There’s a lot being said and written about the use of AI in courts and how helpful (or not) AI can be.
We recently highlighted research by JUSTICE on the use by local authority social workers of an AI tool to record and transcribe their own notes of meetings etc. There are potential problems because the original audio recordings aren’t kept and it might be difficult for a social worker giving evidence months later to recognise the written AI version of the meeting, especially if they didn’t get round to reviewing this nearer the time. Additionally. the AI tool tends to ‘fills in gaps’ that might lead to an inaccurate note.
A newly published judgment has identified a different problem, where a social worker used an AI tool to assist her to write parenting and kinship assessments for court, and it did also look as though she hadn’t undertaken that vital check before submitting.
This judgment is receiving quite a bit of attention because the assessments had been commissioned from a specialist expert independent social worker (ISW). Commissioning an expert assessment has implications: it incurs delay and expense, and (usually) accords the ISW’s conclusions considerable weight in comparison with those of the local authority and Cafcass social workers.
A more positive reason for the attention the case is getting is that the judge has helpfully set out current relevant guidance, as we’ll highlight below.
The case is Cornwall County Council v M [2026] EWFC 306, heard in September in Truro Family Court by HHJ Flexman, sitting as a High Court judge. Applications for care orders had been made by the local authority in respect of three children, A, B, and C. The judge recommended that anyone reading this judgment also reads the fact-finding judgment from April 2026 – but we can’t find this published on TNA or BAILII. He summarised the findings as: the parents had subjected A, B and an older sibling to extensive physical abuse over a considerable period, resulting in significant emotional as well as physical harm.
Position at the date of the September hearing
The oldest of the three children, A, was doing well in a long term foster placement. B, the middle child was living in a residential setting, where he was to stay while a programme of therapeutic support was being put together. He was the most traumatised of all the children. C was only five years old and had not been directly subject to the extreme physical abuse; he lived in a foster placement but was shortly to move to a long term foster placement. The children’s mother had returned to her country of origin ‘X’ and was no longer participating in the proceedings. The father was an immigration ‘overstayer’ and likely to be deported because of criminal charges in respect of cruelty to the children. He wanted the children to be cared for by extended family in Country X.
The Cafcass guardian supported the local authority care plans but she wanted a commitment that the local authority would continue to consider whether any of the children could be cared for in Country X in the future.
Judgment
Unusually, as well as the ISW, Henrietta Coker, and an expert psychologist being named, the local authority and Cafcass practitioners are also named. The judge didn’t mention any difficulties with the reports from the local authority, Cafcass or the psychologist, Dr Lindsey Williams.
Use of CoPilot
It should be noted that the judge said:
Insofar as Ms Coker uses CoPilot to digitally transcribe her conversations and assist her with her grammar and spelling then I see no significant issue. Microsoft CoPilot is a closed secure AI tool. There is no risk of publication. The use of that tool for improving language and presentation is a low risk use which would seem to fall within acceptable practice. [34]
Ms Coker had submitted a total of five parenting and kinship assessments including some addendum reports. She didn’t refer to using AI in the first assessment but in the second, in response to questions, she did explain how she had used CoPilot in a limited way, but not as part of her professional analysis. She said that she had reviewed her reports and took full responsibility for them.
However, the judge said subsequent reports contained this sort of text (so appear not have been reviewed by the author):
‘This version is about half the length, avoids advocacy, acknowledges the children’s complexities, and is more likely to withstand cross-examination because it clearly separates: facts, analysis, recommendation, without overstating the evidence.’
‘This wording keeps the tone balanced and analytical while clearly highlighting the changed circumstances since the earlier assessment.’
The judge began his discussion about use of AI in the ISW report [at para 20] by setting out the role of the independent expert under FPR PD 25B, Paragraph 9.1. He then explained that the requirement to account for any third party involvement (para 9.1(c)) in compiling the report could apply to use of AI, not just to a human third party.
In Ayinde v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) the President of the King’s Bench Division said the use of AI:
Must take place therefore with an appropriate degree of oversight, and within a regulatory framework that ensures compliance with well-established professional and ethical standards if public confidence in the administration of justice is to be maintained. [para 5]
In Paras 23 – 26, the judge discussed the Academy of Experts ‘Guidance for Expert Witnesses on the Use of AI’ published in January 2026. This listed possible use of AI by an expert witness as:
- a. Self-education: using AI to generate explanations or other educational content (for example, training material) regarding technical or complex concepts related to the subject matter of the expert’s instruction.
- b. Data analysis: using AI to analyse large volumes of data, identifying patterns and insights, and making predictions as to future outcomes.
- c. Quality control: using AI to undertake proof-reading or to identify possible errors or inaccuracies in the expert’s work product.
- d. Summarising content: using AI to condense large amounts of information into summaries, for example, to make it easier for the expert to digest.
- e. Generating content: using AI to generate analysis or to create visuals, for example.
- f. Enhancing communication: using AI in communications with other stakeholders (for example, to translate text between languages, or to translate jargon into plain language, and to assist in virtual meetings e.g with transcription)
The Academy Guidance says that ‘low risk’ use includes summarising information or using AI to ‘review text for grammar, spelling, punctuation and to suggest basic stylistic or tonal corrections without altering the substantive content’. Such use doesn’t necessarily need to be reported to the court.
However ‘high risk’ use to ‘generate substantive content for the experts report e.g. the experts opinion’ and for undertaking material analysis did need to be reported to the court.
The judge went on to say that the Civil Justice Council had published an interim report on ‘Use of AI for Preparing Court Documents’ in March 2026. This report proposed an amendment to the statement of truth to include a requirement that the expert explains what use has been made of AI other than for transcription or other administrative use.* Update below
The problem with Ms Coker’s reports was that she had not limited the use of AI as she had initially explained but had used CoPilot:
‘to generate the entirety of her reports. Whilst she maintains that the conclusions are her conclusions; the analysis of the evidence, the sub headings, lay out, construction and development are all AI generated. Moreover, having listened to Ms Coker in evidence, the tone of the report and use of language is very different to Ms Coker’s. The use of AI in the way that Ms Coker has used it has placed a significant gap between the voice and opinion of the expert and the report which she has filed. [35]
Conclusion
The judge gave careful consideration to the welfare checklist but in the unusual circumstances of this case, we won’t attempt to summarise this.
With regard to the ISW’s recommendations, he listed a number of flaws other than the reliance on AI, concluding:
In addition to the significant issues with the use of AI, I found Ms Coker’s written and oral evidence to be lacking in rigour and clarity of thought. I do not feel able to place any significant weight on her evidence. [41]
He was, however, assisted by the local authority and Cafcass evidence. He also heard evidence from the father, and was able to consider the options for potential kinship placements with family members in X in the future.
HHJ Flexman made care orders for all three children while encouraging the local authority to do their utmost to honour their intention of ensuring that the possibility of a family placement in the future isn’t lost. The uncle and aunt in Country X who had been identified positively were to be supported in video contact and allowed copies of relevant evidence, but not the ISW reports.
___________
*Update: The Civil Justice Council final version of its guidance was published on 29 October. This contains a recommendation about expert reports:
The CPR should be amended to introduce a requirement for a new, specific declaration concerning AI use where such use generates or influences the substantive content of the expert’s report.
We haven’t yet read the new guidance in full, but this looks narrower than HHJ Flexman was suggesting.
Image: thanks Jurnej Furman – Wikimedia Commons
We have a small favour to ask!
TEN YEARS A CHARITY
The Transparency Project is a registered charity in England and Wales run by volunteers who mostly also have full-time jobs. Although we’ve now been going for a decade, we’re always working to secure extra funding so that we can keep making family justice clearer for all who use the court and work in it.
We can’t do what we do without help from you!
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