Ad/Marketing Communication
This legal article/report forms part of my ongoing legal commentary on the use of artificial intelligence within the justice system. It supports my work in teaching, lecturing, and writing about AI and the law and is published to promote my practice. Not legal advice. Not Direct/Public Access. All instructions via clerks at Doughty Street Chambers. This legal article concerns AI Law
On 6 December 2024, the Mr Justice Mellor handed down Judgment in Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Dr. Craig Steven Wright Dr. Craig Steven Wright v BTC Core (a partnership), Square Up Europe Limited (a partner) [2024] EWHC 3135 (Ch). The Judgment contained a helpful summary on the case law regarding remote attendance at committal hearings a vulnerable witness and the express mention of hallucinations by ChatGPT was of particular interest.
Brief Facts
The claimant, Crypto Open Patent Alliance (COPA), alleged that Dr. Craig Wright breached an injunctive order by issuing new litigation despite a prior ruling preventing him from bringing certain claims. Dr Wright’s new claim sought extensive damages (claimed at £911 billion) and repeated arguments that he is “Satoshi Nakamoto,” the creator of Bitcoin, a proposition the Court had rejected at an earlier “Identity Trial.” The new action also named “BTC Core” (an alleged partnership) and Squareup Europe Limited, reprising issues it was said already resolved in earlier proceedings.
In addition, COPA brought a contempt of court application against Dr Wright, arguing that the New Claim fell squarely within the scope of an injunction restraining him from advancing such lawsuits. Dr. Wright appeared in person (remotely at preliminary stages) and asserted grounds relating to personal safety and his medical condition (Autism Spectrum Disorder) as reasons to attend future hearings by video link. The Court decided Mr Wright should attend in person and rejected allegations of apparent bias.
Remote attendance at committal hearings
From paragraph 14, the Court summarised some legal principles on remote attendance at committal (contempt) hearings for vulnerable parties which includes:
1. Strong Presumption of In-Person Attendance
- There is a strong default position that a person facing a committal application should attend court in person. Courts emphasise the seriousness of contempt proceedings and the need for public administration of justice (see Business Mortgage Finance 4 plc v Hussain [2022] EWHC 353 (Ch) and Mex Group Worldwide Ltd v Ford [2024] EWHC 1486 (KB)).
- CPR 81.7(2) allows the court to issue a bench warrant to compel personal attendance of the alleged contemnor, reinforcing the principle that committal matters should be heard in person.
2. Cross-Examination and Credibility
- Particularly in cases where the individual facing committal has already been found to be dishonest, the court is reluctant to permit remote attendance because assessment of demeanour and the risk of external interference (notes, coaching, etc.) are primary concerns (JSC BTA Bank v Zharimbetov [2014] EWHC 116 (Comm); Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings, Inc and Vik [2023] EWHC 2234 (Comm)).
3. Guidance on Video-Link Evidence
- Appendix Z to the Chancery Guide (Remote and Hybrid Hearings Protocol) and Annex 3 to CPR PD 32 (Video Conferencing Guidance) acknowledge that video-link evidence is not ideal. Courts should not allow convenience alone to justify remote attendance.
- Litigants must ensure the legal authorities in the foreign jurisdiction permit giving evidence by video link (for example, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office checks are required). Without this, the court may refuse remote evidence.
4. Adjustments for Vulnerable Parties
- Courts are obliged to ensure all litigants, including vulnerable witnesses or those with disabilities, can participate fairly. Nonetheless, expert evidence must demonstrate genuine need for special measures, such as remote attendance. In the judgment, ASD was considered but did not outweigh the public interest in having the alleged contemnor attend in person.
5. Balancing the In-Person Requirement with Individual Circumstances
- If compelling medical or security reasons exist, the court may consider alternatives. However, a party must present robust evidence of inability or genuine risk; mere assertion of threats or inconvenience typically will not override the presumption of personal appearance.
Chat GPT and AI Hallucinations
At paragraph 24, Mr Justice Mellor observed a peculiarity in some of the case citations:
“Dr Wright’s submission referred to a series of authorities in support of arguments that reasonable adjustments should be made to enable a vulnerable litigant or witness to participate fairly in court proceedings. As COPA pointed out by reference to a series of examples, most of the authorities he has cited do not contain the passages attributed to them (or anything like those passages), and indeed most have nothing to do with adjustments for vulnerable witnesses. COPA suggested that it seems likely that they are AI “hallucinations” by ChatGPT (i.e. made-up references) rather than deliberately misleading inventions by Dr Wright. However, since the principles are clear and not in doubt, as set out above, it is not necessary to engage with his false citations any further.
Comment
Mr Justice Mellor’s judgment provides a clear summary of the principles governing remote attendance at committal hearings, particularly in cases involving vulnerable litigants. His analysis reinforces the strong presumption in favour of in-person attendance, while also recognising the need for reasonable adjustments where justified. The judgment serves as a useful reference for future cases where remote evidence is sought in contempt proceedings, offering practical guidance on the legal and procedural considerations courts must weigh.
Anecdotally, it seems that AI hallucinations are increasingly appearing in legal correspondence and court documents. As AI-generated text becomes more prevalent in legal practice, the risk of fabricated citations, misattributed references, and entirely fictional case law must be taken seriously. While these errors may not always be intentional, they have the potential to mislead courts, disrupt proceedings, and undermine trust in AI-assisted legal research.
The judgment in Crypto Open Patent Alliance v Wright is a timely reminder that legal professionals must rigorously verify AI-generated references before relying on them in submissions. As AI tools become more sophisticated, the challenge will not just be identifying hallucinations but also ensuring accountability for their use in the legal process.
