As the world is changing, as legal professionals, we have been told we need to get on board with AI. Having said that, it can have its misuses in the law. Judgments have been handed down recently with warnings of litigants in person, and at times, legal professionals, using AI to assist them in the proceedings, which in turn has led to erroneous information being put in front of the Court, such as case law which does not exist.
However, in the recent case of Re B [2026] EWFC 107, the Court has shown how in fact, in certain situations, AI can be extremely useful in our courts and in particular, the Family Courts.
This case relates to B, a young girl, aged 2. The application before the Court was for a Care Order and a subsequent Placement Order. Proceedings were issued following B having sustained injuries whilst in her parents’ care and being police protected.
What can be seen from the judgment is that both parents have cognitive difficulties. The Mother ‘is a woman of extremely low cognitive ability, with full scale IQ in the range 64-72, placing her at the 1st percentile. Her working memory is also at the 1st percentile. She has very basic literacy, and her reading comprehension age is approximately 11 years’ and the Father is ‘a man of extremely low cognitive ability, with full scale IQ in the range 60-68, placing him at the 1stpercentile. His working memory is also at the 1st percentile. He has very basic literacy, and his reading comprehension age is approximately 7.5-8 years. His verbal comprehension is at the 2ndpercentile’ [13]
The Local Authority sought threshold findings in respect of B’s injuries, including a failure to seek medical attention, as well as other matters [15].
The matter proceeded as a Fact-Finding hearing. At the conclusion of which, the Court handed down their judgment which was a written judgment.
As one might expect with a case of this nature, the written judgment is lengthy, dealing appropriately with the evidence before the Court, including multiple expert reports, the legal principles and then of course the analysis of the Court and the subsequent findings. The purpose of this article is not to discuss in detail the findings or the full judgment itself, but in fact what has been produced as well as the judgment.
Attached to the formal judgment are two appendices. Appendix 1 is a summary judgment. Appendix 2 is a bullet point judgment. Both summaries have been prepared ‘from the full judgment, but wholly using the secure Judicial Copilot AI application, following prompts given to simplify and summarise the full judgment.’
Appendix 1 has multiple sub-headings such as (but not limited to) ‘What the parents said’ and ‘What the judge decided.’ Under each subheading were short, simple sentences summarising the Court’s judgment. Each subheading contained no more than a few short paragraphs.
Appendix 2 again had short subheadings, this time with small picture icons to make it more visual. Under each subheading there were a few bullet points which again, summarised the judgment.
These summaries were produced ‘for the benefit of the parents who both have learning and cognitive difficulties and for use by the intermediaries in discussions’
From the note on the judgment, it appears that all advocates that appeared in that case agreed that these were immensely helpful.
The technicality of Care proceedings can sometimes be difficult and overwhelming for parents and carers, not just those with cognitive difficulties. Whilst caution undoubtedly still needs to be taken by all when it comes to AI in Court proceedings, this judgment shows that AI can be a useful tool, if used in an appropriate manner, in order to make our Court’s, our proceedings, and the decisions the Court makes, more accessible to those who need more assistance.
A link to the judgment can be found here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2026/107.html
