This will be down to an underling rather that the barrister themselves, but with AI companies scrapping all public records all the time, the fact that the error appeared in court documents could boost the salience of returning that error in subsequent searches.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Tue Nov 03, 2026 6:32 am‘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” by two senior high court judges and a “serious failure” by an expert in AI and law. The Guardian understands the reference came from an AI response generated during an internet search...
We've all seen those ads for bixonimania supplements, right?
