 Thank you very much, Mark. So to settle a bit of context, as Mark says, something in the Indigo Trust, we are fairly small funder. We normally give out about 1.25 million US dollars in grants a year, though, as Mark says, last week was somewhat exceptional. We gave out 250% of our annual budget as an immediate response to COVID-19. In this case, though, I'm going to be talking about some of the work that we've historically funded, which relates to transparency and accountability. Now, when I started with the organization two and a half years ago, we've been funding transparency and accountability initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa for about seven years. And that was a really good opportunity, fresh air vice coming in to review what we've done and to try and get a sense of what had the most impact, what had been successful, what hadn't been successful. And so myself and the team spent about six months going over everything that we've funded and also doing much wider reading, looking at peer reviewed literature, grey literature to get a better sense of actually what's to the chance of working. And the fairly uncomfortable truth was that actually many of the things we've funded really didn't have an impact at all, or they may have had an impact and it was very difficult to demonstrate that it had been the case. So either there were a whole host of other factors coming into play or that the scale of our funding was simply too small to be obvious as to whether it made a difference or not. There was one area, however, that really stood out to us as being potentially hugely significant. And that was legal information institutes. Now, what do they do, you may ask, they do something that to many of us is incredibly nerdy and unsexy and desperately unfashionable, and that is that they make legal information freely available online. And by legal information, we're talking specifically around case law, laws, legislation by laws, etc. You might think, well, who's going to use this stuff? Surely it's just lawyers who are already rich and therefore you're basically helping to support rich people. Now, we could tell from the usage figures of the sites, many of these have sites have usage numbers in the hundreds of thousands of unique users a month that it simply couldn't be the case that these were just being used by rich lawyers. And we had a fair chunk of anecdotal evidence to suggest that there were much wider societal benefits for funding this kind of work. So we give a proper evidence base to our hypothesis, our hunch, if you like. We commissioned my society who then carried out a piece of call and comp research across 14 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa with really detailed face-to-face interviews in three in Ghana, Uganda and South Africa. And the overwhelming response, or sorry, overwhelming conclusion from that research was that these sites have a huge impact. It is because they make the law freely available to those who would not otherwise be able to access it because they can't pay 5,000 US dollars a month a year to access a commercial legal service. Understandably, the people who tended to be the ones who couldn't afford those sums of money were the ones who were doing not competition law or corporate takeover law. They were the ones who were working on human rights. They were the ones who were representing litigants from poor communities. They were the ones doing pro bono law. And it was very clear that this area had a significant impact. And in some cases, such as in Uganda, it's fundamentally a pillar of the judicial system. You have judges who rely on it to be able to access case law. It's crucial. And yet it is, as I say, in sexy, desperately unfashionable, and few people get it in inverted commas. So with our relatively limited resources, it's made the decision to say this will become our primary focus in terms of funding transparency and accountability in Sub-Saharan Africa. And to that end, we've set up a separate fund for African Lee, which they're using to support Lee's across the continent, as well as giving funding to them directly. That's the kind of background I've probably talked for too long. I'm now going to hand over to Neil, who is going to talk about the much more interesting tech side of things and particularly how machine learning and a variety of tools can be used to make these services even better than they are already. Neil, I can't hear you. I think you're muted, Neil. There we go. Can you hear me now? Yep. Okay, fantastic. Sorry. Okay, can I just check as well? Are we able to see the slides? Yeah, the slides are there, Neil. Okay, fantastic. Thanks very much. And thank you, Paul, for setting up that background and thank you. I'm very excited to be able to share some of our experience in doing some more programmatic analysis of the records that we have. So as Paul's laid out, the African Legal Information Institute we collect, we curate, and we publish jurisprudence across the continent, 16 jurisdictions in Africa. And that's using a model that has been around for quite a while as part of the global free access to law movement. Obviously, there are legal information institutes all around the world. And we know that this model works for getting laws online, getting them accessible in areas where it might have otherwise been impossible for people to find these documents. And we also know from the research that Paul and Rebecca have done that now that this is also having an impact. What African Lees started looking towards in 2018 and thereafter is how can we now use the records that we have in order to have more targeted collection, firstly, of the documents that we're collecting. And then also more targeted research for the end user on the other side to be able to find the documents that they're looking for on the one hand. And then the second area where we've started working a lot is in trying to engage directly with civic society, with civil society and with