THE EFFICIENCY OF THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE MALAYSIAN COURT SYSTEM

Introduction

The advanced technology called Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer alien to society anymore. The usage of such technology has become widespread and accepted worldwide, with its ability to mimic human intelligence. Not only that, AI has reached the point that it becomes part of the mechanism of our everyday lives. For starters, the definition of Artificial Intelligence (AI) itself serves a broad term, depending on the context which is being said there is no universally agreed upon definition due it evolving nature. However in the eyes of our understanding, AI can be simply said as computers that are given tasks to perform human abilities for instance like problem solving, decision making, comprehension and so on¹. As previously mentioned, the evolving of AI results with our society adapting with such technological advancements as it is a no brainer that it brings major advantages. Industries are increasingly integrating AI into several applications, including the legal field.

The legal system has been adopting such intelligence, in facilitating the mechanism. It is said that AI serves a potential in enhancing the system to be more efficient and accessible². Various countries managed to catch up in seizing such opportunities and Malaysia’s legal system is not an exception. Specifically, the employment of AI can be seen in the court system of Sabah and Sarawak, assisting in sentencing, although a couple of factors still need to be considered before the delivery by the judges. In spite of that, there’s has been a number of objections as it may be ‘unjust’ alongside a ‘disrespect’ to the fundamental principles of the legal system but what people fail to realize is the beauty of Artificial Intelligence in improving the operation of the system without infringing on the structure of the legal system. Furthermore, this article will be discussing the efficiency of the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Malaysian court system by examining its objective, process, and prospective advantages for the Malaysian court system.

Background and Context

On January 17th, 2020, Chief Justice of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Datuk Seri Panglima David Wong Dak Wah announced the introduction of the use of Artificial Intelligence in Sabah and Sarawak courts. The basis for the decision arose from the discrepancy and irregularity of penalties imposed by magistrates or judges³. Initially, it had received a number of objections especially from legal practitioners, stressing that such a machine wouldn’t be able to replicate a human touch along with lacking empathy. This was stressed out by Lawyer Lim Lian Kee in regards to his view of the use of AI as an assistant tool in the court⁴. Contrary to the former statement, The Right Honourable Tan Sri Dato’ Abang Iskandar bin Abang Hashim, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, stated on how the legal system isn’t parallel to the current technological progress which is why the new movement would bring major wave to improve our legal system.

Nevertheless despite public outcry, the project was officially launched on January 18th, 2020. Our judiciary system made history dated on February 19th, 2020, when Magistrate Jessica Ombou Kakayun, at Sabah Court, exercised the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in sentencing the offender, Denis Modili for a drug offence, pursuant to the charge under Section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. Such an event marks a pivotal moment as it is not only the first use of AI in the Malaysian judiciary system but also first in Asia. The sentencing was done through data collection of cases around Sabah and Sarawak from 2014 and 2019 and later would recommend the appropriate sentencing for the offender. This, of course, acts only as a mere recommendation, not conflicting with the absolute discretion of the magistrate. Denis was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, to be served concurrently with a prior 8-month sentence for a separate drugs offense.

Before we dive further, what exactly is this modern approach served to the Sabah and Sarawak courtroom? Well, the Artificial Intelligence Sentencing Guidelines (AISG) also known as Artificial Intelligence in Court Sentencing (AiCOS) is a system that bears the role of analyzing data and patterns for sentencing purposes⁵. It delivers a rather world class tier justice system through the efficiency and effectiveness of the system⁶. The system will look through the history of cases and adapt through the patterns of the outcomes or sentencing. For instance, as the intelligence amassed through cases, the components that will be analyzed would be the weight of drug, background of the accused, the rampancy of the relevant offence along with its nexus etc⁷. Later, it would generate the probability of the sentences parallel to the offence committed. Judges or magistrates would next look into the calculated percentages of appropriate punishments in relation to the period of the imprisonment and the amount of the fine. As the system is still going through an ongoing development, for now it only covers for the offence of possession of scheduled drugs specifically Section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drug Act and rape under Section 376 of the Penal Code. Subsequently, until May 29th of 2020, it was shown that a percentage of 33% of cases where judges around Sabah and Sarawak had utilized the new tool⁸. The success of the Artificial Intelligence in Court Sentencing (AiCOS) resulted in the seizing of an award under the Majlis Anugerah Inovasi dan Kecemerlangan Jabatan Perdana Menteri June 15th of 2023⁹.

