LONDON — Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy will announce a pilot program to trial artificial intelligence (AI) assistants in England and Wales to reduce the backlog of court cases. The Ministry of Justice said judges plan to use the tool to identify cases ready for trial and group similar hearings together.
"Artificial intelligence has the power to transform how we live, work and govern for the better. This impact for good can be seen in our justice system, with thousands of days of admin work saved for our probation staff and the advent of new tools which aim to cut court backlogs and deliver swifter justice for victims," Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy said.
The Law Society of England and Wales represents more than 200,000 solicitors. "For the use of AI in the crown court to be effective, the pilot must be thoroughly evaluated. The outcomes of these evaluations, along with the impact of AI on the justice system, should be made public," Ian Jeffery, chief executive of the Law Society, said.
"While new technology should enhance access to justice, it cannot replace vital funding and additional court staff. Robust safeguards are needed to protect us all and preserve the integrity of the justice system," Jeffery said.
The backlog of cases waiting for crown courts in England and Wales reached 80,000 this year, compared to 38,108 in 2019. Freedom of information request data indicates 2,600 crown court trials are scheduled for 2028 or later, with 29 pending until 2030. The government announced plans to reduce the use of jury trials to address the backlog.
In a damages case last year against Qatar National Bank, claimants submitted 45 case-law citations, 18 of which were fictitious. The claimant acknowledged using publicly available artificial intelligence tools, and his solicitor confirmed citing false authorities. Separately, a lawyer for the Haringey Law Centre cited non-existent case law five times while challenging the London borough of Haringey over alleged failures to provide temporary accommodation. A solicitor defending the borough repeatedly questioned opposing counsel about the inability to locate the cited case law.