- The Court of Appeal judges have called for the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee, prosecutors, and police chiefs to ‘address and regulate the use of AI in criminal proceedings’ after a rape trial collapsed over the witness's use of the technology.
- The appeal was allowed and the recorder’s ruling was reversed.
- The Court of Appeal found that the recorder erred in concluding that the defendant could not have a fair trial.
- The Court of Appeal encouraged counsel on both sides to explore all ways the trial process could deal with potential prejudice.
- Lady Justice May stated that this case is where the trial process would be well able to deal with any potential prejudice arising from the complainant's resort to AI in advance of cross-examination.
- She highlighted a danger of witness training being conducted behind closed doors and not fully recorded, making it impossible to discover what has been said or suggested to the witness.
- In this case, all that the AI 'coach' provided was fully recorded and could be placed before the jury.
- The appeal judges stated that the case was ‘unlikely to be an isolated example’ and suggested that the National Police Chiefs Council, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee may wish to consider how to address and regulate the use of AI in criminal proceedings.
The Court of Appeal has called for urgent regulation of AI in criminal proceedings after a rape trial collapsed due to the use of AI technology in witness training. Judges expressed concern that this incident may not be isolated, urging the National Police Chiefs Council and the Crown Prosecution Service to take action.68
Lady Justice May, in her lead judgment, stated, “Witness training is forbidden in all jurisdictions,” highlighting the risks of unrecorded training sessions. She noted that such training often occurs behind closed doors, making it difficult to ascertain what was communicated to witnesses.
In contrast, the AI coaching used in the case was fully recorded, allowing it to be presented to the jury. The judges emphasized the importance of transparency in witness preparation, stating, “This is precisely the kind of case where the trial process would be well able to deal with any potential prejudice.”457
The appeal judges reversed the recorder's ruling, which had concluded that the defendant could not receive a fair trial. They encouraged legal counsel to explore all potential avenues to address prejudice in future cases, ensuring that trial judges can make informed decisions.
The appeal was allowed, marking a significant moment in the intersection of technology and legal proceedings.
“The Court of Appeal judges emphasized the need for the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee and police chiefs to regulate AI use, noting the case is 'unlikely to be an isolated example.' Lady Justice May raised concerns about witness training occurring behind closed doors, which could hinder transparency in future trials.”
