Position Statement on the Judicial use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
This statement sets out how AI is used, how it is governed, what safeguards are in place, and how the approach is kept under review. It complements, and does not overlap with, the judiciary’s published AI Guidance (latest update October 2025).
Position Statement on the Judicial use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
This statement sets out how AI is used, how it is governed, what safeguards are in place, and how the approach is kept under review. It complements, and does not overlap with, the judiciary’s published AI Guidance (latest update October 2025).
Purpose
1. AI offers potentially transformative implications for justice. Our approach will be cautious but positive. AI will be adopted to support but not replace judicial decision-making and be subject to strict safeguards and robust testing.
2. The use of AI for the judiciary must always support the administration of justice, safeguard judicial independence, and maintain public confidence.
3. This statement describes the expectations for the adoption, oversight and review of AI tools used by or on behalf of the judiciary, and the safeguards that must govern their use.
Scope
4. This position statement guides senior judiciary working with the Judicial Office, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) and the Ministry of Justice on AI adoption. In particular, related to training, pilots, governance, communications, transparency and the supporting arrangements required for responsible adoption.
Core principles
1. The use of AI must remain consistent with the judiciary’s overarching obligation to protect the integrity of the administration of justice and to uphold the rule of law.
2. Judicial decisions will be taken by a judicial office holder. AI may assist, but it must not displace reasoning, evaluation of evidence or the exercise of judicial discretion.
3. Judicial independence, impartiality, fairness, accountability, confidentiality and security must be preserved at all times.
4. Human oversight is essential. Every AI output used in judicial work must be reviewed, verified and approved by the responsible judicial office holder. The judicial office holder remains fully accountable.
5. The judiciary is taking a cautious but positive approach to AI adoption, supported by pilots, evaluation, training, governance and transparency, to maintain public confidence and uphold open justice.
Work to date
5. The judiciary has undertaken substantial work to develop a careful and responsible approach to AI. Judicial guidance was first issued in December 2023 and updated in April and October 2025. Across those iterations, the judiciary has established core principles for responsible use, strengthened guidance on risks including hallucination and bias, and reaffirmed that judicial office holders remain responsible for material produced in their name.
6. Work to date has focused on testing functionality through pilot activity. The judiciary focused on lower risk use cases, testing secure tools in controlled settings before wider deployment.
7. The pilots have examined whether AI can support functions such as:
- summarisation,
- transcription,
- redaction,
- writing in accessible language,
- administrative/leadership tasks,
- chronology-building, and
- document analysis.
8. These pilots have also tested the reliability of AI tools and their outputs, the degree of human checking required, the handling of sensitive material, and the safeguards necessary for operational use. Lessons learnt from these pilots have shaped this statement.
Tools
9. Only approved AI tools may be used for judicial purposes. Due to the pace of change, these tools will not be listed here. Their features must include:
- UK data residency
- Enterprise data protection
- Disabled web access
10. AI tools must not determine the outcome of a case or displace judicial reasoning, analysis or discretion.
Governance and approval
11. The senior judiciary will continue to oversee the judicial use of AI through appropriate leadership, advisory and steering arrangements, and will assign clear responsibility for pilots, approved tools and emerging use cases. Any new tools will require proper approval, evaluation and ongoing review before any wider deployment is contemplated.
12. Any new use cases should be brought to the attention of judicial leadership.
13. New use cases, products, or pilots will be considered by a centralised steering group, chaired by the Lead AI Judge, that will assess legal, ethical, operational, security and data protection issues before they can proceed. The group will be the sole route for oversight of the development, piloting and deployment of AI tools and a route for escalation should concerns arise.
Training and support
14. The Judicial College provides AI training to the judiciary along with guidance and practical support on the use of new and existing AI tools. The underpinning aim of the training is to facilitate confident, informed and appropriate use of AI by judicial office holders. Training is delivered through a blend of in-person and online sessions, supported by a library of online material including guidance and recordings. Some content will be skills-based whilst others will be specific to pilots, tools or products.
Review and continuous improvement
15. The steering group for the judiciary will keep this position statement under review as technology, legal requirements, judicial guidance and operational learning develop. It will change approved uses, safeguards or governance arrangements where new pilots, evaluations, incidents or emerging risks make this necessary, and it will continue to refine its approach in the light of experience.
Sir Colin Birss
President of the Business and Property Division
Lead Judge for Artificial Intelligence