JUSTICE UNDER SIEGE: CYBER THREATS AND THE MALICIOUS USE OF AI IN THE JUDICIARY
Sažetak
As judicial systems increasingly integrate digital technologies and artificial intelligence (AI), they become more efficient yet highly vulnerable to cyber threats and AI-driven manipulations. This paper examines the growing risks of cyberattacks targeting the judiciary, as well as the malicious use of AI in legal proceedings, both of which pose severe threats to judicial integrity, fairness, public trust, and the broader judicial policy framework. The article explores key cybersecurity vulnerabilities, including ransomware attacks on court databases, AI-powered deepfake evidence manipulation, algorithmic bias in automated decision-making, and AI-driven misinformation campaigns. The weaponisation of AI in legal contexts, through fraudulent case manipulation, automated hacking, and digital surveillance, raises profound concerns about due process, judicial independence, and access to justice. These challenges directly affect judicial policy, as they demand new safeguards and adaptive governance models capable of preserving impartiality and accountability in an increasingly digital justice environment. By analysing real-world incidents and international regulatory approaches, this paper outlines strategies for strengthening judicial cybersecurity and safeguarding AI applications. Recommendations include enhanced digital forensics, AI transparency requirements, independent auditing mechanisms, and cross-border legal cooperation to combat cyber threats and AI misuse in the judiciary. Crucially, these measures must be integrated into judicial policy at national and supranational levels to ensure the resilience of reforms. As courts continue to embrace digital transformation, a proactive and resilient security framework is essential to preserve the rule of law in an era of evolving cyber threats and AI-driven legal manipulations. This study underscores the urgent need for global legal and technological safeguards to protect justice systems from digital exploitation and AI-enhanced cyberattacks.
Reference
Angwin, Julia, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner [Angwin et al.]. 2016. “Machine bias.” ProPublica. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing
Bleiberg, Jake. 2020. “Texas High Courts Hit by Ransomware Attack, Refuse to Pay.” AP News. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/hacking-tx-state-wire-technology-us-news-courts-474453285863aebab0a2fe239f493548
Buolamwini, Joy, and Timnit Gebru. 2018. “Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification.” Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 81: 1–15. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html
Brown, David. 2024. “State and Local Courts Struggle to Fight Increasing Cyberattacks.” State Court Report. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-and-local-courts-struggle-fight-increasing-cyberattacks?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Bryant, Miranda. 2025. “Denmark to Tackle Deepfakes by Giving People Copyright to Their Own Features.” The Guardian. Last Accessed on September 1, 2025. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/27/deepfakes-denmark-copyright-law-artificial-intelligence
Check Point Research. 2023. “Cyber Security Report.” Check Point Research. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://www.checkpoint.com/resources/report-4fd2/report-cyber-security-report-2023
Check Point Research. 2025. “Cyber Security Report.” Check Point Research. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://www.checkpoint.com/security-report/
Citron, K. Daniel, and Robert Chesney. 2019. “Deepfakes and the new disinformation war.” Foreign Affairs 98 (1): 147–155.
Contini, Francesco. 2019.“Artificial Intelligence: A New Trojan Horse for Undue Influence on Judiciaries?” United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://www.unodc.org/dohadeclaration/en/news/2019/06/artificial-intelligence_-a-new-trojan-horse-for-undue-influence-on-judiciaries.html
Council of Europe, European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice [CEPEJ]. 2018. European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and Their Environment. Adopted at the 31st plenary meeting of CEPEJ, December 3–4. https://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/cepej-ai-ethics-charter
Council of Europe [CoE]. 2024. Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law. CETS No. 225. Adopted in Vilnius, September 5. https://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/the-framework-convention-on-artificial-intelligence
Dixon, B. Herbert. 2018. “Cyberattacks on Courts and Other Government Institutions.” Judges’ journal 57 (3): 37 ‒ 39.
Dixon, B. Herbert. 2022. “Response to ‘The Court has been Hacked!’.” Judges’ journal 61 (1): 37‒39.
ENISA. 2023. ENISA threat landscape. European Union Agency for Cybersecurity. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://www.enisa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/publications/ENISA%20Threat%20Landscape%202023.pdf
EUROJUST. 2020. “Overview Report – Challenges and best practice from Eurojust’s casework in the area of cybercrime.” Criminal justice across borders. DOI: 10.2812/691335
European Union. 2021. “EU Statement on the Cyberattack on the Website of the European Court of Human Rights.” January 13, 2021. Brussels. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/council-europe/eu-statement-cyberattack-website-european-court-human-rights_en
European Court of Human Rights. 2018. “Practice Direction: Secured Electronic Filing.” Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/PD_electronic_filing_ENG
Garret, L. Brandon, and Cynthia Rudin, 2023. “The right to a glass box: Rethinking the use of artificial intelligence in criminal justice.” Cornell Law Review 109 (3): 561‒600.
