Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Crypto Open Patent Alliance v. Wright (1)
High Court · Dec 6, 2024
GBEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
False Quotes: Case Law | Authorities cited by Dr Wright for vulnerable-witness adjustments did not contain the passages he attributed to them; COPA flagged this and the Court did not engage further. Outcome: No formal sanction; fabricated citations disregarded.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is No formal sanction; fabricated citations disregarded; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Doubling down on fake citations in appeal papers turns a litigation loss into a GBP 100K costs order.
Why this matter is tracked
False Quotes: Case Law | Authorities cited by Dr Wright for vulnerable-witness adjustments did not contain the passages he attributed to them; COPA flagged this and the Court did not engage further. Outcome: No formal sanction; fabricated citations disregarded.
AI Use
Dr. Wright, representing himself, submitted numerous case citations in support of an application for remote attendance at an upcoming contempt hearing. COPA demonstrated that most of the authorities cited did not contain the quoted language—or were entirely unrelated. The judge agreed, noting these were likely "AI hallucinations by ChatGPT."Later on, the Court of Appeal declined permission to appeal (finding that "Dr Wright’s grounds of appeal, skeleton argument and summary of skeleton argument themselves contain multiple falsehoods, including reliance upon fictitious authorities such as “Anderson v the Queen [2013] UKPC 2” which appear to be AI-generated hallucinations"). This led the Court to order him to pay costs of 100,000 GBP.
Operational lesson
Doubling down on fake citations in appeal papers turns a litigation loss into a GBP 100K costs order.
Record details
CourtHigh Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateDec 6, 2024
UN
AI toolUnknown
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeNo formal sanction; fabricated citations disregarded
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
Unknown is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
No formal sanction; fabricated citations disregarded
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Authorities cited by Dr Wright for vulnerable-witness adjustments did not contain the passages he attributed to them; COPA flagged this and the Court did not engage further.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Many of Dr Wright’s cited authorities on vulnerable-witness adjustments were likely made-up references (AI “hallucinations”) rather than genuine sources.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Dr Wright misrepresented cited authorities as supporting vulnerable-witness adjustments when most had nothing to do with that topic.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Allegation that the Court did not allow him to write notes during cross‑examination at the Identity Trial; transcript showed he did take notes.
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Assertion that two bodyguards (allegedly costing up to £50k/day paid by nChain) ensured his safety at the Identity Trial; Court viewed this as likely pure invention.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Crypto Open Patent Alliance v. Wright (1)?
- False Quotes: Case Law | Authorities cited by Dr Wright for vulnerable-witness adjustments did not contain the passages he attributed to them; COPA flagged this and the Court did not engage further. Outcome: No formal sanction; fabricated citations disregarded.
- Why does Crypto Open Patent Alliance v. Wright (1) matter for legal AI risk?
- Doubling down on fake citations in appeal papers turns a litigation loss into a GBP 100K costs order.
- What does the public record establish about Crypto Open Patent Alliance v. Wright (1)?
- 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.
- Which source supports this Crypto Open Patent Alliance v. Wright (1) summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.