The judiciary of England and Wales has published a position statement on how AI is used, governed and reviewed in courts and tribunals

Key takeaways

• The statement says judicial decisions will be taken by a judicial office holder and that AI "must not displace reasoning, evaluation of evidence or the exercise of judicial discretion".
• Only approved AI tools may be used for judicial purposes, and the statement says their features must include UK data residency, enterprise data protection and disabled web access.
• A centralised steering group chaired by the Lead AI Judge assesses new use cases, products and pilots.
• Pilots so far have focused on lower-risk uses such as summarisation, transcription and redaction.

What is the judicial AI position statement, and who is it for?

It is a statement on judiciary.uk setting out how AI is used, how it is governed, what safeguards are in place and how the approach is kept under review. It says it complements, and does not overlap with, the judiciary's published AI Guidance, latest update October 2025. Our article on the October 2025 guidance covers that separate document.

On scope, paragraph 4 says the 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 on training, pilots, governance, communications and transparency. The page is signed by Sir Colin Birss as Lead Judge for Artificial Intelligence. It does not mention litigants, legal representatives or filings.

What principles does it set for judges using AI?

The purpose section says the approach will be "cautious but positive" and that AI will be adopted to support but not replace judicial decision-making, subject to strict safeguards and robust testing. The core principles go further. Judicial decisions will be taken by a judicial office holder, and the statement says AI may assist but must not displace reasoning, evaluation of evidence or the exercise of judicial discretion. The statement also says judicial independence, impartiality, fairness, accountability, confidentiality and security are to be preserved at all times.

On oversight, the fourth core principle reads: "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, the statement says. Separately, the tools section says AI tools "must not determine the outcome of a case" or displace judicial reasoning, analysis or discretion.

Which tools are approved, and who approves new ones?

Paragraph 9 says only approved AI tools may be used for judicial purposes. Because of the pace of change, the tools are not listed on the page. The statement says their features must include UK data residency, enterprise data protection and disabled web access.

For governance, the statement says the senior judiciary will oversee judicial AI use through leadership, advisory and steering arrangements and will assign clear responsibility for pilots, approved tools and emerging use cases. New use cases, products or pilots go to a centralised steering group chaired by the Lead AI Judge, which will assess legal, ethical, operational, security and data protection issues before they can proceed. The statement describes the group as the sole route for oversight of development, piloting and deployment of AI tools and a route for escalation if concerns arise. Any new tools need approval, evaluation and ongoing review before wider deployment is contemplated.

What has been piloted, and how will the statement be reviewed?

The statement says judicial guidance was first issued in December 2023 and updated in April and October 2025. Work to date has focused on testing functionality through pilots on lower-risk use cases, with secure tools in controlled settings before wider deployment. The pilots examined whether AI can support summarisation, transcription, redaction, writing in accessible language, administrative or leadership tasks, chronology-building and document analysis. They also tested reliability, the degree of human checking required, the handling of sensitive material and the safeguards needed for operational use.

The Judicial College provides AI training through a mix of in-person and online sessions. On review, the steering group will keep the statement under review and will change approved uses, safeguards or governance arrangements where pilots, evaluations, incidents or emerging risks make that necessary.

What should litigators and legal-AI vendors do now?

The statement asks nothing of them directly. The points below are our suggestions, not requirements in the source.

• Read it with the October 2025 judicial guidance and with the court rules that apply to your filings, since the statement does not replace either.
• Keep a record of how AI was used in any work that will be put before a judge, including who checked the output.
• Vendors selling into courts can compare their products with the three stated tool features: UK data residency, enterprise data protection and disabled web access.

What are the key dates and parties?

What we did not verify

What we opened: the full position statement page on judiciary.uk on 2026-10-25.

What we did not open: the October 2025 AI Guidance itself, any list of approved tools (the statement says the tools are not listed on the page; we did not look for a list elsewhere), the steering group's papers, and any HMCTS or Ministry of Justice material. The publication date comes from the page's own date stamp; the page does not state an effective date.

What we refuse to claim: that the statement binds parties or lawyers, that it creates sanctions, which tools are approved, or how any court will treat AI use by a litigant.

Related briefings

• Judiciary AI guidance for judicial office holders, October 2025
• Technology and Construction Court guide, artificial intelligence section
• Ayinde: AI-fabricated citations and contempt
• Administrative Court judicial review guide 2026, AI section

More: All AI regulation news · Europe AI regulation tracker · Attorneys and AI regulation