A Study and Development of Fact Handling in Legal Expert System
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study investigates and develops a process of fact handling in the legal expert system involving a court hearing process and a process of an argumentation between a plaintiff and a defendant. To develop a legal expert system, it is necessary to prepare a legal knowledge base and a set of facts for the system to deduce a legal reasoning to get the legal conclusion. In the legal expert system, user will input a set of facts to obtain a legal result from the system. In this work, we design a legal knowledge base and implement to handle a conflicted fact which is occurred from the input of the user. Moreover, we propose a process to manage estoppel which is a fact that Thai law does not allow a party to prove. The legal knowledge created from Thai Civil and Commercial Code law and the test cases are obtained from Thai Supreme court sentences. We compared the results of the proposed legal expert system with a traditional legal expert system. The results show that the proposed legal expert system can give correct legal result and adjudication. Moreover, the system can reduce the steps of a burden of proof from O(n) to O(1).
Article Details
The articles published are the opinion of the author only. The author is responsible for any legal consequences. That may arise from that article.
References
[2] K. Satoh, S. Tojo, and Y. Suzuki, “Formalizing a switch of burden of proof by logic programming,” in Proceedings of The 1st International Workshop on Juris-Informatics, 2007, pp. 76–85.
[3] Supreme Court of Thailand. (2016, June). [Online]. Available:http://deka2007.supremecourt.or.th/deka/web/search.js
[4] M. J. Sergot, F. Sadri, R. A. Kowalski, F. Kriwaczek, P. Hammond, and H. T. Cory, “The british nationality act as a logic program,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 29, pp. 370–386, 1986.
[5] J. Popple, “SHYSTER: A Pragmatic Legal Expert System,” Ph.D. dissertation, Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Australian National University, 1993.
[6] J. Zeleznikow, An Australian perspective on research and development required for the construction of applied legal decision support systems, Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 237–260, 2002.
[7] K. Satoh, M. Kubota, Y. Nishigai, and C. Takano, “Translating the Japanese presupposed ultimate fact theory into logic programming,” in Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX 2009), 2009, pp. 162–171.
[8] K. Satoh, K. Asai, T. Kogawa, M. Kubota, M. Nakamura, Y. Nishigai, K. Shirakawa, and C. Takano, “PROLEG: An implementation of the presupposed ultimate fact theory of Japanese civil code by PROLOG technology,” in Proceedings JSAI International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence 2010, pp. 153–164.
[9] K. W. Saunders, A Logic for the Analysis of Collateral Estoppel, Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J, 1986, pp. 99–132.
[10] M. De Vos, T. Balke, and K. Satoh, “Modelling legitimate expectations,” in Proceedings of the 2012 international conference on New Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 2012, pp. 87–100.
[11] T. Tantisripreecha and N. Soonthornphisaj, “Creating rules using abduction for legal reasoning by logic programming,” in Proceedings Business Information Systems Workshops - BIS 2011 International Workshops and BPSC International Conference, 2011, pp. 282–293.
[12] T. Tantisripreecha and N. Soonthornphisaj, “LASTC: Legal Advisory System for Thai Cheque Law,” in Proceedings The 2014 World Conference on Information Systems and Technologies (WorldCIST’14), 2014, vol. 275, pp. 503–512.
[13] T. Tantisripreecha and N. Soonthornphisaj, “Legal reasoning engine for civil court procedure,” in Proceedings International Conference on Intelligent Computing (ICIC 2014), pp. 500–512.
