Appeal court seeks AI law reform

By Jessica Turner 28/07/2026 3 min read 1 views

The Court of Appeal has urged regulators to consider new rules governing the use of artificial intelligence in criminal trials after a recent rape case was halted because the complainant relied on AI to prepare her testimony.

Appeal judges flag AI as a growing concern

In the case of Rex v FGD, a three‑judge panel consisting of Lady Justice May, Mr Justice Griffiths and His Honour Judge Picton overturned a lower‑court decision that had stayed the proceedings. The appeal court noted that the complainant’s phone contained documents generated by an AI system in response to prompts she entered.

“We suggest that, to the extent that they are not already doing so, the National Police Chiefs Council, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee may wish to consider how to address and regulate the use of AI in criminal proceedings,” the judgment read.

The panel said the incident was “unlikely to be an isolated example,” implying that similar situations could emerge as AI tools become more accessible. The judges emphasized that current rules do not specifically cover AI‑assisted preparation, leaving a gap that could affect the fairness of future trials.

Legal reasoning and next steps

During the appeal, the court examined evidence found after a “broad and intrusive” search of the complainant’s phone. The documents were identified as AI‑generated outputs, raising questions about whether the material constituted unlawful “witness training.” The judgment clarified that witness coaching is prohibited in all jurisdictions, but it also noted that much of the complainant’s evidence‑in‑chief was recorded before she consulted the AI system.

Lady Justice May wrote, “This is precisely the kind of case where the trial process would be well able to deal with any potential prejudice … arising from [the complainant’s] resort to AI in advance of cross‑examination.” She added that the AI “coach” had provided a fully recorded transcript, which could be presented to the jury in its entirety or summarized by agreement.

The appellate court concluded that the lower‑court recorder had erred in deciding the defendant could not receive a fair trial. It instructed counsel on both sides to explore all ways the trial process might mitigate prejudice from AI‑assisted testimony, rather than automatically staying the case.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, the recorder’s ruling was reversed, and a retrial was scheduled to proceed “at the earliest opportunity.”

The case has drawn wide attention.

In practice, this decision could mean that defendants and victims alike will need to disclose any AI‑generated material before a trial begins, ensuring that judges have a complete view of what has been prepared. The requirement for transparency may place additional burdens on parties to preserve digital evidence, but it also offers a clearer path for courts to assess the influence of technology on testimony.

The Crown Prosecution Service has already issued an apology for “AI hallucinations” that appeared in court documents, acknowledging that the technology can produce inaccurate or misleading content. That admission highlights the broader challenge of integrating AI tools into legal workflows without compromising factual accuracy.

While the appeal focused on a single case, the judges’ call for regulation signals a shift toward formal oversight of AI in the courtroom. If policymakers act on the recommendation, future guidance could include mandatory disclosure of AI assistance, limits on the type of AI tools permissible for witness preparation, and protocols for evaluating the reliability of AI‑generated evidence.

For now, the legal community is watching closely, awaiting any proposals from the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee or the National Police Chiefs Council. The outcome could set a precedent that shapes how courts handle emerging technologies for years to come.