top of page

The Frontier of AI in Justice Administration: Unveiling New Guiding Principles


Artificial Intelligence (AI) stands at the intersection of law and technology, holding the potential to revolutionise the administration of justice. Former UK Justice Secretary and Solicitor General, Sir Robert Buckland KC, in his recent Times article, has suggested several key principles for governing the application of AI in the legal arena. This thoughtful piece prompts us to engage deeply with the substance of his arguments, adding nuance and considering the type of regulation the UK should adopt.

Emphasising Transparency in AI Usage

A core pillar of Sir Robert's proposal is transparency. AI, in this context, is not merely a black box making decisions; it must be accompanied by an explanation of the foundation model and the nature of its use. This also aligns with the ethos of the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and its implementation in English law - transparency is key in upholding individuals' rights.

However, the challenge lies in making this transparency meaningful. How do we explain complex AI systems in a way that is accessible and understandable to all stakeholders? To tackle this, UK regulation should consider guidelines on 'Explainable AI', which emphasise the importance of understanding and interpreting AI decision-making.

Maintaining Human Involvement

Sir Robert urges that AI should not supplant human decision-making where reflective judgment and public interest are at stake. This resonates with the principle of human oversight in AI decision-making, as highlighted in the European Commission's proposal for AI regulation. It recognises the irreplaceable value of human intuition, empathy, and experience in making complex, context-specific decisions.

Regulation should set clear boundaries on AI application, ensuring it complements rather than replaces human judgment. This could involve mandating human review of AI-generated decisions in sensitive areas such as criminal justice and family law.

Upholding Informed Consent

Informed consent is another cornerstone of Sir Robert's framework. While UK GDPR already mandates explicit consent for AI applications that significantly affect individuals, this principle extends the practice to AI usage in legal proceedings, ensuring parties are aware of and agree to the use of AI.

To implement this effectively, regulatory efforts should include guidelines for clear, non-technical disclosure about AI usage, ensuring all parties understand its implications.

Mandating Fact Verification

Verification of AI-generated facts is crucial to ensure justice is served correctly. Given the possibility of algorithmic bias and errors, a 'second pair of eyes' is essential. Regulatory measures should mandate stringent validation protocols for AI applications in the legal domain. This might include periodic audits of AI systems and their outcomes.

Safeguarding the Right to Appeal

Sir Robert’s final principle ensures individuals are not left at the mercy of AI determinations, preserving their right to appeal to a human decision-maker. This vital check and balance should be explicitly protected in regulatory frameworks.


The principles proposed by Sir Robert Buckland provide a solid foundation for guiding the use of AI in the administration of justice. They emphasise the need for balance: harnessing AI’s power while preserving human judgment and protecting individual rights.

While these principles provide a robust starting point, regulations should also be adaptable. AI technology is rapidly evolving, and regulatory measures must be flexible enough to adapt to these advancements. We must ensure regulations are living documents, reviewed and updated regularly to reflect the changing landscape of AI in law.

Our task is not simply to adapt to AI but to actively shape its use in our legal systems. By doing so, we ensure that this powerful tool serves justice, not undermines it.

If you would like to learn more about the Ethics of AI then head on over to our free introductory course:

3 views0 comments


Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating
bottom of page