Case Study

The implementation of Artificial Intelligence in the Sabah court was initially carried out in the case of PP v Denis P Modili. The case encapsulated the mechanism of the AI as an assisting tool in giving a recommendation for sentencing. The 43 years old offender was charged and later pleaded guilty for a drug possession of 0.01gm of methamphetamine on December 16th of 2019. The offence was pursuant to Section 12(2) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952. Subsection (3) of the Act also states that the punishment for such offence shall be liable to a fine not exceeding RM100,000 or imprisonment not more than 5 years. At the same time, he was also being charged under Section 15(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drug Act that is punishable by a potential fine up to RM5000 and imprisonment not exceeding 2 years. The sitting magistrate of the case, Jessica Ombou Kakayun made the first move by employing the system which then was known as Artificial Intelligence Sentencing Guidelines (AISG) as a guidance. The magistrate analyzed data of similar cases dating from 2014 and 2019 additionally entering three main components which are the weight of the drugs, the age and employment record of the accused¹⁰. The result showed a probability of 54.31% which is 10 months of imprisonment¹¹. As mentioned before, the system acts as a guideline to the judges in which Magistrate Jessica took into consideration the given result in regards to the sentencing. Regardless, she sentenced Denis for 12 months imprisonment.

To some extent, the application of the system for the sentencing of the accused at the time may be considered as a part of plea in mitigation¹². The operation of the system follows by the reading of the recommendation generated to the accused provided with an explanation of its function. The accused would then be given another chance whether he intends to change his plea of guilt. Such a process was done to ensure a fair and just hearing, supplementing the essence in the process of plea in mitigating. Ultimately, the accused affirmed his plea which the magistrate, still having the sole discretion, sentenced him to a 12 months imprisonment.

The counsel for the accused, Hamid Ismail, later objected to the sentence and filed a notice of appeal as the issues can only be determined by the High Court. The issue in question touches on Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution which states the right to life and personal liberty and Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution, which states that equality before the law and protection. In short words, the counsel argued that the use of the Artificial Intelligence for court sentencing was unconstitutional and deprived the basic human rights under the eyes of the law. The appeal, however, had no further onward movement due to the absence of the accused, subsequently no further legal argument was given. In recognition of the completion of the 12 months jail sentence, the High Court lowered the term of imprisonment to 6 months.

Advantages and Benefits

The above case encapsulated the gist of the efficiency of AI in the courtroom. The recommendation was generated by only keying in the main components of the offence. The judges and magistrates have the choice whether to follow the result or vice versa, not compromising their discretion. This advancement of a technology was built with the intention to improvise our legal system making it more efficient and beneficial to the legal actors.

Efficiency and Speed

The process in court usually would be time-consuming due to its lengthiness. Factors that may need to take into factor would be the complexity nature of each of the cases or the manual research that needs to be done by the judges or magistrates before delivering their judgements. The AI system will bear its role in facilitating by quickly processing vast databases of past cases, saving judicial time. Relevant precedents are given out almost instantly thus accelerating decision-making¹³. It expedites the process of conviction and sentencing, particularly in drug possession cases, by automatically generating sentence suggestions. For example, in PP v Denis Modili, 10 months imprisonment was suggested, factored by relevant elements, encapsulating the efficiency of the AI system. Not only it saves time, it can also save the cost of producing legal documents with the advanced tool¹⁴. Nevertheless, the presence of an AI system in the court helps the time management as it speeds up the process by automating case comparison and recommending sentences.

Data Analysis and Pattern Recognition

Similarly to the above statement, the system was developed mainly as a legal research tool to improve efficiency and precision¹⁵. Basically, it’s designed to self-learn where it will extract through the given collection of data and identify its patterns such as similar factual and legal parameters. It will then predict the outcomes of the sentencing on the basis of specific variables. In the context of the mentioned case, comparisons were made between the cases from 2014 until 2019 along with the recognizing trends based on the weight of the drugs, the age and employment record of the accused, resulting in a 54.31% probability¹⁶. She acknowledged that the AI suggestion aligned with established sentencing patterns, though judicial discretion was preserved. Additionally, the system does not interpret law or assess credibility of witnesses, it only identifies statistical correlations in sentencing outcomes. Furthermore, the AI’s suggestions derive from prior sentencing data, maintaining justice and equity reflective of its training data.

Consistency in Sentencing

In any legal system, consistency in sentencing is a cornerstone of justice. In certain circumstances, different punishments were given though they are similar offences thus may lead to unfairness and inequality. The existence of the AI system will act as a mere guidance in virtue of avoiding disparity¹⁷. The system gives statistical outputs that judges may accept or reject, as opposed to rendering court rulings¹⁸. Tan Sri Dato’ Abang Iskandar bin Abang Hashim, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, stated that what is generated is a non-binding sentencing suggestion¹⁹. This being said, their roles are neither being ‘replaced or compromised’ as many claimed. By referring to the curated dataset, judges may align the generated recommendations, maintaining consistency in sentencing.

