Publication standards
Editorial policy
The judgment is the source. Our role is to preserve the record and help readers understand it.
Updated .
The original record comes first
Judgments are the permanent source records of this publication. Original legal text must retain its wording, order, paragraph numbering, citations and footnotes. Security sanitisation must not change its meaning.
Court judgments and source-provided material, including SCR headnotes, must be identified separately from our explanations. Our website is independent of the courts. If a reproduction differs from the authoritative court source, the authoritative source prevails.
How we write explanations
An explainer should help readers understand the facts, the question before the Court, its reasoning, the outcome and the limits of the decision. Analysis and opinion must be identified as editorial work.
Legal claims, quotations and calculations must be checked against the judgment or another identified authoritative source. Citations and links should let readers verify the basis of the explanation. A narrow holding must not be presented as a universal rule.
Split opinions, uncertainty, source gaps and later developments must be stated when relevant. Judge, lawyer and party relationships must follow the source record; a name appearing in a record does not establish a role that the source does not identify.
Review before publication
Our explainers are AI-assisted and have not undergone independent human legal review. This is stated on each article. They are general information, not legal advice or official court documents.
We check source identity and key claims against identified official material, preserve paragraph references where available, and record known source limitations. These checks are targeted; they do not certify every sentence, quotation, calculation or passage through a complete legal review.
For the August 2026 launch set, the identified main-case docket or grouped appeals were checked on 14 October 2026. Separate review or curative proceedings, connected matters, implementation and lower-court action may remain unchecked. Articles state material case-specific developments and link to the official record; we do not claim continuous monitoring.
Original judgment text is kept distinct from explanation and served only for records with a validated source/render body. Incomplete or uncertain source records are withheld. Readers should consult the linked official source where wording or completeness matters.
Authorship and the use of AI
Each article must identify its responsible author. Credentials, affiliations and reviewer names must be accurate and must not imply qualifications or review that have not been verified.
AI tools may assist research organisation, drafting and editorial illustrations. An AI-generated explanation is not an official court document. AI must not be used to editorially rewrite original legal text, invent authorities or replace verification against the source.
An editorial illustration is not evidence of an event or a photograph of the case. Original court material and publisher-created explanations and artwork must remain distinguishable.
Material use of AI in an article or its artwork is disclosed on the article. The named author is responsible for the published explanation and for correcting substantiated errors brought to the publication’s attention.
Dates, updates and corrections
Judgment dates, source retrieval dates, article publication dates and meaningful update dates describe different events and must be labelled accordingly. A preparation date is not a publication date.
Readers can report suspected errors through the corrections contact. Reports must be checked against the underlying source before a change is treated as a verified correction. We do not promise a fixed acknowledgement or resolution time, and a report does not automatically establish an error.
For a confirmed substantive error in published editorial content, correct the affected passage and add a visible, dated note explaining what changed. If a credible concern puts the central conclusion in doubt, withhold the draft or temporarily withdraw the published explanation while it is checked. A withdrawn page should retain a brief notice explaining its status without repeating the disputed claim.
Keep a record of the report, evidence checked, decision, person responsible and action date. Where a reply address is available, send the reporter the outcome when the review is complete. Publication does not imply continuous monitoring of later orders; a reported material development must be checked before the article is updated.
Minor spelling or formatting fixes that do not change meaning may be made without a substantive correction note. Source text must never be silently rewritten to resolve an editorial error; a discrepancy must be checked against the authoritative source.
Independence and scope
Explanations should be based on the public record, with relevant conflicts or commercial relationships disclosed. Any sponsored editorial material must be clearly identified and must not be presented as an official court record.
The Legal Chronicles is a free legal publication. Its articles provide general information and explanation, not advice on an individual matter. Readers should consult the authoritative judgment and seek appropriate professional advice for their circumstances.