Recent legal news

Judging AI

Senior judges in England and Wales have taken part in an academic research project to assess current judicial attitudes to AI. Most were sceptical and wary, noting the risks (such as fake citations, plausible seeming but inaccurate responses, etc.) but acknowledged that in a system overloaded with work and undersupplied with resources, there might be more routine tasks that AI could assist with, such as summarising, transcribing, writing an easy-read version for lay litigants and so forth.

The participating judges ranged from County Court level to justices of the Supreme Court. The report by Erin Solovey, Brian Flanagan, and Daniel Chen, has now been published: Interacting with AI at Work: Perceptions and Opportunities from the UK Judiciary. It reveals some anxieties about AI as well as hopes for how it might help, as these extracts suggest:

‘Legal research and summarization of cases, disclosures, and bundles of documents was an area of much discussion. There is hope that AI could assist with these, but also currently a lack of trust that it would do so reliably without hallucination.’

‘Several participants recalled asking AI about particular cases with which they were very familiar, and noted that, while the results were “plausible sounding”, they were often glaringly incorrect: “[it is] quite dangerous, because if you didn’t know the answer was wrong, it looked very plausible. It made up citations, which didn’t exist. It clearly knew the case in which the answer was to be found. But it summarised that case completely contrary to what the decision was. And it gave the opposite answer in language which it had obviously taken from the case”.’

‘Related to this, several judges had experience with an AI-generated service that summarizes press articles, but that have inappropriate headlines and are also full of typographical errors, again reducing trust in the reliability and accuracy of AI for their work.’

‘Another issue is that general-purpose AI systems seem to be trained more on American law which can be problematic for use in UK law. These experiences led one judge to conclude “At the moment, it just looks so risky that you wouldn’t dream”, with another noting “we need to make sure that it is trustworthy and reliable and that it won’t undermine confidence in the judiciary if it’s used”.’

See also: Law Society Gazette, What do judges think of artificial intelligence?

Fake citations

One of the problems identified by the judges in the study, and borne out in recent case law (see our post, The Curious Case of the Cases That Were Not) is hallucinated citations — not just cases but other sources, such as non-existent books. (See The Guardian, Chicago Sun-Times confirms AI was used to create reading list of books that don’t exist.)

The problem goes to the root of legal practice, which depends in large part on lawyers citing reliable sources for propositions of law which they wish the court to adopt. This is, as law professor Amy Salyzyn says in a recent article posted in the Canadian online legal magazine SLAW, ‘the most basic of lawyering stuff’. Legal disputes, she says, ‘must be adjudicated on the basis of actual, not fabricated, legal authorities’.

Yet a number of lawyers have shown themselves wanting in the professional ethics and skills required, as she goes on to discuss in a general survey of fake citations both in Canada, where she is based, and elsewhere: Straight-Up Made-Up: the Ongoing Saga of Problematic AI-Generated Legal Submissions.

In one instance it was a law specific tool that not only hallucinated fake citations but also a legal test. It is clear that the author shares many of our own concerns regarding the wider impact on the integrity of the development of the common law and the “metastatic effect” of undetected fake citations.

So widespread has the problem become that French researcher Damien Charlotin has created a database of AI Hallucination Cases. Over 150 instances are currently listed, including several from England and Wales (not all of which we were previously aware).

What would be even more useful, perhaps, would be a database of the actual fake cases, so we would know to avoid them, but unfortunately, like negligence, the categories of unreliable citation are never closed. They can derive from human error, as well as mechanical, and need not involve a made up citation. The error could stem from mismatching (or mis-remembering) a genuine case name with a genuine citation from another case, and then associating the combination with a proposition of law that neither supports. So it’s not simple. But if you have the answer, let us know.

In the meantime, make sure you rely on reliable sources, like ICLR, Westlaw, Lexis et al. Better still, only cited genuinely reportable cases from The Law Reports.

