The Inscrutable Code?

Public administration in the United Kingdom increasingly features automated decision-making. From predictive policing and prisoner categorisation, to asylum applications and tenancy relationships, automated government exists across various domains. This article examines an underlying issue concerning government automated decision-making systems: the lack of public scrutiny they receive across pre- to post-deployment. Branches of the state tasked with scrutinising government, namely Parliament and the courts, appear outmoded to address this problem. These circumstances prompt a concern of where the public can expect safeguards from government overreach manifested through computer software. Two regulatory solutions are proposed. First, mandating pre-deployment impact assessments of automated decision-making systems intended for use by government, either during their design, or before procurement. Second, incorporating algorithmic auditing as part of reinforcing the duty of candour in judicial review, so as to better inform courts about specific systems and the data underpinning them.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Technology and Regulation
Published
2025-03-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.71265/sxb9dj82
Primary Topic
Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Inscrutable Code?

Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott, Lilian Edwards
Technology and Regulation
Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
article

The Inscrutable Code?

Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott, Lilian Edwards
article en

Abstract

Public administration in the United Kingdom increasingly features automated decision-making. From predictive policing and prisoner categorisation, to asylum applications and tenancy relationships, automated government exists across various domains. This article examines an underlying issue concerning government automated decision-making systems: the lack of public scrutiny they receive across pre- to post-deployment. Branches of the state tasked with scrutinising government, namely Parliament and the courts, appear outmoded to address this problem. These circumstances prompt a concern of where the public can expect safeguards from government overreach manifested through computer software. Two regulatory solutions are proposed. First, mandating pre-deployment impact assessments of automated decision-making systems intended for use by government, either during their design, or before procurement. Second, incorporating algorithmic auditing as part of reinforcing the duty of candour in judicial review, so as to better inform courts about specific systems and the data underpinning them.

Technology and RegulationVol. 2025
Turing Institute (GB), University of Oxford (GB), The Alan Turing Institute (GB)
UK Research and Innovation, British Academy, University of Oxford, Arts and Humanities Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 87%
Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

The Inscrutable Code? — Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott, Lilian Edwards · Technology and Regulation (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS