Blog
Looking Beyond Stereotypes: Credibility in Sexual Orientation Based Asylum Claims
Libby Klinke
In this blog series we have been examining the growing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) within regulatory investigations and proceedings and the benefits and pitfalls of this emerging technology.
In this blog, we consider how AI is being used in courts and tribunals by both legal representatives and litigants in person. Over the last 12 months, there has been a developing body of judgments handed down where the use of AI has been referenced as creating an issue in the hearing. These cases typically involve written submissions that have been provided to the court, by both legal qualified representatives and by litigants in person. We summarise some of these cases within this blog and reflect on the lessons learnt.
The rapid expansion in Artificial Intelligence (AI) capabilities and products has invited individuals and organisations to consider how such capabilities could be harnessed in their professional spheres.
Professional regulatory bodies are engaging with the conversation about the use of AI by their registered members and publishing guidance for their use – for example, recent guidance by the Financial Reporting Council, the General Medical Council and the General Osteopathic Council.
However, what role could AI play in the day-to-day aspects of the regulator’s operational activities?
The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has unlocked extraordinary capabilities across every sector, including in the legal and regulatory sphere. But with that transformation, which is progressing at lightning-quick speed, comes an equally dramatic rise in risks for regulators. Whether overseeing healthcare, education, finance, legal services or other areas of professional standards, regulators are feeling the pressure where the rise in instant-access and quick thinking AI is making it easier than ever for complaints, reports and responses to be generated and submitted. And the pace is only accelerating.
In a judgment handed down on 13 May 2026, Mrs Justice Collins Rice allowed a nurse's appeal against an NMC fitness to practise decision, finding that serious and pervasive procedural irregularity had rendered the Panel's findings unsafe. The case is a reminder that reaching a conclusion is not enough: the route to that conclusion must itself be legally coherent and demonstrably fair.
For many chartered accountants, the ethical obligations that come with membership have traditionally been understood through the lens of financial propriety. The issues that have historically dominated the conversation around professional ethics in the accountancy sector have been conflicts of interest, independence, or objectivity in client work.
Legal Notices | Privacy Notice | Fraud Warning | Modern Slavery Statement | Complaints | Website Terms | Cookie Policy | Accessibility | Site Map
© 2026 Kingsley Napley LLP. All rights reserved. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, registration number 500046.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility