header-logo header-logo

11 February 2026
Issue: 8149 / Categories: Legal News , Technology , Artificial intelligence , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Sir Geoffrey Vos on justice in the machine age

Society needs to consider ‘urgently’ how to ‘preserve the fundamentals of justice for humans’ in the ‘machine age’ of artificial intelligence (AI), the Master of the Rolls, Sir Geoffrey Vos has warned

Speaking at the Old Bailey last week, Sir Geoffrey said: ‘Human judges must be central to final justice decisions affecting people’s lives.’

He called for ‘an expedited resolution of several knotty, even existential, questions’, namely, what decisions should always be made by humans, when should an individual or business be able to consent to a machine-made judicial decision, and what rules of technologically verified evidence should be adopted?

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll