While some commentators suggest that legal uncertainty remains around the UK’s position on AI, a significant body of work is already underway to bridge the gap between statute law and jurisprudence. Notably, this includes the work of the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (UKJT), led by Sir Geoffrey Vos, which has recently published a draft legal statement on AI harms. The statement remains open for consultation until 13 February 2026.

The implications of this work were set out compellingly by Fountain Court’s Jacob Turner at a recent event hosted by Ian De Freitas of Farrer & Co.

The UKJT was established in 2020 by the LawtechUK Panel, an initiative grant-funded by the Ministry of Justice and intended to drive digital innovation in the UK’s legal sector. Its broader aim is to promote the use of English law and the UK as a jurisdiction for emerging technologies, by seeking to clarify key legal questions around cryptoassets, distributed ledger technology, smart contracts and associated technologies under English law.

The UKJT has already published several legal statements which are proving their value in filling this gap. Its principal statement on cryptoassets (November 2019), in particular, concluded that cryptoassets should, in principle, be treated as property under English law. While not binding, the reasoning has been judicially endorsed. As the court observed in AA v Persons Unknown [2020] 4 W.L.R. 35:

“The legal statement is not in fact a statement of the law. Nevertheless, in my judgment, it is relevant to consider the analysis in that Legal Statement as to the proprietary status of crypto currencies because it is a detailed and careful consideration and, as I shall come on to, I consider that that analysis as to the proprietary status of crypto currencies is compelling and for the reasons identified therein should be adopted by this court.”

In that case, the High Court concluded that Bitcoin constituted property capable of being the subject of a proprietary injunction.

The UKJT is now approaching the close of its consultation on its draft statement on AI harms, which seeks to clarify in what circumstances, and on what legal bases, English common law may impose liability for loss resulting from the use (or even non-use) of AI systems.

The current draft breaks potential liabilities down across a range of established legal doctrines, including contractual obligations, vicarious liability, non-fault liability, false statements, negligence, deceit and defamation.

As the UK continues to occupy something of a middle ground between the EU’s more interventionist stance and the US’s more laissez-faire approach to AI regulation, the UKJT’s statement looks set to become a useful legal tool in the interim.

The full draft statement is available here. It is particularly interesting to see the emergence of legal statements being used within our common law system; while not binding, they have already shown their value in helping to close the gap between statute law and jurisprudence in fast-moving technological contexts.