The Divisional Court (Rt Hon. Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Johnson) has this morning handed down its judgment in R (Ayinde) v London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin).
This follows a hearing on 23rd May which focussed on whether the Court wished to initiate contempt proceedings following the reliance on ‘fake’ case law in a recent judicial review claim.
Comment on behalf of party to proceedings Haringey Law Centre
Emily Carter and Sahil Kher in Kingsley Napley’s Public Law Team were pleased to act for Haringey Law Centre on a pro bono basis in these proceedings, and are making the following comment on their behalf:
"The Law Centre and the individuals concerned fully understand the seriousness of the issues that have arisen, and made full and unconditional apologies to the Court. They are reassured that the Court has found there was no basis to suggest that the Law Centre or its senior solicitor had deliberately caused false material to be put before the Court. The Law Centre paralegal – referred to as a solicitor in the original judgment – was found to be “not at fault in any way”.
The Court also noted that the Law Centre is a charity operating with limited resources and providing a valuable service to vulnerable members of society. That said, there are important lessons to be learned for the Law Centre, and they acknowledge the Court’s observation that they need to ensure that professional standards are maintained in all they do, and that they should instruct those who adhere to them.
The Law Centre has already taken proactive measures to ensure this regrettable situation is not repeated, and intend to take further steps (including organising training and consulting any relevant guidance).”
Wider implications
The judgment goes beyond the specific facts of the case, and directly confronts the risks of using AI (including by reference in an appendix to cases from around the world).
“The judgment also deals with the emerging risks associated with the use of AI, and the Court’s conclusions are very likely to have wider implications for lawyers in their day-to-day practice and prompt further steps from regulators,“ Sahil Kher comments.
There are a number of notable observations from the Court:
- First, those who use artificial intelligence to conduct any research have a professional duty to check the accuracy of such research against authoritative sources before using it in their professional work. The Court suggests that this is not just the responsibility of those originally producing the work, but also on those who “rely on the work of others who have [used AI]”.
- Second, law firm leaders and heads of chambers have an active duty to put in place “practical and effective measures” to ensure that every individual currently providing legal services in England and Wales understands and complies with their professional and ethical obligations and their duties to the court if using AI. Whether or not these leadership responsibilities have been fulfilled is something the Court will scrutinise in future cases.
- Further, the Court identified some guidance issued by the regulators around the use of AI in the legal profession, but stressed that “promulgating such guidance on its own is insufficient to address the misuse of artificial intelligence.” The Court highlighted that more needs to be done to ensure that the guidance is followed and lawyers comply with their duties to the court. Accordingly, the Court has invited the Bar Council, Law Society and the Inns of Court to consider as a matter of urgency what further steps they should now take in the light of this judgment.
Haringey Law Centre instructed partner Emily Carter, senior associate Sahil Kher and trainee Caitlin Comins at Kingsley Napley LLP along with Andrew Edge from 11KBW (with further advice from Richard Leiper KC).
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print