Artificial intelligence is already playing a growing role in how justice is delivered in England and Wales. From policing and prosecution to courts and prisons, AI tools are being tested to reduce delays, support decision making and improve access to services. The Ministry of Justice has now set out a structured three year plan to expand this work, while stressing that human judgement, public trust and the right to a fair trial must remain central.
A justice system under strain
The justice system in England and Wales faces sustained pressure. Court backlogs remain high, prisons are overcrowded and many people struggle to access timely legal advice. According to the Ministry of Justice, AI in the legal system has the potential to help address these challenges by automating administrative tasks, improving scheduling and making better use of data across agencies.
AI is already being used at multiple stages of the criminal process. Police forces use data analytics and predictive tools to support operational planning and risk management. Prosecutors and defence teams use AI assisted document review to analyse large volumes of evidence. Courts and tribunals are trialling AI for administrative tasks such as transcript production, case management and document summarisation.
In September 2025, a judge in England and Wales publicly confirmed for the first time that he had used Microsoft Copilot to assist in summarising documents when producing a written decision. He emphasised that the AI output was treated only as a first draft and that all evaluative judgment remained his own.
The three year plan for adoption
The Ministry of Justice’s AI Action Plan for Justice outlines how AI will be adopted over a three year period, subject to funding. The first phase focuses on strengthening foundations, including leadership, governance, ethics, data quality and digital infrastructure. A dedicated Justice AI Unit has been established to coordinate this work across courts, prisons, probation and supporting services.
Later phases aim to scale tools that have been shown to be safe and effective through a scan, pilot, scale approach. Priority areas include reducing administrative burden for staff, improving access to justice through citizen facing digital assistants, supporting rehabilitation and education in prisons, and enhancing risk assessment and operational planning using non generative AI.
Safeguards and fair trial protections
The government has repeatedly stated that AI must support, not replace, human decision makers. There is currently no AI specific legislation governing criminal or civil proceedings, but existing laws already constrain how AI can be used. These include the Human Rights Act, which guarantees the right to a fair trial, the Equality Act, which requires public bodies to consider discriminatory impacts, and data protection legislation regulating automated decision making.
Judicial and professional guidance sets further boundaries. Judges and lawyers are warned that AI outputs may be inaccurate, biased or misleading and must always be independently verified. Automated systems cannot make significant decisions affecting liberty without meaningful human involvement, and courts retain the power to exclude evidence if its use would undermine fairness.
Concerns about bias are particularly prominent. Earlier risk assessment tools were found to be less accurate for some ethnic groups, and newer systems are being designed with transparency, monitoring and explainability requirements to reduce the risk of discriminatory outcomes.
Reality versus fiction
These safeguards contrast sharply with the fictional future depicted in the upcoming film Mercy, where an AI judge determines guilt within a tightly limited timeframe. While the film explores fears about automated justice, the UK’s approach is far more cautious. Current policy explicitly rejects the idea of AI replacing judges or juries, instead positioning AI as a tool to assist humans within clearly defined limits.
The Ministry of Justice argues that, if carefully governed, AI in the legal system could help deliver faster, fairer and more accessible justice. The next three years will determine whether technology can improve outcomes while maintaining public confidence in the rule of law.
