The government rejects the need for new legislation, stating that the principle of open justice is amply provided by existing common law, Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Human Rights Act 1998), and other established statutes.

The government confirmed the new CATH service is live for SJP lists and will expand to civil, family, and other tribunals throughout 2023, but stated it has no plans to publish results, reporting restrictions, or court documents via this service due to resource implications.

The government rejected establishing a digital portal for all court documents modelled on PACER due to resource and suitability concerns, but plans to explore access to case files in a call for evidence in 2023.

The government acknowledged court transcripts are not routinely accessible and rejected routine recording of magistrates' courts hearings as disproportionate due to cost, stating it will seek stakeholders' views via a call for evidence before making future decisions.

The government states it intends to run further pilots for AI-powered transcription, subject to future funding decisions. However, it explicitly considers routine recording and transcription of magistrates’ court hearings to be disproportionate, though it will seek stakeholders' views via a call for evidence in 2023 before making future decisions, and does not address reviewing transcription contracts.

The government has formalized the Senior Data Governance Panel and will publish its terms of reference and work information in early 2023. However, they do not plan to empower the Media Working Group with policy functions or establish a new court information users’ group, but will explore existing engagement mechanisms via a call for evidence.

The government states that setting the 10% judgment publication target and resourcing the anonymisation unit would require considerable resources, which must be balanced against existing commitments and priorities, especially reducing the family court backlog. They are exploring other options instead of committing to the proposed resourcing.

The government does not commit to establishing an anonymisation unit for Family Court judgments due to significant resource requirements and conflicting priorities, stating its main focus is on reducing the family court backlog. It is exploring other options for increasing transparency.