people who use this information and seeing what their needs are and how we can support them. And a lot of that is programmatic analysis and it's using more algorithms and I'm going to share with you what our experience has been there, what work we've been doing and what impact we think that might have in addition. So the first thing I'm going to chat about then is in terms of targeted publishing efforts is how we're now starting to look at getting the documents online that are the most needed and that are the most important. So there is a trade off especially in law the number of documents involved in legal processes is humongous, depending on how wide you cast net you can be talking hundreds of thousands or hundreds of millions of documents with courts, and a lot of them are paper based or in basements in universities where they have to go and be scanned. And getting hold of resources but getting hold of documents is resource intensive and obviously we have limited resources. And so what we found is that we're at the point now where we have enough records in our existing database that we can start using those to form a positive feedback loop to try and create information about what we're missing. And the key sort of mechanism for doing that that we've been looking at or one of the key ones is citations between documents and looking at documents as link data. So this will be familiar even if you aren't in the legal sphere just from academic publishing obviously this links between different publications and their citations between them. In the legal sphere this is even more important because of the fact that courts can set precedent and courts like to use information that's come before. And what that means is that these links between judgments can give us a lot of information about which documents are important and how they're being used. So I'll just show you an example of what it looks like when you start treating court records as linked data and visualizing those relationships between them. So this is one of the sites that we've developed and this is obviously on the researchers end to be able to to navigate case law and find what they're looking for more easily. You can see it illustrated as well how we've connected these different decisions and seen what the links between them are and also gotten measures of influence about how important cases are from that. So one of the most important things that we've been able to do with this information is to start asking the question about which judgments of courts have received a lot of attention in other judgments but that aren't yet in our database. And what I have here is some examples of records that we found that are have been cited very often and that have been very important in the development of the law in Africa that we can now go out and look for. So we have over here the top two cases are leading cases in Kenya about the granting of interdicts and the hearing of evidence on appeal. Interestingly, there's two decisions over here are versus Turnbull and the Miller case, which in fact are English decisions. So very often in Africa English law is quite influential in our jurisprudence and we do cite English decisions and it's important for us to know as well which English decisions are ones that are important that we need to get so that practitioners in Africa also have access to that. We also have decisions here that were prescribed works in university so again for people studying people trying to get into the legal industry and we speak later a bit more as well about the importance of that. These are the sorts of decisions that can fall through the cracks. If you're just trying to collect as many documents as you can. And so what we're now doing is keeping a record of what are the most important documents that we need to get a hold of. So the second aspect that I wanted to speak about then which is again linked to you know how can we improve the impact that we're having. You know there's a lot of debates I think in this community around whether putting information online is sufficient for a publisher, or whether they need to go further than that and make sure that it is having an impact. Again, I think as Rebecca's research is shown, even just having it online having it available is massively important for practitioners in areas like human rights, and that does have a big impact on the rule of law and democracy in Africa. But we're now looking as well at going further than that informing direct relationships with people who use these records to have a sustained impact and see how we can help them. And now I'm going to share experience with two projects working on that. And the one is looking at transformation of the justice sector itself. And this is I alluded to earlier, this is very important I think for for democracies in general that the legal sector is an open one. And there's one that people can can come into even if they're from a disenfranchised background that they can enter into the legal space is very often strong links between the legal sector and the political sector. And people are working in the one tend to be friends with people in the other. And so we need to make sure that there's transformation of the justice sector itself. So we're started a project with the mail and guardian. And they've got a bunch of data journalists sort of there who want to do some investigative research into what's happening in the courts. And this is all the information which is available but hasn't been made machine readable and hasn't been made analyzable before. And so that's what we're trying to do to support their research. So just to give you an overview, for example of what this looks like. We have in our air courts decisions of courts. We also have them courts publish the court role which gives information about which judges heard which decisions which judges have been sitting on our cases. And we can also see from within the judgment itself if you look at the top left, we