This speech was delivered by Sir Geoffrey Vos at the Old Bailey, London, on 4 February 2026, as part of the Justice For All series of events

Introduction

1. Many thanks to Alderman and Sheriff Robert Hughes-Penney for inviting me to deliver this keynote address.

2. I am told that it is intended that I will provide an “in-depth examination of the rights of the accused, delays in the Courts and justice systems, and the critical importance of procedural fairness and access to legal representation” and a consideration of “how technology and AI may improve the efficiency and fairness of the justice system”.

3. No doubt, one could address that ‘spec’ from a number of angles. Recent public debate around the future of our justice system has focussed on the proposed restriction of jury trials, the reduction in the availability of legal aid, the backlogs in the criminal courts and more. Those are matters for politicians, policymakers and others to resolve.

4. For my part, I believe that the solutions for the justice system of 2026 engage the fundamental principles under which it operates. It is, of course, axiomatic that we should be aiming to provide “Justice for the Accused” and, perhaps as importantly, justice for the businesses, individuals and families that are involved in some 15 million disputes, large and small, that arise every year within our Society in England and Wales.

5. To achieve those laudable goals, we need, in my view, to look for the solutions and opportunities that are offered by recent revolutionary technological advances. To grasp those opportunities, we need, I think, to look at the fundamentals of justice, rather than assuming that the ways in which we have been accustomed to delivering justice in the last 200 years is the only, or even the best, way of doing so in the second quarter of the 21st century.

6. So, with that introduction, I will consider the following issues briefly tonight:
(1) What are the fundamentals of delivering civil and criminal justice in the age of hugely capable AI – what I call the machine age?
(2) How can and should those fundamentals be delivered more quickly, more efficiently and at more proportionate cost, but still justly, in the forthcoming generation?

7. I should say at once that I am not suggesting that AI will solve all our problems, particularly where vulnerable people in the civil, family and criminal justice system, are concerned. But I do think that, in the context of the use of AI and technology more generally in the justice system, we have been guilty of some quite shortsighted thinking. It is important now to look beyond the short-term and to consider not only what machines can do to help deliver justice, but also what humans will still be required to do in the fully developed machine age.

8. To summarise, my thesis is that it is now perfectly clear that AI will be able to provide or assist in the provision of justice outcomes, whether civil or criminal, in a tiny fraction of the time that lawyers, judges and human actors require to do so. Economics may well eventually dictate that many of these technological solutions will have to be adopted. For that reason, our society needs to consider now, and urgently, what humans need to continue to be doing to preserve the fundamentals of justice for humans in that machine age.

9. I shall try to explain under the headings I have mentioned.

What are the fundamentals of the delivery of civil and criminal justice in the machine age?

10. The key to this question is as to the meaning of “justice”. It is a mistake to think that “justice” means exactly the same thing to the people of 2026 as it meant to the people of 1873 when our current civil justice system was enshrined in the Judicature Acts.

11. First, in 1873, justice was something that was generally reserved for those that could afford it. Criminal justice was rough and ready. There was little or no legal aid, and civil justice was simply not available to those without means.

12. In 2026, our citizens and businesses want to see a system where justice is available equally to the least privileged and the most vulnerable in our society as it is to the most wealthy and the most privileged. That is, of course, an aspiration that is hard to achieve, but it is important to understand that it is what our society expects. Providing justice for 60 million people from hugely diverse backgrounds is a far harder task than providing justice for the wealthy members of a non-diverse population of some 23 million people in 1873.

13. Secondly, in 1873, justice was delivered relatively quickly. Criminal trials were held soon after the arrest and sentences were executed with despatch.

14. The resolution of disputes quickly and efficiently is essential to the economic wellbeing of the country. Lengthy disputes affect the productivity and psychological wellbeing of those involved in them and cause significant economic drag.

15. Justice has become delayed in the years leading up to 2026 mostly because of the complexities of modern life, not because anyone thought that delay was to be preferred to despatch. Civil and criminal cases now involve massive quantities of data and documents that require to be processed and evaluated. All that takes time. Also, we have developed cumbersome rules of evidence that were suitable for former times, but may or may not be appropriate in 2026. Technology will enable us to rethink those rules of evidence so as to ensure that justice can be delivered more speedily with its assistance.

16. Thirdly, the sophistication of our citizens and communities in 2026 means that there are many more crimes and disputes per capita of population than there ever were in the past. Again, the complexity of our lives provides endless opportunities for wrongdoing and dispute, whether it is online scams, cyber-crime or road traffic offences. There may be less old-fashioned house burglaries than there were in yester-year, but there are many more disputes and minor infringements than there ever were. In our modern society, an ever-increasing section of our population expects the “authorities” to tackle each and every one of these justice issues.

17. A sub-set of this problem is the fact that AI is now being used by almost every individual litigant in person and small business. The first port of call used to be a lawyer if one was available and affordable. Now the first port of call is ChatGPT or CoPilot. Whatever answer generative AI gives, the would-be litigant in person can easily use it to transform a mass of documents and personal information into an arguable legal claim. This means that, in future, we will see many more civil claims because AI can create them free of charge, where previously claim numbers were limited by the availability and cost of lawyers. Judges and courts need to be ready to deal with an AI revolution that may vastly increase the number of civil, family and tribunals claims with which the justice system has to cope.

18. So, to summarise, the “justice” we are considering in 2026 must be available equally to all, and must be provided quickly and efficiently for many more people and situations than ever before. Victims are, of course, also important and no infringement or dispute can be ignored or left unresolved.

19. These are exacting parameters for justice, and start to explain why we find ourselves in the situation we are in. Changes in the expectations of our society occur imperceptibly, and there has, perhaps as a result, never been a sufficient rethink of what we actually want to achieve in the delivery of justice. The modern expectations of our society and citizens and businesses have simply developed and appeared without discussion or debate.

20. I shall not discuss tonight whether and how such a rethink would be appropriate. That would be a highly controversial subject. Some would, no doubt, argue that our society cannot afford to deliver justice for all. Others would argue that justice for all is an essential component of the rule of law and of a democratic society. I do not believe the debate is helpful, because it is a fact that justice for all, in the way I have described it, is what our society has come to expect, and it is the duty of any self-respecting justice system to deliver what the society it serves has come to expect. The justice system only exists to serve, and we judges have to be careful not to think that the system we operate has any function beyond selfless service to our society and communities.

21. It can now, I hope, be seen that the fundamentals of justice in 2026 are the delivery of speedy, efficient and cost-effective outcomes for the many civil and family disputes and criminal infringements that arise every year.

22. As judges and lawyers, and in fact politicians, we would, I think, be totally failing in our duty if we did not recognise that technology and AI can play a large part in delivering justice of the kind I have explained.

23. That brings me, then, to my second question.

How can and should the fundamentals of modern justice be delivered more quickly, more efficiently and at more proportionate cost, but still justly in the forthcoming generation?

24. One of the problems with providing a definitive answer to this question is that technology is moving very fast, and the thought leaders in our society have been struggling to keep up with its capabili...

Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

Message History

Delivery option(s)