In what we think may be a first, the judgment in a recent fact-finding case was handed down with two additional versions, generated with artificial intelligence software, one in simplified language, the other in bullet points and emoji.
These additional versions were provided for the benefit of the parents, who were described by the judge, Her Honour Judge Hesford, as having learning difficulties. ‘They both have extremely low cognitive abilities in most areas including memory, verbal and literacy.’
All three versions of the judgment were published as a single document in the case of Re B – Fact Finding (Use of AI for Judgment Summary for Parents with Learning Difficulties) [2026] EWFC 107 (B)
The additional versions of the judgment were ‘produced from the full judgment, but wholly using the secure Judicial Copilot AI application, following prompts given to simplify and summarise the full judgment’, according to a note at the head of the main judgment. ‘All advocates agreed that they were immensely useful and they have been attached specifically to show how useful AI can be when carefully used in such situations.’
This is not the first time a judge has issued an additional judgment or used simplified language in the main judgment to help either parents or children to understand the court’s reasoning for its decision. See for example the judgment of Mr Justice Peter Jackson in Lancashire County Council v M [2016] EWFC 9 which was written in simple language for the benefit of a mother with learning difficulties and her children, even explaining the meaning of emoji faces when discussing a quoted note. (As I commented on this at the time, Giving a clear and simple judgment: how hard can it be? )
Other examples include
- another judgment by Peter Jackson J written in the form of an open letter to a 14-year-old boy, in Re A (Letter to a Young Person) [2017] EWFC 48;
- a judgment by Miss Recorder Henry in Robin-Simmers and Adrien (Children: Care Order) [2020] EWFC B52 incorporating a letter to two children involved in the case, using pseudonyms chosen by them;
- a judgment by Deputy District Judge Reed in Jack (A Child; Care and Placement Orders) [2018] EWFC B12 written in simple language so that the father, who had learning difficulties, would be able to understand it and have a record of what had happened.
But all these examples were done using the human creativity of the judge.
The use of AI to assist judges in the writing of judgments remains controversial, owing to the risk of ‘hallucination’ (the AI making up facts or citations to satisfy probabilistic expectations) and the dangers of allowing confidential material to leak out into the mass of accessible open data on which large language models depend for their continuing development. But as the technology has improved, judicial willingness to engage with and harness AI has increased. Hence the launch of the secure Judicial Copilot Chat AI application, available on judicial office holders’ devices through the secure eJudiciary network. Its use is the subject of Guidance for Judicial Office Holders on the use of AI, first issued in 2023, and updated just over a year ago (14 April 2025). (It will no doubt need to be further updated, given the pace of change.)
While many judges remain cautious about its use, both the Master of the Rolls and the Chancellor of the High Court have given speeches in recent months extolling, if not its virtues, at least the potential benefits of using AI for some purposes. In his speech (Legal professional privilege in the Age of AI), the Chancellor, Sir Colin Birss, said AI had proved useful in helping judges to produce an anonymised version of a judgment, including detecting whether it contained material likely to assist jigsaw identification; and to help identify inconsistencies in a written judgment:
‘Once I have finished writing a judgment, I give it to the secure Copilot system on my computer and ask it to identify any internal inconsistencies. It is remarkably effective.’
AI has been widely used by legal publishers to provide convenient summaries of unreported cases, though these are reliable only as an aid to further (human) research; no one should rely on them as the same way as a human-generated headnote or abstract in court. But if AI can be used to generate a summary, it seems entirely logical to assume it can also be used to generate a version using simpler language or symbols or indeed to translate it into another language. As with all such developments, though, it needs to be checked by a human.
Re B: the main judgment
The fact-finding aspect of the hearing was concerned with whether the parents’ child, a two-year od girl referred to as ‘B’, had suffered non-accidental/inflicted injuries and, if so, to determine the perpetrator of the injuries if possible. After being brough to A&E with allegedly accidental head and eye injuries, B was found to have significant skull fracture and multiple unexplained bruises against a background of previous concerns about unexplained bruises.
The local authority (supported by the guardian) sought findings against the parents in relation to the injuries, including a failure to seek medical attention and in relation to domestic abuse, mental health and neglect issues. Its plan for B was adoption without direct contact and it had applied for a placement order.
Each of the parents accepted the medical evidence of the injuries but denied causing them, and sought to have B returned to their care, or at least the mother’s care; or for direct contact if B were to be adopted.
Having set out the evidence and parties’ submissions in the main judgment, the judge began to summarising her conclusions.
