Key facts
- Ravinder Dhillon, a senior crown prosecutor, cited CPS – R v J [2024] EWCA Crim 3529, a case that does not exist, in a high court dispute.
- The boy was 11 at the time of the alleged rape of his seven-year-old sister, and his lawyers were challenging the decision to prosecute.
- Dhillon admitted in October that the citation had been made in error and said she had meant a real decision made 15 years earlier.
- The high court said the fictitious reference did not affect the outcome of the boy's challenge, with trial listed in the youth courts later in the week.
- The Crown Prosecution Service said it identified the error, remedied it and reviewed other cases, finding none affected.
A senior crown prosecutor cited a legal case that does not exist while arguing in a high court dispute over whether a child should be prosecuted for the rape of his younger sister, court documents showed. Ravinder Dhillon, a senior crown prosecutor in the Crown Prosecution Service's rape and serious sexual offences unit, submitted a detailed reference to a case she called CPS – R v J [2024] EWCA Crim 3529. It turned out not to exist.
The boy was 11 at the time of the alleged rape of his seven-year-old sister. His lawyers were challenging the CPS decision to prosecute and alleged prosecutors had failed to take into account representations from social workers, youth workers and a forensic psychologist. The decision to proceed was taken by Dhillon in April and confirmed by the chief crown prosecutor. In October Dhillon admitted the nonexistent citation had been made in error, saying she had been referring to a different, real decision made 15 years earlier.
The Guardian said its understanding was that the reference came from an AI response generated during an internet search. Two senior high court judges called her explanation unsatisfactory. Brian Flanagan, associate professor of law at Maynooth University in Ireland who investigates the use of AI by judges, called it a serious failure. "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.
The high court said the reference to a fictitious case did not affect the outcome of the boy's challenge to the decision to continue with his prosecution, which is listed to go to trial in the youth courts later in the week.
The CPS said it has a strict AI policy that limits its use so it is not used to make legal decisions and requires human checks for accuracy. A spokesperson said the CPS identified an error had occurred from conducting legal research using the internet and that it was remedied as soon as it was identified, with an internal review carried out to check no other cases were affected. The spokesperson said the review led to learnings shared internally, including that case law must be cited from trusted legal sources.
The report said the case is only the second known one involving the CPS. The agency 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, and concluded the risk of recurrence was low. 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 as a matter of urgency. Dame Victoria Sharp, then president of the King's bench division, warned of serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence if artificial intelligence is misused.
The report said the incident brings to 101 the number of entries in a UK tracker maintained by Doughty Street Chambers barrister Matthew Lee covering confirmed, suspected and disputed AI-related errors and related false citations. Lee said the cases identified may be the tip of the iceberg because many lower court decisions are never published.