Virtual Justice: The Evolution of Courts and Dispute Resolution

Virtual Justice: The Evolution of Courts and Dispute Resolution

The English legal system has evolved significantly over centuries with the distinction between civil and criminal courts first believed to be within the early modern period of the 16th and 18th century.

In the last 10 years there has been an initiative by HM Courts & Tribunals Service to further digitalise the court system by integrating modern technology. This drive was intended to reduce backlogs, reduce costs to all parties and to increase accessibility to justice to those who face physical, geographical and/or economic barriers. Has the initiative been successful? This will be subjective depending on the experience of the user and, presumably, the outcome of their case(s).

Dispute Resolution and the Courts

The overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) is to enable the court to deal with cases ‘swiftly and at proportionate cost’. Naturally, mechanisms which allow a quicker and more efficient resolution to court proceedings as opposed to a fully litigated proceedings are becoming more commonplace. The Covid-19 pandemic allowed for virtual hearings to become the norm for practitioners leading in all most all circumstance to reduced travel costs. The efficiency of the court system after this digital reboot however remains in question. The Law Society conducted research in 2023 and it found that 62% of respondents experienced delays in court proceedings and 34% reported that they passed the increased costs of delay on to their clients.1

Online alternative dispute resolution is something which has benefitted from digitalisation of the court system, helped in October 2024 by an amendment to the CPR with the introduction of mandatory alternative dispute resolution being put in place following the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Churchill 2

‘Alexa, represent me in Court!’

With the rise of technology within society it is natural that the use of technology would permeate the court system and its users. The use of Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain, ‘smart contracts’ (which could be interpreted as an oxymoron from personal experience) to name a few are all relatively new concepts within the world of law which may not

have been contemplated within a practitioners’ day-to-day working life at the turn of the century. Fast-forward to the present day and these tools are commonplace within the legal sector.

Evidence of this can be seen in a publication by the Judicary in December 2023 which makes reference to the use of AI chatbots being used by unrepresented litigants within proceedings. The Judicary guidance goes on to identify the use of this technology as a potential risk which ‘does not produce convincing analysis or reasoning’ and ‘a poor way of conducting legal research’. Caution should be exercised by those using generative artificial intelligence with the clear and obvious caveat to the drafter that the information being produced from these tools may not be correct as the case of Harber illustrates.

But the use of Artificial Intelligence is not limited to the those in proceedings. Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, addressed in a speech in 2023 that AI could well be used in the future to assist the judiciary in reaching decisions.

What will the future hold for the courts of England and Wales? Whilst difficult to predict the future it is likely that as Artificial Intelligence becomes more advanced greater protections will need to be afforded to ensure justice is provided. The concerns about bias, transparency, and the ethical implications of Artificial Intelligence in the judicial system, remains. ■

Daniel George Peacock

Senior Associate and Head of Department at Samuel Phillips Law based in Newcastle

1 https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/research/online-court-services

2 https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/research/online-court-servicesChurchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ. 141

3 https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/AI-Judicial-Guidance.pdf

4 Harber v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2023] UKFTT 1007 (TC)