112. I find that one of the parents was responsible for causing B’s injuries; this must be so, as the injuries did not occur spontaneously. I am not satisfied, however, that the injuries were deliberately or recklessly inflicted. However, given the degree of force required, I am satisfied that they were caused in the course of handling that fell below the standard of reasonable care, although I cannot determine the precise mechanism or identify the perpetrator. […]
115. I do not accept the Local Authority’s case that the parents have deliberately misled the court as part of a conspiracy or coordinated attempt to deceive. […]
116. In my judgment, the more likely explanation is that the parent responsible has not provided a full or accurate account of the incident, influenced by fear, panic, shock, shame, and their own cognitive limitations. In simple terms, something undisclosed occurred to B as a result of the actions of one of the parents; however, I am unable to identify which parent or the precise mechanism. I am satisfied that the injuries were not deliberately inflicted and did not arise from any loss of control.
She then expanded on her analysis with a more detailed consideration of the evidence, before concluding that she was satisfied that the threshold criteria under section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 had been met, and that the case should proceed to the welfare stage, as to which further directions would be given.
The AI versions
The simplified versions have been produced in response to prompts (carefully worded queries) asking the Judicial Copilot Chat to generate them. In the main judgment, the judge said the mother had a reading comprehension age of about 11 while the father’s was around 7.5 to 8. This may explain why we have two different versions, or it may simply be for experimental comparison.
The first version
The first version sets things out in simple prose.
What happened to B
In January 2025, something very serious happened to B.
Her parents took her to hospital because she had swelling on her head and around her eye. When the doctors examined her, they found very worrying injuries. B had a broken skull, bleeding inside her head, and bruises on her body.
These were not small injuries. The doctors said they were very serious and would have needed a strong force. They explained that a baby would not normally get these injuries from something small like a gentle knock. They also said that B would have been in pain and likely to cry in a way that would seem unusual and serious.
The doctors thought the injury must have been caused by some kind of impact, such as hitting something hard. They said an unusual accident could not be completely ruled out, but it would be rare.
The story continues in similar bite-size sections, under simple headings such as ‘What the parents said’, ‘What worried the professionals’ and ‘The judge listens to the evidence’.
Under the next section, ‘What the judge decided’, it reads:
After looking at everything, the judge made some important decisions.
The judge found that B had suffered very serious harm. The injury happened while she was in the care of her parents. The judge said the injury could not have happened by itself, so one of the parents must have caused it.
However, the judge could not decide which parent caused the injury. There was not enough clear evidence to know whether it was the mother or the father. Because of this, both parents are treated as possible people who may have caused the injury. This is called being in a “pool of possible perpetrators.”
That last bit might be a bit long-wordy, but it would probably help the parents understand what their lawyers are talking about in relation to the more detailed findings.
After summarising some of the other findings, this version concludes:
‘The court has only decided what happened in the past. The next step is to decide what should happen in the future. This is called the welfare stage.’
The second version
In the bullet-point version the judge’s findings appear thus:
⚖️ What did the judge decide?
✅ The judge DID find:
• B was seriously hurt
• The injury happened while in her parents’ care
• One of the parents must have caused it
• The care at that time was not good enough
❌ The judge DID NOT find:
• That the injury was done on purpose
• That either parent was definitely guilty
• Who exactly caused the injury
⚠️ Important point: “Pool of perpetrators”
• The judge said:
◦ It could be mum or dad
◦ It is not possible to tell who
• So:
◦ Both parents are in a group called a “pool of possible perpetrators”
This is not necessarily easier to comprehend from a linear reading point of view, but it may be easier to use as a memorandum or reference note for the parents when discussing the case with advisers or each other. The little emojis may help navigate the textual information, as well as reinforcing its meaning.
Comment
We welcome this new development which, though ostensibly for the benefit of the litigants and their advisers, will surely promote the wider accessibility of judicial reasoning – particularly in an area of the law which can only benefit from better public understanding.
One might add that although anyone (including a reporter) can use an AI tool to help them summarise or clarify a long and/or complex judgment, it is surely better for the judge to do so and check the accuracy of the result.
We have a small favour to ask!
The Transparency Project is a registered charity in England & Wales run largely by volunteers who also have full-time jobs. We’re working hard to secure extra funding so that we can keep making family justice clearer for all who use the court and work within it.
We’d be really grateful if you were able to help us by making a small one-off (or regular!) donation through our Just Giving page.
Thanks for reading!
Image: Stick People Walk in Red Flickr creative commons non commercial attribution with thanks: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131264413@N03/16701901614/