Sir Geoffrey Vos calls for urgent debate on AI’s role in future judicial decision-making
Britain’s most senior civil judge has called for an urgent national debate on the role of artificial intelligence in the justice system, warning that decisions once made by humans could soon be taken by machines. Speaking at the Legal Geek networking event in London, the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos, said the conversation about AI in judicial decision-making “must start now” as the technology advances faster than legal systems can adapt.
Sir Geoffrey told an audience of lawyers, entrepreneurs and technologists that artificial intelligence is already transforming how the law is practised and that the judiciary is now “piling in” to explore its potential. He described AI as a powerful but double-edged tool: “Like a helicopter or a chainsaw, in the right hands it can be jolly useful; in the wrong hands, jolly dangerous.”
The senior judge acknowledged that AI has clear potential to improve the speed and efficiency of the courts but questioned how far it should be allowed to go in decision-making. “It’s clear AI can be used in judicial decision-making,” he said. “The big question is: what should it be used for?” He added that while nobody has convincingly explained why AI could not be deployed to assess damages in a personal injury case — a process that might take minutes rather than years — the idea of automating justice raises profound ethical and constitutional issues.
Embed from Getty Images
“Some decisions may inevitably be taken by AI,” Sir Geoffrey said. “But why should we stop there? Why should we balk at its use more widely?” He warned that the answer was “difficult and potentially troubling”, noting three major concerns. First, that judicial decisions represent society’s last resort for justice and should not be left entirely to machines. Second, that no system, however advanced, could ever replicate human empathy, emotion or moral insight. And third, that algorithms trained on fixed datasets might eventually shape laws in ways that humans could no longer influence.
“It might become difficult for humans to influence laws in the future,” he cautioned. “We need a serious debate now to consider what human rights people should have in the light of more capable AI.” Sir Geoffrey said such a debate should include whether AI-based decisions could ever meet the definition of an independent and impartial tribunal under the European Convention on Human Rights. “Some say yes, others say no,” he observed.
The Master of the Rolls, who heads the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal and has championed digital transformation in the courts, has long argued that legal technology will be central to the future of justice. However, his latest remarks suggest growing concern that rapid technological progress could outpace legal safeguards.
The call for discussion came as Sarah Sackman, the newly appointed Courts Minister, spoke at the same event, highlighting the government’s enthusiasm for lawtech innovation as a driver of economic growth and access to justice. “Technology has, perhaps paradoxically, the potential to humanise the law — making it faster and fairer to everyone,” she said.
Despite her optimistic tone, Sackman did not announce any new funding or policy commitments for LawtechUK, the government-backed innovation programme due to end next year. The initiative, supported by the Ministry of Justice, has been credited with encouraging collaboration between start-ups, regulators and the judiciary to modernise legal services.
As artificial intelligence continues to evolve, the divide between those who see it as an opportunity and those who view it as a threat to justice is becoming sharper. Sir Geoffrey’s warning — that the time to debate AI’s place in judicial decision-making is now, not later — reflects a growing belief within the judiciary that the question is no longer whether technology will reshape justice, but how far and under whose control.