MENU
CLOSE
The Law Platform
© Copyright 2021 - 2026
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has come under scrutiny after a senior prosecutor relied on a fictitious legal authority in explaining its decision to prosecute a child accused of rape. The error, which was uncovered during judicial review proceedings before the High Court, has raised concerns about the accuracy of legal research, prosecutorial accountability and the growing reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) in legal practice.
The case, a copy which may be read/downloaded below, involved a 14-year-old boy identified in court proceedings as LYC, who was facing prosecution over an alleged sexual offence involving his younger sister. The High Court acknowledged that the non-existent authority had been cited in the CPS's written record but concluded that the error did not affect the outcome of the judicial review challenge.
Background to the Case
According to the judgment in LYC (by his litigation friend LYM) v Director of Public Prosecutions, the claimant was arrested when he was 11 years old following allegations that he had raped his sister, who was seven at the time.
The prosecution was subsequently challenged in the Cannock Youth Court, where the claimant applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the court's process and would offend the court's sense of justice and propriety. The application was opposed by the CPS but was ultimately refused.
The claimant then commenced judicial review proceedings, challenging the CPS's decision to continue with the prosecution. During the proceedings, the CPS disclosed its written record explaining the decision to prosecute. It was in this document that the questionable legal authority came to light.
The Discovery of a Fictitious Legal Authority
The CPS's written record referred on three occasions to a purported Court of Appeal decision, R v J [2024] EWCA Crim 3529. However, it emerged that no such case existed. Senior Crown Prosecutor Ravinder Dhillon explained that the citation was an error and that she had intended to refer to the House of Lords decision in R v JTB [2009] UKHL 20; [2009] 1 AC 1310.
6th Nov, 2026
5th Nov, 2026
2nd Nov, 2026
2nd Nov, 2026
30th Oct, 2026
The claimant sought permission to amend the grounds of the judicial review claim, arguing that the legal propositions attributed to the fictitious authority could not be found in the genuine R v JTB decision. The claimant further contended that those propositions were inconsistent with CPS guidance and legally incorrect.
The incident was particularly concerning because the fictitious authority had not merely appeared as an isolated typographical error. It had been relied upon repeatedly in an official document explaining the legal basis for continuing a criminal prosecution.
High Court Criticises the CPS's Explanation
In a joint judgment, Lord Justice Holgate and Mr Justice Wall acknowledged the criticisms directed at the prosecutor's witness statement explaining how the fictitious authority came to be relied upon.
The judges described the explanation as "unsatisfactory". Nevertheless, they considered whether the error had any bearing on the claimant's challenge to the CPS's decision.
Their conclusion was that it did not. The court distinguished between the existence of an inaccurate citation and the substantive correctness of the legal principles underpinning the prosecution decision. The judges therefore refused the application to amend the claim and dismissed the judicial review application, finding several of the grounds unarguable.
Artificial Intelligence Suspected in the Fabrication
The circumstances surrounding the fictitious citation have also drawn attention to the risks of using artificial intelligence in legal research.
Even though the High Court judgment established that the authority did not exist, it was shown that an AI-generated summary obtained through an internet search may have supplied the incorrect legal reference.
The CPS reportedly acknowledged the error, reviewed other cases and reinforced the requirement that legal authorities be obtained from trusted sources. The incident is particularly notable because it follows an earlier instance in which the CPS apologised to the High Court after AI was used to generate non-existent case citations in an extradition appeal.
READ/DOWNLOAD FULL DECISION BELOW:
Unlock premium articles, PDF downloads, cases and more
Learn how to subscribe