A family court judge has used generative AI software to boil down and explain a ruling for parents with limited ability to understand what it meant. In one of the first recorded instances of a judgment being explicitly written in part with AI, Her Honour Judge Hesford appended two additional judgments with the agreement of all parties and their advocates.

These extra sections were produced from the full judgment but wholly using the secured judicial AI application, based on Microsoft CoPilot, following prompts to simplify and summarise what had been said.

Both partners involved in the care proceedings have learning and cognitive difficulties, so to help them they were able to read both a simplified summary and one in bullet point format.

In her notes on Re B – Fact Finding (Use of AI for Judgment Summary for Parents with Learning Difficulties), the judge said: ‘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.’

The case itself was a fact-finding hearing over five days to establish the circumstances of how B, who is now two years old, suffered a skull fracture at eight months while she was in the care of her biological parents. The local authority, which was not identified, has applied for a care order which is opposed by the married parents.

The court heard that the baby had been taken to hospital after developing a swelling on her head and around her eye. Neither parent rejected the medical findings about the injury but both denied they were responsible for inflicting it and said it was accidental.

The judge found that any inconsistencies from either parents’ evidence were due to their confusion, limited awareness and their individual difficulties, rather than deliberate deception.

She did not find on the balance of probabilities that the injury was deliberately inflicted, but it was caused by an event involving one of the parents. The care given at the time fell below the standard it would be reasonable to expect a parent to provide, and although the judge could not identify the perpetrator, both parents remained within the pool of possible perpetrators.

The matter will now proceed to the welfare stage so the court can determine the child’s long-term future.

In addition to the findings of fact, the judge highlighted delays that have resulted in proceedings already lasting for more than 18 months.

 

Please note: Anonymous comments will no longer be permitted on this site from 1 June. Please see our revised site terms here