Category Uncategorized

"I have not set out the names of the cases which appear to me to be likely to be hallucinations because this decision will be published online on the Tribunals Decisions website. The inclusion of cases which are, or may be, fake may perpetuate the loop of such cases being cited by AI if this decision is scraped by a Large Language Model."

“A judgment must reflect the Judge’s considered view, rather than the output of a process that lacks transparency and in which the genesis of the conclusion remains concealed or obscure. Judicial authority must remain human, accountable and transparent.”
Opperman J, F.J.L v T.G.O (2025/220239) [2026] ZAGPJHC 875 at [65].

“We began this judgment by indicating that it raised issues about the use of AI. More and more people are using AI for all manner of things: to answer everyday questions, to apply for jobs or prepare for interviews, to do research in many areas, including the law. The coaching of witnesses in their evidence, by any means, is not permitted. All witnesses, whether for the prosecution or defence, should be firmly discouraged from resorting to the use of AI to prepare for giving evidence. Doing so could run the risk of unfairness up to the point, in an extreme case, where the court may have to consider excluding evidence..."

"...I have accepted the apology given on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service and the assurance that there was no attempt to mislead. I have noted the steps taken to ensure that there is no repetition but considered that it was necessary to set out what had taken place in this judgment given the serious consequences that an error of this nature might have had in other circumstances. It would be naive to assume that there will not be an increasing use of artificial intelligence in legal work in future; indeed, that may be both necessary and beneficial. The episode highlights the risks of its use without appropriate oversight particularly for legal research."

"…one of our primary concerns as judges is to ensure that AI generated documents reflect rather than suggest a party's case and evidence." Employment Judge Tynan

"...With regard to this part of the evidence, I note that my assessment must be conducted based on how the average consumer would pronounce the marks. Thus, I find that the AI-derived evidence does not have any probative value for my assessment. I will not further refer to this part of the evidence."

"...What is remarkable when reading those chats is, first, that one would think that the text attributed to the AI was produced by an intelligent human being. The second remarkable thing is that, on a large number of occasions, it is plainly wrong or, at the very least, extremely misleading."

"While litigants in person in the FTT are (entirely appropriately) given a greater degree of latitude in their conduct of the proceedings than represented parties, no person has immunity from sanction when committing a serious breach of court or tribunal rules..."

"There was no good reason for either the Defendant or [redacted] to use ChatGPT in this case. Both struck me as sophisticated people... Both the Defendant and [redacted] are sufficiently technically adept to have used ChatGPT. They must have been able to use the spelling and grammar checking facility in Word (which the Defendant used to prepare his first draft) and in whatever word processing programme [redacted] used to prepare her first draft."

"207. The Commission emphasises that the world has seen the rapid development of artificial intelligence very recently with risks that, unless constrained by domestic and international law, States may use digital technologies to suppress dissent. In the domestic context, the uses to which LFR may be put, and the technology which supports it, will doubtless evolve but this claim is concerned with the terms of the Policy under challenge and (as we have said) its lawfulness now. We see no reason to take a different approach to Bridges."