TL;DR

The senior judiciary published a position statement on Friday 9 October setting out how judges may use AI. Tools can support judicial work but must never settle how a case turns out, every output must be checked and approved by the responsible judge, and only approved tools may be used, the Law Gazette reports.

What the statement allows

Sir Colin Birss, the judiciary’s lead judge for AI, who also heads the Business and Property Division, describes the stance as “cautious but positive”. AI “will be adopted to support but not replace judicial decision-making”, he writes, under tight safeguards and thorough testing.

The statement builds on pilots that concentrated on lower-risk tasks: summarising, transcribing, redacting, chronology-building, document analysis, administrative work and rewriting text in plainer language. Those pilots also measured how reliable the tools were, how much human checking they needed and how sensitive material was handled.

The statement itself adds detail the Gazette does not cover. Approved tools must keep data in the UK, carry enterprise-grade data protection and have web access switched off. The approved list will not be published, given how fast tools change, and the Judicial College will provide training.

Who decides

Governance is centralised. Birss will chair a central steering group that must clear any new tool, pilot or use case before it proceeds, weighing ethical, legal, security, operational and data protection questions, and it is the only route for that oversight. Any new tool also faces evaluation, then continuing review, before a broader rollout is considered.

Accountability stays personal. “The judicial office holder remains fully accountable,” the statement says, with any AI output a judge relies on to be reviewed, verified and signed off by the judge concerned.

Looking forward

The statement complements the judiciary’s AI guidance, which dates from December 2023 and was revised in April and October 2025, rather than replacing it. For UK businesses selling AI into the justice system, the specification is now explicit: UK data residency and no web access are entry conditions, and every product must pass through a single judicial gatekeeper. In our view, the bar on AI shaping outcomes also sets a reference point for other regulated professions deciding where machine assistance ends and human judgement must take over.