Introduction
The first week of October brought a series of developments in UK AI governance spanning government, defence, taxation and the courts. These initiatives highlight the ongoing tension between promoting innovation and reinforcing accountability across critical public sectors.
Legislative & Regulatory Developments
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) licensing framework
The CMA has proposed a UK-specific framework to replace the EU’s technology transfer block exemption regulation (TTBER), which expires in April 2026. The new regime would run for 12 years and update licensing rules by eliminating outdated concepts such as “utility models” and introducing new terms including database copyrights. According to Reuters, the objective is to modernise regulation while tailoring it to UK needs.
AI Action Plan for Justice
The Ministry of Justice published its AI Action Plan, outlining how courts, tribunals, prisons, probation services and the wider legal sector will adopt AI in a “responsible and proportionate” manner. The plan was developed in consultation with the judiciary and regulators, signalling a structured approach to digital transformation in justice.
Ministry of Defence: Responsible AI officers
The MOD released its Laying the Groundwork — Responsible AI Senior Officers’ Report 2025. The report confirms that each MOD branch has appointed officers tasked with embedding ethical AI processes, escalation mechanisms, and compliance frameworks. This reflects the defence sector’s shift toward embedding oversight alongside innovation.
Case Law & Judicial Innovation
HM Courts & Tribunals Service is rolling out AI pilots in 2025 targeting transcription, judgment anonymisation, and enhanced case‑management search. The pilots emphasise human oversight and practical enhancements over uncritical automation. Howays
In intellectual property law, recent UK doctrine continues to affirm that only a natural person may be listed as inventor under the Patents Act. The High Court’s DABUS/Thaler ruling remains the authoritative precedent. National Archives
Industry, Research and International Context
HMRC faced criticism after advisers claimed employees used generative AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT) improperly to assess R&D tax claims. HMRC denied agency‑level use but confirmed isolated misuse by staff, and said disciplinary and training measures are underway. FT
In the defence space, the MOD’s responsible-AI reporting reflects the government’s shift to emphasise oversight of AI in military systems, not just deployment. This internal monitoring may foreshadow regulatory or audit regimes.
The legal sector continues adapting: Kennedys law firm announced a partnership with Spellbook to use AI tools in training junior associates, reflecting how firms recalibrate associate workflows. Artificial Lawyer
Academia is engaging with the limits of AI decision‑making. For instance, a recent paper on algorithmic interventions warns that techniques like selective abstention (withholding uncertain predictions) can worsen discrimination, while “selective friction” (warning and slowing decisions) may better preserve fairness. arXiv
Also notable: Vietnam published a draft AI Law open for public comment until 20 Oct 2025, due to enter force January 2026 with phased obligations including for high‑risk systems. Lexology / Baker McKenzie
Upcoming on the policy radar is the Future of AI Summit (5–6 November 2025, London), which will convene global AI, business and regulatory stakeholders. FT Live
Conclusion
The week’s developments demonstrate the UK’s dual trajectory in AI governance. Government bodies are embedding AI into justice, defence and tax functions, while simultaneously introducing safeguards and oversight structures. Courts reaffirm legal boundaries on inventorship, while regulators and ministries emphasise accountability. Together, these steps show a steady effort to balance innovation with responsibility in both national and international contexts.
Sources: gov.uk reuters ft.com howays artificiallawyer arXiv