1 Introduction
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems pervade modern life and are already being used in courts and tribunals, both in their administration and to support decision-making, and by the legal profession. An understanding of AI is becoming increasingly important for judges, tribunal members and court administrators. It is also important in the context of statutory interpretation.1
This guide sets out the key challenges and opportunities that AI and automated decision-making presents for courts and tribunals. It draws on legislation, case law and rules in a range of jurisdictions. The guide is not intended to provide an exhaustive analysis of emerging technologies, AI tools and the courtroom. Instead, it overviews some of the ways in which AI may be incorporated into domestic courtrooms and analyses some associated benefits and risks. Given that technology continues to evolve, the guide starts with the function and purpose of the technology and its impact on foundational values which underpin the judicial system.
The following section introduces common AI terms and techniques, ranging from older tools, such as expert systems, to more recent developments in machine learning. Section 3 then outlines common areas of AI use by the courts, or by parties, lawyers and legislators where that impacts courts and tribunals. Section 4 discusses how AI tools, when used in the courtroom, impact on the core judicial values of open justice, accountability, and independence impartiality and equality before the law, procedural fairness, access to justice and efficiency. These values interact and often overlap with one another, including in the context of AI tools. Yet, they are useful guiding points for understanding how AI systems have the capacity to impact on the courts, tribunals and judiciary.
1 For example, in the recent case of Thaler v Commissioner of Patents (2021) 160 IPR 72; [2021] FCA 879, Beach J found that an “artificial intelligence system or device” can be an inventor of a patent, opining that “[w]e are both created and create. Why cannot our own creations also create?” at [15]. This decision was unanimously overturned in April 2022 by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Commissioner of Patents v Thaler (2022) 289 FCR 45; [2022] FCAFC 62.