A Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutor cited a non-existent legal precedent in a High Court case after an internet search reportedly returned an AI-generated summary containing fabricated case details. The citation appeared in written arguments supporting the prosecution and was examined during a judicial review.
Ravinder Dhillon, a senior crown prosecutor in the CPS rape and serious sexual offences unit, cited the fictional 2024 case while defending the prosecution. The High Court ruled that the incorrect reference did not affect the outcome of the legal challenge, although judges questioned Dhillon's explanation for its inclusion.
CPS Prosecutor Includes Non-Existent Legal Precedent
The judicial review concerned the CPS decision to prosecute a boy who was 11 at the time of the alleged offence involving his seven-year-old sister. Lawyers representing the boy argued that prosecutors had not considered representations from social workers, youth workers and a forensic psychologist.
Dhillon submitted a reference to a purported case titled CPS – R v J [2024] EWCA Crim 3529. The case did not exist. Dhillon made the prosecution decision in April, which was subsequently confirmed by the chief crown prosecutor.
In October, Dhillon acknowledged that the citation had been included in error. She said she had intended to refer to a genuine decision made in 2009, R v JTB [2009] UKHL 20. The Guardian reported that the fictional reference was understood to have come from an AI-generated internet search summary. However, the High Court did not establish that AI generated the false details.
High Court Examines Incorrect Legal Citation
Lord Justice Holgate and Mr Justice Wall examined the disputed citation during the judicial review. The judges described Dhillon's explanation as 'unsatisfactory' but concluded that the incorrect reference did not affect the outcome of the legal challenge.
The court considered whether the legal principles attributed to the fictional case were incorrect or contradicted existing CPS guidance. It rejected the additional ground of challenge as unarguable, finding that the citation error did not establish that the prosecution decision was unlawful.
Meanwhile, Brian Flanagan, an associate professor of law at Maynooth University who researches AI use in the judiciary, also commented on the case. He described the incident as a 'serious failure' in comments reported by The Guardian.
CPS Reviews Legal Research Error
The CPS said its policy restricts AI use in legal decision-making and requires human checks to verify information. A spokesperson said the service had identified an error arising from legal research conducted using the internet.
The spokesperson said the citation had been corrected and an internal review examined how the error occurred and whether other cases had been affected. The CPS also said staff had been reminded to consult trusted legal sources when citing court decisions.
Moreover, the incident follows a separate CPS case involving an extradition appeal in which a lawyer cited non-existent legal authorities. The prosecution service acknowledged in February that the references were likely caused by AI.
According to The Guardian, the latest incident brought the number of entries on a UK tracker of confirmed, suspected and disputed AI-related legal errors to 101. The tracker is maintained by Doughty Street Chambers barrister Matthew Lee.
