Truace
Subscribe

‘A serious failure’: CPS prosecutor cites imaginary case to high court after AI search

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. 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. Her explanation for how the nonexistent case came to be relied on has been called “unsatisfactory” b…

By the Truvace desk2 min read1 sourceEvidence: Moderate · 55/100 — Investigative reporting · 1 independent sourceJournalismTRV-2026-2352· cite & verify
‘A serious failure’: CPS prosecutor cites imaginary case to high court after AI search

In brief

A senior crown prosecutor representing the Crown Prosecution Service cited a case that does not exist while arguing in the high court for the prosecution of a boy accused of raping his younger sister. The reference, formatted as a Court of Appeal decision, was later admitted to be an error, and the Guardian understands it came from an AI summary in an internet search.

The episode matters because it involves a state prosecutor rather than a self-represented litigant, and it is only the second known CPS case of this kind. Judges called the explanation unsatisfactory, and what remains uncertain is how many similar errors exist, since many lower court decisions are never published.

Main points

  1. Prosecutor Ravinder Dhillon cited a made-up case, CPS – R v J [2024] EWCA Crim 3529, in a dispute over prosecuting an 11-year-old boy.
  2. Two senior high court judges called her explanation unsatisfactory, and a law professor called it a serious failure.
  3. The high court said the fictitious reference did not affect the outcome of the boy's challenge.
  4. A UK tracker of AI-related legal errors maintained by barrister Matthew Lee now has 101 entries.
  5. The CPS says its AI policy bars using AI for legal decisions and requires human accuracy checks.

The problem

A senior CPS prosecutor submitted a nonexistent precedent, apparently drawn from an AI search summary, to argue for prosecuting a child, raising fresh concerns about AI errors undermining trust in the justice system.

The rundown

Lawyers for the boy, who was 11 at the time of the alleged offence, challenged the decision to prosecute, alleging prosecutors ignored representations from social workers, youth workers and a forensic psychologist. The decision to proceed was taken in April and confirmed by the chief crown prosecutor. In October Dhillon admitted the citation was an error and said she had meant a real decision made 15 years earlier.

This follows a February admission by the CPS that a lawyer in an extradition case involving two Romanians cited nonexistent authorities, likely caused by AI. Those cases were spotted only when opposing lawyers found no trace of them. In June 2025 the high court had urged the Bar Council and Law Society to act urgently on AI hallucinations.

The CPS said it carried out an internal review, shared learnings that case law must be cited from trusted legal sources, and checked that no other cases were affected. Lee warned of privacy and confidentiality risks from CPS AI use and said AI creates extra work for barristers who must verify authorities.

Sources

  1. JournalismThe Guardian2026-11-03

The debate