HM Courts & Tribunals Service will test using artificial intelligence to produce court transcripts in a move intended to improve access to justice for victims and families.
The new study will see if the Ministry of Justice’s in-house AI, Justice Transcribe, could meet required accuracy standards while reducing transcription time and costs. The findings of the pilot will inform nationwide plans to upgrade, modernise and open up the court system and increase access to justice in the digital age.
“By deploying AI in the courtroom, we can boost transparency and access to justice, building a modernised system that victims can rely on,” Sarah Sackman KC, the minister for courts and legal services, said. “For victims, facing a perpetrator in court can be deeply distressing. Access to transcripts can provide vital clarity and reassurance, letting them understand what happened during their case in their own time.”
The move has been broadly welcomed by campaigners for Open Justice for All, with founder and survivor Charlotte Schreurs commenting: “I welcome AI being deployed in courtrooms to make this happen. Court transcripts are imperative for victims in the healing process – to understand what was said and to be able to move on, but it also brings accountability and transparency of the courts.”
However, concerns are being raised regarding safeguarding and potential identification of children in family law cases. Transcripts of Crown Court proceedings are produced by contracted providers and victims may have to pay hundreds, or in some cases thousands, to read what was said in court.
In family courts, an application must be made to the court for permission to access a transcript. If approved, the costs must be paid to a contractual transcription company.
Robert Webster, a partner at Maguire Family Law, said “robust safeguards” are necessary, particularly in family court proceedings.
He told Today’s Family Lawyer: “The use of AI-generated transcripts in court proceedings is a potentially positive step in improving access to justice, but it does raise some important safeguarding considerations in the context of family law.
“Family proceedings involve highly sensitive evidence, particularly where children are concerned, and the introduction of AI-generated records will inevitably increase the volume and accessibility of that material. Even where transcripts are anonymised, there remains a real risk of identification through contextual detail, especially in smaller communities or complex family structures.”
Webster added: “There are also questions around accuracy. AI transcription tools, while improving, are not infallible. Subtle errors in language, tone or attribution could have significant consequences in family cases, where nuance is often critical to judicial decision-making.
“More broadly, careful thought has to be given about how these transcripts are stored, who has access to them, and how the data is protected over time. As with many technological developments in the justice system, the benefits are clear, but they will need to be matched by robust safeguards to ensure that increased access does not come at the expense of privacy and protection.“
Alex Verdan KC is partner and head of children at Stewarts and specialises in complex and serious children cases. “Determining what is in a child’s best interests through an adversarial court process depends upon careful evaluation of the evidence, particularly in cases involving allegations of emotional or physical abuse,” he explained.
“The ability to reliably capture what is said in evidence is therefore a vital tool in progressing and determining cases fairly and effectively. Proposals to use AI-generated transcripts, as announced by the government, have the potential to improve access to justice for victims and court users.
“However, AI should not be treated as a panacea for an over‑burdened system. In family proceedings, where sensitive and personal data is routinely disclosed, robust safeguards around data protection and the anonymity of children are essential. Existing protections are carefully designed to minimise harm and any technological innovation must enhance, rather than undermine, those fundamental principles.”
The Law Society of England and Wales welcomed the decision, which it said reflects Sir Brian Leveson’s recommendations to improve access to affordable and accurate court records. Vice president Brett Dixon, said: “Court transcripts play a vital role for everyone involved in a case. It’s a positive step therefore, that the UK government is commissioning research to find out if AI could be used to produce accurate transcripts more quickly and at lower cost.
“A recent report from the Ada Lovelace Institute highlighted some of the challenges of AI transcription, and the importance of evaluation and oversight. The findings underscore the need for any government-commissioned research to include an assessment of impact on accuracy, fairness and confidentiality, as well as staff training needs.
“Robust safeguards are needed to protect individuals and the integrity of the justice system. This includes retaining audio recordings to allow for accuracy to be checked. If AI can be shown to operate fairly and without negative impact, it has the potential to reduce prohibitively high transcription costs and remove a barrier to a vital element of transparency in the justice system.”
Claire Waxman, The Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, said the introduction of the AI court transcript pilot is a welcome step in that direction.
“Access to transcripts is vital for victims and families, helping them understand what happened in court, process proceedings in their own time and support their recovery, while also strengthening transparency and accountability across the justice system.
She added: “I now urge the government to ensure that sentencing decisions and justice outcomes are always explained clearly and in a way that is meaningful for victims and families at the point of sentencing.”