Magistrates’ Courts

Two recent articles in The Times highlight the problems with criminal justice as currently administered in the magistrates’ courts. The first, My week in a magistrates’ court: no lawyers, missing translators, huge delays, suggests that what it calls the “bottom tier of British justice”, in dealing with criminal matters, is struggling with lack of resources, long delays, shortage of personnel and poor quality evidence. Between 2010 and 2019 more than half of all magistrates’ courts across England and Wales were closed to help fund the Ministry of Justice’s digital reforms. The magistrates’ courts are meant to be where the lesser crimes are solved quickly, says reporter Emily Dugan, but the system is failing.

The other article suggests what might replace a lot of these cases. If the suspect admits to it, police can deal with a wide range of crimes using an out-of-court resolution, a low-level criminal sanction. This, says Penelope Gibbs, director of Transform Justice, can be a win-win for victims. They get their crime resolved — which most crime isn’t (see above) — they get a say in how it’s dealt with, and it’s quick. She explains how, in an op-ed entitled Out-of-court resolutions bring justice to victims.

Open justice and Transparency

As chair of the Transparency and Open Justice Board (TOJB), Mr Justice Nicklin gave a speech on Open Justice — Fit for Purpose (4 June 2025) at the conclusion of a one-day conference organised by the Court & Tribunals Observers’ Network at Green Templeton College, University of Oxford, and sponsored by the Sheila Kitzinger Programme, at which the network’s members and other legal and policy specialists gathered to discuss open justice in practice.

In his speech, Nicklin J outlined some of the developments initiated by the TOJB including a pilot to publish skeleton arguments and judgments in pending civil appeals, to help observers understand hearing, and the creation of a new role, within HM Courts and Tribunals Service, of ‘open justice champions’ as a point of contact for observers encountering obstacles in attending remote or physical hearings. The event was also covered by freelance reporter Charlie Moloney (who had attended it), in the Law Society Gazette (Courts to have ‘open justice champions’) and by Joshua Rozenberg on his A Lawyer Writes blog (Open justice champions).

The Parole Board published a Transparency Review by two of its experienced judicial members, HH Peter Rook KC and HH Michael Topolski KC (5 June 2025). The review covered a large scope but focused on three main areas:

  • Parole Board public hearings
  • Victims observing private hearings
  • Decision summaries

Among the 34 recommendations it made was a recommendation to start a pilot of sharing redacted decisions, instead of decision summaries; and a pilot to test out different forms of holding a public hearing, including alternative observer locations and unsupervised streaming to accredited members of the media and legal bloggers. The review accepted there was a need for greater transparency to foster better scrutiny and to address the widespread public misconceptions about its functions. (It notes, for example, that since their introduction in 2022, the Board has only conducted six public hearings.) It also acknowledges that, as a body exercising judicial functions, it should bear in mind the key components of open justice as identified by the Transparency and Open Justice Board (see below).

Recent case summaries from ICLR

A selection of recently published WLR Daily case summaries from ICLR.4

ARBITRATION — Jurisdiction — Challenge: Energyen Corpn v HD Hyundai Heavy Industries Co Ltd, 26 Jun 2025 [2025] EWHC 1586 (Comm); [2025] WLR(D) 339, KBD

COSTS — Detailed assessment — Further information: Turner v Coupland Cavendish Ltd, 26 Jun 2025 [2025] EWHC 1605 (KB); [2025] WLR(D) 336, KBD

MEDICAL PRACTITIONER — Medical Practitioners’ Tribunal — Fitness to practise: General Medical Council v Konathala, 20 Jun 2025 [2025] EWHC 1550 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 327, KBD

MEDICAL PRACTITIONER — Fitness to practise panel — Appeal: Mitchell v Nursing and Midwifery Council, 17 Jun 2025 [2025] EWHC 1496 (Admin); [2025] WLR(D) 325, KBD

PRACTICE — Disclosure — Business and Property Courts: Amtrust Specialty Ltd (formerly Amtrust Europe Ltd) v Endurance Worldwide Insurance Ltd (trading as Sompo International), 19 Jun 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 755; [2025] WLR(D) 331, CA

