The Guardian reported on 3 November that senior Crown Prosecution Service prosecutor Ravinder Dhillon relied on a fabricated precedent in a High Court challenge to the prosecution of a boy accused of raping his seven-year-old sister when he was 11. Dhillon invoked a fictitious case she called CPS – R v J to defend her April decision to prosecute, which the chief crown prosecutor had confirmed.
Dhillon acknowledged the error in October and said she had intended to refer to a different, genuine decision from 15 years earlier. Two senior High Court judges called her explanation “unsatisfactory”. The court said the false citation did not affect the outcome of the boy’s challenge. The Guardian understands that an AI-generated summary in an internet search supplied the fictitious case details.
The CPS said its AI policy requires human accuracy checks and bars AI from making legal decisions. It said it had corrected the error, reviewed whether other cases were affected and told staff to cite case law from trusted legal sources. In February, the CPS admitted that a lawyer in an extradition case had cited nonexistent authorities, likely caused by AI. A tracker maintained by barrister Matthew Lee has 101 entries covering confirmed, suspected and disputed AI-related errors and related false citations in UK court proceedings.
.jpg){kind=link}