CPS: Admitted case did not exist
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has again cited a fictitious authority to the High Court, which decided that, while “unsatisfactory”, it did not matter to the outcome.
Lord Justice Holgate and Mr Justice Wall found [1] the point “unarguable” as a ground for judicial review.
They were hearing a challenge to a CPS decision to continue with the prosecution of a child accused of raping his sister. At the time, he was 11 and she was seven.
The written record of the decision to continue the prosecution was compiled by Ravinder Dhillon, a senior Crown prosecutor.
The claimant, acting by his mother as litigation friend, sought to add a fifth ground to the judicial review claim shortly before the rolled-up hearing last month, based on three references in the written record to what was said to be a 2024 authority called R v J.
“It turned out, and it is agreed, that this decision does not exist,” the court said.
“The application to amend was made in response to a witness statement by Ms Dhillon dated 15 October 2026. She said that the citation had been an error and that she had been referring instead to the decision of the House of Lords in R v JTB [2009] UKHL 20 [2]; [2009] 1 AC 1310.
“The proposed ground 5 contends that the legal propositions which Ms Dhillon purported to derive could not be found in that case, are contrary to CPS guidance and are wrong in law.”
The court did not set out how the citation came to be in the record or indicate any action it would take as a result.
In any event, the judges gave the point short shrift: “We acknowledge the criticisms made by [counsel] of the witness statement of Ms Dhillon seeking to explain how the non-existent case of R v J came to be relied upon.
“This was unsatisfactory, but does it matter for the outcome of the claimant’s challenge to the decision to continue with the prosecution? Our firm answer is no.
“[Counsel] rightly accepted that in so far as the written record purported to derive principles from R v J (or wrongly from other authority), the real question is whether any of those principles was wrong in law (or contrary to CPS guidance).
“She also correctly accepted that several of them were non-controversial. But in relation to those principles which she criticised, we have already explained why we reject the criticisms.”
Though this ground was “unarguable”, the court granted permission to apply for judicial review on two others, only then to dismiss the application.
In July, the CPS admitted putting hallucinated cases [3] produced by AI before the High Court in an extradition appeal.
The errors came to light before the hearing of appeals against extradition orders, which were ultimately rejected, and “therefore had no impact on argument or the court’s judgment”, the judge said.