In the innocent days of the 1990s, when we imagined the apocalypse humanity might face at the hands of that Frankenstein’s monster known as Artificial Intelligence, we thought our end would come at the gun-barrels of gleaming metallic robot Terminators…but it now looks more likely that “AI” will instead end civilisation by drowning us in a blizzard of fake news, fake history – and fake legal cases.
If we are to avoid this fate, salutary lessons can be drawn from the recent public law case of Ayinde, R (On the Application Of) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1040 (Admin) (03 April 2025) which contains this startling narrative of events at paragraphs 57 – 66 of the judgement-
- Moving to the second ground for judicial review, failure to consider relevant evidence, I accept that there was a lot of substance in that ground because, having read the medical evidence, I had taken a preliminary view that the judicial review had quite strong legs to show that the Claimant had a priority need and was seriously at risk, and the Claimant’s medical evidence had been overlooked, ignored or irrationally not taken into account. I do not make that finding, I just set out here that this was my preliminary view. However, I do not need to make that finding and I had not heard any of the evidence by the time the parties actually came to settle the substantive issues and the Defendant had provided accommodation to the Claimant after the order made by the Deputy High Court Judge last October. However, although ground 2 had substance to it the case cited in paragraph 20 did not exist. The text was drafted as follows by Ms Forey:
“Moreover, in R (on the application of Ibrahim) v Waltham Forest LBC [2019] EWHC 1873 (Admin), the court quashed the local authority decision due to its failure to properly consider the applicant’s medical needs, underscoring for necessity the careful evaluation of such evidence in homelessness determinations. The respondent’s failure to consider the appellant’s medical conditions in their entirety, despite being presented with comprehensive medical documentation, renders their decision procedurally improper and irrational”.
- The problem with that paragraph was not the submission that was made, which seems to me to be wholly logical, reasonable and fair in law, it was that the case of Ibrahim does not exist, it was a fake. I find this extremely troubling. I do not accept Ms Forey’s explanation for how these fake cases arose. I do not accept that she photocopied a fake case, put it in a box, tabulated it and then put it into her submissions. The only other explanation that has been provided before me, by Mr Mold, was to point the finger at Ms Forey using Artificial Intelligence. I do not know whether that is true, and I cannot make a finding on it because Ms Forey was not sworn and was not cross examined. However, the finding which I can make and do make is that Ms Forey put a completely fake case in her submissions. That much was admitted. It is such a professional shame. The submission was a good one. The medical evidence was strong. The ground was potentially good. Why put a fake case in?
- Ground 3, unreasonableness and irrationality. Various submissions were set out there in paragraphs 21 and 22 including based on Wednesbury and then in paragraph 23 a case which is not attacked by the Defendant. However, in paragraph 24, Ms Forey wrote this:
“The appellant’s situation mirrors the facts in R (on the application of H) v Ealing London Borough Council [2021] EWHC 939 (Admin) where the court found the local authority’s failure to provide interim accommodation irrational in light of the appellant’s vulnerability and the potential consequences of homelessness. The respondent’s conduct in this case similarly lacks a rational basis and demonstrates a failure to properly exercise its discretion”.
- This was yet another fake case. It does not exist. Therefore, the description of what it is in the case was fake and untrue.
- Finally in relation to ground 4, breach of duty to act fairly, Ms Forey herself breached her duty to act fairly and not to mislead the court by paragraphs 27 and 28. In 27 she wrote:
“The respondent’s failure to provide a timely response and its refusal to offer interim accommodation have denied the appellant a fair opportunity to secure his rights under the homelessness legislation. This breach is further highlighted in R (on the application of KN) v Barnet LBC [2020] EWHC 1066 (Admin) where the court held that procedural fairness includes timely decision-making and the provision of necessary accommodation during the review process. The respondent’s failure to adhere to these principles constitutes a breach of the duty to act fairly”.
