Summary:
Le 3 novembre 2025, le système judiciaire de l’Angleterre et du pays de Galles a publié des lignes directrices mises à jour pour les titulaires de fonctions judiciaires concernant l’utilisation de l’intelligence artificielle (IA). L’objectif de ces lignes directrices est d’aider les juges et le personnel judiciaire à utiliser les technologies d’IA de manière sûre et responsable tout en maintenant l’intégrité de l’administration de la justice. Les points clés comprennent des instructions détaillées sur la compréhension des capacités et des limitations de l’IA, le respect de la confidentialité et de la vie privée, l’assurance de l’exactitude et de la responsabilité pour tout travail assisté par l’IA, la prise de conscience des biais algorithmiques et la clarification des responsabilités parmi le personnel judiciaire. Les lignes directrices soulignent en outre l’importance de vérifier les informations générées par l’IA, de gérer les utilisations abusives potentielles ou la divulgation de données, et de rester vigilant concernant le contenu généré ou manipulé par l’IA présenté au tribunal.
Original Link:
Generated Article:
The updated guidance for judicial office holders regarding the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) builds upon the foundational document released in April 2025. This guidance introduces a comprehensive framework to address the key risks and ethical considerations associated with AI and provides practical suggestions for minimizing those risks. It serves to ensure adherence to the judiciary’s obligation to safeguard the integrity of the administration of justice. To bolster transparency and public trust, this updated guidance has been made available online and applies to diverse judicial roles, including clerks, judicial assistants, legal advisers, officers, and other support staff under the oversight of the Lady Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals.
The legal basis for this guidance is grounded in the principles enshrined in the rule of law under the UK’s constitutional framework, ensuring the impartiality, accountability, and fairness of judicial proceedings. Furthermore, key legal instruments such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 emphasize strict adherence to privacy and confidentiality requirements, which directly impact the use of AI tools in judicial contexts.
An ethical analysis reveals that while AI offers vast potential, its inherent limitations necessitate cautious use to prevent compromising fairness and equal treatment in judicial outcomes. Given the risk of biases in AI algorithms, which may reflect the training data used to develop Large Language Models (LLMs) and machine learning systems, judicial officers are advised to prioritize transparency, equity, and diligence. Adherence to Responsible AI principles, which advocate for systems that are trustworthy, explainable, and aligned with societal values, is integral to preserving public confidence in the courts.
From an industry perspective, the use of technology-assisted review (TAR) in electronic disclosure processes and AI tools for administrative functions—such as summarizing legal texts and composing emails or presentations—illustrates the potential efficiency gains. However, the integration of AI into judicial operations necessitates stringent oversight to safeguard against the risks posed by errors or misuse. For example, AI hallucinations, resulting in fabricated case law or misleading information, can lead to significant repercussions if unchecked. Judicial officers must independently verify AI-generated inputs by referring to authoritative legal sources and applying their legal expertise.
For instance, AI platforms like ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Meta AI have demonstrated usefulness in aiding non-legal administrative tasks, such as organizing case documentation. However, their limitations as research and analysis tools are stark. LLM-based tools analyze and predict text based on training data, yet their ability to differentiate regional legal principles (such as laws specific to England and Wales versus U.S. legal precedents) remains imperfect, with outputs sometimes reflecting historical inaccuracies or cultural biases.
To address privacy concerns, judicial office holders are reminded to avoid entering sensitive or confidential information into public AI systems, as they often retain user inputs and could inadvertently expose such data—whether through glitches or misuse. Strategies like disabling AI chat history in tools that offer this feature and refraining from granting extensive permissions on devices can mitigate these risks, though caution is still paramount.
Accountability is a critical aspect of this guidance, as judicial officers bear the ultimate responsibility for decisions and materials associated with their names. This principle aligns with longstanding legal tradition while acknowledging the growing prevalence of AI in various aspects of professional and daily life. The expectation to independently verify AI-assisted outcomes also extends to legal professionals presenting cases before the courts, particularly given the increasing use of generative AI by unrepresented litigants and concerns about fabricated legal arguments or deepfake evidence.
In conclusion, while AI introduces valuable tools for judicial functions such as summarizing text or streamlining administrative tasks, its limitations necessitate careful oversight. This refreshed guidance provides a blueprint for balancing innovation with the ethical and legal obligations of the judiciary, ensuring the protection of justice’s integrity in an era of rapidly advancing technology. Judicial office holders must remain vigilant against risks such as privacy breaches, inaccuracies, or bias to maintain confidence in the legal system and safeguard its credibility.