CPS Prosecutor Cites Fake Case in Child Rape Dispute

Ravinder Dhillon, a senior crown prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service, cited an imaginary legal case during a high court hearing in October. The error occurred while she argued for the prosecution of an 11-year-old boy accused of raping his seven-year-old sister. Court documents reveal that Dhillon referenced a case called CPS, R v J [2024] EWCA Crim 3529, which does not exist.

Dhillon admitted in October that she made the citation in error. She stated that she intended to refer to a real decision made 15 years earlier but substituted the wrong case. The decision to prosecute the child was initially made in April and later confirmed by the chief crown prosecutor. The boy’s lawyers challenged this decision, alleging that prosecutors ignored input from social workers and a forensic psychologist.

Two senior high court judges called Dhillon’s explanation for the error unsatisfactory. Brian Flanagan, an associate professor of law at Maynooth University, described the incident as a serious failure. He noted that legal authorities are treated as precise tools and that inventing them undermines public trust. Flanagan added that the error is particularly concerning when a state professional makes the mistake because of the state’s power.

The incident is the second known case involving the CPS this year. In February, the agency admitted that a lawyer in an extradition case cited nonexistent authorities, likely due to AI. That lawyer handled a case involving two Romanian citizens convicted of minor offences. The CPS concluded at that time that the risk of similar errors recurring was low. The current case adds to a growing list of AI-related errors in UK courts. A tracker maintained by barrister Matthew Lee counts 101 confirmed, suspected, or disputed AI-related errors and false citations.

The CPS said it uses a strict policy that limits AI use in legal decisions and requires human checks for accuracy. A spokesperson stated that the agency identified the error during internet-based legal research. The agency conducted an internal review to determine how the mistake happened and to check other cases. The review found that case law must be cited from trusted sources. The high court ruled that the fake citation did not change the outcome of the boy’s challenge. His trial is scheduled for later this week in the youth courts.

In June 2025, the high court urged the Bar Council and the Law Society to address AI misuse urgently. Dame Victoria Sharp, then president of the King’s bench division, warned that misusing AI could lead to sanctions ranging from public admonishment to contempt of court proceedings. Lee, who tracks these errors, noted that many lower court decisions are unpublished, meaning the total number of AI-related errors may be higher. He also cited privacy risks associated with the CPS using AI on sensitive cases.