based on the cases from the past negatively impacts performance. Furthermore, we demonstrate that we can achieve a relatively high classification performance when predicting outcomes based only on the surnames of the judges that try the case. (shrink)

In this paper, we discuss previous research in automatic prediction of court decisions. We define the difference between outcome identification, outcome-based judgement categorisation and outcome forecasting, and review how various studies fall into these categories. We discuss how important it is to understand the legal data that one works with in order to determine which task can be performed. Finally, we reflect on the needs of the legal discipline regarding the analysis of court judgements.

With the ever-growing accessibility of case law online, it has become challenging to manually identify case law relevant to one’s legal issue. In the Netherlands, the planned increase in the online publication of case law is expected to exacerbate this challenge. In this paper, we tried to predict whether court decisions are cited by other courts or not after being published, thus in a way distinguishing between more and less authoritative cases. This type of system may be used to process (...) the large amounts of available data by filtering out large quantities of non-authoritative decisions, thus helping legal practitioners and scholars to find relevant decisions more easily, and drastically reducing the time spent on preparation and analysis. For the Dutch Supreme Court, the match between our prediction and the actual data was relatively strong (with a Matthews Correlation Coefficient of 0.60). Our results were less successful for the Council of State and the district courts (MCC scores of 0.26 and 0.17, relatively). We also attempted to identify the most informative characteristics of a decision. We found that a completely explainable model, consisting only of handcrafted metadata features, performs almost as well as a less well-explainable system based on all text of the decision. (shrink)