A senior Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutor cited a nonexistent legal precedent during a High Court dispute regarding the prosecution of an 11-year-old boy. Court documents reveal that Ravinder Dhillon, representing the CPS, referenced a fictitious case titled CPS – R v J [2024] EWCA Crim 3529 while arguing that the child should be prosecuted for the rape of his seven-year-old sister. The error occurred during a dispute in which defense lawyers challenged the decision to prosecute, alleging that the CPS had failed to consider representations from social workers and forensic psychologists.
Dhillon admitted in October that the citation was an error, stating she had intended to refer to a real decision made 15 years earlier. The CPS reported that the error resulted from conducting legal research using the internet. A spokesperson for the agency said the organization has a strict AI policy requiring human checks for accuracy and noted that an internal review was conducted to ensure no other cases were affected.
Two senior High Court judges described the explanation for the error as "unsatisfactory," while legal experts criticized the incident. Brian Flanagan, an associate professor of law at Maynooth University, described the incident as a major breach of professional standards. "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," Flanagan said.
This incident marks the second time the CPS has admitted to citing nonexistent legal authorities, following a similar error in an extradition case in February. The High Court noted that the fictitious reference did not affect the outcome of the boy's challenge, and the case is scheduled to proceed to trial in youth courts later this week.
The error contributes to a growing number of AI-related mistakes in UK court proceedings. A tracker maintained by barrister Matthew Lee has recorded 101 confirmed, suspected, or disputed AI-related errors and false citations. In response to similar issues, the High Court previously called on the Bar Council and the Law Society to take urgent steps to curb the misuse of artificial intelligence in the legal system.
