Dingemans: Path forward
Introducing artificial intelligence (AI) into tribunals should be “the next phase” of the HM Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) reform programme, the Administrative Justice Council (AJC) has said.
The AJC said the £1.3bn reform programme, which ended in March last year, “delivered significant digital infrastructure and operational improvements but fell short of its transformative vision”.
In its final report on Digital reform and the tribunal user experience in the modernised tribunal service, the AJC’s digitisation working group said AI was “not a separate initiative, but a continuation of the reform vision, aimed at delivering faster, fairer, and more user-centred administrative justice”.
Different types of AI were suited to specific functions within tribunals, “from administrative support to decision assistance”.
At the initial case management stage, rule-based systems or supervised machine learning could support automated case triage and categorisation.
“By reducing manual workload, tribunals can allocate resources more efficiently and ensure that cases are routed promptly to the correct teams”.
The AJC went on: “AI can assist in reviewing long submissions, evidence bundles, or witness statements, highlighting key issues, precedents, and inconsistencies.
“This reduces the time judges and legal officers spend on repetitive review tasks while ensuring that critical information is not overlooked. However, such tools are intended to augment human judgment, rather than replace it.”
AI predictive analytics could be applied to case scheduling and backlog management.
“By analysing historical case data, this functionality can estimate hearing durations, schedule cases efficiently around judicial, interpreter, and party availability, and anticipate potential bottlenecks.”
AI-powered ‘chatbots’ and virtual assistants could provide guidance to applicants, answering frequently asked questions and assisting with procedural steps.
AI could also “support decision-making processes through expert systems or advanced NLP [natural language processing] tools.
“These systems can flag relevant case law, precedents, or procedural rules to assist judges in routine, low-risk matters, contributing to consistency and efficiency. Ethical oversight is critical, as AI cannot replace judicial discretion or human judgement.”
The AJC said key achievements of the HMCTS reform programme for tribunals included “efficiencies and flexibility”, particularly in high-volume jurisdictions, such as the immigration and asylum chamber of the First Tier Tribunal.
“However, these gains were uneven and did not fully address structural inequalities faced by unrepresented appellants or those without digital access.”
Meanwhile, “operational feedback stressed the need for better functionality, training, and communication between HMCTS service teams and tribunal staff”.
Lower-volume jurisdictions were “largely excluded from reform, relying on older systems and video platforms”.
The AJC said: “The HMCTS reform programme delivered significant digital infrastructure and operational improvements but fell short of its transformative vision.
“Sustained investment, procedural clarity, and user-focused design, particularly for vulnerable and unrepresented appellants, are essential to realise a fair and fully functional digital tribunal environment.”
The report’s recommendations for HMCTS included introducing a “dedicated user champion” for tribunals, commissioning research on withdrawn cases, and buying or developing a “long-term video platform”.
“Commercial off-the-shelf digital solutions” should be trialled in the “unreformed” special tribunal system and the legal officer and administrative workforce “optimised” through “targeted automation”.
Lord Justice Dingemans, senior president of tribunals and chair of the AJC, commented: “This report highlights both the achievements of the reform programme and the areas that require continued attention.
“The recommendations offer a path forward, ensuring that digital reform continues to strengthen accessibility, fairness and public confidence in our tribunals.”