A senior crown prosecutor acting in a high court case cited an imaginary legal precedent in an error that has sparked fresh concerns about AI hallucinations infecting the justice system.
asserted
hallucinations → act → system
Ravinder Dhillon, representing the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), referenced an entirely made-up case during a dispute over whether a child should be prosecuted for the rape of his younger sister, court documents have revealed.
asserted
documents → represent → sister
Her explanation for how the nonexistent case came to be relied on has been called “unsatisfactory” by two senior high court judges and a “serious failure” by an expert in AI and law.
asserted
case → come → AI
The Guardian understands the reference came from an AI response generated during an internet search.
asserted
reference → understand → search
The case adds to dozens of others where AI-related errors have plagued court proceedings this year, mostly from people who are not legally qualified representing themselves, and often in employment tribunal cases.
asserted
who → add → cases
It is only the second known case involving the CPS – the main public agency bringing criminal prosecutions in England and Wales – which admitted in February that one of its lawyers acting in an extradition case involving two Romanians convicted of minor offences cited nonexistent legal authorities, likely caused by AI.
asserted
one → know → AI
Those made-up cases were only spotted when opposition lawyers could find no trace of them and the CPS concluded “the risk of recurrence was low”.
uncertain
risk → make → recurrence
In the latest case, lawyers for the boy, who was 11 at the time of the alleged rape of his seven-year-old sister, were challenging the CPS’s decision to prosecute him.
asserted
who → allege → him
They alleged prosecutors had failed to take into account representations from social workers, youth workers and a forensic psychologist.
asserted
prosecutors → allege → workers
Dhillon, a senior crown prosecutor in the CPS’s rape and serious sexual offences unit, was arguing in favour of the prosecution of the child and submitted a detailed reference to a case she called CPS – R v J [2024] EWCA Crim 3529.
asserted
she → argue → J
It turned out not to exist.
asserted
It → turn → ?
The decision to proceed was taken by Dhillon in April and confirmed by the chief crown prosecutor.
asserted
decision → proceed → prosecutor
Then in October Dhillon admitted that the nonexistent citation had been made in error.
asserted
citation → admit → error
She said she had been referring to a completely different decision – this time a real one – that was made 15 years earlier.
asserted
that → say → decision
“This was used as a legal source to argue for the prosecution of a child and that legal source doesn’t exist: that’s a serious failure,” said Brian Flanagan, associate professor of law at Maynooth University in Ireland who investigates the use of AI by judges.
asserted
who → use → judges
“It calls into question norms of trust in the law where we treat authorities as precious things.
asserted
we → call → things
You can’t make them up; it’s out of bounds.
asserted
it → make → bounds
AI increases the risk that is going to happen because of the time you can save.
asserted
you → increase → time
It is not great for any professional to do this, but when the professional is working for the state it takes on a different aspect, because the power of the state is immense.”
asserted
power → do → state
The high court said the CPS’s reference to a fictitious case did not affect the outcome of the boy’s challenge to the decision to continue with his prosecution, which is listed to go to trial in the youth courts later this week.
asserted
which → say → courts
In June 2025, the high court responded to AI hallucinations in cases spanning housing to banking, by calling on the Bar Council and the Law Society to consider steps to curb the problem “as a matter of urgency”.
asserted
court → respond → urgency
Dame Victoria Sharp, then president of the King’s bench division, warned of “serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused” and said lawyers misusing AI could face sanctions, from public admonishment to contempt of court proceedings and referral to the police.
uncertain
lawyers → warn → police
Asked for comment, the CPS said it has a strict AI policy “which limits its use so that it is not used to make legal decisions and there must be human checks for accuracy”.
asserted
it → ask → accuracy
A spokesperson said the CPS “identified an error had occurred from conducting legal research using the internet”.
asserted
error → say → internet
“As soon as this error was identified, it was remedied and an internal review was carried out to establish how this had occurred and to check that no other cases have been affected,” they said.
asserted
they → identify → ?
“Following the rapid review we shared learnings, including that case law must be cited from trusted legal sources.”
asserted
law → follow → sources
It is understood the internet search delivered an AI summary which contained the fictional case details.
asserted
which → understand → details
The latest incident brings to 101 the number of entries in a UK tracker maintained by Doughty Street Chambers barrister Matthew Lee covering confirmed, suspected and disputed AI-related errors, as well as related false citations.
asserted
incident → bring → errors
He said the cases identified may be the “tip of the iceberg”, as many lower court decisions are never published.
uncertain
decisions → say → iceberg
He added there are privacy and confidentiality risks associated with the CPS using AI, given the highly sensitive information it handles, and warned that AI was creating additional work for barristers, who need to spend time checking the authenticity of legal authorities appearing in case papers where AI may have been used in their preparation.
uncertain
AI → add → preparation
The Aporia