That sounds fine. The trouble is, the case does not exist, it was a fake. - Worse still, in paragraph 28, Ms Forey wrote:
“The appellant’s case further aligns with the principles set out in R (on the application of Balogun) v London Borough of Lambeth [2020] EWCA Civ 1442 — where the Court of Appeal emphasise that local authorities must ensure fair treatment of applicants in the homelessness review process. The respondent’s conduct in failing to provide interim accommodation or a timely decision breaches the standard of fairness”.
- Ms Forey had moved on from fake High Court cases to fake Court of Appeal cases. I have no difficulty with the submission that the Respondent local authority had to ensure fair treatment of applicants in the homelessness review process, but I do have a substantial difficulty with members of the Bar who put fake cases in statements of facts and grounds.
- I now come to the relevant test. Has the behaviour of Ms Forey and the Claimant’s solicitors been improper, unreasonable or negligent? I consider that it has been all three. It is wholly improper to put fake cases in a pleading. It was unreasonable, when it was pointed out, to say that these fake cases were “minor citation errors” or to use the phrase of the solicitors, “Cosmetic errors”. I should say it is the responsibility of the legal team, including the solicitors, to see that the statement of facts and grounds are correct. They should have been shocked when they were told that the citations did not exist. Ms Forey should have reported herself to the Bar Council. I think also that the solicitors should have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I consider that providing a fake description of five fake cases, including a Court of Appeal case, qualifies quite clearly as professional misconduct.
- On the balance of probabilities, I consider that it would have been negligent for this barrister, if she used AI and did not check it, to put that text into her pleading. However, I am not in a position to determine whether she did use AI. I find as a fact that Ms Forey intentionally put these cases into her statement of facts and grounds, not caring whether they existed or not, because she had got them from a source which I do not know but certainly was not photocopying cases, putting them in a box and tabulating them, and certainly not from any law report. I do not accept that it is possible to photocopy a non-existent case and tabulate it. Improper and unreasonable conduct are finding about which I am sure. In relation to negligence I am unsure but I consider that it would fall into that category if Ms Forey obtained the text from AI and failed to check it.
- …These were not cosmetic errors, they were substantive fakes and no proper explanation has been given for putting them into a pleading…
Handle AI With Care
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, asked science fiction author emeritus Phillip K Dick, in his novel of that title, which went on to become the ‘80s movie classic “Blade Runner.” The answer is apparently, yes – and then they make up a High Court case about them.
The consequences that the lawyers involved in the Ayinde case, who were responsible for putting forwards what seem to have been fake cases dreamt up by an AI ‘Large Language Model’ (such as Chat GPT) will not be light, and nor should they be. It is a warning to all who seek to research the law online that they need to be careful about trusting the information put in front of them, particularly if it is an AI generated summary or article. Certainly, at this stage of their development, these programmes should not have the ‘Intelligence’, but the ‘Artificial’ half of their name repeatedly stressed. A ‘shortcut’ to knowledge can easily prove to be a trapdoor.
Look beyond the “AI Overview” box and seek out a flesh-and-blood lawyer who does his own research, who knows the case law inside out, and whose track- record of success is vouched for by hundreds of word-of-mouth recommendations and organic reviews, rather than silicon- manipulation – in other words, an expert, like me.
How you can help me
I hope that you have enjoyed reading this week’s blog post and the many others available on this website. If you have, then I would like to ask you a favour – in a world in which large and non-specialist law firms (generally from a personal injury background) are increasingly throwing huge marketing budgets into online advertising in order to ‘capture’ Actions Against the Police clients – I need your help to ensure that those in need of real expert advice come to the best place for representation. If you value the insights and expertise which I share on this blog, and the results which I have achieved for the people whose stories are recounted here, please post a positive review on Trustpilot to get the word out. Every 5 star review I receive makes a big difference in helping those who need the right advice to come to the right place. Thank you!
You must be logged in to post a comment.