The King v Director of Public Prosecutions
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.
High Court of Justice · Oct 29, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | The CPS decision record cited a non-existent authority three times. The court confirmed that R v J [2024] EWCA Crim 3529 did not exist; the prosecutor said the intended authority was R v JTB [2009] UKHL 20. The court held that the error did not affect the result because the challenged propositions were either non-controversial or correct.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and administrative 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 fake citations and administrative with a recorded judicial or procedural response in High Court of Justice. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | The CPS decision record cited a non-existent authority three times. The court confirmed that R v J [2024] EWCA Crim 3529 did not exist; the prosecutor said the intended authority was R v JTB [2009] UKHL 20. The court held that the error did not affect the result because the challenged propositions were either non-controversial or correct.
This matter connects fake citations and administrative with a recorded judicial or procedural response in High Court of Justice. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
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 CPS decision record cited a non-existent authority three times. The court confirmed that R v J [2024] EWCA Crim 3529 did not exist; the prosecutor said the intended authority was R v JTB [2009] UKHL 20. The court held that the error did not affect the result because the challenged propositions were either non-controversial or correct.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in The King v Director of Public Prosecutions?
- Fabricated: Case Law | The CPS decision record cited a non-existent authority three times. The court confirmed that R v J [2024] EWCA Crim 3529 did not exist; the prosecutor said the intended authority was R v JTB [2009] UKHL 20. The court held that the error did not affect the result because the challenged propositions were either non-controversial or correct.
- Why does The King v Director of Public Prosecutions matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and administrative with a recorded judicial or procedural response in High Court of Justice. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about The King v Director of Public Prosecutions?
- 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 v Director of Public Prosecutions 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.