What effects does using AI in administrative appeals have on public perceptions of justice? New experimental survey evidence

Title: The Hidden Cost of Quick Wins: How Artificial Intelligence in Administrative Appeals Risks Trust in Justice

Abstract: The promise of artificial intelligence as a solution for overburdened tribunals handling administrative appeals may appear compelling, but its less visible legitimacy costs demand closer scrutiny. Drawing on original experimental survey evidence, this chapter—the first empirical study of public perceptions of artificial intelligence in tribunals—demonstrates that even limited uses of artificial intelligence to augment rather than replace tribunal judge adjudication can erode perceptions of procedural justice, though the extent of these effects varies between specific use cases. These findings challenge the view that incremental or ‘quick win’ deployments of artificial intelligence carry minimal downside risk. Instead, we show that trust in adjudicatory processes—an essential foundation of administrative justice—may be adversely affected by such seemingly modest innovations. The chapter highlights the critical need to weigh gains against less visible long-term threats to public confidence in administrative justice systems, and to focus analysis in this respect on particular use cases of artificial intelligence rather than abstract possibilities.

Authors: Joe Tomlinson, Jed Meers, Izzie Salter, Phillip Garnett

Publication: Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence and Public Law (CUP, forthcoming).

Link to paper: here.

Funder: Research England