What happened
The Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales, Baroness Carr, reported in her third annual report that the increasing use of AI by litigants in person (LiPs) is placing significant demands on court staff and the judiciary. The report, covering the period from October 2025 to September 2026, notes that while AI tools are improving access to justice, they are also complicating case management. The judiciary is responding by preparing specific guidance for litigants on the use of AI in preparing grounds of appeal, particularly within the Court of Appeal Criminal Division.
Baroness Carr of Walton-on-the-Hill, the Lady Chief Justice of England and Wales, released her third annual report detailing the work of the judiciary from October 2025 to September 2026. In the report, she acknowledged that both the King’s Bench Division Civil List and the Administrative List have seen growing numbers of litigants in person (LiPs) using AI to construct their claims.
The report states that while AI usage by LiPs is improving access to justice, it is placing significant demands on both court staff and the judiciary. Baroness Carr noted that increased case management is often required to establish what remedy the litigant is actually seeking, indicating that AI-generated documents may lack clarity or require additional judicial scrutiny to interpret correctly.
The judiciary is responding proactively to these challenges. The Court of Appeal Criminal Division (CACD) is preparing specific guidance for litigants on the use of AI when preparing grounds of appeal. The report also notes that the Criminal Appeal Office staff are assisting an increasing number of LiPs, with the CACD acknowledging the assistance of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Appeals Unit in handling applications lodged by LiPs.
Baroness Carr emphasized that the judiciary is considering AI’s potential uses and dangers carefully. She stated that while AI tools such as those used for transcription and summarisation could help reduce court backlogs and improve timeliness, the judiciary stands firm that oversight of use and decision-making will remain a human, judge-led function. This distinction is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the judicial process in an era of increasing technological integration.
Source details: lawgazette.co.uk
Why it matters
This report marks a formal acknowledgment by the UK’s highest judicial authority that AI is materially altering the operational workload and procedural dynamics of the court system. It signals a shift from passive observation to active management, with the judiciary explicitly stating that oversight and decision-making will remain human-led. The guidance being developed for the Court of Appeal Criminal Division represents a concrete policy response to the practical challenges posed by AI-generated legal documents, setting a precedent for how other divisions may handle similar issues. This development is significant for legal professionals and self-represented litigants, as it establishes that AI use is now a recognized factor in court administration and case management, potentially influencing future rules on disclosure and authenticity of legal submissions.
The formal recognition by the Lady Chief Justice that AI is creating 'significant demands' on the court system is a pivotal moment for UK legal infrastructure. It moves the conversation from theoretical concerns to practical operational impacts, highlighting that AI is not just a tool for lawyers but a factor affecting the entire judicial workflow, including staff workload and case management complexity.
The commitment to keep oversight and decision-making a 'human, judge-led function' provides a clear boundary for AI’s role in the justice system. This stance is likely to influence how courts handle disputes over the authenticity or reliability of AI-generated legal arguments, potentially leading to new procedural rules that require litigants to disclose their use of AI tools.
The preparation of specific guidance by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division is a concrete step toward standardizing how AI-assisted appeals are handled. This guidance will likely address issues such as the accuracy of AI-generated , the clarity of legal arguments, and the responsibilities of litigants who use these tools. It sets a precedent for other court divisions and may influence similar developments in other jurisdictions.
The report also highlights the potential benefits of AI, such as reducing backlogs through transcription and summarisation tools. This balanced view acknowledges that while AI poses challenges, it also offers opportunities to improve the efficiency and timeliness of the justice system, provided it is used under proper human oversight.
Interactive Mechanism: How It Actually Works
Explore the underlying technology behind this development interactively.
crm_get_transaction(id='4092').Why can ethical evaluation not be reduced to one model score?
What to watch next
The specific content of the guidance being prepared by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division for litigants using AI. Additionally, the implementation of the Civil Justice Council’s report on AI in court document preparation, which is expected to contribute to the national debate on emerging technologies in the justice system. Monitor whether other court divisions adopt similar guidance or if the judiciary introduces stricter verification requirements for AI-assisted submissions.
The release of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division’s guidance on AI use by litigants. This document will likely provide specific rules or recommendations for how litigants should use AI tools when preparing grounds of appeal, including any requirements for disclosure or verification of AI-generated content.
The implementation of the Civil Justice Council’s report on the use of AI in the preparation of court documents. This report, published at the end of the previous month, is expected to make a significant contribution to the national debate on the role of emerging technologies within the justice system, potentially leading to broader policy changes or procedural updates.
The impact of these developments on the workload of court staff and the judiciary. As AI use by litigants continues to grow, courts may need to allocate additional resources for case management and verification, which could have implications for court budgets and staffing levels.
The response of legal professionals and self-represented litigants to the new guidance and policy directions. The effectiveness of these measures will depend on how well they are communicated and adopted by the legal community, and whether they successfully balance the benefits of AI with the need for human oversight and judicial integrity.