A JUDGE has admitted to using artificial intelligence in a court judgment — to help him make sense of complicated tax arguments.
Christopher McNall is thought to be one of the first judges to use AI in a ruling.
LinkedinChristopher McNall is thought to be one of the first judges to use AI in a ruling[/caption]He disclosed he asked Microsoft’s Copilot chatbot to analyse material in the tax tribunal.
Eleven people are appealing an HMRC decision that gains from offshore trusts in New Zealand and Mauritius could be taxed.
Judge McNall had to rule on whether the taxman provided copies of returns, claim forms, internal documents and emails with its foreign counterparts.
The part-time judge, also an agricultural barrister with two decades of experience, used AI to summarise arguments.
He said: “It is a discrete case-management matter, dealt with on the papers, and without a hearing.
“The parties’ respective positions on the issue which I must decide are contained entirely in their written submissions and the other materials placed before me.”
He said Senior President of Tribunals, Lord Justice Dingemans, told judges to maximise the use of “digital processes”.
Judge McNall added: “I regard AI as such a tool and this is the first decision in which I have grasped the nettle.
“I have used AI to summarise the documents, not . . . for legal research.
“I am the decision-maker and responsible for this material.”
Earlier this year, an AI chatbot “hallucinated” non-existent legal cases when used to fight a £13,000 tax bill.
Hence then, the article about judge admits using ai in court judgment to make sense of complicated tax arguments in uk first was published today ( ) and is available on The Sun ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Judge admits using AI in court judgment to make sense of complicated tax arguments ‘in UK first’ )
Also on site :