A senior Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lawyer cited a completely fabricated legal precedent during a High Court hearing, adding to growing concerns about artificial intelligence errors in the justice system. The incident involves Ravinder Dhillon, a prosecutor in the CPS’s rape and serious sexual offences unit, who referenced a case that does not exist while arguing for the prosecution of a child.
Fabricated Precedent in Child Rape Case
The case centers on a dispute over whether an 11-year-old boy should be prosecuted for the alleged rape of his seven-year-old sister. Dhillon submitted a detailed reference to a case she identified as CPS, R v J [2024] EWCA Crim 3529. Court documents reveal this citation was entirely imaginary.
Dhillon admitted in October that the reference was made in error. She stated she had intended to cite a real decision made 15 years earlier but mistakenly relied on an AI-generated summary from an internet search that contained the fictional case details. The decision to proceed with the prosecution was originally taken by Dhillon in April and confirmed by the chief crown prosecutor.
Lawyers for the boy argued that prosecutors failed to consider representations from social workers, youth workers, and a forensic psychologist. They alleged that the CPS’s reliance on incorrect legal sources undermined the fairness of the proceedings. The High Court ruled that the citation error did not affect the outcome of the boy’s challenge to the prosecution decision.
Widespread AI Hallucinations in Courts
This incident marks only the second known case involving the CPS admitting to such an error. In February, the agency acknowledged that a lawyer in an extradition case involving two Romanians had cited nonexistent legal authorities, likely caused by AI. Those errors were only discovered when opposing lawyers could not find any trace of the cases.
The latest CPS AI error brings the total number of tracked AI-related legal mistakes to 101. This figure comes from a UK tracker maintained by Matthew Lee, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers. Lee noted that the number likely represents only the “tip of the iceberg,” as many lower court decisions are never published.
Lee warned that the use of AI in legal research creates significant privacy and confidentiality risks, particularly for an agency handling highly sensitive information. He also highlighted the additional workload this places on barristers, who must now spend time verifying the authenticity of legal authorities in case papers.
Judges and Experts Condemn the Failure
The High Court judges described Dhillon’s explanation as “unsatisfactory.” Brian Flanagan, an associate professor of law at Maynooth University, called the incident a “serious failure.” He emphasized that the integrity of legal authorities is fundamental to the justice system.
“You can’t make them up; it’s out of bounds,” Flanagan said. “AI increases the risk that is going to happen because of the time you can save. 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.”
In June 2025, the High Court urged the Bar Council and the Law Society to take urgent steps to curb AI misuse. Dame Victoria Sharp, then president of the King’s Bench Division, warned that lawyers misusing AI could face sanctions ranging from public admonishment to contempt of court proceedings.
The CPS stated it has a strict AI policy that limits its use to prevent legal decisions from being made by the technology. A spokesperson said the agency identified the error quickly and carried out an internal review to ensure no other cases were affected. The boy’s case is listed to go to trial in the youth courts later this week.
Source: The Guardian
