"'Accused of Raping 7-Year-Old Sister': What Was the Ruling Against Her 11-Year-Old Brother? UK's 'AI Hallucination' Embarrassment"

UK Senior Prosecutor Cites Fake Precedent in Youth Court
AI Hallucination Suspected... He Says He "Mistook It for Another Ruling"
Second Case This Year... AI Errors Fuel Public Debate

A senior British prosecutor was found to have tried to justify the prosecution of an 11-year-old boy by citing a case that did not exist. The case is believed to have been fabricated during an artificial intelligence (AI) search.

On November 3 (local time), the British daily The Guardian reported that court documents showed Ravinder Dillon, a senior prosecutor in the Crown Prosecution Service's (CPS) Rape and Serious Sexual Offences unit, had cited a nonexistent case. The newspaper said the case appeared to have come from an AI-generated summary produced during an internet search.

Fake Case Cited in Sexual Offense Trial; Prosecutor Calls It a "Mistake"

The Royal Courts of Justice in London, UK, pictured to help readers understand the article. Pexels

The case at issue arose in the prosecution of a boy accused of raping his 7-year-old younger sister. The defendant was 11 at the time of the incident. Dillon argued in youth court that the prosecution was justified, citing a case identified as "CPS - R v J [2024] EWCA Crim 3529," but no such case existed. The defense then challenged the decision to maintain the prosecution and sought judicial review in the High Court, arguing that the prosecution had not adequately considered the views of social workers, youth specialists and forensic psychologists.

In a statement filed with the court on October 15, Dillon acknowledged the citation error. He explained that the case he had intended to cite was the House of Lords' 2009 ruling in "R v JTB." However, Court of Appeal Judge Holgate and High Court Judge Wall, who heard the case, said the explanation was "unsatisfactory."

The judges nevertheless dismissed the defense's application for judicial review, saying the citation of the fake case "had no bearing on the decision to prosecute." The defendant's youth court trial is scheduled to take place this week. The CPS said the error occurred during legal research using the internet, adding that it was corrected immediately and an internal review was conducted. It also said that cases should be cited from reliable legal sources. The CPS added that it has a strict policy limiting the use of AI in legal decision-making and requiring people to verify its accuracy.

Brian Flanagan, an associate professor of law at Maynooth University in Ireland who studies judges' use of AI, criticized the incident as "an event that calls into question the very norm of trust in the law" and a "serious failure."

Errors Persist... "Misuse of AI Can Undermine Trust in the Justice System"

AI-related errors have recently occurred across the British legal sector. In February 2026, the CPS also acknowledged that one of its lawyers had cited fake cases, apparently generated by AI, in an extradition case involving two Romanian nationals. The error came to light when opposing counsel could not find the cited cases, and the CPS said it considered the risk of recurrence to be low.

In a separate damages lawsuit filed against Qatar National Bank over £89 million (approximately KRW 160.9 billion), the High Court said in June 2025 that 18 of the 45 cases cited by the plaintiff had turned out to be fake. At the time, High Court Judge Victoria Sharp warned that "the misuse of AI has a serious impact on public confidence in the administration of justice and the justice system," adding that legal professionals who breach the rules could face sanctions, including contempt of court proceedings or referral for a police investigation.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.