CPS Prosecutor Cites Fake Case in Child Rape Appeal

101. That is the number of confirmed, suspected, or disputed AI-related errors recorded in UK court proceedings by one legal tracker. The most recent addition involves a senior Crown Prosecution Service prosecutor who cited a legal precedent that does not exist while defending the decision to prosecute an 11-year-old boy for the rape of his seven-year-old sister.

The incident, revealed through court documents, occurred during a high court challenge to the prosecution. Ravinder Dhillon, a senior crown prosecutor in the CPS’s rape and serious sexual offences unit, argued against the boy’s legal team, which claimed prosecutors ignored input from social workers and forensic psychologists. Dhillon submitted a detailed reference to a case titled CPS, R v J [2024] EWCA Crim 3529. The citation was entirely fictitious.

The error traces back to an internet search that generated an AI response. Dhillon admitted in October that the citation was made in error, stating she had intended to reference a real decision from 15 years prior. The decision to prosecute the boy was initially made in April and later confirmed by the chief crown prosecutor. The high court ruled that the fictional citation did not alter the outcome of the challenge, allowing the prosecution to continue.

Two senior high court judges described the explanation for the error as unsatisfactory. Brian Flanagan, an associate professor of law at Maynooth University in Ireland, labeled it a serious failure. He noted that legal authorities are treated as precise tools, and inventing them undermines public trust. Flanagan added that when the state uses AI and errs, the impact is amplified because of the immense power the state holds over individuals.

This is only the second known instance involving the CPS, the primary public agency for criminal prosecutions in England and Wales. In February, the agency admitted a lawyer in an extradition case cited nonexistent authorities, likely due to AI. In that earlier case, the CPS concluded the risk of recurrence was low after opposition lawyers spotted the missing cases. The current incident follows a pattern of dozens of AI-related errors in courts this year, many involving self-represented litigants in employment tribunals.

In June 2025, the high court urged the Bar Council and the Law Society to act urgently to curb AI misuse. Dame Victoria Sharp, then president of the King’s Bench Division, warned of serious implications for justice if AI is misused. She stated that lawyers could face sanctions ranging from public admonishment to contempt of court proceedings or police referral.

The CPS maintains a strict AI policy that limits the tool’s use in making legal decisions and requires human checks for accuracy. A spokesperson said the agency identified the error from conducting legal research using the internet. They stated that once found, the error was remedied and an internal review was conducted to ensure no other cases were affected. The review shared learnings, including the requirement that case law must be cited from trusted legal sources.

The boy’s trial is scheduled to take place in the youth courts later this week. Matthew Lee, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, maintains the tracker of AI errors. He noted that the 101 entries likely represent only a fraction of the total, as many lower court decisions are never published. Lee also pointed out privacy risks associated with the CPS using AI on sensitive information and warned that barristers now spend extra time verifying the authenticity of legal authorities in case papers.