Challenges

The concept of Artificial Intelligence itself isn’t relatively new in this modern age especially in our legal system yet not many are aware of its existence. AISG or also known as AiCOS was programmed to fill the gaps in our system but of course still lacked in certain areas. Poor exposure to the eyes of the public is one of the major causes of the use of AI in the courtroom²⁰. Similarly, lawyers in China also lack the attention of the application of AI however serves no current threat to their legal system²¹. The involvement of a ‘mere’ machine in the process disrupts the trust and faith of the legal practitioners in conducting their cases. The complexity of the actual mechanism of AI itself may play a role in the challenges. It lacks clarity of ‘how’, ‘what’ or ‘why’ to how it operates making it less transparent to others²². Some may argue that the system may be flawed since it was programmed and designed by humans, thus potential biases may occur. If the training data contains discriminatory patterns, such as unequal treatment based on race, gender, or socio-economic status, the AI might replicate those biases in its sentencing recommendations²³. Thus, these issues must be addressed and considered in order for Artificial Intelligence in Court Sentencing (AiCOS) to function more efficiently.

Conclusion

Given these points, the tool of Artificial Intelligence through Artificial Intelligence in Court Sentencing (AiCOS) in courts of Sabah and Sarawak present a great advantage to our legal system, disposing the claim of the law is still backwards. The tool is able to exhibit its efficiency through generating sentencing recommendations under differ main variables, marking a significant milestone in the evolution of judicial efficiency and consistency. While concerns regarding transparency, prejudice, and ethical implications are still present and must be addressed through appropriate regulation and scrutiny, its role is not just a mere tool but able to improvise our legal system. AI itself still poses a foreign concept in Malaysia due to poor exposure to a handful of internet users that only see AI as a tool for their entertainment such as to edit a “cartoon-fied” themselves. However as mentioned before, the term Artificial Intelligence itself serves a broad term. It depends on the field of where it’s being used and for the sake of this article, it is a complementary tool in the courtroom. In conclusion, the integration of AI in our legal system is not a departure from tradition but an evolution, aiming to modernize justice without compromising its human essence.

Bibliography 

Anjumin E., AiCOS system takes the lead: Sabah and Sarawak’s AI in Court Sentencing wins top honours, N. STRAITS TIMES, Jan. 19, 2024,

https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2024/01/1003365/aicos-system-takes-lead-sabah-and-sara waks-ai-court-sentencing-wins-top.

As Sabah, Sarawak courts test AI sentencing, lawyers say justice system cannot do away with human touch, MALAY MAIL, Apr. 21, 2022,

https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2022/04/21/as-sabah-sarawak-courts-test-ai-sentenci ng-lawyers-say-justice-system-canno/2054759.

e-Kehakiman Sabah and Sarawak, e-Kehakiman Sabah and Sarawak,

https://ekss-portal.kehakiman.gov.my/portals/web/home/article_view/0/5/1 (last visited Apr. 13, 2025).

PP v. Denis P. Modili, [2020] 2 SMC 381 (Malaysia).

D.W.K. Khong & C.H. Chiung, Case Commentary: Artificial Intelligence in Malaysian Courts: PP v Denis P Modili, 2 ASIAN J.L. & POL’Y (2022).

Chia-Lin Lim & Rui Gong, Artificial Intelligence in the Courts: AI sentencing in Sabah and Sarawak, KHAZANAH RES. INST. (Aug. 18, 2020),

https://www.krinstitute.org/assets/contentMS/img/template/editor/210206%20AI%20in%20the% 20Courts%20v4.pdf.

Tshilidzi Marwala, AI And The Law – Navigating The Future Together, UNITED NATIONS UNIV. (Feb. 13, 2024), https://unu.edu/article/ai-and-law-navigating-future-together.

E.L. Ming, How courts in Sabah and Sarawak are sentencing with the help of AI, GOVINSIDER, Nov. 24, 2021,

https://govinsider.asia/intl-en/article/how-courts-in-sabah-and-sarawak-are-sentencing-with-the-h elp-of-ai-abang-iskandar-malaysia.

N.S.F. Mohd Shith Putera et al., Artificial Intelligence-Powered Criminal Sentencing in Malaysia: A conflict with the rule of law, ENV’T–BEHAV. PROCS. J. 441, 441–48 (2022), https://doi.org/10.21834/ebpj.v7iSI7.3813.

Žaklina Spalevic & Miloš Ilić, Artificial Intelligence in the Court Justice System, TEME 745 (2024), https://doi.org/10.22190/teme240110042s.

Chris Stryker & Ekin Kavlakoglu, What is artificial intelligence (AI)?, IBM, Aug. 9, 2024, https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/artificial-intelligence.