REVENUE — Corporation tax — Profits, computation of: Dolphin Drilling Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs, 24 Jun 2025 [2025] UKSC 24; [2025] WLR(D) 335, SC(E)

REVENUE — Stamp duty land tax — Residential property: Mudan v Revenue and Customs Comrs, 27 Jun 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 799; [2025] WLR(D) 334, CA

ROAD TRAFFIC — Low value personal injury claim — Court’s jurisdiction: Watson v MH Site Maintenance Services Ltd, 24 Jun 2025 [2025] EWCA Civ 775; [2025] WLR(D) 328, CA

TRADE MARK — EU trade mark — Grounds for invalidity: CeramTec GmbH v Coorstek Bioceramics LLC, 19 Jun 2025 (Case C-17/24); EU:C:2025:455; [2025] WLR(D) 333, ECJ

TRADE MARK — Infringement — Use: Iconix Luxembourg Holdings SARL v Dream Pairs Europe Inc, 24 Jun 2025 [2025] UKSC 25; [2025] WLR(D) 337, SC(E)

Recent case comments on ICLR

Expert commentary from firms, chambers and legal bloggers recently indexed on ICLR.4 includes:

Legal Futures: High Court: Badly drafted will shows dangers of unqualified writers: In re Clarke, decd [2025] EWHC 816 (Ch), Ch D

UK Human Rights Blog: Cheshire West rides again: no power for a local authority with parental responsibility to consent to detention: J v Bath and North East Somerset Council [2025] EWCA Civ 478; [2025] WLR(D) 232, CA

Free Movement: Court of Appeal dismisses Vietnamese humanitarian protection appeal: QY (Vietnam) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWCA Civ 607, CA

Brett Wilson Media and Communications Law Blog: “Without prejudice” correspondence: a cautionary tale: Morris v Williams[2025] EWHC 218 (KB), KBD

Local Government Lawyer: Judge hands down ruling on true provenance and parentage of 11-month-old girl brought into UK from Nigeria: Leeds City Council v A Purported Mother [2025] EWFC 122, Fam Ct

IRIS Legal Observations of the European Audiovisual Observatory: European Court of Human Rights: Judgment underscores public interest in transparency in administration of criminal law: Girginova v Bulgaria (Application no. 4326/18), ECtHR

Panopticon blog: Case comment on: Walawalkar v Information Commissioner and Maritime and Coastguard Agency [2025] UKUT 105 (AAC)

Strasbourg Observers: Protecting teachers’ online free speech, overlooking homophobic prejudice: P v Poland (Application no. 56310/15), ECtHR

Brett Wilson media & communications blog: Lessons in unjustified threats, failed injunction applications and the pursuit of weak claims: Sledziewski v Persons Unknown [2024] EWHC 1955 (KB); [2024] RTR 34, KBD

Tip of the week

Browsing for recent cases

You can use the ICLR Browse by Court function to see a list of the latest judgments from a particular court. Simply select the relevant court from the list in the right hand column on the Browse page, and get a list of the latest cases from that court, eg the

Cases are listed in reverse date order (ie the newest at the top) with Neutral Citations and court abbreviation.

There will also be some indication of the subject matter. This could be some catchword headings or an extract of text from the first paragraph of the judgment; but, if you are a subscriber and have logged in, you may see an AI-generated case summary and list of issues.

From the list of results, you can click on the case name to see the Case Info page, or click on the Neutral Citation to read the judgment itself (if available). Any report of the case will also be listed alongside. For recent cases, this is most likely to be the WLR Daily case summary, a human-generated summary written by one of our team of legally qualified law reporters.

That’s it for this week. Thanks for reading, and make sure you’re signed up for our email alerts. You can also follow us on BlueSky and LinkedIn

This post was written by Paul Magrath, Head of Product Development and Online Content. It does not necessarily represent the opinions of ICLR as an organisation.

Featured image: Photo by Sue Winston on Unsplash