[Generated Title]: Judge Uses AI. So What Could POSSIBLY Go Wrong?
So, a judge in the UK – Judge Christopher McNall, to be exact – decided to let an AI help write a judgment. Big freakin' deal, right? Except, yeah, it is a big deal.
The Robots Are Writing Our Laws Now?
The case itself – something about capital gains tax and offshore trusts – sounds boring as hell. But the method? That's where it gets interesting. McNall used AI for a "discrete case management matter." Translation: a small part of the process where he didn't have to, you know, actually think too hard. He even said it was "well suited" because it didn't involve judging credibility. Because, offcourse, that's the stuff we want AI handling. The easy stuff. Give me a break.
And before you start thinking this is some rogue judge going off the rails, apparently there's a whole "Practice Direction" encouraging this crap. Issued by the Senior President of Tribunals, no less, pushing judges to use "tools and techniques" to churn out decisions faster. Because justice is all about speed, right? Not, like, fairness or accuracy or anything.
Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, even chimed in, saying AI could make court decisions "in minutes." Yeah, but can it understand human emotion? Idiosyncrasy? Empathy? Insight? Vos himself admits it can't. So, what are we left with? A fast, efficient, soulless legal system. Sounds about right for 2025.
But He Said He Was Still In Charge!
Okay, McNall did cover his ass, saying he alone was the decision-maker and responsible for the judgment. He even referenced some other case, Medpro Healthcare v HMRC, for guidance. But let's be real: if you're using AI to write part of your judgment, how much of it is really you? Are we supposed to believe that judges are just checking the AI's work and not, you know, rubber-stamping it to save time?
And what about the guidance from October 2025 on AI use? It says judges should independently verify outputs and avoid putting case info into public tools. That sounds great on paper. But how many judges are really going to do that? They're already overworked and underpaid. Are they going to spend hours fact-checking an AI when they could be knocking back a gin and tonic? I doubt it.
Here's the thing that really pisses me off: This isn't about making the legal system better. It's about making it cheaper. Faster. More efficient. It's about squeezing every last drop of productivity out of the system, even if it means sacrificing justice along the way. And honestly... I'm not sure where this ends.
What happens when the AI gets better? What happens when it can judge credibility? What happens when judges start relying on it so much that they forget how to think for themselves? Are we heading towards a future where justice is decided by algorithms, not humans? And if so, what does that even mean?