Westminster update: Law Society gives evidence on AI and human rights

Consultation on anti-money laundering reforms

Responding to the UK government’s consultation on proposals to reform the anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing (AML/CTF) supervision regime, we opposed the creation of a single professional services supervisor (SPSS).

Read our response to the consultation, where we outline the operational and strategic risks of the SPSS model to the profession.

Law Society calls for principled approach to AI regulation

Our data and technology policy adviser Dr Janis Wong highlighted the need to address AI harms during an evidence session before the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as part of its inquiry into AI and human rights.

Dr Wong was joined on the panel by Ellen Lefley (senior lawyer at JUSTICE) and Louise Hooper (barrister at Garden Court Chambers).

The chair, Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench), asked Dr Wong whether existing law is adequate to meet the regulatory challenges of AI.

Dr Wong explained several existing challenges with regulating AI, including finding the right balance of regulation, fragmentation and how AI should be defined.

She also emphasised that the government needs to take a principled approach to regulation so future regulation can address AI harms.

Baroness Lawrence (Labour) asked what the UK could learn from the EU AI Act and whether businesses can still operate easily across borders under the act.

Dr Wong responded that the UK could learn from the act’s first attempt to identify AI harms, such as banning certain types of AI and introducing a foundation of standards around transparency.

She added that the act applies internationally to both users and developers.

Alex Sobel MP (Labour) asked about concrete mechanisms to improve transparency.

Hooper answered that the government could introduce a statutory register of algorithms and legislation on labelling AI content.

Baroness Kennedy (Labour) asked whether the Data (Use and Access) Act is sufficient in improving data protection, especially around automated decision making (ADM).

Dr Wong argued that just informing users when ADM is involved would not be sufficient protection and that the act’s measures have significant implications around a lack of individual consent for ADM.

Finally, Lord Murray (Conservative) asked about liability at different stages of the AI lifecycle.

Hooper highlighted that insurers in the US are currently asking their regulator for advice as they cannot calculate AI harm.

Lefley also noted that offence is the government’s best defence in this space, so it should be proactive in addressing liability issues. This includes knowing when AI has been involved in order to recognise harm.

Lord chancellor appears before the Justice Select Committee

Lord chancellor and deputy prime minister David Lammy appeared before the Justice Select Committee on Tuesday 16 December to give evidence on the work of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and his priorities for the justice system.

Members raised jury trial reforms, with Liberal Democrat MP Vikki Slade highlighting our concern that while the Leveson reforms to the Crown Court were an “uncomfortable compromise”, going beyond these is not acceptable.

Slade added that Lammy said he would be reducing the number of jury trials even if there was not a case backlog, asking for further detail and why so many organisations are uncomfortable with reforms that he was convinced are appropriate.

The lord chancellor said these changes are so “that women who have been raped do not wait three years for a trial to come forward”.

Lammy added that there had not been substantial reform of the jury system since 1971 and reform is needed due to changes in technology, violent crime and trials going on for longer.

He also confirmed that a courts bill will be brought forward in the spring to implement the restriction of jury trials in criminal cases.

Turning to criminal legal aid, Slade noted something that the Law Society had recently informed her of: only one in 120 new lawyers become criminal lawyers.

She argued that jury reforms would not matter if there aren’t enough lawyers or courts to hear cases.

Slade asked what was being done to get the necessary funding from the Treasury.

Lammy agreed and said he had announced £34 million a year for legal aid advocates, match-funded criminal barrister pupillages and that court maintenance funding was rising.

Lammy was also questioned about his plans for civil justice.

He highlighted the £47 billion that legal services contribute to the economy, stating that he wanted more digitisation of the county court and to modernise and simplify small claims courts.

On family law, Lammy pointed to extra funding for mediation and noted his hopes to bring forward further proposals to support the sector in the coming months.

Prime minister questioned on jury trial reform

During an evidence session before the Liaison Committee on Monday 15 December, Justice Select Committee chair Andy Slaughter (Labour) raised to the prime minister the limited impact of proposals to remove jury trials from certain cases.

Slaughter questioned the prime minister on the government’s response to Sir Brian Leveson’s review of the criminal courts, focusing on proposals to limit jury trials in some intermediate cases.

Slaughter argued that changes only affecting around 1% to 2% of criminal cases were unlikely to reduce Crown Court backlogs.

He called for decisions on jury trials to be postponed until their impact was clearer.

The prime minister replied that around 3% of all criminal cases currently go before a jury. The proposals would reduce this to approximately 2.25%.

While accepting the reforms were not a “silver bullet”, he said they are part of a wider package to address systemic delays.

Slaughter also raised concerns about proposals to extend magistrates’ sentencing powers and introduce judge-only “swift courts”, warning that these measures could lead to longer custodial sentences and undermine sentencing reform.

The prime minister said the most serious offences would continue to be tried by jury and described the criminal justice system as being in “virtual crisis”. He argued that procedural and sentencing reforms need to be considered together and kept under review.

Turning to press regulation, Slaughter drew parallels with the Hillsborough Law and highlighted the lack of independent regulation and affordable redress for victims of press intrusion.

The prime minister agreed to meet with victims who had written to him on the issue.

Finally, Slaughter questioned the human rights implications of increased AI use, including risks around privacy, discrimination and transparency.

The prime minister emphasised the potential benefits of AI in public services including criminal justice, while acknowledging the need for safeguards and human oversight.

Justice questions: legal aid, jury trials and court backlogs

Legal aid, deportation of foreign national offenders, jury trials and court backlogs were all raised during justice questions on Tuesday 16 December.

John Milne (Liberal Democrat) asked the lord chancellor about the steps the MoJ is taking to ensure sufficient access to publicly funded advice and representation.

The lord chancellor highlighted recent investment in both criminal and civil legal aid.

Responding to a question from Jess Brown-Fuller on the risk of retraumatisation in the family courts due to lack of representation, Lammy stressed the importance of both legal aid and mediation, referring to the family court “pathfinder” pilot.

Steve Yemm (Labour) asked about the deportation of foreign national offenders.

Lammy confirmed that a 'deport first, appeal later' approach would be applied, stating that there has been a 75% rise in early deportations under the Labour government.

Sarah Green (Liberal Democrat) raised reform of the family courts.

Minister Alex Davies-Jones set out plans to expand the pathfinder model, address long delays and repeal the presumption of parental involvement through the Victims and Courts Bill.

Peter Bedford (Conservative) asked for the government’s assessment of the impact of removing jury trials through the Sentencing Bill.

The lord chancellor reiterated that the reforms intend to tackle severe backlogs and deliver justice faster for victims, particularly in cases involving sexual offences. He defended the credibility of the evidence underpinning the Leveson review.

Finally, on magistrates courts, minister Sarah Sackman reaffirmed their central role in the justice system and acknowledged the need for greater recognition of magistrates’ service, including improved expenses and support.

MPs also raised concerns about investment in the court estate and staffing, though no new commitments were announced.

Coming up

We are working closely with MPs and peers to influence a number of bills before Parliament: