The BaseNewsThe Guardian

‘A serious failure’: CPS prosecutor cites imaginary case to high court after AI search

The Guardian reports that a senior Crown Prosecution Service lawyer cited a nonexistent case in the High Court in a dispute over prosecuting an 11-year-old, and that the reference is understood to have come from an AI summary in an internet search. The CPS says it reviewed the error.

Open the source ↗2 quotations checked, word for word ↓

Why it matters

The same thing, for different readers.

What it means for you

A state prosecutor arguing to prosecute a child relied on a legal case that does not exist, which shows AI search summaries can slip into serious decisions unnoticed.

For lawmakers

The Crown Prosecution Service has a policy limiting AI use, yet the error came from ordinary internet research, so rules on AI tools may miss where the risk arises.

For researchers

Matthew Lee's UK tracker now lists 101 confirmed, suspected and disputed AI-related errors in court, and Lee says published cases may be the tip of the iceberg.

The question it raises

Legal authorities are treated as trustworthy because they are checkable; fabricated ones, used by a state lawyer, strain the trust that justice depends on.

In their own words

Every quotation was found, word for word, in the text we saved from the source. That shows the words are there; it does not make them true, or prove the speaker meant them as quoted.

From the source’s own text.

“This was used as a legal source to argue for the prosecution of a child and that legal source doesn’t exist: that’s a serious failure”
Brian Flanagan, associate professor of law, Maynooth UniversityFlanagan, who investigates judges' use of AI, responding to the CPS lawyer's citation of a nonexistent case in a High Court dispute over prosecuting a child.
Found word for word in the sourceAs quoted in the text we read, not the speaker’s own text or a transcript of their words
“The Guardian understands the reference came from an AI response generated during an internet search.”
The GuardianThe Guardian's own account of where the nonexistent case citation originated.
Found word for word in the source

The record

Questions
How is AI changing childhood, health and daily life? · Who can demand evidence, delay a release or stop an unsafe deployment?
People
Ravinder Dhillon (About them, senior crown prosecutor, CPS rape and serious sexual offences unit) · Brian Flanagan (Speaks, associate professor of law, Maynooth University) · Matthew Lee (Mentioned, barrister, Doughty Street Chambers) · Victoria Sharp (Mentioned, then president of the King's bench division) · Robert Booth (Wrote it, UK technology editor, The Guardian)
What we read
We read the whole source.
Found by
The Radar, run of November 4, 2026, via the-guardian-ai (tier 2: a major outlet’s own reporting)
Cite this
The Guardian, “‘A serious failure’: CPS prosecutor cites imaginary case to high court after AI search”, November 3, 2026. Entry in the Ctrl AI Base, https://ctrlai.com/base/guardian-2026-11-03-cps-prosecutor-imaginary-case
Our notesDirect fetch returned a Guardian block page; full text came from the Wayback Machine copy. The AI origin of the citation is the Guardian's understanding, not a court finding. The CPS did not itself say AI was involved in the quoted statements.