Categories
Judiciary Legal Analysis Legal Professionals

Judicial Guidance on Artificial Intelligence

Judicial Guidance on Artificial Intelligence

On the 1st October 2025, the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary published an updated version of its Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidance for Judicial Office Holders.

This document refreshes the initial guidance that was issued in April 2025 and is available on the official judiciary website Artificial Intelligence (AI) – Judicial Guidance (October 2025) and as a downloadable PDF Artificial-Intelligence-AI-Guidance-for-Judicial-Office-Holders-2.pdf.

The guidance applies to all judicial office holders, including judges, tribunal members, clerks, judicial assistants, and support staff under the authority of the Lady Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals.

Lord Justice Birss, who is the Chancellor of the High Court and Lead Judge for Artificial Intelligence, emphasised in the document’s forward the role in maintaining judicial integrity:

“The use of AI by the judiciary must be consistent with its overarching obligation to protect the integrity of the administration of justice and uphold the rule of law.”

This update reflects rapid advancements in AI technology and responds to emerging challenges, such as the proliferation of generative AI tools. It aims to promote responsible use while ensuring compliance with legal and ethical standards.

Do you think AI replace Judges ? or AI replace Lawyers ?

Background and Purpose

The guidance emerges amid growing AI adoption across public sectors, including the justice system. It builds on prior consultations and aligns with broader UK government initiatives, such as the AI Safety Summit outcomes from 2023. The document’s primary purpose is to provide clear, practical advice on AI’s integration into judicial work without compromising core principles like impartiality, accuracy, and confidentiality.

It addresses the dual nature of AI: as an efficiency enhancer for routine tasks and a potential risk for decision-making processes. The scope extends beyond judiciary staff to interactions with legal representatives and unrepresented litigants, who may increasingly use AI tools for case preparation.

By publishing the guidance online, the judiciary underscores its commitment to open justice, allowing public scrutiny and fostering trust in AI-assisted processes.

Key Principles

The guidance is structured around four core principles, each designed to guide ethical and effective AI use.

  1. Understanding AI Capabilities and Limitations: AI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT or Google Gemini, process data probabilistically rather than through true comprehension. They can generate plausible but inaccurate outputs, known as “hallucinations,” such as fabricated case law or statistics. The guidance mandates that users familiarise themselves with these tools’ training data—often skewed towards US-centric or historical sources—and verify all outputs against primary legal sources.
  2. Upholding Confidentiality: Judicial work involves sensitive information protected under data protection laws, including the UK GDPR. The document prohibits inputting confidential details into public AI platforms, as providers may retain data for model improvement. Where feasible, users must disable chat histories and treat any accidental disclosures as data breaches, reportable via the judiciary’s incident management system.
  3. Ensuring Accuracy and Accountability: Personal responsibility remains paramount. Any document or decision attributed to a judicial office holder must reflect their independent judgement, even if AI assisted summarisation or drafting. The guidance stresses cross-verification: for example, AI-generated summaries of precedents require manual review of originals.
  4. Addressing Bias: AI inherits biases from its datasets, potentially exacerbating inequalities in areas like sentencing or evidence evaluation. Users are directed to the Equal Treatment Advisory Committee (ETAC) Bench Book for bias mitigation strategies, including diverse data prompts and regular audits of AI outputs.

Practical Applications

The guidance categorises AI uses into permissible administrative roles and restricted judicial functions.

Permitted applications include:

  • Document Management: Technology-assisted review (TAR) for e-disclosure, where AI flags relevant documents in large datasets, subject to human oversight.
  • Administrative Support: Drafting routine correspondence, prioritising emails, or transcribing non-sensitive meetings.
  • Research Aids: Summarising public domain materials, provided results are not relied upon without verification.

Prohibited or high-risk uses encompass:

  • Legal Analysis: AI cannot substitute for judges’ interpretation of law or facts; direct engagement with evidence is required.
  • Drafting Judgements: Core reasoning must originate from the office holder, not algorithmic generation.

For tribunal settings, AI may assist in scheduling or case triage but not in assessing witness credibility. The document includes checklists for safe deployment, such as logging AI use in case files for transparency.Risks and MitigationsSeveral risks are explicitly outlined. “Hallucinations” pose the most immediate threat, with examples of AI inventing non-existent statutes leading to miscarriages of justice in other jurisdictions. Deepfakes and manipulated evidence—such as altered audio or “white text” in images invisible to the human eye—demand forensic authentication protocols.

