A Judge shares with us the productivity gains she is achieving when using AI to help prepare summing ups, jury directions and sentencing remarks in criminal trials.
The Scenario
For a Criminal Court Judge, the administrative burden following a week-long trial is significant. The process of collating evidence to draft a “summing up” for the jury can typically require 5–7 hours of focussed review and writing.
The Workflow
The Judge uploads all the evidence that has been presented to the Jury to the secure, closed architecture AI environment. This can include:
- The Judge’s notes on oral evidence.
- Agreed transcripts of pre-recorded interviews (complainant and defendant).
- Agreed statements of facts.
- Read witness statements.
- Text-based exhibits (e.g., WhatsApp or SMS logs).
The Output
The Judge comments: “I find this is the single most beneficial use of AI. The AI processes the unstructured data to produce a first draft of the summing up. It produces an even-handed summary, usually in chronological order, in a matter of minutes. For a week-long trial this would have taken me 5-7 hours to do. It now takes me 5 minutes with about 30 minutes to check.”
Extended Applications
- Using the same uploaded dataset, AI can be used to prepare a set of appeal proof jury directions and a route to verdict.
- Preparing a first draft of sentencing remarks. Documents relevant to sentencing are uploaded. This can include the Magistrate’s sending sheet, the indictment, case summary / statement of material facts, antecedent criminal record, pre-sentencing report, psychiatric report, victim personal statement, character references, and sentencing notes from the prosecution and/or defence. The AI is asked to prepare the first draft of sentencing remarks. However issues to watch out for include the AI getting the sentencing guidelines’ starting point and sentencing range wrong.
Practical Note / "Human in the Loop"
AI offers a practical solution to the administrative pressures facing the judiciary, directly addressing the need for faster trials and reduced case backlogs. By shifting some of the heavy lifting of drafting and summarisation to secure automated tools, judges can reclaim significant hours previously lost to paperwork, allowing them to focus on decision-making.
While the efficiency gains are transformative, judicial oversight remains essential. Specifically regarding sentencing, the AI is used to structure the logic and summarise the facts, but the Judge must carefully verify the “starting point” and sentencing range against current guidelines, as the AI may not always apply the latest legislative nuances correctly.