New position statement on judicial use of AI

The senior judiciary has published a position statement on the judicial use of AI, setting out how AI is being used across the courts, how it is governed, what safeguards are in place and how the position is being kept under review. 

The statement sits alongside the judiciary's guidance for judicial office holders, which was last updated in October 2025. 

The judiciary's overall approach to the use of AI is said to be cautious but positive, with AI being seen as potentially transformative. It is made clear that AI is being adopted to support, not replace, judicial decision-making, and will be subject to appropriate safeguards and testing. 

The statement sets out five core principles: 

1. The use of AI must remain consistent with the judiciary's obligation to protect the integrity of the administration of justice and to uphold the rule of law.
2. Judicial decisions are to be taken by a judicial office holder. AI may assist but must not displace reasoning, evaluation of the 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, with the judicial office holder remaining fully accountable.
5. The judiciary is taking a cautious but positive approach to AI adoption, supported by pilots, evaluation, training, governance and transparency.

It also reports that a number of pilots of AI tools have taken place. These have focussed on whether AI can support tasks such as summarisation, transcription, redaction, writing in accessible language, administrative and leadership tasks, chronology-building and document analysis. The pilots have also tested the reliability of AI tools and their outputs, how much human checking is required, the handling of sensitive material, and necessary safeguards.

Judges can only use approved AI tools. These are not listed in the statement due to the speed of change. However their features must include UK data residency, enterprise-grade data protection and disabled web access. Again, the statement makes clear that no AI tool can determine the outcome of a case, or displace judicial reasoning analysis or discretion.

Training is being provided by the Judicial College, along with guidance and practical support on new and existing AI tools.

The statement was issued by Sir Colin Birss, who is currently President of the new Business and Property Division and Lead Judge for AI (and is soon to be Master of the Rolls). It will be kept under review as the AI landscape develops.