PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Andrew L. Urban is an outstanding author journalist and film maker who exposes and explores wrongful convictions and potential miscarriages of justice, (mostly in Australia); In his words, his Wrongful Convictions Report's research goals include "the establishment of a reliable database of wrongful convictions and an overview of identifiable reforms that would reduce the likelihood and incidence of such errors in the criminal justice system". In short, when I come upon a recent post by Andrew (link below; headed 'New AI tool shames the legal system', I pay very close attention. I was aware that there is currently a movement (in very earlier stages) to, among other functions, analyze evidence such as forensic reports in criminal cases - and I am therefore fascinated by Andrew Urban's 'test drive' of a 'specialized AI tool called AI, in the case of a man, who, in Andrew Urban's words. " was accused, charged, tried, convicted and sentenced; his appeal was dismissed. His Petition for Mercy to the Governor was put aside by the A-G as was his claim of innocence. His otherwise exemplary life, his family and business were all destroyed. But there has always been a concern that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. Now a new, specialised AI tool called LIA has confirmed it. What is LIA and why should the law act on its findings?" I would appreciate any examples that readers may have of use of AI tools in miscarriage of justice cases at hlevy15@gmail.com.
Based on:
-the multiple significant inconsistencies;
-documented factual impossibilities;
-incompatible third-party witness evidence;
-new avenues of expert analysis not previously explored;
…there is a properly grounded concern that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
POST: "New AI tool shames legal system," by Andrew L. Urban, published on The Wrongful Conviction Report, on November 25, 2025.
GIST: "We tasked LIA to investigate this case as a test of LIA’s prowess, based on documents we provided, from the judge’s summing up to the summary of the appeal and the 76 page Petition intended for the Governor seeking a Royal pardon, a last resort that was dismissed by the then Attorney-General.
LIA found multiple significant inconsistencies, including documented factual impossibilities, incompatible third-party witness evidence and new avenues of expert analysis not previously explored. The LIA report shows a litigation-ready pathway to a judicial review and includes the completed application to the Attorney-General. All it needs is a signature. All in just a few minutes.
LIA stands for Legal Intel AI, which is currently in advanced live field trials. It takes AI to the next level in several specific areas, eg the criminal law: it’s “a system designed not to replace lawyers, but to detect injustice, construct appeal pathways, and restore fairness where systems have failed,” says Adrian Bertino-Clarke, President & CEO, FIA Labs / Federated Intel AI LLC, an Australian-owned Washington-based research and AI architecture company.
‘Federated’ in this context refers to a federated system of expert AI agents, each trained for a specific high-stakes domain — medicine, law, finance, organizational design, public safety, branding, and ethics.
Bertino-Clarke explains that what “FIA and LIA represent is not the promise of artificial intelligence in the abstract — but of accountable, structured, and legally defensible intelligence. Every step is auditable. Every assumption is engineered. Every output can be tested in court, audit, or oversight review. This isn’t automation. It’s patented architecture.”
Our ‘test drive’ of LIA using a case (historical sexual abuse of a minor) we first reported in 2017 in the firm belief that it had been a wrongful conviction, resulted in the legally founded confirmation that the verdict is unsafe. The LIA report included the following:
5 Legal Standards Relevant to the Enquiry
5.1 The “Unease” Standard (White v The King (1906))
An enquiry may be ordered where material causes genuine “unease” about allowing the conviction to stand.
5.2 Miscarriage Principles (M v The Queen (1994))
A conviction may be unsafe where evidence contains inconsistencies that could raise a reasonable doubt.
5.3 Long Delay and Memory Reliability (Longman v The Queen (1989))
Significant caution is required where allegations involve decades-old memory and no physical evidence.
5.4 Inconsistent or Impossible Evidence (Domican v The Queen; Jones v R)
Material contradictions on central facts can render a conviction unsafe.
5.5 Relevance to s 77—Varley v AG (NSW)
Petitions should be interpreted beneficially; the Executive may act even in the absence of traditionally “fresh” evidence.
7 Issues Potentially Capable of Amounting to a Miscarriage of Justice
7.1 Structural impossibility in complainant’s account
If renovation timelines confirm the physical layout described did not exist, this is fundamentally exculpatory.
7.2 Demonstrably false corroboration
If DD could not have been present in 1986, the corroboration evidence collapses.
7.3 Evolution and expansion of allegations
Progressive embellishment may indicate memory distortion.
7.4 Inadequate testing of evidence at trial
Failure to challenge central inconsistencies may have deprived the jury of critical material.
7.5 Appeal process not addressing critical issues
The CCA did not evaluate the factual reliability problems now raised.
8 Conclusion and Recommendation
Based on:
-the multiple significant inconsistencies;
-documented factual impossibilities;
-incompatible third-party witness evidence;
-new avenues of expert analysis not previously explored;
…there is a properly grounded concern that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
Recommendation:
That a judicial officer be appointed under s 77(1)(a) to enquire into the conviction, with full powers to obtain evidence, examine witnesses, and determine whether the conviction should be referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal or whether further action should be taken.
It is an objective, independent and thorough investigation that condemns our legal system. How did a case so riddled with errors and avoidable mistakes pass through every stage uncorrected?
*** Special Access for Wrongful Convictions Report Readers ***
To support the advocacy community, FIA Labs is offering free access to LIA Lite. Visit FIA-Labs.com/LIA and enter promo code CHRISTMAS-2025 at checkout to activate your account.
This Lite version includes core features already in use by Innocence Project teams — designed to help dissect briefs, surface evidentiary concerns, and map viable legal arguments. No credit card required. The standard price is USD $49 per app LIFETIME licence (No subscriptions).
https://wrongfulconvictionsreport.org/2025/11/25/new-ai-tool-shames-legal-system/
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog.
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
———————————————————————————————
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
-------------------------------------------------------------------
