UK creating ‘murder prediction' tool to identify people most likely to kill
Researchers are alleged to be using algorithms to analyse the information of thousands of people, including victims of crime, as they try to identify those at greatest risk of committing serious violent offences.
The scheme was originally called the 'homicide prediction project', but its name has been changed to 'sharing data to improve risk assessment'. The Ministry of Justice hopes the project will help boost public safety but campaigners have called it 'chilling and dystopian'.
The existence of the project was discovered by the pressure group Statewatch, and some of its workings uncovered through documents obtained by Freedom of Information requests.
Statewatch says data from people not convicted of any criminal offence will be used as part of the project, including personal information about self-harm and details relating to domestic abuse. Officials strongly deny this, insisting only data about people with at least one guilty conviction has been used.
The government says the project is at this stage for research only, but campaigners claim the data used would build bias into the predictions against minority-ethnic and poor people.
The MoJ says the scheme will 'review offender characteristics that increase the risk of committing homicide' and 'explore alternative and innovative data science techniques to risk assessment of homicide'.
The project would 'provide evidence towards improving risk assessment of serious crime, and ultimately contribute to protecting the public via better analysis', a spokesperson added.
The project, which was commissioned by the prime minister's office when Rishi Sunak was in power, is using data about crime from various official sources including the Probation Service and data from Greater Manchester police before 2015.
The types of information processed includes names, dates of birth, gender and ethnicity, and a number that identifies people on the police national computer.
Statewatch's claim that data from innocent people and those who have gone to the police for help will be used is based on a part of the data-sharing agreement between the MoJ and GMP.
A section marked: 'type of personal data to be shared' by police with the government includes various types of criminal convictions, but also listed is the age a person first appeared as a victim, including for domestic violence, and the age a person was when they first had contact with police.
Also to be shared – and listed under 'special categories of personal data' - are 'health markers which are expected to have significant predictive power', such as data relating to mental health, addiction, suicide and vulnerability, and self-harm, as well as disability.
Sofia Lyall, a researcher for Statewatch, said: 'The Ministry of Justice's attempt to build this murder prediction system is the latest chilling and dystopian example of the government's intent to develop so-called crime 'prediction' systems.
'Time and again, research shows that algorithmic systems for 'predicting' crime are inherently flawed.
'This latest model, which uses data from our institutionally racist police and Home Office, will reinforce and magnify the structural discrimination underpinning the criminal legal system.
'Like other systems of its kind, it will code in bias towards racialised and low-income communities. Building an automated tools to profile people as violent criminals is deeply wrong, and using such sensitive data on mental health, addiction and disability is highly intrusive and alarming.'
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: 'This project is being conducted for research purposes only. It has been designed using existing data held by HM Prison and Probation Service and police forces on convicted offenders to help us better understand the risk of people on probation going on to commit serious violence. A report will be published in due course.'
Officials say the prison and probation service already use risk assessment tools, and this project will see if adding in new data sources, from police and custody data, would improve risk assessment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
4 hours ago
- Sky News
More small boat arrivals under Starmer than Sunak, despite ex-PM being in power seven months longer
More migrants have crossed the English Channel in small boats in the 13 months that Sir Keir Starmer has been in power than that did during the whole of Rishi Sunak's 20-month premiership. The total number of people who have arrived under Sir Keir's time in government has now reached 50,716 - equivalent to 126 per day, surpassing the total of 50,637 (82 per day) that arrived under his predecessor. If the current rate is sustained, by the end of 2025 more migrants will have crossed the Channel under Sir Keir than the number that did under Boris Johnson, despite Mr Johnson having been prime minister for more than three years. Mr Johnson's premiership coincided with the COVID pandemic, when the number of people arriving in the UK was low for a sustained period while lockdowns were in place in both the UK and Europe. 2:40 Talking about the weather The Home Office has pointed out that Labour took office in summer, when good weather tends to boost the number of Channel crossings. That is true, although the number of arrivals in a rolling 12-month period has also been steadily rising and now sits just short of the all-time record. A total of 45,823 people have arrived in the past 365 days, the highest total since April 2023. It was 46,870 when Rishi Sunak took office at the end of October 2022, following very high numbers of arrivals during the last months of Mr Johnson's tenure that continued through the short reign of Liz Truss. Within five days it reached 48,670, which is still the record. By the time Mr Sunak handed over to Sir Keir, it had fallen by more than a third, to 31,578. It has risen by 45% since then. Analysing the number of crossings over a full year means each period is equal in terms of the seasons it represents, but not necessarily the weather. The Home Office says that this winter was unusually sunny and lacking in wind, which has contributed to the record number of arrivals so far in 2025. That is true, but previous analysis by the Sky News Data x Forensics team found the high number of small boat arrivals under Labour cannot just be blamed on this. More migrants were also crossing on days when weather conditions were more challenging. This week, the first migrants were detained under a new "one-in one-out" deal agreed with France. Under the pilot scheme, the UK can exchange a migrant who arrived illegally for one who has not tried to cross and can pass security and eligibility checks. Numbers are limited and are thought to be up to 50 a week. The government hopes this will act as a deterrent. But our analysis found 50 people a week is less than 5% of the average number of weekly arrivals, and less than 0.3% of total net migration to the UK. The Data and Forensics
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
Scottish Government panned for lack of Israel-linked arms firm checks
