ZavršnikA. Criminal justice, artificial intelligence systems, and human rights. ERA Forum2020; 20: 567–583. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
4.
ZilkaMSargeantHWellerA. Transparency, governance and regulation of algorithmic tools deployed in the criminal justice system: a UK case study. In: Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 2022; Jul 26, pp.880–889.
5.
PalmiottoF. The black box on trial: the impact of algorithmic opacity on fair trial rights in criminal proceedings. In: Algorithmic governance and governance of algorithms: legal and ethical challenges. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020; Oct 9, pp.49–70.
6.
RibauxOMargotP. Inference structures for crime analysis and intelligence: the example of burglary using forensic science data. Forensic Sci Int1999; 100: 193–210.
7.
PavlidisG. Unlocking the black box: analysing the EU artificial intelligence act’s framework for explainability in AI. Law Innov Technol2024; 16: 293–308.
JhalaniSMorganRMShooterA, et al.UK Parliamentary inquiry reports in forensic science – plus CA change?Forensic Sci Int Synergy2024; 9: 100549.
11.
Westminster Commission. Forensic science in England and Wales: Pulling out of the Graveyard spiral. UK Parliament: Science and Technology Committee, 2025, FS_Digital.pdf.
RybergJ. Artificial intelligence at sentencing: when do algorithms perform well enough to replace humans?AI Ethics2025; 5: 1009–1018.
14.
BurrellJ. How the machine ‘thinks’: understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data Soc2016; 3: 2053951715622512.
15.
European Commission. Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act) and amending certain union legislative acts, 2021. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206
OswaldMGraceJUrwinS, et al.Algorithmic risk assessment policing models: lessons from the Durham HART model and ‘experimental’ proportionality. Inform Commun Technol Law2018; 27: 223–250.
27.
SegliasG. Bias and discrimination in opaque automated individual risk assessment systems: challenges for judicial review under the equality act 2010. Oxford Univ Undergraduate Law J2021; 10: 53–79.