The statement, issued by Sir Colin Birss, president of the business and property division and lead judge for artificial intelligence, says AI adoption will be cautious but positive, with tools subject to testing, oversight and ongoing review.

It states that judicial decisions must remain the responsibility of judges, with AI prohibited from determining case outcomes or displacing judicial reasoning, the assessment of evidence or the exercise of discretion.

Any AI-generated material used in judicial work must be reviewed, verified and approved by the responsible judge, who remains fully accountable for it.

The judiciary has been testing AI in controlled settings, focusing initially on lower-risk applications. Pilots have examined its potential for summarising and transcribing material, redacting documents, producing accessible language, building chronologies, analysing documents and supporting administrative and leadership tasks.

The trials have also assessed the reliability of AI outputs, the level of human checking required and the handling of sensitive information. Only approved tools may be used for judicial purposes. These must provide UK data residency and enterprise data protection, with web access disabled.

A central steering group chaired by the lead AI judge will oversee the development, testing and deployment of AI tools. It will assess legal, ethical, operational, security and data protection issues before new products or uses can proceed, and provide a route for escalating concerns.

The Judicial College will continue to provide training and practical support through in-person and online sessions, guidance and recorded materials.

The statement builds on judicial AI guidance first published in December 2023 and updated in April and October 2025. That guidance addresses risks including inaccurate AI-generated information, known as hallucinations, and bias.

The judiciary’s approach will remain under review as technology develops and experience from pilots and operational use identifies new risks or necessary changes.

The statement says AI must be used in a way that protects judicial independence, impartiality, fairness, confidentiality and security, while maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice and upholding the rule of law.