The President of the Business and Property Division of the High Court and ‘Lead Judge for Artificial Intelligence’, Sir Colin Birss, has published a ‘Position Statement on the Judicial use of Artificial Intelligence’.
Last year, we discussed (here) the publication of the ‘Guidance for Judicial Office Holders’ on the use of AI, which stressed the point that judges who use AI will remain responsible for material which is produced in their name.
Sir Colin explains that the Statement does not replace that guidance, but is intended to complement it by setting out 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”.
Just as there is (for now) no general duty on litigants to disclose their use of AI, the same is true of judges. Whether that will continue may well depend on confidence within the system that judges heed the central message from Sir Colin: “AI may assist, but it must not displace reasoning, evaluation of evidence, or the exercise of judicial discretion”. Returning to the point later in the Statement, Sir Colin stresses in bold type that “AI tools must not determine the outcome of a case”.
Sir Colin also emphasises that “human oversight is essential” and, echoing the message in the earlier guidance, reminds judges that “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”.
Beyond setting out expectations for the responsible use of AI, the Statement makes clear that the adoption of the technology by the judiciary is likely to expand. Sir Colin describes a “cautious but positive approach to AI adoption” through pilots, training, and a centralised steering group, as the judiciary continues to refine its approach “in the light of experience”.
To read the Statement in full, click here.