A senior prosecutor in the UK used a completely fictitious precedent in criminal proceedings, even numbering the case properly. What was even more surprising was that this allegedly fabricated material by artificial intelligence (AI) was used to support a criminal prosecution against a minor.
The UK Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is an independent prosecution authority responsible for prosecuting criminal cases in England and Wales. A senior prosecutor from this agency recently used three false precedents in handling a serious sexual assault case involving minors. Two judges of the High Court subsequently criticized its interpretation as being 'unsatisfactory'.
The prosecutor involved is Ravinder Dhillon, who works in the Department of Rape and Serious Crimes at the Royal Prosecution Office.
The case involves a boy who was accused of sexually assaulting his sister, who was only 7 years old at the time, when he was 11 years old. The boy’s lawyer believes that the prosecution did not take into sufficient consideration the opinions of social workers, youth workers, and forensic psychology experts. Therefore, they have filed a request for judicial review to question whether the decision to continue the prosecution is lawful.
The problem lies in the written decision records formed by the prosecution prior to this.
Dillon supported continuing the prosecution, citing a supposed 2024 appeal court ruling three times, even listing the complete case number: “R v J [2024] EWCA Crim 3529”.
However, both parties later confirmed that this case never existed at all.
Facing doubts, Delon admitted the mistake in the witness statement submitted on October 15th, explaining that he originally intended to cite another true judgment issued by the UK House of Lords in 2009.
The judgment released on October 29 showed that Judge Holgate and Wall of the High Court in the UK believed that the prosecution's explanation of how false precedents were cited was 'unsatisfactory'.
According to information from people familiar with the matter, the false judgment might have originated from AI-generated summaries that appeared in Dilon’s online searches. However, the court did not consider AI to be the sole source of the error.
Contrary to expectations, despite the judge criticizing the prosecution for their mistakes, it was determined that these mistakes were not sufficient to overturn the decision to continue the prosecution. As a result, the boy’s request for judicial review was denied. The related criminal case will continue to be heard.
The UK Crown Prosecution Service stated that the mistake arose from an internet legal search, and that it has been corrected upon discovery. An internal review has also been conducted to check whether it affects other cases. The agency emphasized that its AI use policy requires manual verification of accuracy, and that legal decisions should not be made solely based on AI.
And this is not the first time that the British prosecution has made similar mistakes.
Earlier this year, the Royal Prosecution Service also cited non-existent legal grounds in an appeal involving the extradition of two Romanian citizens. The issue was only exposed when the lawyer representing the other party was unable to find any relevant precedents.
Irish University of Munster law professor Brian Flanagan criticized that the prosecution's reliance on non-existent legal grounds to support charges against children was a 'serious mistake'.
He pointed out that national procuratorial organs hold significant public power, and such mistakes are particularly concerning.
