The President of the UK Supreme Court has issued a warning. Speaking at a panel event at the Supreme Court in February, Lord Reed described AI as a “public trust” issue for the courts.
“If [the decision] went against you, and it was AI that decided it, would you have trust in the legal process?” he asked. “I suspect you wouldn’t.”
Follow THE FUTURE on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, X and Telegram
While Lord Reed’s emphasis on public trust, legitimacy and the limits of what AI can replicate in legal judgment is well-founded, a primarily cautionary response risks obscuring the constructive role that AI can play in the administration of justice. Drawing on comparative and regulatory developments, this article makes the case that AI is best understood not as a substitute for judicial reasoning, but as a supportive technology capable of improving efficiency, consistency and access to justice, provided it operates under proper human oversight and governance.
Artificial intelligence has moved quickly from theory to deployment across legal systems. Tools for legal research, document review and procedural management are already embedded in legal practice. This is the setting for Lord Reed’s warning and why it has attracted considerable attention within the legal profession.
Speaking at a Supreme Court panel event, Lord Reed cautioned that judicial decision-making involves reasoned balancing of values, context and consequences and should not be treated as something that can simply be computed. He went on to say that public confidence in the justice system could be undermined if decisions were perceived to be made by machines rather than judges. These concerns reflect fundamental constitutional principles that should not be dismissed. The risk, however, is that AI is framed primarily as a threat, and risks narrowing the question at the centre of the debate to how, rather than whether, AI may be responsibly integrated into judicial systems.
A Defence of the Judge, Not an Attack on Technology
As reported by Legal Cheek, Lord Reed raised two central concerns. First, legal adjudication most often requires moral, contextual and value-driven judgments that cannot be reduced to an algorithm. Second, the legitimacy of courts depends on public trust, which could be weakened if justice were perceived as automated rather than reasoned.²
These concerns are well-grounded. Judicial authority derives not merely from outcomes, but from the reasoned exercise of judgment by an identifiable and accountable decision-maker.³ Seen in this light, Lord Reed’s intervention is not an objection to technology itself, but a defence of the constitutional role of the judge.
A difficulty emerges, however, when this analysis is read as implying a stark choice between human adjudication and artificial intelligence. That framing risks misunderstanding both the nature of judicial decision-making and the actual capabilities of contemporary AI systems.
The Distinction That Makes The Difference
Research on AI in legal systems does not support the notion that AI should replace judges. Rather, it consistently characterises AI as a decision-support technology, capable of assisting but not replacing human legal reasoning.
Courts in many jurisdictions face serious pressures, including delay, backlog and resource constraints. AI-enabled tools are already being used (or actively explored) in areas such as case triage and scheduling, summarisation of pleadings and evidence, transcription and translation, and identification of procedural anomalies. None of these functions involves determining rights or liabilities. They operate outside the actual business of deciding cases and instead support the efficient running of courts. Properly deployed, such tools may enhance rather than diminish access to justice.
AI systems are also widely used for legal research, enabling faster identification of relevant case law and legal patterns. These systems, according to AI scholar Harry Surden, don’t “reason” in a legal sense. They help human decision-makers manage complexity and scale. Responsibility for interpretation, evaluation and judgment remains with the human judge.
The Risks Are Real, But So Is the Answer
Lord Reed also raised concerns about bias, data quality and the concentration of AI development in a small number of private actors. These concerns have their place, but they point to the need for robust governance rather than rejecting the technology outright.
The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act offers a useful reference point. The Regulation classifies AI systems used in the administration of justice as “high-risk” and requires them to meet strict standards on human oversight, transparency, risk management and accountability. This reflects a growing consensus that AI may be used in court settings only under strict legal and institutional controls.
Trust Both Ways
Public trust is central to Lord Reed’s analysis, but trust is not preserved solely by resisting innovation. Delay, inconsistency and inaccessibility also erode public confidence in the justice system. Carefully governed AI tools, transparently deployed and clearly limited in scope, can strengthen public trust by improving efficiency and the capacity of courts to serve people.
The critical question is therefore not whether AI is used, but who controls it, how it is regulated, and whether human judicial responsibility remains visible and intact.
Lord Reed is correct to reject any suggestion that judicial decision-making can be reduced to algorithmic output. Legal judgment involves reasoning, moral responsibility and institutional authority that no current AI system can replicate. Nevertheless, a balanced assessment recognises that AI does not threaten these values when deployed as a supportive technology under strong governance frameworks.
The future of justice does not lie in automated adjudication, but neither does it lie in keeping technology out altogether. The challenge for courts and lawmakers is to ensure that AI is integrated in ways that improve efficiency and access to justice while preserving the constitutional foundations of judicial authority and public trust.
Notes
1. Remarks of Lord Reed, reported in Legal Cheek, ‘Supreme Court President Raises Alarm Over AI Deciding Legal Cases’ (February 2026).
3. TRS Allan, Constitutional Justice: A Liberal Theory of the Rule of Law (OUP 2001) 40–55.
4. Cary Coglianese and David Lehr, ‘Regulating by Robot: Administrative Decision Making in the Machine-Learning Era’ (2017) 105 Georgetown Law Journal 1147.
5. Harry Surden, ‘Machine Learning and Law’ (2014) 89 Washington Law Review 87, 92–98.
6. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) arts 6–10.