Garvie, Clare, Alvaro Bedoya, and Jonathan Frankle [Garvie et al.]. 2016. The Perpetual Line-Up: Unregulated Police Face Recognition in America. Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology. https://www.perpetuallineup.org/
Kovacs, Eduard. 2022. “French Ministry of Justice Targeted in Ransomware Attack.” SecurityWeek. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://www.securityweek.com/french-ministry-justice-targeted-ransomware-attack
Lawless, Jill. 2025. “UK Judge Warns of Risk to Justice After Lawyers Cited Fake AI Generated Cases in Court.” Associated Press. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/uk-courts-fake-ai-cases-46013a78d78dc869bdfd6b42579411cb
Liger, Quentin, and Mirja Gutheil. 2023. The Use of Pegasus and Equivalent Surveillance Spyware. Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. European Parliament
Los Angeles County Superior Court. 2024. “Court Systems Return to Full Functionality (NR 07-29-2024).” Press release. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://www.lacourt.org/newsmedia/uploads/142024729163959NR07-29-2024-COURTSYSTEMSRETURNTOFULLFUNCTIONALITY(1).pdf
Matić Bošković, Marina. 2024a. “Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Practicing Judicial Profession.” Sociološki pregled 58 (3): 481‒499.
Matić Bošković, Marina. 2024b. “Implications of EU AI Regulation for Criminal Justice.” Regional Law Review 5: 111‒120.
Matić Bošković, Marina, and Svetlana Nenadić. 2021. “Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Criminal Justice Systems Across Europe.” EU and comparative law issues and challenges series (ECLIC) 5: 263‒290.
Mitigo. 2025. “Legal Aid Agency Breach – One Rule for Us, Another for You?” The Law Society – Communities: Risk & Compliance. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://communities.lawsociety.org.uk/risk-and-compliance/legal-aid-agency-breach-one-rule-for-us-another-for-you/6003388.article
Moyer, Bruce. 2021. “Washington Watch – Sealed Filings in Federal Cases May Have Been Compromised.” Federal Bar Association Blog. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://www.fedbar.org/blog/washington-watch-sealed-filings-in-federal-cases-may-have-been-compromised/
National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST]. 2023. AI Risk Management Framework. U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework
NL Times. “Dutch government websites struggling with cyberattacks possibly from Russian hackers.” NL Times. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://nltimes.nl/2023/05/04/dutch-government-websites-struggling-cyberattacks-possibly-russian-hackers?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Pieterse, Heloise. 2021. “The Cyber Threat Landscape in South Africa: A 10-Year Review.” The African Journal of Information and Communication 28: 1‒21.
Quintanilla, D. Victor, Kurt Hugenberg, Margaret Hagan, Amy Gonzales, Ryan Hutchings, and Nedim Yel [Quintanilla et al.]. 2023. “Digital Inequalities and Access to Justice: Dialling into Zoom Court Unrepresented.” In: Engstrom David Freeman, (ed.). Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice. 225‒250. Cambridge University Press.
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act).
Sandoval, Maria-Paz, Maria de Almeida Vau, John Solaas, and Luano Rodrigues [Sandoval et al.]. 2024. “Threat of deepfakes to the criminal justice system: a systematic review.” Crime Science 13 (41). DOI: 10.1186/s40163-024-00239-1
Sartor, Giovanni. 2020. The ethics of artificial intelligence: Issues and initiatives. European Parliament Research Service. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2020)634452
Stern, E. Rachel, Benjamin Liebman, Margaret Roberts, and Alice Wang [Stern et al.]. 2021. “Automating Fairness? Artificial Intelligence in the Chinese Courts.” Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 59: 515‒553.
Toskić Cvetinović, Ana, and Milica Tošić, 2022. “Application of Artificial Intelligence in Judiciary – Perspectives and Challenges.” In: Jelena Kostić, amd Marina Matić Bošković (eds.). Digitalization in Penal Law and Judiciary, 317‒341. Belgrade: Institute of Comparative Law, Institute of Criminological and Sociological Research,
UN Rapporteur. 2025. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Margaret Sattertwaite – Artificial intelligence in judicial systems: promises and pitfalls. A/80/169. UN General Assembly.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime [UNODC]. 2022. Ethical principles for the use of artificial intelligence in the judiciary. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://www.unodc.org/ji
University of Chicago. 2025. “New Study Reveals Gaps in Common Types of Cybersecurity Training.” Department of Computer Science. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://cs.uchicago.edu/news/new-study-reveals-gaps-in-common-types-of-cybersecurity-training/
Venema, E. Agnes, and Zeno J. Geradts. 2020. “Digital Forensics, Deepfakes, and the Legal Process.” The SciTech Lawyer 18 (4): 14‒23.
Voelkerrechtsblog. 2025. “International Courts and Tribunals under Cyber-Threat – What Responses to Attacks on International Courts and Tribunals?” Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/international-courts-and-tribunals-under-cyber-threat/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
World Economic Forum. 2025. “Emerging Technologies – Deepfake legislation: Denmark moves to protect digital identity.” July 30, 2025. Last Accessed on September 3, 2025. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/07/deepfake-legislation-denmark-digital-id/
Yoon, H. Albert. 2023. “Technological Challenges Facing the Judiciary.” In: Engstrom David Freeman, ed. Legal Tech and the Future of Civil Justice, 349‒367. Cambridge University Press.
