AI Regulation Tracker / Court ruling
UK court warns the CPS after it cited two non-existent authorities, attributed to AI, in an extradition appeal
In Tobosaru and Tofan v Romania, decided on July 8, 2026, the England and Wales High Court found that the Crown Prosecution Service had cited two authorities that do not exist. The CPS attributed the error to AI. The court issued a warning and declined to impose any sanction.
A court that finds fabricated citations in front of it has a range of responses available, from a plain warning through to referral or a finding of contempt. Here the England and Wales High Court chose the mildest end of that range. In Tobosaru and Tofan v Romania, an extradition appeal decided on July 8, 2026, the court found that the CPS submissions contained two authorities that do not exist. The CPS acknowledged the citations, attributed the error to AI, and accepted that the reviewing lawyer had not verified the references before filing. The court accepted the apology, recorded the remedial steps, and set the episode out as a warning rather than a punishment.
What the court actually found
The court found that two case citations relied on in the submissions did not correspond to real judgments. The errors surfaced before the hearing, so they did not affect the argument or the court's decision. The CPS acknowledged citing the two non-existent authorities, attributed them to the use of AI, and accepted that the lawyer reviewing the submission had not checked their accuracy before it was filed. On the record before it, the court accepted the apology given for the CPS and the assurance that no one had tried to mislead it.
The judgment then delivered its warning in measured terms. As the court put it: "It would be naive to assume that there will not be an increasing use of artificial intelligence in legal work in future." The same passage adds that such use may be necessary and beneficial, and that the episode "highlights the risks of its use without appropriate oversight particularly for legal research." That framing matters. The court is not against AI in legal work. It is against filing what a tool produces without checking it.
A warning, not a sanction
This is the part to be precise about. The court declined to impose any sanction. There was no finding of contempt, no referral, and no penalty. The judgment does not name or fault any individual lawyer as personally responsible, and nothing in it should be read as discipline against a named person. The court's stated reason for setting the matter out at all was the serious consequences an error of this kind could have had in other circumstances, where a fabricated authority might slip through and shape an outcome. The signal is aimed at the profession, not at one advocate.
Not the same case as the earlier CPS matter
This tracker already covers a separate CPS incident, the Sweeting case, and the two should not be run together. That earlier entry involves different parties, a different judgment, and a different date. Tobosaru and Tofan v Romania is its own extradition appeal, decided on July 8, 2026, with its own facts. If you are citing either, cite the specific judgment. Two CPS episodes in the same tracker is itself a data point about how often this is now surfacing, but they are distinct decisions and should be described as such.
Why a US professional should track this
The rule underneath this is not uniquely British. Every US attorney carries a non-delegable duty to verify the authorities they put before a court, and that duty does not transfer to a model. A generative tool can invent a citation that looks real, complete with a plausible reporter reference, and the only thing standing between that invention and a filing is a human check. US courts have already sanctioned lawyers for exactly this, so the English warning reads less as foreign news and more as the same lesson from another bench.
The practical takeaway is a workflow one. If your practice uses AI for research or drafting, the verification step is not optional and it cannot be delegated to the tool that produced the text. Confirm that every authority exists, says what the draft claims, and remains good law, before anything is filed. The court here was lenient. The next bench, in the next case, may not be.
Questions professionals are asking
Was anyone sanctioned in this case?
No. The court issued a warning and declined to impose any sanction. There was no finding of contempt, no referral, and no penalty, and the judgment does not name or fault any individual lawyer as personally responsible.
Is this the same as the earlier CPS AI-citation case?
No. This tracker separately covers the Sweeting CPS matter, which is a different judgment with different parties and a different date. Tobosaru and Tofan v Romania is its own extradition appeal, decided on July 8, 2026.
What does this mean for a US attorney using AI?
The underlying duty is the same on both sides of the Atlantic. You must verify that every authority you cite actually exists and supports your point, before filing. That responsibility stays with the lawyer and cannot be handed to the AI tool that drafted the text.
RELATED BRIEFINGS
Browse the full AI Regulation News tracker
Informational analysis for working professionals, not legal advice. Confirm how any ruling applies to your situation with qualified counsel in the relevant jurisdiction.