MPs are calling for wider access to court transcripts. TP Transcription explains why court transcription needs modernisation, fairer pricing and human-led accuracy.

A recent Law Society Gazette report highlighted growing cross-party support for an Early Day Motion calling for free access to court transcripts across the justice system. The issue is not new, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore: court transcripts can be expensive, slow to obtain and difficult for ordinary people to access.

For lawyers, journalists, litigants in person, victims, appellants and members of the public trying to understand what happened in court, transcripts matter.

At present, anyone requesting a transcript of court or tribunal proceedings normally has to complete form EX107 and pay the cost of transcription. In some cases, judicial approval is also required.

Transcription Cost Calculations – “Victorian” Method

The official guidance confirms that, for civil, family and tribunal proceedings, transcript pricing is still calculated by the “folio”: a unit of 72 words. The total price is then based on the number of folios produced.

This may once have made sense in a paper-based world, but for modern digital audio transcription it is incredibly out of date. All professional transcription companies now price audio and video transcription by the recorded minute, often with clear turnaround options and transparent per-minute costs.

Court transcription has not kept pace.

The problem with the current court transcript system

Only authorised or court-approved transcription companies can provide official transcripts of many court hearings. The Ministry of Justice and HMCTS periodically tender for court reporting and transcription services, with framework agreements covering work such as offsite transcription of court audio, attendance-based transcription and real-time transcription.

The most recent procurement notices show the scale and complexity of this work. The forthcoming Court Reporting and Transcription procurement is estimated at more than £20 million excluding VAT and covers services across the UK. Previous framework documentation also refers to offsite transcription of high volumes of court audio, compliance with HMCTS rules, reporting restrictions, anonymisation, approvals and permissions.

However, the practical effect is that the barrier to tendering is extremely high. Many experienced UK transcription companies are effectively excluded, not because they lack skill, legal knowledge or secure systems, but because the framework structure, compliance burden and procurement scale are designed around a small number of large suppliers.

That reduces competition. It limits innovation. It also makes it harder to modernise pricing and delivery.

Why per-folio pricing belongs in the past

The folio system is one of the clearest examples of court transcription needing reform.

A folio is 72 words. Current official guidance lists court transcript prices by cost per 72 words for different suppliers and turnaround bands. This means the final cost often depends on how many words are ultimately spoken and typed, rather than the known length of the recording.

For clients, this can make costs feel uncertain. For the wider justice system, it is an old-fashioned approach to a digital service. Not only that, folio transcription prices tend to be a lot higher than prices per minute, so the MoJ are setting prices higher than they are on the open market. It is essentially a closed market, without any ability for new entrants to use innovation or offer alternative solutions.

By contrast, price-per-minute transcription is straightforward. A 60-minute hearing costs 60 times the agreed rate. Urgency, number of speakers, audio quality and formatting requirements can still be reflected in the price, but the basic calculation is clear from the outset.

In ordinary legal, academic, medical, business and public sector transcription, this is already standard practice. There is no obvious reason why court transcription should remain tied to a pricing method from another era.

Human-led accuracy still matters

There is a temptation to assume that artificial intelligence alone can solve the problem – we don’t think it can and at present any efforts to use it without human intervention will end in tears we think.

Court hearings are complex. Audio quality varies. Speakers interrupt each other. Names, case references, legal terminology, accents, remote-hearing glitches and confidential details all require careful handling. A raw automated transcript is rarely good enough for legal use without proper checking.

The best solution is not simply “AI instead of humans”. It is human-led transcription supported by modern technology where appropriate.

As a minimum, hybrid transcription models can reduce costs and improve turnaround times, while preserving the accuracy and judgement of experienced transcribers and editors. AI can help with first drafts, timestamps and workflow efficiency. Human transcribers and proofreaders can then correct, format, anonymise and check the transcript properly.

This is where experienced transcription companies could make a real contribution.

A better model for court transcription

A modern court transcript system should be:

• easier to access for all court users;
• priced transparently by recorded minute;
• available from a wider panel of approved suppliers;
• secure and compliant with data protection requirements;
• human-checked for accuracy;
• capable of using AI carefully, where it improves efficiency without compromising quality.

TP Transcription Limited is ideally suited to this type of work. We already provide accurate, confidential transcription services for legal, academic, medical, research, public sector and business clients. Our systems are designed around security, confidentiality, careful speaker identification and high-quality human transcription. For larger-scale reform, a hybrid human and AI option, such as the approach being developed through Unitranscribe.com, could also offer a practical way forward: lower cost, faster delivery and carefully checked accuracy.

Access to Justice Denied?

The debate about free court transcripts is really part of a wider issue. Access to justice depends on access to the record. If a person cannot afford to find out exactly what was said in court, the justice system is less transparent than it should be.

Free access may not be achievable overnight for every hearing in every court, but the present model can certainly be improved. Wider supplier access, modern pricing structures and human-led hybrid transcription would be a sensible start.