Andrew L. Urban
An article compiled by AI states that “Steven Fennell is suing the Queensland government and police for malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, and abuse of process. Fennell was wrongfully convicted of murdering his grandmother, Mrs Watson, and spent time in prison. In September 2019, the High Court of Australia quashed his convictions.” But Mrs Watson was not his grandmother.
“Of all the media stories, trial records, Appeal and High Court transcripts available none mention, suggest or state that Mrs Watson was Steven’s grandmother; what has happened?” wonders our reader and Steven’s friend David Wright.
He adds, “Steven was convicted at trial to spite the overwhelming evidence that the police case was wrong. Steven failed at the Appeals court because the judges cut and pasted an argument made by the DPP that was factually wrong. What is galling is that none of the three Appeals judges picked up the error because they did NOT act independently. This error was mentioned in the High Court.”
It seems Wright is right: “The story in essence is about the flaws in AI reasoning and logic.”
Steven Fennell with his wife Helen and son Adam
For Fennell, “this AI error is simply a progression of incorrect assertions, this time created by AI.
“AI will be of massive assistance in the collection and sorting of quantum material, but if AI is going to self generate opinions which appear to the reader to be facts then the use of AI will be a problem. How many people will read this comment and believe it? How many will make an argument or debate be it on legal or a moral basis based on this AI error?
“While the AI error is an issue, I wonder how many journalist when made a aware of this error will see the importance of better regulation in the area of AI. In my official HCA case, there is a single transcription error that I have found. A transcription error that changes the entire circumstances, relevance and the importance of one assertion. Was that transcription (from the video) AI generated?”
Fennell explains that error: “The comment by Keane J on video is “Except that its significance was that it was a false statement on Mr Fennell. It made him look like a guilty man. He was making a story up as to what he had done with the money”. The written transcript changes the word ON to BY ” The video …….”it was a false statement on Mr Fennell.” when on was changed to by it completely changed the context of the statement; anyone hoping to use that as a legal argument would be thwarted by the error.
“My very real concern here is complacency. When investigators and /or journalists take note of the error and come to one of the following conclusions:-1. The information does not affect a current police investigation so it’s no big deal or 2. Errors are made all the time this one appears to be insignificant or 3. The matter is now closed it’s not worth correcting or 4. a reckless and cavalier attitude is now the norm.
“My point is not that AI transcribed incorrect material, rather that the error was not present in available transcripts and for whatever reason AI has developed it’s own version of the facts. This could just have easily been a case where a medical diagnosis was made NOT based on the available facts which could lead to a serious result for the patient.
“What AI has stated about my matter is wrong; but what is more important is how AI came to make that error.”
>> Having spent more than six years in prison for murder before being released by the High Court, Fennell has launched a $5.5 million damages claim. Fennell claims wrongful imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
ADDENDUM
After digging for hours online rummaging through some 80 articles, Steven Fennell found the only mention of “grandmother” – in a headline.
There are 2 principles that seem to cover so many variants of life’s Justice and injustice , plus freedom and lack of it. 1. William Blackstone ‘better 10 guilty men escape than one innocent who suffers’. Benjamin Franklin later changed the ratio to 100 . Such was his value of Justice. 2. Evelyn Beatrice Hall said ..’I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ‘ These two principles can apply to almost every aspect of a good life.
I came across a classic example, where one little word changed the entire story. It was in the case of the magistrate, accused of child abuse (and still lingering in a SA prison after 25 years.) The transcript of court proceedings read:
(Prosecutor: “You loved that boy ….” (child so and so).
Defendant: “Yes, I did”.
Problem was, the transcript should have read: “You liked that boy”.
Somebody had later amended the official transcript in pen.
There is a big difference, an older man like a school teacher, liking a student or loving them!
Perhaps, even stenographers can get caught up in the avalanche, when police try everything to win a case, as to not be embarrassed by their stuff up.
We always knew AI generated copy was going to be problematic. Just the other day in the SMH, there was a running commentary about a tennis match in The Australian Open. It was gooblygook. No-one had checked it. The headlines were all nonsense. The commentators asked what tactics would an AI suggest when Alex De Minnaur was playing (and losing) the set. More rubbish, trawling through the history, instead of assessing his fitness on the day and relevant conditions and mindset. Shocking stuff.
Hi Andrew. I just had a call from a lawyer who went through my petition to AG.
He basically went back to the normal approach. New evidence required. ! Yet the old evidence is implausible and inconsistent or just plain perjury. I need , as they did for Pell , some jurisdiction , to review the evidence and basically say , police ignored exculpatory evidence DPP .. same. My lawyer same ! So they say it was your lawyers fault . So what ? The police and DPP just ignored evidence flaws that were in their own brief. My inadequate representation does not excuse police and DPP proceeding against me even though they had evidence of impossible statements and asked no questions. What or where is Justice ???
Justice? Hmmm…maybe in the AG’s bottom drawer, in your case.
This is a horrendous example of why AI cannot be trusted , and, why use of it should cease now and forever . How can we trust an already flawed Justice System and mis- reporting by Media?