Pei Wang & Guodong Qu, AI in court: the promotion and regulation of information technology in China’s Smart Court movements, in ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, DATA AND THE LAW 309–24 (2024), https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035337934.00025.

Right Hon. Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, Opening of the Legal Year Sabah and Sarawak 2023 Speech (2023),

https://www.kehakiman.gov.my/sites/default/files/documents/teks_ucapan/2023/SPEECH%20B Y%20THE%20RT%20HON.%20CJSS%20AT%20THE%20OPENING%20OF%20THE%20LE GAL%20YEAR%20SABAH%20AND%20SARAWAK%202023.pdf (last visited Apr. 13, 2025).

¹  Chris  Stryker  &  Ekin  Kavlakoglu,  What  is  artificial  intelligence  (AI)?,  IBM,  Aug.  9,  2024, https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/artificial-intelligence.

² Chia-Lin Lim & Rui Gong, Artificial Intelligence in the Courts: AI sentencing in Sabah and Sarawak, KHAZANAH RES. INST. (Aug. 18, 2020),

https://www.krinstitute.org/assets/contentMS/img/template/editor/210206%20AI%20in%20the%20Courts%20v4.pd f.

³ As Sabah, Sarawak courts test AI sentencing, lawyers say justice system cannot do away with human touch, MALAY MAIL, Apr. 21, 2022,

https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2022/04/21/as-sabah-sarawak-courts-test-ai-sentencing-lawyers-say-just ice-system-canno/2054759.

⁴ Ibid

⁵ e-Kehakiman Sabah and Sarawak, e-Kehakiman Sabah and Sarawak,

https://ekss-portal.kehakiman.gov.my/portals/web/home/article_view/0/5/1 (last visited Apr. 13, 2025).

⁶ Right Hon. Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, Opening of the Legal Year Sabah and Sarawak 2023 Speech (2023),

https://www.kehakiman.gov.my/sites/default/files/documents/teks_ucapan/2023/SPEECH%20BY%20THE%20RT

%20HON.%20CJSS%20AT%20THE%20OPENING%20OF%20THE%20LEGAL%20YEAR%20SABAH%20AN D%20SARAWAK%202023.pdf

⁷ Footnote 2

⁸ Ibid

⁹ Anjumin E., AiCOS system takes the lead: Sabah and Sarawak’s AI in Court Sentencing wins top honours, N. STRAITS TIMES, Jan. 19, 2024,

https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2024/01/1003365/aicos-system-takes-lead-sabah-and-sarawaks-ai-court-senten cing-wins-top.

¹⁰ PP v Denis P Modili [2020] 2 SMC 381 para 11

¹¹ PP v Denis P Modili [2020] 2 SMC 381 para 20

¹² D.W.K. Khong & C.H. Chiung, Case Commentary: Artificial Intelligence in Malaysian Courts: PP v Denis P Modili, 2 ASIAN J.L. & POL’Y (2022).

¹³ Footnote 5

¹⁴ Tshilidzi Marwala, AI And The Law – Navigating The Future Together, UNITED NATIONS UNIV. (Feb. 13, 2024), https://unu.edu/article/ai-and-law-navigating-future-together

¹⁵ Žaklina Spalevic & Miloš Ilić, Artificial Intelligence in the Court Justice System, TEME 745 (2024), https://doi.org/10.22190/teme240110042s

¹⁶ PP v Denis P Modili [2020] 2 SMC 381 para 11

¹⁷ Footnote 3

¹⁸ E.L. Ming, How courts in Sabah and Sarawak are sentencing with the help of AI, GOVINSIDER, Nov. 24, 2021, https://govinsider.asia/intl-en/article/how-courts-in-sabah-and-sarawak-are-sentencing-with-the-help-of-ai-abang-isk andar-malaysia.

¹⁹ Ibid

²⁰ Footnote 2

²¹ Pei Wang & Guodong Qu, AI in court: the promotion and regulation of information technology in China’s Smart Court  movements,  in  ARTIFICIAL  INTELLIGENCE,  DATA  AND  THE  LAW  309–24  (2024), https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035337934.00025.

²² N.S.F. Mohd Shith Putera et al., Artificial Intelligence-Powered Criminal Sentencing in Malaysia: A conflict with the rule of law, ENV’T–BEHAV. PROCS. J. 441, 441–48 (2022), https://doi.org/10.21834/ebpj.v7iSI7.3813.

²³ Kashif Javed & Jianxin Li, Artificial intelligence in judicial adjudication: Semantic biasness classification and identification in legal judgement (SBCILJ), 10 HELIYON, art. e30184 (2024), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30184.