In June, it was reported that police forces in England and Wales were told to pause the use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) in criminal justice work, including preparing court statements.
The concern is not simply that AI can make mistakes. Generative AI produces statements that can sound plausible but are false.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
The following is a summary of the article ‘Why police have been told to pause their use of AI in court cases’ as published by The Conversation.
Police forces across England and Wales have been instructed to pause the use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) for criminal justice work, including the preparation of court statements.
[Read more: Police in England and Wales told to halt AI use in court statements, Financial Times, 6 June 2026]
Alex Murray, head of the Police.AI centre, stated that forces must slow down to ensure AI systems undergo proper assessment before being integrated into criminal justice workflows.
The primary concern is that generative AI can produce false information that sounds plausible, which poses significant risks when such material influences investigations or is presented as evidence in court.
For example, the West Midlands Police used Microsoft Copilot to prepare material for a proposed ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters attending a match against Aston Villa in November 2025. The AI cited disorder from a previous match between the two clubs, except the match had never actually taken place.
Other examples include: “A Derbyshire police detective [who] has been suspended and is under criminal investigation following allegations that AI was used to create evidential material,” The Conversation said.
And, “Several rape convictions are being reviewed after allegations that the detective instructed an AI chatbot to produce case paperwork in ways intended to influence charging decisions.
Generative AI complicates the requirement for evidence provenance, as large language models generate responses based on patterns rather than verifying the truth of the information. And AI systems often fail to provide a reliable audit trail; even when an AI is asked to explain its reasoning, the explanation itself may be generated rather than serving as an accurate record of the process.
The obvious safeguard is human verification. But this creates an awkward trade-off by reducing the time-saving benefits of using AI technology. However, in the criminal justice system, which affects someone’s guilt or innocence, and liberty, the cost of human verification is essential not only for accuracy but to ensure that a human remains accountable for the origin and reliability of evidence. Simply reading AI output is insufficient; it must be checked against independently verifiable facts and original evidence.
You can read the full article on The Conversation HERE.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, Latest News, UK News
The sooner AI is limited to info storage and retrieval and prevented from synthesizing statements, the better off humanity will be. People need to use or lose their own minds.
But even the information retrieved needs to be confirmed
from other sources unless it is just common knowledge.
AI can be useful in prompting further research.
AI is a tool, just like a hammer. When a crime is committed using a hammer, the hammer is not deemed culpable – it is not a party to or perpetrator of an act.
The way to control the use of AI in court or other legal proceedings is to create an immutable trail of responsibility to the person using (or wielding) the AI.
All use of AI by law enforcement and other legal agents must be encapsulated within a cryptographically signed environment. The entries – queries, commands, or edits to the output obtained – should be automatically signed by the individual human responsible for making and obtaining them (this is not necessarily the person actually keying the initiations and controls into an AI system but there must always be a person accepting responsibility for those actions). Documents produced via this route must ONLY be deemed legally acceptable if the signature trail is valid and sufficient to verify its integrity, completeness etc. AI is ONLY agentic in proxy of a human issuing instructions and nowhere is it more important to observe this truth than in legal proceedings whether criminal or civil.
The technical method to achieving this is quite simple and there is no excuse for not doing so. Judges’ Rules should be immediately augmented to enforce this and avoid a situation of confusion, waste of court time, and potential miscarriage.