Mitigations include:

  • Training programmes for judiciary staff on AI literacy.
  • Procurement guidelines favouring secure, UK-hosted AI solutions over public tools.
  • Protocols for litigants: Judges should inquire about AI use in submissions and may require disclosure of generated content.

In cases of AI misuse, sanctions mirror those for traditional errors, potentially including costs orders or professional referrals.

Ethical Considerations and Future Implications

Ethics form a cross-cutting theme. The guidance aligns with the Judicial Oath and Guide to Judicial Conduct, reinforcing duties of fairness and diligence. It anticipates evolving threats, such as AI in predictive justice tools, and calls for ongoing reviews—potentially annually.

For unrepresented parties, the document advises sensitivity: AI-generated advice may mislead, so courts should promote verified resources like Citizens Advice. Broader implications include enhancing access to justice through AI transcription for hearings, balanced against equity concerns.

Conclusion

The October 2025 guidance represents a measured approach to AI in the judiciary, prioritising safeguards over unchecked innovation. By embedding accountability and verification, it ensures technology amplifies rather than erodes judicial authority.

As AI integrates further, perhaps in virtual hearings or automated small claims, the judiciary’s proactive stance will be crucial. This framework not only protects the rule of law but also positions the UK courts as leaders in ethical AI governance.

Check out the related articles on the Judiciary, Government Legal Department (GLD), Attorney General, Solicitor General, Lady Chief Justice, Lord Chancellor, Justice Secretary, Rule of Law, Open Justice, Law, Is the Law Black and White ?, Government Legal Department, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), Abuse of Process, What Does Lady Justice Symbolise ?, McKenzie Friend, Law Society, Law Commission, McKenzie Friend Right of Audience, Solicitors, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Barristers, Bar Council of England and Wales, Bar Standards Board, R v Sussex Justices, Police Impartiality and the highly questionable Sussex Family Justice Board.

The Ministry of Injustice is not the Ministry of Justice nor is it affiliated in any way with the justice system, legal profession, police or any other law enforcement agencies.

Latest Articles ↓

Most Popular ↓

You should always seek formal legal advice from a qualified and reputable lawyer (solicitor or barrister).

There are a number of links to Free and Paid For Legal Resources and Legal Organisations on the Free Legal Advice , Legal Aid and Pro Bono pages.

[post_title] was last updated on the 9th June 2026

By Dom Watts

Dom Watts founded the Ministry of Injustice in July 2021. Dom is an IT Professional with 30+ years experience in Tier 1 Banking, Government, Defence, Healthcare and Global Blue Chips. Dom has no legal training and is not a lawyer but has previously consulted for a Magic Circle Law Firm. You can find Dom on X or Google.

Dom Watts publishes the Ministry of Injustice as a citizen journalist. The journalism exemption is detailed in the Data protection and journalism code of practice published by the ICO and Section 124 of the Data Protection Act 2018.

Section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of truth. Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of honest opinion. Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the defence of public interest. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 2013 sets out the single publication rule.

Section 4a of The Limitation Act 1980 defines the time limit for actions for defamation or malicious falsehood as one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 gives the right to freedom of expression. "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

"Free speech encompasses the right to offend, and indeed to abuse another." - Para 43 Scottow v CPS [2020] EWHC 3421 (Admin)

"Free speech is a fundamental common law right" - Para 21 R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 [2003] 1 AC 247 per Lord Bingham and Para 42 Phillips -v- Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs [2024] EWHC 32 (Admin)

Dom is a member of The Free Speech Union

“A key issue here is the need to distinguish between conduct which, however objectionable, does not justify invoking the criminal law and conduct which crosses the line and results in criminal liability" - Para 31 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

“Harassment is generally understood to involve improper oppressive and unreasonable conduct that is targeted at an individual and calculated to produce alarm and distress” - Para 38 R v O’Neill [2016] EWCA Crim 92 [2016]

"The behaviour said to amount to harassment must reach a level of seriousness passing beyond irritations, annoyances....The gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability" - Paras [40-44] Hayden v Dickenson [2020] EWHC 3291 (QB)

"If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything"

In 2002 Dom Watts was an unlikely consumer champion. The dad of three from Croydon took on the power and might of Kodak – and won...Dom on BBC Working Lunch

Rule of Law - Open Justice - Policing By Consent