Blogs
Blogs
Delayed Justice? How it can be Automated
Delayed Justice? How it can be Automated
With graduation ceremonies coming to a close, this article comes as influenced by one's dissertation exploring the theoretical possibility on whether the jury is able to be replaced (or aided by) artificial intelligence. It will explore the role of AI (in its current form) and the way China is using it in Smart Courts as a way to battle time and efficiency: something the English legal system has recently seen become an issue (see Can the courts system crisis be saved? | UK News | Sky News).
In recent years, China has quietly transformed parts of its legal system using artificial intelligence, creating what are now known as “Smart Courts.” These courts, underpinned by a sophisticated network of digital systems and AI tools, have reportedly revolutionised the efficiency of case handling in several jurisdictions. While their structure and role are deeply rooted in the finance sector of the legal environment in China, they raise intriguing theoretical questions: could any of these innovations provide inspiration for legal systems facing different but equally pressing challenges, such as those in England and Wales?
China’s Smart Courts: A Glimpse into an AI-Assisted Legal System
China’s Smart Court system has been operational in various forms since 2016, backed by the Supreme People’s Court (China’s AI-Enabled ‘Smart Courts’ To Recommend Laws & Draft Legal Docs; Judges To Take Consult AI Before Verdict). The system comprises a suite of integrated digital tools designed to assist judges and court staff in managing legal proceedings more efficiently. These tools can scan vast databases of legal texts, identify relevant case precedents, recommend applicable laws, draft legal documents, and even highlight potential inconsistencies in rulings.
According to Chinese state media and court reports (as seen above), this approach has had a remarkable impact. Between 2019 and 2021, the Smart Court system is estimated to have reduced judges’ workloads by over a third, saving approximately 1.7 billion working hours, and cutting legal fees by approximately £32 billion. These claims, while difficult to independently verify, underscore the scale of ambition and investment in legal automation (see China’s “Smart Courts” Initiative: A Case Study in AI Integration - Lexir LATAM).
The innovation doesn’t stop at traditional courts. China has also pioneered fully digital “Internet Courts” in cities such as Hangzhou, Beijing, and Guangzhou, where they handle a wide range of online-related disputes, entirely via digital platforms. Hearings are conducted over video, with AI tools essentially supporting evidence review and legal reasoning. Notably, blockchain technology is also used to authenticate digital evidence, allowing these Internet Courts to (reportedly) conclude in as little as 38 days.
In contrast, the legal system in England and Wales has been grappling with a growing backlog of cases (see Here's a breakdown of which crimes might not be heard by juries | News Politics | Metro News). As of 2024, reports suggest the backlog had reached upwards of 82,000 cases, with some hearings delayed well into 2026 or beyond. Courtrooms and legal professionals are overstretched and victims and defendants are often left in prolonged legal uncertainty.
The reasons behind this current crisis are multifaceted: funding cuts, staff shortages, outdated technology, and the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have all played a pivotal role. Yet, at the heart of the problem is the simple fact that the system is struggling to process cases in a timely manner, a situation that undermines public confidence and the principle of swift justice.
A Theoretical Possibility: Could AI Offer Some Relief?
This is not to suggest that England should adopt China’s Smart Court strategy to battle current halts in the legal industry. The two legal systems are vastly different, and technology may not necessarily be the way to go in the historically commended and traditional justice system that is the English legal system. Nevertheless, despite philosophies, procedures, and tradition, this article wishes to stand from a purely theoretical and speculative standpoint, asking whether certain AI driven mechanisms could, if carefully adapted, help alleviate some of the bottlenecks in the English legal system.
For example, AI could be used to support judges and clerks by automatically retrieving relevant laws, summarising case histories, and drafting procedural documents (open to adjustments), ultimately freeing up human resources for more complex, substantive tasks. In high-volume areas such as civil claims or traffic offences, this type of assistance could significantly speed up processing.
Likewise, elements of China’s Internet Courts could truly offer a compelling model for virtual hearings in low-stakes disputes. In a system already experimenting with remote justice since the pandemic, a structured digital court (with the necessary AI tools to assist in scheduling, document management, etc) may help to streamline routine cases and reduce strain on physical courtrooms.
Proceeding with Curiosity and Caution
Of course, the use of AI in law does not come without its concerns. In the UK, several legal figures have warned against over-reliance on generative AI tools, especially that of AI-generated fake case laws.
There are also broader philosophical and ethical questions to bear in mind. Would AI undermine the independence of the judiciary or its tradition? Could it introduce hidden biases? Would litigants feel they received a fair hearing if a significant portion of the decision-making process were automated?
These are not questions with easy answers, nor should they be brushed aside in the name of efficiency. Yet in a legal system stretched to its limits, it may be worth approaching AI not as a replacement for human judgement, but as a tool to enhance it. If thoughtfully and transparently implemented, some aspects of AI-driven legal assistance might help reduce delays, improve access to justice, and restore confidence in the judicial process.
Conclusively, China’s Smart Courts offer a bold, sometimes controversial vision of what AI can do in the legal realm. Whether or not such vision is compatible with the values and structures of English law is an open-ended question that may always be conservatively viewed. But, as delays mount and resources shrink, perhaps the most useful thing AI can offer the English legal system for now is not a resolution, but a sense of curiosity.
What may be possible if the system were to be reimagined, not from ideology, but from need?
