Source: LinkedIn

In R v FGD the Court of Appeal addressed a complainant’s use of an AI tool to produce a detailed summary of their account and a set of anticipated cross‑examination questions with suggested answers in a rape trial. The trial judge had treated those AI-generated materials as prohibited witness coaching and stayed the proceedings as an abuse of process; the Court of Appeal reversed that stay, stressing that a stay is a remedy of last resort and that prejudice can usually be managed through evidence, cross-examination and clear judicial directions.

The court noted the complainant’s ABE interview had been recorded long before any AI use, so the core evidence remained uncontaminated. The judgment issues a clear warning that witness coaching by any means is not permitted and that witnesses should be discouraged from using AI to “prepare” evidence because doing so risks contaminating accounts, triggering wider and more intrusive disclosure enquiries, and exposing personal information to systems the witness may not understand. The court suggested national bodies including the Crown Prosecution Service, NPCC and the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee may need to consider how AI should be regulated in criminal proceedings. The post invites practitioners to discuss implications for criminal practice and digital evidence.