The Judicial Office’s updated guidance on Artificial Intelligence (AI), issued in October 2025, marks a significant step in addressing the growing presence of AI tools in legal practice and court proceedings. As AI becomes increasingly embedded in administrative and legal workflows, this guidance offers a timely framework for judicial office holders and legal professionals to navigate its use responsibly. The guide offers an insight for practioniers as to the boundries of using AI. The bottom line, is if you submit it, it is your responsability. 

The guidance reiterates the judiciary’s overarching duty to protect the integrity of the administration of justice. In similar terms those appearing before the Courts must ensure that they are not using AI in a misleading manner.  AI tools, particularly generative AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Meta AI—are not substitutes for legal reasoning or authoritative research. They can be quite poor at understanding.  Their outputs are generated from probabilistic models trained on vast, often unverified datasets, and are prone to errors, biases, and hallucinations (fabricated citations or legal principles).

There are several tools that can assist legal professionals in detecting AI-generated or manipulated content:

GPTZero (gptzero.me) - Designed to identify AI-written text, GPTZero is widely used in academic and legal settings to flag content that may lack human authorship.
Originality.ai (originality.ai) - This tool offers AI detection and plagiarism scanning, useful for verifying the authenticity of legal submissions and documents.
AI or Not (aiornot.com) - A simple interface that allows users to paste text and receive a probability score indicating whether it was generated by AI.
Deepware Scanner (deepware.ai) - Focused on detecting deepfake audio and video, this tool is relevant as courts face increasing risks from synthetic media and forged evidence.
Draftable (draftable.com) - While not an AI detector per se, Draftable helps compare documents side-by-side to identify subtle changes, including hidden “white text” or embedded prompts that may be used to manipulate AI systems.
AI systems themselves - Simply putting the text into a AI Chat and asking was it generate by AI, can provide you a generted report. 
AI Hallucination Cases (damiencharlotin.com) A website recording known halucination of legla cases, very useful list of cases previously generated from AI, and thus likely to appear again. 

Again where these sites are public use, no confidential infomration that is not already in the public domain should be entered into it. 

AI tools offer potential efficiencies in summarising documents, managing administrative tasks, and supporting legal drafting. However, their use in legal analysis or research remains fraught with risk. The Judicial Office’s guidance provides a clear framework for responsible engagement, emphasising verification, confidentiality, and accountability.
Legal professionals must remain informed and cautious, especially as AI becomes more accessible to litigants and embedded in legal processes. By combining judicial best practices with emerging detection tools, the profession can uphold the standards of justice in an increasingly digital age.

An AI tool should be treated as if it is a newly quailified case worker on the first day, full of enthusiasm to do their best, but often misdirected, and or incable of understanding through lack of expirence the key issue in the matter. 

Legal aid in family proceedings is a patchwork—thin in places, threadbare in others. But nowhere is the gap more glaring than in family enforcement applications, where respondents may face either imprisonment for contempt of court, and be provided with legal aid, or enforcement with consequences such as forced voluntary work, without the benefit of legal representation.

The Supreme Court are currently considering the meaning of deprivation of liberty. It appears that forced unpaid work, following a successful enforcement application under the Children Act in family proceedings, may well meet the definition of “Criminal Charge for the purpose of Article 6(1)” in Regulation 9(v) of the Criminal Legal Aid (General) Regulations 2013.

Enforcement proceedings arise when one party seeks to make another comply with an existing family court order—whether it’s about contact with children, financial remedies, or compliance with injunctions. A breached order may result in a court application under Part 37 of the Family Procedure Rules, seeking enforcement through fines, community orders, or committal to prison.
​
The Red Book provides under guidance on S11J provides commentary on enforcement by way of committal.
For applicants, legal aid may be available depending on the context and most importantly means assessment. For respondents, it’s a different story. There is no general right to civil legal aid, even where liberty is in jeopardy. Since the Bunning case however, that has changed, and now a party is expected to have access to legal aid on a no means no merits basis where liberty is at stake. 

Section 14 of LASPO 2012 allows for criminal legal aid to be granted in civil contempt proceedings—including family committals, it would also appear to apply to enforcement proceedings where there is likely to be a deprivation of liberty such as unpaid work.
​
Too often, the issue of representation only arises at the point of crisis—when the hearing is already underway, and the respondent is unrepresented in the face of a prison sentence or substantial unpaid work.  

Justice cannot depend on legal form over legal reality. A person facing prison and or other deprivation of liberty  for breaching a family court order should not be navigating that process alone, confused, and unrepresented.

This is not a theoretical debate—it is playing out in courtrooms across the country, and people are losing their liberty as a result. Until the legal aid framework reflects that reality, we remain dangerously out of step with the rule of law.
​
The ultimate step where a party cannot obtain representation is that the party and or the Court can request the Public Defender Service to step in to provide representation. 

A Significant Step Towards Fairer Access to Justice 

The Government has announced that individuals facing committal proceedings, who are unable to find any other legal representation will now have access to legal representation through the Public Defenders Service (PDS), addressing a long-standing gap in the justice system.

Committal hearings, which are civil cases, but determined to criminal standard using a quasi criminal procedure, are some of the most complex issues arising in civil cases. There have been growing concern, as reported in the Guardian that large numbers up to 57% of defendants were being imprisoned having not received legal representation in the civil courts.   

For years, the lack of government-provided representation at this stage has been criticised by legal professionals, advocacy groups, and human rights organisations. The absence of legal support has particularly affected vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals, contributing to systemic inequality within the justice system.

In response to a recent pre-action letter the Lord Chancellor has indicated that the Public Defender Service will be able to represent Defendants for the first time in civil courts to represent individuals in committal proceedings. 

This is a long-overdue and a surprising development. Committal proceedings are a key safeguard in the justice process. Ensuring access to legal representation at this stage upholds the fundamental principle of equality before the law.

An individual faced with committal should at the earliest opportunity speak with a lawyer, and arrange for professional representation. Scott Moncrieff & Associates are one such firm in London and the South Eastern Circuit. Other firms have helpfully been identified by Civil Litigation Brief 

If you live in an area without local lawyers able to assist, nor one that is willing to work out of area then you should contact the Public Defenders Service as a last resort.  If you are still unable to access representation then please contact us, to instigate Judicial Review proceedings, no one should be unrepresented in a committal proceedings. 

Adam Tear, is a solicitor advocate with a particular interest in contempt of court, and has been involved in some of the most complex case in this area. 

Two very different cases separated by five years, different factual matrices, and shifting public contexts together chart the outer bounds of judicial leniency in contempt of court proceedings. Leniency in committal remains the power of the Judiciary and not the Executive, and is not necessarily an appeal against the original judges determination. An issue that may well arise across the sea in the United Sates shortly. Baroness May of Maidenhead, remains the only British politician to have been held in contempt by the Court for her actions as Secretary of State, and then by Parliament for her actions as Prime Minister. She did not serve a punishment for either. 

In Solicitor General v Yaxley-Lennon [2025] EWCA Civ 476, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed on appeal the principles of sentencing for committal: persistent and deliberate contempt of court, especially where there’s no remorse or effort to purge, justifies the full force of committal. Why Mr Yaxley-Lennon appealed a decision that had followed previous case law was unclear. If anything the sentence appeared considering the case law to be lenient. 

That decision stands in marked contrast to the earlier case, where the Contemnor had unsuccessfully appealed the length of sentence to the Court of Appeal, but had concurrently sought to review the sentence in light of the then known circumstances. In Chelsea Football Club Ltd v Nichols [2020] EWHC 827 (QB), where the court took a notably more flexible approach—reducing a committal sentence in light of the COVID-19 outbreak and its impact on prison conditions.
​
This blog post looks at what these two cases tell us about how, when, and why courts may depart from strict sentencing in civil contempt cases—and when they won’t.

These two cases illustrate how sentencing for contempt reflects not only the nature of the breach but also broader public realities. Nichols shows the court’s willingness to tailor punishment to conditions that make incarceration harsher. But Yaxley-Lennon makes clear, at least on an appeal: such compassion has its limits.

Mitigation based on conditions is only persuasive when the contemnor engages constructively—by purging, showing remorse, or ceasing contempt. When defiance continues, as it did in Yaxley-Lennon, courts will prioritise the integrity of the injunction and the rule of law above any claims of hardship.
​
In short: context matters—but conduct matters more. It remains to be seen whether Mr Yaxley-Lennon, will seek a review of his sentence, as he should have done in the first place. 

Adam Tear solicitor at Scott Moncrieff & Associates acted for the Parents of NR in a recent further case relating to withdrawal of all life sustaining treatment sought by King’s College Hospital, who are treating NR. This is a follow-on case from an earlier judgment on the withholding of CPR here. The full judgment is here. The parents were represented before the Court by Katie Gollop KC and Myles Jackson.

In this further poignant case that underscores the profound ethical and legal dilemmas surrounding life-sustaining treatment, the High Court recently grappled with the decision of whether to continue invasive ventilation and other life-sustaining treatments for a child known as NR. The case, which weighs heavily on the principles of medical ethics and parental rights, sheds light on the intricacies of decision-making when a child's best interests hang in the balance.

The court's decision, detailed in the judgment, navigates the complex terrain of medical interventions, parental wishes, and the child's welfare. At the heart of the matter lies the fundamental question: What course of action is in NR's best interests?

NR, a child with severe disabilities, has been the focus of intense medical care since birth. Born anophthalmia and with significant neurological challenges, his life has been sustained through invasive treatments, including mechanical ventilation and parental nutrition. Yet, as time has passed, his condition has deteriorated, and the burdens of treatment have mounted.

The court, guided by expert medical testimony and legal precedent, weighed the benefits and burdens of continued life-sustaining treatment for NR. It considered the viewpoints of both the medical professionals and NR's devoted parents, who passionately advocated for their son's continued care.

Central to the court's deliberations was the principle that the best interests of the child must prevail, even if it means overriding parental wishes. While recognising the profound love and dedication of NR's parents, the court had to assess whether the continuation of invasive treatments truly served NR's welfare.

Expert medical opinions painted a sobering picture of NR's prognosis, indicating that the burdens of treatment outweighed any potential benefits. Despite the deeply held beliefs of NR's parents, the court ultimately concluded that it was in NR's best interests to discontinue life-sustaining treatment.
​
As NR's story unfolds, it serves as a stark reminder of the profound complexities inherent in medical decision-making, particularly in cases involving the most vulnerable among us. In the end, NR's case serves as a poignant reminder of the enduring power of love, compassion, and the quest for what is truly in the best interests of the child.

NRs treatment as a disabled child, prior to the decision to seek the orders the Trust have, have left many unanswered questions, particularly in relation to the ethics of such decisions, when Parliament has maintained that euthanasia is not allowable in England and Wales. Further it identified a continuing policy of excluding parents from decisions making, such that any positive voice for a child is not considered prior to a decision to cease medical treatment.  

​The area of contempt is a highly complex area to both prosecute and defend. It is highly technical as well as having a higher burden of proof. After achieving a finding of contempt, obtaining a sentence that promotes your clients position can be a second hurdle to over come followed by the ever more complex issue of costs.
AMT Training solutions, with Adam Tear, are offering bespoke training to solicitors firms, in order to deliver effective prosecution of contempt of court matters before the Civil, family courts, and Court of protection. 

​Prosecution Strategies: Master the art of building a strong case against contemptuous behaviour in court. From gathering evidence, to the issue of proceedings,  to presenting compelling arguments, equip yourself with the skills to effectively prosecute contempt’s of court, and ensure that your client can rely upon enforceable orders.
Sentencing Guidelines: Gain insight into the factors influencing sentencing decisions in contempt cases. Understand the range of penalties available to the court and learn how to advocate for fair and just outcomes.
Costs: Having obtained a finding of contempt, and a sentence that ensures that the Order of the Court will be obeyed, you must then obtain costs orders which are enforceable. 

Adam Tear, as an advocate has been at the forefront of many of the leading cases on contempt of court, ranging from the initial grant of legal aid in Bunning, through to the leading case of Inplayer, and most recently the MBR series of cases, providing guidance on Pat 81, and particularly service issues. Whilst often on the defence side, Adam regularly prosecutes contempt of court, and has a wide-range of experience at all levels from the County Court through to the Supreme Court.
​
Adam's training combines theoretical knowledge with practical insights to ensure you receive the highest calibre of training. That assistance will run beyond training, and Adam will be available to assist with ongoing cases. 