See also:
Delayed Justice? How it can be Automated
With graduation ceremonies coming to a close, this article comes as influenced by one's dissertation exploring the theoretical possibility on whether the jury is able to be replaced (or aided by) artificial intelligence. It will explore the role of AI (in its current form) and the way China is using it in Smart Courts as a way to battle time and efficiency: something the English legal system has recently seen become an issue (see Can the courts system crisis be saved? | UK News | Sky News).
In recent years, China has quietly transformed parts of its legal system using artificial intelligence, creating what are now known as “Smart Courts.” These courts, underpinned by a sophisticated network of digital systems and AI tools, have reportedly revolutionised the efficiency of case handling in several jurisdictions. While their structure and role are deeply rooted in the finance sector of the legal environment in China, they raise intriguing theoretical questions: could any of these innovations provide inspiration for legal systems facing different but equally pressing challenges, such as those in England and Wales?
China’s Smart Courts: A Glimpse into an AI-Assisted Legal System
China’s Smart Court system has been operational in various forms since 2016, backed by the Supreme People’s Court (China’s AI-Enabled ‘Smart Courts’ To Recommend Laws & Draft Legal Docs; Judges To Take Consult AI Before Verdict). The system comprises a suite of integrated digital tools designed to assist judges and court staff in managing legal proceedings more efficiently. These tools can scan vast databases of legal texts, identify relevant case precedents, recommend applicable laws, draft legal documents, and even highlight potential inconsistencies in rulings.
According to Chinese state media and court reports (as seen above), this approach has had a remarkable impact. Between 2019 and 2021, the Smart Court system is estimated to have reduced judges’ workloads by over a third, saving approximately 1.7 billion working hours, and cutting legal fees by approximately £32 billion. These claims, while difficult to independently verify, underscore the scale of ambition and investment in legal automation (see China’s “Smart Courts” Initiative: A Case Study in AI Integration - Lexir LATAM).
The innovation doesn’t stop at traditional courts. China has also pioneered fully digital “Internet Courts” in cities such as Hangzhou, Beijing, and Guangzhou, where they handle a wide range of online-related disputes, entirely via digital platforms. Hearings are conducted over video, with AI tools essentially supporting evidence review and legal reasoning. Notably, blockchain technology is also used to authenticate digital evidence, allowing these Internet Courts to (reportedly) conclude in as little as 38 days.
In contrast, the legal system in England and Wales has been grappling with a growing backlog of cases (see Here's a breakdown of which crimes might not be heard by juries | News Politics | Metro News). As of 2024, reports suggest the backlog had reached upwards of 82,000 cases, with some hearings delayed well into 2026 or beyond. Courtrooms and legal professionals are overstretched and victims and defendants are often left in prolonged legal uncertainty.
The reasons behind this current crisis are multifaceted: funding cuts, staff shortages, outdated technology, and the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have all played a pivotal role. Yet, at the heart of the problem is the simple fact that the system is struggling to process cases in a timely manner, a situation that undermines public confidence and the principle of swift justice.
A Theoretical Possibility: Could AI Offer Some Relief?
This is not to suggest that England should adopt China’s Smart Court strategy to battle current halts in the legal industry. The two legal systems are vastly different, and technology may not necessarily be the way to go in the historically commended and traditional justice system that is the English legal system. Nevertheless, despite philosophies, procedures, and tradition, this article wishes to stand from a purely theoretical and speculative standpoint, asking whether certain AI driven mechanisms could, if carefully adapted, help alleviate some of the bottlenecks in the English legal system.
For example, AI could be used to support judges and clerks by automatically retrieving relevant laws, summarising case histories, and drafting procedural documents (open to adjustments), ultimately freeing up human resources for more complex, substantive tasks. In high-volume areas such as civil claims or traffic offences, this type of assistance could significantly speed up processing.
Likewise, elements of China’s Internet Courts could truly offer a compelling model for virtual hearings in low-stakes disputes. In a system already experimenting with remote justice since the pandemic, a structured digital court (with the necessary AI tools to assist in scheduling, document management, etc) may help to streamline routine cases and reduce strain on physical courtrooms.
Proceeding with Curiosity and Caution
Of course, the use of AI in law does not come without its concerns. In the UK, several legal figures have warned against over-reliance on generative AI tools, especially that of AI-generated fake case laws.
There are also broader philosophical and ethical questions to bear in mind. Would AI undermine the independence of the judiciary or its tradition? Could it introduce hidden biases? Would litigants feel they received a fair hearing if a significant portion of the decision-making process were automated?
These are not questions with easy answers, nor should they be brushed aside in the name of efficiency. Yet in a legal system stretched to its limits, it may be worth approaching AI not as a replacement for human judgement, but as a tool to enhance it. If thoughtfully and transparently implemented, some aspects of AI-driven legal assistance might help reduce delays, improve access to justice, and restore confidence in the judicial process.
Conclusively, China’s Smart Courts offer a bold, sometimes controversial vision of what AI can do in the legal realm. Whether or not such vision is compatible with the values and structures of English law is an open-ended question that may always be conservatively viewed. But, as delays mount and resources shrink, perhaps the most useful thing AI can offer the English legal system for now is not a resolution, but a sense of curiosity.
What may be possible if the system were to be reimagined, not from ideology, but from need?
See also: