A senior Crown Prosecutor representing the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) cited a non-existent legal precedent in a high court case, raising fresh alarms about artificial intelligence hallucinations infiltrating judicial proceedings. Court documents reveal that Ravinder Dhillon, acting for the CPS, referenced an entirely made-up case while arguing over whether to prosecute an 11-year-old boy for the alleged rape of his seven-year-old sister.
The incident has drawn sharp criticism from two senior high court judges, who labeled the explanation for the error as unsatisfactory, and Brian Flanagan, an associate professor of law at Maynooth University specializing in AI and law, who termed it a serious failure. The Guardian reports that the fictitious citation originated from an AI response generated during an internet search. This case adds to dozens of similar errors plaguing court proceedings this year, though it marks only the second known instance involving the CPS itself.
In February, the CPS admitted that one of its lawyers had cited nonexistent legal authorities in an extradition case involving two Romanians, likely due to AI usage. Those errors were discovered when opposing counsel could not locate the cases, leading the CPS to conclude at the time that the risk of recurrence was low. In the current matter, Dhillon argued for the prosecution by submitting a detailed reference to a case titled CPS – R v J [2024] EWCA Crim 3529, which does not exist.
The decision to proceed with the prosecution was made by Dhillon in April and confirmed by the chief crown prosecutor. However, in October, Dhillon admitted the citation was an error, stating she had intended to refer to a real decision made 15 years prior. Flanagan emphasized that using a non-existent legal source to argue for prosecuting a child undermines trust in the law, noting that while professionals should not fabricate authorities, the stakes are higher when the state is involved due to its immense power.
The high court ruled that the reference to the fictitious case did not affect the outcome of the boy's challenge against the prosecution decision. The trial is scheduled to take place in youth courts later this week. This incident follows a June 2025 warning from Dame Victoria Sharp, then president of the King's Bench Division, who urged legal bodies to urgently curb AI misuse, cautioning that lawyers could face sanctions ranging from public admonishment to contempt of court proceedings.
In response, the CPS stated it maintains a strict AI policy limiting its use for making legal decisions and requiring human checks for accuracy. A spokesperson confirmed that an error occurred during internet-based legal research, which was immediately remedied following an internal review. The agency noted that learnings were shared to ensure case law is cited only from trusted sources. It is understood the internet search produced an AI summary containing the fictional case details.
Matthew Lee, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers who maintains a UK tracker for AI-related legal errors, reported that this incident brings the total number of confirmed, suspected, and disputed entries to 101. Lee warned that these cases may represent only the tip of the iceberg, as many lower court decisions remain unpublished. He also highlighted privacy risks associated with the CPS using AI on sensitive information and noted that barristers now face additional work verifying the authenticity of legal authorities in case papers prepared with potential AI assistance.
Sources: The Guardian World.