British Police Officer Accused Of Using AI To Fabricate Evidence In Multiple Cases

A British police officer is under criminal investigation for allegedly using artificial intelligence (AI) to “create evidential material in a number of cases” and preventing the course of justice. In a first-of-its-kind case in the K, the unnamed cop has also been removed from front-line duties, pending the outcome of the investigation.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said it was "engaging with" defence teams and courts which may have been affected by the alleged conduct.

"We are engaging with defence teams and the courts in appropriate cases," a CPS spokesperson was quoted as saying by the BBC. "As police inquiries continue, it would not be appropriate to comment further."

Meanwhile, Derbyshire Police said it was working in coordination with the CPS to see the case through.

"A criminal investigation has been launched into an allegation of perverting the course of justice after the alleged use of AI systems by an officer to create evidential material in a number of cases," Derbyshire Police said in a statement.

"The force is working closely with the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to any potentially impacted cases, however, the investigation is in its early stages, so no further details are available."

Also Read | Ukrainian Woman Claims Indian Cinemas Blew Her Mind Compared To European Theatres: 'Not Even a Competition'

Lawyers Use AI

Earlier this month, a federal judge in the US state of Mississippi cancelled a civil trial and disqualified four attorneys after discovering both legal teams relied on AI to write their briefs. The court filings contained AI-generated research, which included fake legal citations, prompting the judge to kick off the lawyers and issue financial penalties.

Judge Sharion Aycock stated that the four lawyers had violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when they certified that the information in their filings was factual.

"This case presents the Court with an unusual scenario, attorneys for both litigants engaged in similar sanctionable conduct," Aycock wrote in a sanctions order. "This court is yet again 'burdened with addressing AI hallucinations court filings.'"

"In an era of rampant unverified AI usage within the legal field, this case presents a prime example of the risk associated with serving as a rubber stamp when acting as local counsel," the judge added.