The Plan outlines how AI will be deployed “responsibly and proportionately” across courts, tribunals, prisons, probation services, and their supporting infrastructure. It is not a bullish approach to radical transformation – any reader of Leveson’s Part 1 report could see the use case is being very carefully considered. The MoJ instead sets out a blueprint for cautious modernisation—one that proposes to preserve the integrity of legal principles while embracing technological efficiency.  

Supporting, not replacing, human judgement

Central to the Plan is a commitment to judicial independence. AI is framed as a tool to support human decision-making, not to substitute it. This distinction is more than semantic—it reflects a deliberate effort to reassure the public that human decision making will be enshrined in the justice system at all levels. Algorthims and machine learning will support this, not replace it.  

However, it is hard to escape the growing role of AI-parsed data in informing decisions. It appears the further from judicial decisions, the more AI can be expected to be involved, as the MoJ pursues efficiencies at all levels.   

Whilst the market for AI continues to grow, there remains an inherent opacity (the ‘black box’ problem) and ingrained biases in these systems. Humans have their own biases, but they remain accountable and must explain their decisions – AI does not. The MoJ is at pains to make it clear that there will always be a ‘human’ mind at the core, even if the robot writes the judgment.

Transparency and trust

Transparency is a recurring theme. The MoJ has launched an AI Communications Plan and an online hub (ai.justice.gov.uk) to provide updates on models being piloted and scaled. An Ethics Framework is also in development, recognising the sensitivity of justice data and the need for robust privacy and security standards.

Rather than shying away, the MoJ has sensibly identified key limitations: siloed data and outdated infrastructure (across government but particularly in the creaking justice system), poor-quality data and a skills gap within government departments. These are not minor hurdles—they are structural issues that could undermine the effectiveness and fairness of AI deployment that government will have to address head on (at not insignificant cost). We can expect to see the information architecture to be a key point in the modernisation of the justice system.

Practical applications

The Plan sets out several areas where AI is expected to deliver tangible benefits, including in assisting in routine task automation (with notable pilot schemes in drafting/note-taking already being undertaken in the probation service), with the aim of maximising both judicial and civil servant time for ‘human’ work, requiring empathy and expertise.

The judiciary is being encouraged to utilise Microsoft’s Co-Pilot, with suggested use cases of bundle summarisation and chronology building. The probation service is being encouraged to use it for case notes and rehabilitation programmes, whilst prisons are being suggested to use it for capacity management and inmate and staff learning programmes.

Of most interest to the public is likely to be the proposed ‘public engagement’ use. The MoJ couches its plans in careful wording, to suggest it will not impact on the criminal courts, but it is clear chatbots and call centres are getting AI services baked in, and there is an ambition to use AI to triage and ‘nudge’ applicants away from the courts and into alternative dispute resolution (where possible).

What seems clear is that, whilst final decisions may be reserved for humans, the data and resources they rely on are going to be increasingly processed by AI. According to the Plan, this will impact every level of the justice system from policy setting and legislation down to individual legal proceedings. In that world, transparency is key so that decision-makers can be confident that bias and error does not creep in (or, more likely, is adequately risk managed in the same way as human bias and error should be).

Legal sector implications

For the legal profession, there is a clear push from the MoJ for ‘responsible’ AI use, with proposed training initiatives for regulators such as the SRA, BSB, and CILEX Regulation. Guidance is expected to cascade through the profession, shaping what constitutes “responsible” AI use in legal practice.

This has been a topic of discussion in law firms for years, even before ChatGPT brought AI into the wider market and public attention, and the regulators will need to be careful not to hamstring development and investment whilst balancing the risks that aren’t otherwise dealt with through other professional obligations.

It’s clear the legal sector will be looking to for efficiency gains in routine tasks. However, AI is capable of far more than rote outputs, and the MoJ is possibly highlighting new frontiers to be explored, not least in drafting court documents (and carefully check the Co-Pilot chronology isn’t full of AI-hallucinated events). The Plan does not delve too deeply into how it thinks the court should receive AI-driven material (as opposed to produce it) but Leveson has given clear warnings about the growing expertise required to unpick these systems and decisions made. If policy and judicial decision making relies on AI-parsed data, we might find challenges to decision-making becoming more and more technical, requiring expert evidence and perhaps a reconsideration of the procedural rules across the justice system.

A human-centred future

Perhaps the most heartening element of the plan is the suggestion that focused, judicious investment will be utilised across government to bring AI into wider use via scalable and transparent procurement. The appointment of a Chief AI Officer—a human, not a bot – and recognition of the government’s poor track record to date in maintaining technical expertise in a competitive market are the first steps in overcoming systemic barriers to the adoption of technology.

Overall, this is a positive picture, of judicial and judicious progressiveness with a degree of central planning and economies of scale. The MoJ’s AI Action Plan is not the beginning of the android arbitrators. It is a careful, measured step forward with clear-eyed plans to manage the limitations in the technology and the MoJ’s own limitations in funding and expertise. It is likely we will see tentative use of AI in the civil and family courts first.  We will have to wait to see how Part 2 of the Leveson Review sets out the practical next steps for the criminal courts. We must also wait and see whether, despite the optimistic note, the public sector can successfully manage the wider adoption of AI.

