Snapshot
- Across common law jurisdictions, there is a patchwork of policies governing how courts may use AI and generative AI.
- The proliferation of policies has been triggered by increasing cases of AI misuse, primarily by litigants.
- This article compares jurisdictional differences in such policies, and discusses judicial attitudes on AI misuse and how to sanction it.
In a speech delivered at Durham University in April 2024 (‘Durham speech’), Chief Justice Bell cited Lord Denning, declaring, ‘[t]he primary duty of courts is to ascertain truth by the best evidence available’ and called it a fundamental of our court system. In an end-of-year speech, he addressed challenges to courts honouring this duty and always being offered ‘the best evidence available’.
The recent Supreme Court Practice Note on the use of generative artificial intelligence (‘AI’) seeks to preserve court operations and the integrity of such evidence in the face of sophisticated generative AI tools which, in the words of Chief Justice Bell in recent coverage, falsely create ‘the appearance of something which is coherent, articulate or an image that has a sort of verisimilitude’.
