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.
UK and R (Munir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
Upper Tribunal · Nov 17, 2025
GBEditorial impact: highfake citationsmisrepresented authoritybar referralimmigration
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | A non-existent case 'Horleston' was included in the grounds; the Tribunal found no reported case and demonstrated that Google AI can fabricate bench details—solicitor concluded it was probably AI-generated. Outcome: Bar Referral.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | A non-existent case 'Horleston' was included in the grounds; the Tribunal found no reported case and demonstrated that Google AI can fabricate bench details—solicitor concluded it was probably AI-generated. || Misrepresented: Case Law | R (Dzineku-Liggison) v SSHD was cited with a High Court citation that does not exist; the correct authority is an Upper Tribunal decision. || Misrepresented: Case Law | A decision labelled 'Patel (mandatory refusal – fairness)' was cited as a Court of Appeal decision though the correct report is an Upper Tribunal decision. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Muhandiramge was cited with an Administrative Court citation that the Panel could not locate; the relevant reported decision is an Upper Tribunal decision with a different date and citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | A case referred to as OE (Nigeria) with citation [2010] UKUT 35 (IAC) could not be found; the matter appears to correspond to a differently titled Upper Tribunal decision.
- Why it matters now
- Never rely on Google AI Overviews for case citations; verify every authority against the official tribunal reporter before filing.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | A non-existent case 'Horleston' was included in the grounds; the Tribunal found no reported case and demonstrated that Google AI can fabricate bench details—solicitor concluded it was probably AI-generated. Outcome: Bar Referral.
Operational lesson
Never rely on Google AI Overviews for case citations; verify every authority against the official tribunal reporter before filing.
Record details
CourtUpper Tribunal
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateNov 17, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeBar Referral
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionYes
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
Bar Referral
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | A non-existent case 'Horleston' was included in the grounds; the Tribunal found no reported case and demonstrated that Google AI can fabricate bench details—solicitor concluded it was probably AI-generated.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | R (Dzineku-Liggison) v SSHD was cited with a High Court citation that does not exist; the correct authority is an Upper Tribunal decision.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | A decision labelled 'Patel (mandatory refusal – fairness)' was cited as a Court of Appeal decision though the correct report is an Upper Tribunal decision.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Muhandiramge was cited with an Administrative Court citation that the Panel could not locate; the relevant reported decision is an Upper Tribunal decision with a different date and citation.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | A case referred to as OE (Nigeria) with citation [2010] UKUT 35 (IAC) could not be found; the matter appears to correspond to a differently titled Upper Tribunal decision.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in UK and R (Munir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department?
- Fabricated: Case Law | A non-existent case 'Horleston' was included in the grounds; the Tribunal found no reported case and demonstrated that Google AI can fabricate bench details—solicitor concluded it was probably AI-generated. Outcome: Bar Referral.
- Why does UK and R (Munir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department matter for legal AI risk?
- Never rely on Google AI Overviews for case citations; verify every authority against the official tribunal reporter before filing.
- What does the public record establish about UK and R (Munir) v Secretary of State for the Home Department?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this UK and R (Munir) 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.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.