HomeCasesThe King (on the application of Sergio Graft) v Willesden County Court

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.

Corpus matter record

The King (on the application of Sergio Graft) v Willesden County Court

Administrative Court · Sep 22, 2026

GB Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations administrative trial None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | The claimant cited three cases whose supplied citation references could not be located in the usual online legal resources. The judge stated that they might be products of AI hallucinations but did not definitively determine that they were fabricated.

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 Administrative Court. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Administrative Court. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtAdministrative Court

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateSep 22, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

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 claimant cited three cases whose supplied citation references could not be located in the usual online legal resources. The judge stated that they might be products of AI hallucinations but did not definitively determine that they were fabricated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in The King (on the application of Sergio Graft) v Willesden County Court?: Fabricated: Case Law | The claimant cited three cases whose supplied citation references could not be located in the usual online legal resources. The judge stated that they might be products of AI hallucinations but did not definitively determine that they were fabricated.
Why does The King (on the application of Sergio Graft) v Willesden County Court matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in Administrative Court. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about The King (on the application of Sergio Graft) v Willesden County Court?: 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 The King (on the application of Sergio Graft) v Willesden County Court 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.

Bucher v. Appeals CommitteeAdministrative Court · Jul 2, 2025same court · fake citations + administrative In the Matter of Gary Brown, Jr.AC Maryland · Oct 8, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Miller v. Colorado Department of RevenueD. Colorado · Sep 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Lo v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS4555Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia · Sep 23, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)II SAB/Po 175/26WSA w Poznaniu · Sep 16, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Matter of H2L Solutions, Inc.GAO · Sep 14, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Corpus snapshot checked Oct 9, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Oct 9, 2026; latest tracked decision Oct 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open Administrative Court profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology