CPS caught citing ‘non-existent’ legal cases after lawyer uses AI in extradition challenge
A judge has warned of the risks of using artificial intelligence in court hearings after documents from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) referred to “non-existent” legal cases.
Mr Justice Sweeting issued the warning in a ruling on Wednesday, rejecting two men’s appeals against orders to extradite them to Romania to serve sentences for crimes committed there.
The CPS opposed the appeals in the High Court.
At the end of his judgment, Mr Justice Sweeting said two legal authorities named by the CPS in a document forming part of their case were not available.
He said the two cases were contained in another document before the matter was referred to the CPS ahead of a hearing in February.
The CPS acknowledged the error and apologized, stating that it had not attempted to mislead the court and that investigations were being carried out into how the mistake was made.
The judge said in a letter in March the CPS accepted that references to the cases were inaccurate and “explained that they were likely due to the use of artificial intelligence”.
“However, the CPS identified the critical failure as the failure of the examining solicitor to properly check the accuracy of the document before it was filed and served,” the judge said.
He continued: “The view of the CPS was therefore that, although the direct source of the error was the use of generative artificial intelligence, the effective cause was human error resulting from the failure to verify the authorities relied upon in the official submissions before the Court.
“The CPS stressed that this was not a deliberate attempt to mislead, but rather an isolated incident resulting from inadequate control of written work.”
Mr Justice Sweeting also said the CPS had carried out a full internal review of the incident and reviewed 78 other cases linked to the same barrister, which had identified no concerns and was led to believe the risk of the incident occurring again was low.
It concluded: “In relation to the appeal, the errors arose before the hearing and therefore had no bearing on the argument or the court’s decision.
“I accepted the apology offered on behalf of the CPS and the assurance that there was no attempt to mislead.”
He continued: “It would be naive to assume that the use of AI in legal work will not increase in the future; in fact, it may be both necessary and beneficial.
“The episode highlights the risks of its use without appropriate oversight, particularly for legal research.”
CPS has been approached for comment.