The post Data not decisions – MoJ’s AI action plan appeared first on Peters & Peters.

We made detailed submissions to INTERPOL, supported by expert evidence, that the allegations against our client were entirely baseless, politically motivated due to his role in the supporting the opposition to Vladimir Putin and opposing the invasion of Ukraine, and that any return of our client to the Russian Federation would place him at grave risk of political persecution.

INTERPOL confirmed that the acts of the Russian Federation were not in accordance with their rules, and the retention of any data on their system would not be compatible with INTERPOL’s rules. Accordingly, INTERPOL deleted the diffusion request and all data on their system.

Peters & Peters is pleased that our client’s rights have been vindicated by INTERPOL’s decision in this matter and will continue to defend them and their interests.

Our client was represented by Senior Partner, Michael O’Kane and Associate, Liam Lane.

The post INTERPOL deletes Diffusion Request from the Russian Federation against prominent Russian philanthropist and businessman appeared first on Peters & Peters.

The ICJ is the highest court in the United Nations. It recognised that the consequences of climate change are severe and far-reaching, impacting both natural ecosystems and human populations. The ICJ referred to the already existing consequences (extreme weather, extinction of species, human life and health being at risk) as underscoring the “urgent and existential threat posed by climate change”.

In its 140-page advisory opinion, the ICJ responded to two questions:

1. What are the obligations on States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system; and

2. What are the legal consequences arising from States’ acts and omissions that cause significant harm to the climate system.

In response to the first question, the ICJ concluded that all countries have a legal obligation, as matters of international environmental law, international human rights law and as part of general principles of state responsibility, to protect and prevent harm to the climate. The ICJ did address two important issues in its response on (a) attribution; and (b) causation.

a) Attribution – i.e. whether the actions of a private company (for example an oil company) could be attributed to a State. In this regard the ICJ noted that the question to be asked is whether the State is appropriately regulating private companies in line with its international obligations of due diligence and duty to protect the climate system. When asking that question, the issues of attribution do not arise. The ICJ also stated that “due diligence requires States to actively pursue the scientific information necessary for them to assess the probability and seriousness of harm” (paragraph 283).

b) Causation – i.e. whether the States actions actually caused the harm suffered. The ICJ Opinion begins by observing that causation of damage is not a requirement for the determination of responsibility (paragraph 433) but rather that an international wrongful act can be attributed to that State. However, if the question of any reparation (i.e. compensation) arises, then it must be shown that the damage for which reparation is claimed has been factually and legally caused by a State.

In response to the second question, the ICJ found that in the event of a breach of any such obligation, the State in breach must:

(i) Stop its polluting activity;
(ii) Ensure that such activities do not occur in the future; and
(iii) Make reparations to affected States.

Regarding reparations, the ICJ concluded that the appropriate nature and quantum of reparations cannot be assessed in the abstract and depends on the circumstances of a particular case (paragraph 450).

The ICJ Opinion cites heavily from international law where climate ‘harms’ can be clearly linked to major emitters and/or fossil-fuel producers and draws upon the three UN climate change treaties – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.

While the ICJ Opinion itself is not binding for governments, its opinions have significant influence both politically and legally. Further, as the ICJ Opinion itself arose from a campaign led by 27 students from the University of South Pacific, Vanuatu, it may result in more vulnerable nations that are increasingly susceptible to the effects of climate change, pushing for compensation in the international courts.

The post International Court of Justice confirms that States have a legal duty to protect and prevent harm to the climate appeared first on Peters & Peters.

The judgment is an important milestone in the long-running proceedings against JNFX and its Head of Global Markets, Mr Ashay Mervyn.

Mr Giwa is pleased with the decision of the Court of Appeal upholding majority of the damages awarded by the High Court and remains committed to pursuing his claims to conclusion and will now consider his next steps, including commencement of enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment debt confirmed by the Court of Appeal.

The Peters & Peters team is led by Partners Jonathan Tickner and Vlad Meerovich, and Associate, Stefan Ansah. Matthew Bradley KC of 4 New Square and Rumen Cholakov of 3 Verulam Buildings are instructed as counsel on behalf of Mr Giwa.

The post Court of Appeal judgment in long running JNFX case appeared first on Peters & Peters.

• Communications between a lawyer and their client, sought for the dominant purpose of giving or receiving legal advice, are protected by the English courts from disclosure due to the concept of legal professional privilege.
• For 135 years the shareholder rule had been acknowledged as one of few exceptions to the legal professional privilege rule. The rule enables a shareholder, in proceedings against the company they hold shares in, to obtain privileged documents belonging to that company (provided litigation is not on foot or in contemplation).
• The shareholder rule was justified on the basis that shareholders have a proprietary interest in the advice received by the company.

