JAC permits limited AI use but prohibits it in tests and assessments
The Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) has issued new guidance outlining how candidates may use artificial intelligence (AI) tools during the judicial selection process, introducing clear restrictions aimed at safeguarding fairness and integrity.
The guidance, published in this week, sets out both permissible and prohibited uses of AI in applications for judicial office. It confirms that while limited use of AI is allowed, candidates remain fully responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of all information submitted.
Under the guidance, candidates may use AI tools to support drafting and reviewing written materials, such as self-assessments and examples demonstrating skills and experience. Acceptable uses include improving grammar, clarity and structure, identifying themes within self-written content, and reviewing drafts for coherence or gaps. AI may also be used to summarise documents authored by the candidate.
However, the JAC makes clear that AI must not be used to generate substantive content or to enhance descriptions in a way that misrepresents a candidate’s actual experience. All examples submitted must reflect genuine personal experience and must not be invented, fabricated or exaggerated.
The guidance imposes stricter prohibitions in relation to assessments. The use of AI in qualifying tests is expressly banned. Candidates are also prohibited from using AI during selection days, situational judgement exercises, or any form of timed or supervised assessment.
In addition, candidates must not use AI tools to draft or refine responses to test questions, provide suggested answers, or assist with legal or factual analysis during the selection process. The JAC also states that no selection material should be entered into AI systems, reflecting concerns about confidentiality and the integrity of the process.
The Commission emphasises that its assessment methods are designed to evaluate independent reasoning, judgement and analytical ability. The use of AI in these contexts would undermine the purpose of the selection process.
The guidance further highlights candidate responsibility, stating that individuals must ensure compliance at all stages and maintain honesty in all submissions. Any breach of the policy will be treated as a serious integrity issue.
Potential consequences include disqualification from the current selection exercise, exclusion from future applications, and referral to a relevant professional regulatory body.
The JAC stated that the guidance aims to balance the evolving use of AI tools with the need to preserve trust in judicial appointments, ensuring that candidates are assessed fairly and on the basis of their own abilities.