By Priya Raman

England and Wales' judiciary has endorsed the use of AI tools by judges — while drawing a firm line at any AI role in deciding cases. Sir Colin Birss, the lead judge for artificial intelligence and incoming Master of the Rolls, issued the position statement in October 2026, and it applies to courts across England and Wales.

The operative language is blunt. "AI tools must not determine the outcome of a case or displace judicial reasoning, analysis or discretion," the statement reads. At the same time, Birss concedes that "AI offers potentially transformative implications for justice." Both claims sit in the same document. The tension is the point.

What does the position statement actually say?

The guidance permits AI use only where it is consistent "with the judiciary's overarching obligation to protect the integrity of the administration of justice and to uphold the rule of law." That is the ceiling. Everything else is negotiation beneath it.

Three commitments anchor the document:

• AI development must proceed under "strict safeguards and robust testing".
• A centralised steering group "will be the sole route for oversight of the development, piloting and deployment of AI tools and a route for escalation should concerns arise".
• "Human oversight is essential" and "every AI output used in judicial work must be reviewed, verified and approved by the responsible judicial office holder."

The statement adds that "the judicial office holder remains fully accountable." Accountability, in short, does not travel to the machine. It stays with the judge whose name sits on the judgment.

Who is Sir Colin Birss — and why does his track record matter?

Birss is not a distant regulator writing about tools he has never touched. In 2023, he became the first known judge to write part of a judgment using an AI tool — ChatGPT — calling it "jolly useful." He later explained his approach to that episode:

"I'm taking full personal responsibility for what I put in my judgment, I am not trying to give the responsibility to somebody else. All it did was a task which I was about to do and which I knew the answer and could recognise an answer as being acceptable."

Note what that quote does and does not say. It describes a judge using AI for a task he could already perform, on a matter where he could verify the output. It does not describe delegation of analysis. The position statement generalises precisely that posture.

How did we get here?

The statement builds on judicial guidance first issued in December 2023, which established core principles for judges using AI and addressed bias and hallucinations. Since then, pilot schemes have tested transcription, document analysis and so-called "leadership tasks". Results from those pilots are now folded into the new guidance.

The timing also follows remarks by Geoffrey Vos, the outgoing Master of the Rolls, who said in August 2026 that the public is likely to accept AI-made decisions in time. Birss's statement reads, in part, as a corrective: acceptance by the public is not the test. Judicial control is.

What does this mean for practitioners?

For barristers and solicitors, the practical consequence is straightforward. AI-assisted transcription and document analysis in the courts will likely expand, because the judiciary now has a sanctioned, centrally governed pathway for it. But any litigant hoping that algorithmic reasoning might shortcut a contested issue should abandon that hope. Judges must review, verify and approve every AI output, and the judge remains fully accountable for the result. Practitioners should also expect consistency: a single steering group under the lead AI judge now controls every pilot and deployment, ending the patchwork of local judicial experimentation.

Whether "strict safeguards" will hold as the tools grow more capable is the question the statement cannot answer. Documents of this kind constrain today's pilots. Tomorrow's products are a promise, not a plan.

The takeaway: judges in England and Wales may lean on AI, but the bench — not the machine — decides.