Public law litigation in the automated state

This project will investigate how transparency mechanisms can be adapted to facilitate fair, lawful, and non-discriminatory automated decision-making in the public sector.

Why this project is important

Public bodies increasingly use automation for rights-critical decisions. In 2025, the Public Law Project’s ‘Tracking Automated Government’ register has recorded 55 algorithmic tools used in administrative decision-making. Automation has huge potential to improve the efficiency, accuracy, quality, and transparency of administrative decision-making. However, a lack of judicial scrutiny risks automated decision-making developing unlawfully, thereby undermining trust and hampering the realisation of potential benefits.

This project addresses the gap by examining transparency measures in public law litigation, aiming to inform accountability systems and ensure benefits while minimizing risks. The following questions will be answered:

1. What information is required about automated public decision-making systems, and automated assisted decision-making systems, and at what stage, to bring effective public law litigation?
2. To what extent do existing transparency mechanisms meet the requirements identified in answer to question 1?
3. How can current mechanisms be reformed to meet the requirements identified in answer to question 1?
4. What are the considerations, challenges, and opportunities from a public body perspective in meeting the transparency requirements identified in answer to question 1?

What it will involve

The research will be completed in three phases:

• Phase 1: Mapping the existing Judicial Review litigation landscape relevant to automated decision-making and doing detailed case analysis, focusing on key points in the litigation journey and the role of information availability in strategic decisions. Conducting semi-structure interviews and focus groups with legal practitioners, individuals and organisations involved in litigation regarding automated decision-making, and focus groups with public officials.
• Phase 2: Analysing existing transparency mechanisms against the information requirements identified in Phase 1.
• Phase 3: Formulating recommendations for improving transparency mechanisms, tested through workshops with interviewees and government officials.

How it will make a difference

Beyond the project, findings will also be used to develop practical training materials for practitioners and civil society organisations. Findings are likely to be relevant to existing transparency mechanisms, including the Government’s Automated Transparency Recording Standard; the UK General Data Protection Regulation; the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and the duty of candour in Judicial Review proceedings.