are able to pick out which judges wrote particular judgments because sometimes you have more than one judge on a bench, and they can write separate judgments on a single case. And we can start getting information about how many pages they're writing and what they're writing. And then at the bottom there also from the body of the case itself to figure out who were the advocates who were representing that case. So some of the work that we've been doing there is with the court rolls to be able to do that link. He has an example this was a PDF that just gets released by the courts and we've now put it into a machine friendly format so that we can start getting up that link between who's hearing the case and who's not. So that's the sort of support that we're able to offer to these data journalists and investigative journalists to say yes the information and how you can start tracking this and getting some empirics on it as well. And I'll just have this be a speculative thing. Another area in which we we also providing support is in election transparency research. So afro barometer political scientists and statisticians they do a lot of work on different indicators across the continent for democracy and for the growth of countries. And they have initiated a project where they want to look for what are the indicators what are the predictors or successful elections transparency elections. And one piece of data that has been missing from their research has been information about the courts and legal proceedings around elections. And there are lots of these there are tens of thousands of court decisions about elections and election related issues. And so by using our search tools and topic analysis which is also something we're working on. And then also extractive techniques to be able to find out from the body of cases what the decisions were and what the factors were in that decision. We're making that available so they can use that to do more investigation into what the factors are implicating elections. All of this work both in terms of you know getting more records and getting the right records helping people with research and engaging directly with people it's all society is also supported by something else that we have developed which is a classifier for different topics. So that we can know which documents are coming from cases that are about human rights, which ones are coming from cases that are about elections, or whatever the case might be. So what that's involved is a lot of getting law students together to tag cases and to get them annotated. So the computer can learn from that. And now it's just an example, or some of the topics that we looked at in a project that we did last year about separating court decisions into different human rights that were affected. And we were able to use this to train an algorithm to then be able to extend that to the whole database. And so what that means is that when you're asking questions about elections for example you can say which cases involving elections were ones that impacted on the right to dignity. For example, or when we're looking for cases that we're missing, we're looking for important records that we need to add we can say, what are the most cited decisions on the topic of human dignity for example that we don't have, and that allows us to further facets and narrow that down. So in summary, we believe that access to the law is a foundation of strong democracies and the rule of law. The source records themselves the actual law needs to be accessible. We found that without a free service as Paul said the commercial publishers outpriced the majority or so practitioners and people who aren't working in the commercial space. And so that's our primary mandate and the follow model the free access to law model is a good model for doing that, which is what the researchers shown. We're now focusing more on impact to lead to improvements in the service offering for researchers to improvements in how we're collecting records and improvements for working with people who directly use our records in order to do their projects in civil society. We're very eager for feedback input suggestions and support always. We want to know, especially because we are a foundational provider and provide the source records. We want to know how it's being used and what people need. And so we're always looking for that where people can assist and where people can give input. Thanks. I hope that was you could hear me well and I don't know Paul you want to say a couple of comments and not holding the mic so close to my face, which it's not. You might have made things bad before apologize. Just to add on that point of support, which is an ask for any funders who might be on the call. This is an area as I say that is chronically underfunded. Some of these leaves, in fact, many of them are operating on a few tens of thousands of dollars a year until recently in Sierra Leone, the Lee was a wholly volunteer effort. And yet they would have judges contacting them asking for copies of cases because they were so vital to the judiciary. It is a field where in the scheme of things relatively small amounts of money can make a tremendous difference. And particularly as many funders are funding areas such as anti corruption and putting millions if not tens of millions of dollars into that fight. And I think it would be wise of them to consider the value of the underlying judicial system that needs to be functioning in order for that fight to be successful in order for the tools and materials to be available for the people who are working on the area, particularly anti corruption but also on other areas as as a human dignity of rights, etc. So, although it's difficult time for many organizations, particularly in the funding space, do please bear the boring, unsexy, well, I find it quite sexy actually have to confess. But unfashionable, shall I say field of the free access to law as something for potential future funding.