A Freedom of Information request has revealed that two major arms companies in receipt of Scottish Enterprise grants – Italian arms giant Leonardo and American multinational Raytheon Systems – haven't received a human right due diligence check since October 2019 This funding comes despite both firms continue to supply Israel with weapons amid its genocide in Gaza. In that timeframe, both firms have also been in receipt of Scottish public money – Leonardo received £786,125 in 2023 while Raytheon Systems, which has a factory in Glenrothes, was given £500k in the first half of 2024. Leonardo produces laser targeting systems for Lockheed Martin, which sells the F-35 jets Israel, and Raytheon makes Paveway II guided missiles which are also used by Israel. READ MORE: JD Vance panned for 'lies about Scotland' ahead of luxury Ayrshire holiday The last time a check was performed on French arms firm Thales was July 2021, while Babcock was last checked in March 2022 and Chemring Energetics in December 2021. Bae Systems received a check in February 2024. In response, human rights charity Amnesty International told The National that the 'more we learn' about the checks 'the more concerning it becomes' that Scottish Enterprise and Scottish ministers are defending the process. Scottish Greens co-leader Lorna Slater, meanwhile, said it was 'shocking', adding: 'There is no point in having human rights checks at all if they are never carried out.' In total, Scottish Enterprise has given £8 million to 13 companies involved in weapons manufacturing since 2019. The Scottish Government has repeatedly insisted that no public funding goes towards the manufacturing of munitions specifically but other areas these companies operate in, including research, training and apprenticeships. Scottish Enterprise, meanwhile, has strongly denied its human rights checks are not adequate. However, that has been called into question given that, of the 199 human rights checks between 2021 and 2023, no firm has ever failed. When pressed on the issue in an exclusive interview with The National last weekend, First Minister John Swinney defended the grants. 'We won't support the production of munitions. That's our hard line. And we get criticised for taking that hard line, and I'm very confident that hard line is applied,' he said. The First Minister was then pressed on the argument that any funding – even if ring-fenced by the Scottish Government – will directly help a company's cash flow and could, hypothetically, free up money to be used elsewhere, including in the building of munitions. 'I understand that point. But there are also defence requirements of Scotland. Scotland is part of an island nation. We require, for example, shipbuilding resources to support the maritime defense of the United Kingdom because nobody wants to see us vulnerable to an attack from Russia. I certainly don't want to,' he responded. An Amnesty International spokesperson said: "Amnesty is aware from our own research that payments were made to companies known to supply Israel without a new check being triggered by the unfolding genocide in Gaza. 'Alarmingly, that is the process Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Government attempted to characterise as robust and well aligned to international standards. The recent in-house review of the human rights checks recommended some improvements, but unsurprisingly they don't go far enough. We will be meeting with Scottish Enterprise in the coming weeks to take these concerns forward." Slater, meanwhile, said it 'flies in the face of any kind of due diligence'. "These are some of the biggest arms companies in the world. They have armed human rights abusers and dictatorships and some have directly enabled and profited from the genocide in Gaza,' she said. "They should not be receiving public money in the first place, and the Scottish Government absolutely should not be setting up tests to win favourable headlines while refusing to actually implement them. "How can we trust a word they say on ensuring they are applying human rights standards when they are refusing to even ask the right questions of those they are giving public money to?" Scottish Enterprise has been approached for comment.
The National
7 hours ago
- The National
National Library of Scotland debunks claim it 'banned' gender-critical book
The institution came under fire after media claims that The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht – a collection of essays written by activists including JK Rowling, former MP Joanna Cherry KC, and MSP Ash Regan – had been excluded from a major exhibition. The Times ran a front page headline which read: 'Censorship row as library bans gender-critical book.' The paper further reported that the National Library had 'banned a book about feminists' fight against Nicola Sturgeon's gender self-ID law'. READ MORE: Negative media attention 'making it hard to recruit staff' to gender clinics The claims centred on the 'Dear Library' exhibition, in which 200 books out of 523 nominated by the public were selected for display to mark the library's 100th anniversary. The other 323 books – one of which was The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht – were placed on shelves in an open reading room, according to the National Library. Refuting that amounted to a ban, a spokesperson for the institution said: "Anyone can visit our reading rooms and access this book as well as the 200 other titles that were not selected for display. A full list of those publications is available as part of the exhibition. 'Libraries are vital places where people can access all kinds of publications for free, and form their own opinions.' Harry Potter author JK Rowling was one of the contributors to the gender-critical book (Image: PA) Freedom of Information papers reportedly showed that The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht book had received four nominations for the 200-title centenary display, while just two were required to secure inclusion. However, bosses at the library decided not to give the gender-critical book a prominent slot after concerns were raised by the LGBT+ staff network. The network had warned on May 27 that they would have 'no choice' but to notify LGBT+ groups of the library's 'endorsement' if it went on display. The previous week, an Equality Impact Assessment had said that excluding the book risked allegations of censorship – but said that there would be a risk of backlash and protest if it was included. READ MORE: Kate Forbes faces ban from major Scottish arts venue over trans views National Library of Scotland chief executive Amina Shah said the book should not be included in the most public-facing display due to 'the potential impact on key stakeholders and the reputation of the library'. Drummond Bone, the chair of the board, agreed. Susan Dalgety and Lucy Hunter Blackburn, who edited The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht, wrote to National Library bosses with their concerns. 'You felt unable to stand up to these threats from some of your staff, who also invoked the risk of further disruption from external activists, other parts of the local literary establishment and possibly your funders. In response, you sacrificed our book, and your principles,' the pair said.
