The case adds to dozens of others where AI-related errors have plagued court proceedings this year, mostly from people who are not legally qualified representing themselves, and often in employment tribunal cases.<\/p>\n
It is only the second known case involving the CPS \u2013 the main public agency bringing criminal prosecutions in England and Wales \u2013 which admitted in February that one of its lawyers acting in an extradition case involving two Romanians convicted of minor offences cited nonexistent legal authorities, likely caused by AI. Those made-up cases were only spotted when opposition lawyers could find no trace of them and the CPS concluded<\/a> \u201cthe risk of recurrence was low\u201d.<\/p>\n In the latest case, lawyers for the boy, who was 11 at the time of the alleged rape of his seven-year-old sister, were challenging the CPS\u2019s decision to prosecute him. They alleged prosecutors had failed to take into account representations from social workers, youth workers and a forensic psychologist. Dhillon, a senior crown prosecutor in the CPS\u2019s rape and serious sexual offences unit, was arguing in favour of the prosecution of the child and submitted a detailed reference to a case she called CPS \u2013 R v J [2024] EWCA Crim 3529. It turned out not to exist.<\/p>\n The decision to proceed was taken by Dhillon in April and confirmed by the chief crown prosecutor. Then in October Dhillon admitted that the nonexistent citation had been made in error. She said she had been referring to a completely different decision \u2013 this time a real one \u2013 that was made 15 years earlier.<\/p>\n \u201cThis was used as a legal source to argue for the prosecution of a child and that legal source doesn\u2019t exist: that\u2019s a serious failure,\u201d said Brian Flanagan, associate professor of law at Maynooth University in Ireland who investigates the use of AI by judges. \u201cIt calls into question norms of trust in the law where we treat authorities as precious things. You can\u2019t make them up; it\u2019s out of bounds. 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.\u201d<\/p>\n The high court said the CPS\u2019s reference to a fictitious case did not affect the outcome of the boy\u2019s challenge to the decision to continue with his prosecution, which is listed to go to trial in the youth courts later this week.<\/p>\n In June 2025, the high court responded to AI hallucinations in cases spanning housing to banking, by calling on the Bar Council and the Law Society to consider steps to curb the problem \u201cas a matter of urgency\u201d. Dame Victoria Sharp, then president of the King\u2019s bench division, warned of \u201cserious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused\u201d and said lawyers misusing AI could face sanctions, from public admonishment to contempt of court proceedings and referral to the police.<\/p>\n Asked for comment, the CPS said it has a strict AI policy \u201cwhich limits its use so that it is not used to make legal decisions and there must be human checks for accuracy\u201d.<\/p>\n A spokesperson said the CPS \u201cidentified an error had occurred from conducting legal research using the internet\u201d.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/11\/1793705771_573_500.jpg\")
<\/p>\n