The decision to proceed was taken by Dhillon in April and confirmed by the chief crown prosecutor. The boy’s lawyers alleged prosecutors had failed to take into account representations from social workers, youth workers and a forensic psychologist.
The case adds to dozens of others this year in which AI-related errors have plagued court proceedings, mostly involving people who are not legally qualified representing themselves, often in employment tribunals.
Lawyers for the boy, who was 11 at the time of the alleged rape of his seven-year-old sister, were challenging the CPS decision to continue the prosecution. The High Court said the fictitious citation did not affect the outcome of that challenge. The case is listed to go to trial in the youth courts later this week.
The Guardian understands the reference came from an AI response generated during an internet search. Dhillon later said she had been referring to a completely different decision — a real one made 15 years earlier.
Following a rapid review, the service said it had shared learnings, including that case law must be cited from trusted legal sources. Officials said the cases identified may be the “tip of the iceberg”, as many lower court decisions are never published. Asked for comment, the CPS said it has a strict AI policy “which limits its use so that it is not used to make legal decisions and there must be human checks for accuracy”.
“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,” the expert said. “As soon as this error was identified, it was remedied and an internal review was carried out to establish how this had occurred and to check that no other cases have been affected,” the CPS said.