​Contempt of court matters demand precision, diligence, and a deep understanding of the legal principles. Arm yourself with the tools you need to excel in this critical aspect of legal practice, and achieve the best outcomes for your clients.
Contact us today to learn more about our upcoming training sessions and secure your place amongst the ranks of solicitors proficient in contempt of court proceedings.

Adam Tear solicitor at Scott Moncrieff & Associates acted for the Parents of NR in a recent case relating to ceiling on treatment sought by King’s College Hospital, who are treating NR. The full judgment is here The parents were represented before the Court by Katie Gollop KC and Myles Jackson.
 
NR is a child with severe disabilities and life-limiting health conditions. NR requires mechanical ventilation and faces challenges such as interstitial lung disease, abdominal discomfort, and recurrent sepsis. Despite limitations in verbal communication, evidence suggests NR can experience pleasure and pain, with monitoring through a FLACC score.
 
The Trust sought court declarations to withhold three types of treatment. The first was various medical treatments (such as inotropes) in the event that his condition worsened, the second was restriction of access to ventilatory support in the event that he was extubated and then deteriorated, and the third was CPR in the event of a cardiac arrest.
 
A week before the hearing, the parents proposed adjournment of determination of the application for the withholding of ventilatory support declarations. The Trust agreed to that at the door of the court. There was significant agreement about the first group of treatments and therefore the Court’s focus was on the withholding of CPR in the event of a further cardiac arrest.

Despite disagreements among the parties, as to what is the best interests of NR the court emphasised the key legal principles, including the paramount consideration of the child's best interests and a presumption in favour of preserving life.

Professional guidance from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is considered, particularly in relation to CPR.

The court accepted valid concerns about signalling future decisions on withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, but rejected them, on the basis that the Judge would exclude this from his decision-making approach. The Court determined the CPR issue now, to provide clarity for clinicians, parents, and NR. The decision aims to balance justice, fairness, and the unique circumstances of NR's case.
 
Medical experts project a bleak prognosis, estimating a limited life expectancy. The parents, guided by their religious beliefs, emphasise NR's meaningful life and wish for continued extended care. The medical experts were unanimous that CPR was unlikely to be successful.

Despite the parents' opposition, the court decided that it would is not be in NR's best interests to receive CPR, emphasising the physical burden it poses and the unlikely prospects of successful resuscitation. The ceilings on treatment would however be lifted for any planned procedures, for the period leading up to and six hours post operation. The Court also emphasised that whilst its declarations permitted a ceiling of treatment, they did not prevent stop any clinician from providing such treatment if they considered it to be clinically justified.
 
The judgment acknowledges the parents' devotion and expresses gratitude for their collaborative approach, recognising the difficulty of the decisions they face. The court's decision aims to provide clarity to all parties while emphasizing the ongoing respect for NR's best interests and the legal principles outlined in the judgment.
​
Adam Tear and the legal team will continue to advise and represent the parents between now and the final hearing listed for 3 days in April. Prior to that hearing, the Trust may pursue its application for a ceiling of ventilatory treatment, if NR meets the criteria for extubation, or it may apply for a declaration that it is lawful for ventilation to be withdrawn with the consequence that NR will die.

Part 81.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Part 37.4 of the Family Procedure Rules, both require that an application contains  "confirmation that any order allegedly breached or disobeyed included a penal notice". A Penal Notice is  a prominent notice on the front of an order warning that if the person against whom the order is made (and, in the case of a corporate body, a director or officer of that body) disobeys the court's order, the person (or director or officer) may be held in contempt of court and punished by a fine, imprisonment, confiscation of assets or other punishment under the law. Easy you say, what is the issue. 

A practice particularly in the family courts fuelled by the standard orders having a penal notice already within them, has caused a situation where by disobedience of an Order with a penal notice is common. Not least by unsuspecting Court staff who may not realising that they are covered by these all encompassing penal notices. 

Every breach of a Court Order is contemptable, but only those that are covered by a penal notice, are subject to the sanctions of a fine, or imprisonment for such contemptable behaviour. 

