Habbi Barry v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
Upper Tribunal (IAC) · Sep 4, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant cited a case that the Respondent and the Upper Tribunal could not identify. The appellant provided no explanation or corrected citation, and the tribunal noted that the citation appeared to be the product of an AI hallucination.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records a recorded judicial or procedural response. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Upper Tribunal (IAC). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant cited a case that the Respondent and the Upper Tribunal could not identify. The appellant provided no explanation or corrected citation, and the tribunal noted that the citation appeared to be the product of an AI hallucination.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Upper Tribunal (IAC). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant cited a case that the Respondent and the Upper Tribunal could not identify. The appellant provided no explanation or corrected citation, and the tribunal noted that the citation appeared to be the product of an AI hallucination.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Habbi Barry v Secretary of State for the Home Department?
- Fabricated: Case Law | The appellant cited a case that the Respondent and the Upper Tribunal could not identify. The appellant provided no explanation or corrected citation, and the tribunal noted that the citation appeared to be the product of an AI hallucination.
- Why does Habbi Barry v Secretary of State for the Home Department matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Upper Tribunal (IAC). It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Habbi Barry v Secretary of State for the Home Department?
- 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 Habbi Barry v Secretary of State for the Home Department 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.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.