JamaicaPractice Direction No. 1 of 2025, Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Court Proceedings
In force since .
An AI transparency rule binding public and private bodies.
- Criminal exposure
- No
- Obligation class
- Disclosure, Governance
- Audit expectation
- on_request
- Who audits it
- Self
What it requires
- Declare, in the prescribed form, whenever any part of a document submitted to a Jamaican court was prepared with the assistance of generative AI, and have that content thoroughly reviewed, verified, and approved before submission.NIST AI RMFMEASURE 2.8NIST AI RMFMAP 3.5
- Do not use generative AI to draft or alter an affidavit or witness statement, generate expert evidence, or create material intended to be tendered as evidence, unless the court authorises it.NIST AI RMFMAP 3.3
- Do not rely on generative AI output without independently confirming the validity of any case law, statutory provision, or authority it cites.NIST AI RMFMAP 3.5
These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text.
In the frameworks
- NIST AI RMF
- MAP 3.3Targeted application scope is specified and documented based on the system’s capability, established context, and AI system categorization.
- MAP 3.5Processes for human oversight are defined, assessed, and documented in accordance with organizational policies from the GOVERN function.
- MEASURE 2.8Risks associated with transparency and accountability – as identified in the MAP function – are examined and documented.
- NIST AI 600-1
- GAI-RISK-07Human-AI Configuration
- GAI-RISK-08Information Integrity
- NIST AI 200-2 Draft
- OWASP LLM Top 10
- LLM03:2026Excessive Agency
- OWASP Agentic Top 10
- ASI09Human-Agent Trust Exploitation
- MIT mitigations Draft
- FINOS AIGF
- AIR-PREV-005System Acceptance Testing
- AIR-PREV-006Data Quality & Classification/Sensitivity
- AIR-PREV-024Human-in-the-Loop Action Approval Gate
- AIR-DET-004AI System Observability
- AIR-DET-011Human Feedback Loop for AI Systems
- AIR-DET-021Agent Decision Audit and Explainability
- ETSI EN 304 223
- 5.1.3-2Threats developers cannot resolve are passed to operators and on to end-users.
- 5.1.4-1Capability for human oversight designed in and maintained.
- 5.2.1-1Full inventory of assets, including their dependencies and connections.
- 5.2.4-1Developers keep an audit trail of system design and post-deployment maintenance plans and offer it downstream.
- 5.3.1-1Users told where and how their data is used, accessed and stored, with developers informing operators.
- 5.3.1-2.1That guidance covers proper use, limits and likely failure modes.
1 more
- 5.4.2-1Operators log system and user actions.
Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework, and in the NIST AI RMF, line by line beside each duty above. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law
Identifiers refer to ETSI EN 304 223 V2.1.1 (2025-12), © ETSI 2025, all rights reserved. ETSI owns the standard; no ETSI text (titles or sentences) is reproduced here. The standard is free to download from ETSI.
Who enforces it
Enforcement body
Supreme Court of Judicature of Jamaica; the General Legal Council's Disciplinary Committee for attorneys-at-law
What it makes you log
Who may demand the log
Court
What the log must hold
Event time, Actor identity, System identity, Human involvement, Output reference
Logging duty
Paragraph 6.1 requires a declaration, in the Appendix's prescribed form, whenever any part of a document submitted to the Court was prepared with GenAI assistance. The declaration is itself the record: it names the tool and its version, identifies the portions of the document it produced, and states that the filer has independently verified the information, citations, and representations the tool produced. Paragraph 6.2 separately empowers the Court to direct a party to provide further particulars of their GenAI use in any case. No retention period for a filed declaration is stated; a declaration becomes part of the court record it is filed into.
- Kind
- Explicit
- As of
- Provision
- Paragraph 6.1 and the Appendix (Form of Declaration for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence)
- Trigger
- content_generation
Why the legislator wanted it
Paragraph 1.3, immediately following the Court's acknowledgment in paragraph 1.2 that GenAI use in preparing court materials is growing and must be responsible, secure, and transparent.
- As of
- Quote
- This Practice Direction seeks to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, ensure the accuracy of the information provided to the Court, and protect confidential and privileged information.
- Source link
- https://supremecourt.gov.jm/sites/default/files/PRACTICE%20DIRECTION%20NO.%201%20OF%202025%20%28Use%20of%20Generative%20AI%20In%20Court%20Proceedings%29.pdf
- Source kind
- Recital
- Purpose
- provenance_and_authenticity
What this law does
Issued by the Chief Justice, this Practice Direction applies to all proceedings before the Supreme Court of Judicature, the Revenue Court, and both divisions of the Gun Court, and governs the use of generative AI tools by attorneys-at-law, parties, and self-represented litigants.
It requires a declaration, in a prescribed form, whenever any part of a document submitted to the Court was prepared with the assistance of generative AI, and requires that such content be thoroughly reviewed, verified, and approved before submission. It prohibits using generative AI to draft or alter affidavits or witness statements, to generate expert evidence, or to create material intended to be tendered into evidence unless the Court authorises it.
Submitting inaccurate, fictitious, or misleading generative-AI content can lead the Court to refuse the document, disregard the submission, or make a costs order, and non-compliance may constitute contempt of court or lead to referral to the General Legal Council's Disciplinary Committee.
When LexLint raises it
When your app profile says your app generates content with AI.
Back to the example · Lint your app
Page updated .