AI in the courts – position statement on the judicial use of AI

The judiciary has published its new Position Statement on the Judicial use of Artificial Intelligence. It takes a "cautious but positive" approach and complements, and does not overlap with, the existing AI Guidance for Judicial Office Holders. Here we summarise the key points. 

AI can support judges, but the decision stays with them

AI may assist judges, but it will not replace judicial decision making. The judiciary intends to take a “cautious but positive approach to AI adoption, supported by pilots, evaluation, training, governance and transparency, to maintain public confidence and uphold open justice”.

Judges will remain responsible for assessing evidence, exercising discretion, and making decisions, and must review and verify any AI-generated output they use. AI adoption must also protect judicial independence, fairness, confidentiality, security, and the rule of law. Testing, training, governance, and transparency will therefore be central to maintaining public confidence as AI use develops. 

Only approved AI tools may be used for judicial purposes. They functions must include: UK data residency; enterprise data protection; and disabled web access.

The judiciary is piloting and using AI

The judiciary’s AI pilots focused on lower-risk uses, using secure tools in controlled settings.  Pilots to date have tested uses including summarisation, transcription, redaction, chronology building, document analysis, writing in accessible language and administrative/leadership tasks. Only approved, secure AI tools may be used with any new tools and uses required to be centrally assessed for legal, ethical, security and data protection risks before deployment. Judges will continue to receive dedicated training, while governance and safeguards will be continually reviewed as technology and risks develop.

The key takeaways from this are that:

1. parties should be aware that the courts are potentially using AI. Whether they are depends on the nature of the case, the judge, and what the judge is doing; and
2. judicial guidance provides some insight (but is not determinative) into the potential use cases and tool features that are considered lower-risk. Of course, that is not to say they are risk-free, which is why leadership, governance, training and guidance remains of such importance. 

For more information about the law, technology and practice of disclosure, contact Tom Whittaker or Stacie Bourton.