In what is believed to be the worlds’ first Virtual Reality visualisation that has led to the closing of a real-world court case, 2016 has seen the foundation of what could potentially be a game-changing innovation for dispute resolution.
Developed in just four weeks, an award-winning team was commissioned to replicate the scene of a road traffic collision in order to solve a dispute which had been ongoing for a number of years and had cost a significant amount of money
The case was settled soon after solicitors received the software; by using the latest 3D technology, the company created a 3D model of the real-world environment, animated 3D models of the vehicles involved and provided tools for users to move around, interact with the scene and witness the incident from a number of different positions; including placing the user in the drivers’ seats and from known witness locations in order to validate or invalidate statements.
Here Lawyer Monthly confronts the discussion of how virtual reality may play a significant part in the future of courtroom litigation with Dan Riley, Managing Director at Spearhead Interactive, a UK-based emerging technology agency, the award-winning team at the heart of the aforementioned case, and one that is at the forefront of this potential innovation movement.
In this case, why was VR the game-changing factor that concluded the case? Will this be the case for all future similar cases?
Spearhead Interactive supplied the software to the courts as a PC and VR application, ensuring that the reconstruction could be interacted with using traditional as well as emerging technology.
The powerful use of Virtual Reality to place you in the same situation as a witness, an offender or victim, to validate or invalidate statements, has the potential to impact heavily on the judicial process and offer new insight into case specifics, where human memory and testimony may have been blurred over time, shock or other factors.
We expect the use of VR to be relatively niche over the next three to five years, with real-time 3D software gradually replacing the use of traditional animation in cases where it is currently used. As the technology matures and the legal community is able to leverage advancements in visualisation and connect multiple users within the same environment to communicate, discuss and collaborate interactive crime-scenes, we expect that uptake will be higher for the cases with which it is a warranted and cost-effective solution.
On the back of this case, what has been the legal sector’s reaction?
Overall, the feedback from the legal sector and the forensics sector has been overwhelmingly positive. We’ve had a number of initial enquiries from regional law firms on the back of a series of open days we recently ran on the technology and the implications of the visualisation.
Whilst we expect that for the most-part, the legal sector may view this application of VR and other immerging technology with scepticism, we find that after trying the solution for themselves, they can begin to make the connection between personal experience and application.
How do you think this case will spur a yearning for innovative technology, such as VR, to be incorporated in more and more legal cases?
Personally, I believe it is up to developers and industry to create the tools, solutions and “killer apps” which move technology, whether VR, AR or anything else, past a perceived gimmick or entertainment-focused pass-time and into a realm where it can be considered a viable option that has a significant operational benefit.
Whilst we have seen this gradual adoption with other technologies, with the development of the Internet of Things sector and the increase in the use of technology by criminals, there appears to be a real and serious need for the legal profession to become more aware of the impacts and applications of innovative technology. It is hoped that this will result in more enquiries and a willingness to explore things like VR to save time, costs and deliver a better quality service to clients.
With VR being the instrument of expert witness in this case, how do you think we might see a proliferation in the use of VR as opposed to actual motoring expert witnesses, or other specialists, in courtrooms to follow?
The VR visualisation is a piece of software developed solely through the repurposing of existing forensic activities, such as laser scanning, and visualising the contents of the investigation information provided by these specialists.
It is not our aim to replace or usurp the use of expert witnesses; to the contrary, VR and other visualisation techniques allow these individuals to communicate their findings in a much more interactive and immersive way, complementing and enhancing their work, and enabling a deeper level of understanding with the technology.
How accurate was the data used, analysed and reported from the VR engagement in this case? Is the data questionable, and how can it be made more accurate so that court discussions can be more focused in future VR engagements?
Spearhead Interactive received point cloud data for the 3D scene, forensic and tachograph data for the incident, alongside all witness statements and information collected by investigators, with additional data received from the UK MET office to inform us of weather and environmental factors.
Remaining impartial during proceedings, we were careful to ensure that all details were represented as accurately as possible, however we can only be as accurate as the data we have been provided with.
Through the integration of additional data, visualisations can be made more accurate, whether that’s cross referencing against CCTV, medical reports and other evidence in order to ensure that each line of questioning can be reviewed, discussed and resolved as efficiently as possible.
How might the use of VR in court rooms in future alleviate costs and time for the courts or for claimants?
With the ability to visualise, combine and replicate processes and data, VR reconstructions have the ability to provide significant savings in both time and costs to both courts and claimants.
By providing a scenario which can be conveyed to users in a way they can immediately understand, integrating data and information to ensure we are able to meet the objectives, and enabling full control to navigate and experience these scenarios, removing doubt and visualising the facts of the case outside of any bias.
In addition, with the ability to place yourself in the shoes of any witness or involved party, we expect that a deeper level of understanding regarding the case can be obtained, which leads to fewer errors and problems that arise from the use of witness testimony alone.
What other court claim scenarios do you think VR has a potential use within? Will these present any particular challenges in its use and effectiveness?
VR has a potential use in any scenario where the time, cost or ethical implications of the result outweigh the cost of the technology investment.
Virtual Reality provides the means to visualise and navigate a process as if you were there. With everything in life being a process, there are significant possibilities for the legal sector in the uptake of this technology, as there are with every other sector.
Once the mindset challenge has been overcome by the legal sector, and there are processes in place to guarantee the work that has been completed matches the forensic and other evidence, I believe we will begin to see some truly impressive uses of the technology across a range of cases and scenarios.
How do you discern the differences between reality and virtual reality, and the legal weight each of these carries in a case?
The legal distinction between reality and virtual reality applied to court cases is very much open to debate, however, assuming that the environment is as accurate and detailed as possible, the evidence has been integrated correctly and the technology is used in an appropriate way, there is no reason that the virtual cannot be accepted as the real; in the same way that security and disability audits can be conducted for the construction industry using 3D models and virtual reality.
How do you think judiciary legal development might take place in light of the use of VR in decision making?
The use of VR and the analysis of situations as if the user is there allow for a much deeper level of understanding in regards to the case, provide the ability to focus on additional details, and offer further points for discussion and debate.
It is also plausible to assume therefore, that the technology could serve to focus the efforts of the case on specific areas which are highlighted through the use of the software, potentially altering the requirements for any follow-up investigation work and maximising operational efficiency for all members of the court, from jurors to barristers and judges.
How is Spearhead Interactive now working to incorporate VR into more legal cases, and to explore & develop technologies that will cater specifically to the legal landscape?
Spearhead Interactive is leveraging the initial development to liaise with solicitors, investigators and other members of the legal community to attain feedback, exposure and awareness surrounding the applications of the software.
Through these conversations we expect to be able to identify additional use cases, secure further contracts and identify a route to market for the visualisation services, whilst also determining what products and solutions could be developed using emerging technology to reduce the barriers to entry for the legal sector to take up VR.