Recent decisions regarding the shareholder rule

• In a bold judgment by Mr Justice Picken’s last year in Aabar Holdings SARL v Glencore PLC & Ors [2024] EWHC 3046 (Comm), Picken J found that the shareholder rule could no longer be supported or justified.
• Picken J also found:
  • The shareholder rule could not be justified on the basis of joint interest privilege.
  • Even if the shareholder rule did exist, it would not apply to documents protected by without prejudice privilege.
• Last week, the Privy Council in a Bermuda appeal (Jardine Strategic Limited v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd and 80 others No 2 (Bermuda) [2025] UKPC 34), found that the shareholder rule really is no more (or in their words “Like the emperor wearing no clothes in the folktale, it is time to recognise and declare that the [Shareholder] Rule is altogether unclothed”).  
• Lord Briggs and Lady Rose jointly observed that:
  • The rule had always lacked justification; and
  • The rule is wholly inconsistent with the proper analysis of a registered company as a separate legal entity.
• Essentially, both judgments confirm that claimant shareholders (and former shareholders) do not have a joint interest privilege in legal advice obtained by the company.

Is the shareholder rule really altogether ‘unclothed’?

• Privy Council decisions carry weight and importance but are not always considered binding by the English Courts. In Jardine, however, the Privy Council declared that their decision should also be taken as reflecting the English law position.
• Shareholders will now be watching with interest when the Court of Appeal hears an appeal in Aabar later this year.
• For now, shareholders will want to ensure, where possible, that company advice is received expressly on a joint basis.
• Directors on the other hand, may be more comfortable obtaining privileged legal advice on behalf of the company.

The post The shareholder rule is ‘unclothed’ appeared first on Peters & Peters.

Alistair Jones has been quoted in WorldECR issue 141, commenting on the UK government’s new guidance. To read the article, please click here.

Please note that the article requires a subscription.

The post UK ‘guidance’ to former Soviet states expands jurisdictional scope of sanctions appeared first on Peters & Peters.

The CPS had opposed bail throughout the proceedings, and the Moldovan authorities have repeatedly referred approvingly to Mr Platon’s detention in the media and their domestic political discourse. In his decision granting bail, SDJ Goldspring criticised Moldova’s conduct, referring to the “extraordinary approach” taken by the judicial authority and describing CPS submissions as “a quantum leap from the evidence.”

The CPS sought immediately to appeal the grant of bail to the High Court, which must be done within 2 hours of the original decision.  However, following urgent submissions by Mr Platon’s counsel, James Stansfeld of Matrix Chambers, the CPS conceded that the notice was defective and that the time limit for serving a valid notice of appeal had since expired.  SDJ Goldspring confirmed that he was required to treat the appeal as disposed of, stating: “The court and/or the respondent cannot choose which rules they do or do not comply with… defective notice is no notice at all.”

The decision follows three detailed hearings, which included live witness testimony and substantial legal argument. Mr Platon has expressed satisfaction with the outcome and will continue to contest the extradition proceedings.

Mr Platon is represented by Nick Vamos, Head of Business Crime and Investigations and Senior Associate, Kerri McGuigan.

The post Peters & Peters achieves key victory for Veaceslav Platon in ongoing extradition proceedings appeared first on Peters & Peters.

In a comprehensive and well-reasoned judgment handed down today by Deputy High Court Judge Charles Morrison ([2025] EWHC 1802 (Ch)), the Court found in favour of the Claimants in their claims against Mr Kevin Woolgar, a former commercial representative, for deceit and breach of trust arising from the receipt of substantial secret commissions.

The Court held that Mr Woolgar had deliberately manipulated invoices to include undisclosed margins, contrary to the terms of his consultancy agreement and the representations made to the Claimants. The Court awarded the Claimants damages based on a 25% average commission rate across all transactions, amounting to a significant recovery, as well as compensation for professional and management costs incurred during an HMRC investigation triggered by Mr Woolgar’s conduct.

The judgment is a clear affirmation of the legal protections available to businesses against fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. It underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in commercial relationships, particularly where trust and discretion are central to the role performed.

Peters & Peters instructed Sam Goodman and Charles Connor (both of Twenty Essex) to lead the Claimants’ case.

Jonathan Tickner, Head of Fraud and Commercial Disputes at Peters & Peters, commented:

“This is an important judgment that sends a clear message about the seriousness of secret commissions and the importance of transparency in commercial relationships. We are delighted to have secured a just outcome for our clients and proud of the team’s exceptional work.”

The post Peters & Peters secures victory in High Court for Lynx Golf in deceit and secret commission dispute appeared first on Peters & Peters.

In an article published by LexisNexis, Joseph Duggin and Joseph Skilton discuss the challenges facing the SFO, explore potential solutions, and evaluate whether the SFO can successfully overcome these obstacles.

Read the article on the Lexis Nexis website, here.

Please note that this article is behind a paywall.

The post Resourcing and disclosure—the key challenges currently facing the SFO appeared first on Peters & Peters.

Alistair Jones has been quoted in WorldECR issue 140.

Please note that the article requires a subscription.

The post New UK law offers some protection, but no incentives, to sanctions whistleblowers appeared first on Peters & Peters.