A rape trial collapsed after a witness used AI to prepare for court, and the Court of Appeal says this won't be the last time it happens

[Diane82]

The Court of Appeal's criminal division has called for police, prosecutors and the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee to formally address and regulate the use of AI in criminal proceedings, after overturning a ruling that had stayed a rape trial at Lewes Crown Court. The case, Rex v FGD, arose after the sole prosecution witness was found to have used AI on their phone to help prepare for the hearing, generating a summary of their recollection of events followed by a series of practice cross-examination questions with suggested answers. The original trial judge, Recorder Hay, ruled this amounted to impermissible witness coaching and stayed the proceedings as an abuse of process

The Court of Appeal, comprising Lady Justice May, Mr Justice Griffiths and His Honour Judge Picton, allowed the prosecution's appeal and reversed that ruling, ordering a retrial to be listed at the earliest opportunity. Lady Justice May said the court would have wanted to understand why the original judge concluded a fair trial was impossible, when questions about the witness's reliability and credibility could arguably have been safely left for the jury to weigh rather than treated as grounds to halt the entire case. The judges explicitly stated this case is unlikely to be an isolated example, given how widely available AI chatbots have become

This ruling adds to a growing body of UK case law grappling with AI's role in the justice system, spanning both witnesses using AI to prepare testimony and legal professionals citing entirely fictitious cases generated by AI tools. A separate Civil Justice Council consultation is already examining proportionate transparency requirements for AI use in witness statements, and courts have previously found litigants in person using AI chatbots for legal guidance without any way to independently verify whether the information those tools provided was actually accurate. With no existing statutory regulation specifically governing AI use in criminal proceedings, this case puts renewed pressure on the relevant bodies to establish clear rules before the problem becomes even more widespread

Court of Appeal calls for AI regulation in criminal proceedings after trial collapseswww.lawgazette.co.uk

[Electric Holly]

The distinction between genuine witness coaching and someone just using a modern tool to organize their own memories before testifying is a hard line to draw, and this case shows even judges are still working out where it sits

[Seb93]

Lady Justice May's point about leaving credibility questions to the jury rather than automatically treating AI prep as disqualifying is a sensible instinct, juries assess witness reliability constantly without every preparation method triggering a mistrial

[Vanessa26]

This case being explicitly called unlikely to be an isolated example is the real headline here, the courts are bracing for this to become a routine issue rather than a rare curiosity

[QuantumLeap11]

No existing statutory regulation for AI in criminal proceedings despite how widespread chatbot use already is feels like a legitimate gap that needed addressing well before this specific case forced the issue

[BigDog92]

This is a good example of the justice system having to catch up in real time to a technology that ordinary people are already using constantly in their daily lives, without any clear guidance yet on what's actually appropriate in a legal context

[Tiger]

The practice cross-examination questions with suggested answers detail is what actually makes this case murkier than simple note taking, that does start to resemble coaching more than pure preparation

[Arty Kayla]

Worth remembering AI being widely available to ordinary witnesses, not just legal professionals, is what makes this different from the fabricated citation cases, this touches far more people who will never consult a lawyer before their court date

[Wolfhound44]

The Civil Justice Council's ongoing consultation on witness statement transparency feels like exactly the right venue to actually settle this kind of question with proper input rather than each individual case setting precedent piecemeal

[Whale]

This connects to a broader pattern of UK courts wrestling with AI across multiple contexts simultaneously, fabricated legal citations, unreliable chatbot advice for litigants in person, and now witness preparation methods all landing in courtrooms around the same time

[Storm52]

Good that the retrial was ordered rather than letting the stay stand, an entire case collapsing over an unresolved, novel legal question about acceptable witness preparation methods would have been an unsatisfying outcome