The inclusion of a penal notice in a court order is not automatic or mandatory; its necessity is determined on a case-by-case basis. Courts consider various factors, such as the nature of the order, the likelihood of non-compliance, and the potential harm caused by non-compliance, when deciding whether to include a penal notice.
​
Lawyers play a crucial role in drafting effective penal notices that clearly communicate the consequences of non-compliance. The notice should be concise, unambiguous, and prominently displayed within the court order, ensuring that the party bound by the order is aware of the potential ramifications of their actions or inactions.
Penal notices must and should be directed to a specific element of the order, i.e. not a general one, covering every paragraph including future listing of the matter.  They must also be ordered by the Judge, rather than applied at drafting stage. 

In defence of committals, a first step should always be to review the Order. On occasions orders make clear there was no intention to apply a penal notice, but one appears due to an error in drafting. On other occasions the transcript will show that a penal notice was never even discussed, but has just arrived through the drafting process. These are all important steps to ensure that a party who listens intently to the court proceedings and complies as best they can, does not suddenly find that they are threatened with contempt of court because they did not then re-read the Court order. 

In both the prosecution or defence of a contempt application, it is vital that a party ensures they are represented by an experienced lawyer. To often the basics are missed, a failure to complete the forms properly, a misguided application, or just a failure to join the dots, results in an expensive day to court. 

Advancing into the AI age, I thought I was would ask Chat GPT to tell me about the Debtors Act 1869, an act that many a lawyer has never heard of. Chat GPT informed me that 

"The Debtors Act 1869 is an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom that provides relief to debtors. The main purpose of the Act is to provide a mechanism for the discharge of debt by imprisonment or other means. The Act applies to both England and Wales and Scotland.

Under the Act, a debtor can apply to the court to be released from prison if they have been imprisoned for non-payment of a debt. The court can then order the release of the debtor if it is satisfied that they are unable to pay the debt, or if there is no likelihood of them being able to pay it in the future.

The Act also provides for the appointment of a trustee or assignee to manage the debtor's property and assets in the event that they are unable to pay their debts. The trustee or assignee can then take steps to recover the debts owed to the debtor.

The Act further provides for the setting aside of judgments obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. This means that a debtor can apply to the court to have a judgment against them set aside if it was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.
Overall, the Debtors Act 1869 is an important piece of legislation that provides relief to debtors who are unable to pay their debts, while also protecting the rights of creditors. It remains relevant to this day and continues to provide an important legal framework for dealing with debt-related issues."
​
Clearly, at the moment AI isn't going to replace lawyers in complex issues. AI records that "The main purpose of the Act is to provide a mechanism for the discharge of debt by imprisonment or other means. ", but the first line of the Act records that it is "An Act for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt, for the punishment of fraudulent debtors, and for other purposes."

The Act ended the Dickinson’s ideas of debt prisons and significantly improved the world for those falling on hard times. Section 4 prohibits imprisonment for debt save where the debt relates to a penalty, other than by contract, a fine before a justice of the peace, default by a trustee to pay a sum to court, default by a solicitor to pay wasted costs order and failure to pay sums deducted from wages. The section provides a term of imprisonment of up to a year, and that such imprisonment does not discharge the debt. 

Section 5 provides for imprisonment of small sums, owed due to an order of the Court, and then only for six weeks, and again does not extinguish the debt. The debt however cannot be an ordinary debt. As the Court of Appeal in Hussain, this is not as black and white despite the age of the act. 

Chat GPT, also clearly read the Act as created rather than as it now exists. 

The summary cannot be complained about, but we are far away from Chat GPT issuing a committal application just yet. 

The Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber will be closed on the following dates:

Friday 24th December 2021
Monday 27th December 2021
Tuesday 28th December 2021
Monday 3rd January 2022

Between Wednesday 29th and Friday 31st December the office will operate on skeleton staffing.

OUT OF HOURS SERVICE
If you wish to lodge an urgent application for immediate interim relief during this period, 
this will need to be made to a duty Judge of the Queen’s Bench Division (acting as a Judge of the Upper Tribunal) to consider. To speak to a member of staff for the out of hours service, please ring 020 7947 6260 (RCJ Security Desk).