Crown Prosecution Service Reportedly Filed Purportedly AI-Generated False Citations in Two Extradition Appeals

June 3, 2025

The Crown Prosecution Service has made a serious error in two extradited appeals, citing nonexistent authorities that likely originated from generative AI. The High Court ruled that the citations did not impact the outcome of the case and the CPS apologized for the mistake, citing inadequate verification by a reviewing lawyer.

Matched TAIM controls

Suggested mapping from embedding similarity (not a formal assessment). Browse all TAIM controls

MAP 4.1 — similarity 0.643, rank 1. TAIM detail and related incidents →
GOVERN 6.1 — similarity 0.634, rank 2. TAIM detail and related incidents →
MAP 5.1 — similarity 0.627, rank 3. TAIM detail and related incidents →

Alleged deployer: crown-prosecution-service, lawyers
Alleged developer: large-language-model-developers
Alleged harmed parties: epistemic-integrity, judicial-integrity, andreea-maria-tobosaru, marian-tofan, extradition-appellants, high-court-of-justice-(england-and-wales), courts

AI governance case studies

For forensic AI governance failure analysis (TAIMScore™ case studies), browse Human Signal’s Failure Files™.

Source

Data from the AI Incident Database (AIID). Cite this incident: https://incidentdatabase.ai/cite/1603

Data source

Incident data is from the AI Incident Database (AIID).

When citing the database as a whole, please use:

McGregor, S. (2021) Preventing Repeated Real World AI Failures by Cataloging Incidents: The AI Incident Database. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence (IAAI-21). Virtual Conference.

Pre-print on arXiv · Database snapshots & citation guide

We use weekly snapshots of the AIID for stable reference. For the official suggested citation of a specific incident, use the “Cite this incident” link on each incident page.