ANPV & SAPV v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Upper Tribunal · Sep 29, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Upper Tribunal
- Record ID
- anpv-sapv-v-secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-2025-09-29
- Observed outcome
- The court issued a Show Cause order requiring counsel to explain why his conduct should not be referred to the Bar Standards Board.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Upper Tribunal issued a Show Cause order against counsel for submitting grounds of appeal containing fabricated and misrepresented legal authorities generated via Microsoft Copilot. The judge found that counsel failed to verify the existence or relevance of cited cases and attempted to mislead the tribunal, necessitating a formal explanation regarding potential referral to the Bar Standards Board.
The judge reasoned that the consistent pattern of citing non-existent or irrelevant cases, combined with counsel's inability to locate or explain the authorities, indicated a reliance on generative AI without verification. The judge rejected counsel's suggestion that the AI tool itself misrepresented the cases, noting that the tool provided accurate summaries when tested by the court. The judge determined that the conduct was a serious attempt to mislead the tribunal, warranting a Show Cause order.
Copilot is now generating fake country-guidance authorities; immigration counsel must re-check every CG reference.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- Misrepresented Legal Authority
- Failure To Verify AI Output
- Citation Mismatch
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Microsoft Copilot
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Upper Tribunal appeal hearing; Show Cause order issued.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Counsel admitted to using Microsoft Copilot for research.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Independently verify the existence and content of every legal authority cited in AI-generated drafts.
- Ensure all citations match the official law reports and support the specific legal propositions asserted.
- Maintain direct control over research processes and avoid reliance on AI summaries for case law analysis.
- Review the tribunal's findings on counsel's duty of candor when using AI tools in submissions.