Reform UK candidate fined £19,000 after using AI-generated

Published: 21 October 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

A Reform UK candidate has been handed a £19,000 court bill after attempting to overturn her election defeat using legal references that were found to be fabricated by artificial intelligence. Liz Williams, a candidate in Worcestershire, lost a tightly contested local election to Green Party rival Hannah Robson after the vote ended in a dramatic dead heat, ultimately decided by a random ballot. Her attempt to challenge the result in the High Court collapsed amid findings that the legal authorities she cited did not exist.

The Littletons ward in Worcestershire, comprising three small villages, saw one of the most unusual electoral outcomes in recent memory. Both Williams and Robson received exactly 889 votes in May, prompting an unprecedented method of determining the winner: two used ballot papers were placed into a box, and Robson’s name was drawn by the deputy returning officer. While the process was legally permitted, Williams argued that the method was irregular and unfair, claiming that it lacked transparency and did not allow for independent legal observation.

Following the result, Williams launched a High Court petition to challenge the election outcome. Her petition cited what she described as irregularities at the Pershore Leisure Centre polling station and questioned the integrity of the random selection process. “The declared result was determined only by folding and placing two used election ballot papers into a ballot box, and the deputy returning officer pulling one out,” Williams said in her petition. She argued that the procedure was “not carried out in accordance with due process of law, open to fraud and corruption” and claimed that she was pressured into accepting the process without proper legal guidance.

Williams also raised concerns about alleged obstructions during the counting process, stating she was unable to witness the preparation of the ballot box or ensure that the selection was carried out fairly. She claimed she did not agree to a third party shuffling the papers and that the returning officer should have been the only person handling the ballots. In addition, she cited instances of alleged campaigning on polling station grounds as evidence of irregularities, though no independent observers confirmed these claims.

Her petition, however, faced a major legal obstacle. The Representation of the People Act 1983 stipulates that any challenge to an election must be filed within 21 days. Williams’ petition was submitted a day past the statutory deadline. She contended that the countdown should have begun when the winner was declared, not when voting took place, but the court rejected this interpretation, noting that the law was clear and time limits are strictly enforced to preserve electoral integrity.

Adding to the unusual nature of the case, Williams’ petition relied on legal authorities that were later determined to be non-existent. She cited two cases: R v Hackney ex parte Sidebothem 1912, and The Mayor of Tower Hamlets v Electoral Commission 2015. The barrister representing the returning officers, Timothy Straker KC, reported that no record of these cases could be found in legal archives, online databases, or official records.

Mr Justice Martin Spencer noted that one of the cases supposedly dated back to before the First World War and concluded that the citations appeared to have been fabricated. “It appears it may have been an invention, indeed a hallucination, of AI,” the judge said. Despite the irregularities in the legal references, he stated he would not personally criticise Williams but emphasised that the court had no discretion to extend the statutory deadline for filing election petitions.

Williams’ attempt to overturn her defeat also involved a broader critique of the electoral process. She argued that the method of drawing a ballot paper to decide the winner was inherently flawed and left the election susceptible to manipulation. While her claims captured public interest due to the unusual circumstances, the court ruled that the statutory procedures were followed correctly and dismissed her case.

Following the dismissal, the judge ordered Williams to pay £19,000 in legal costs to the returning officers. Williams described the ruling as devastating, stating it left her feeling “oppressed and silenced” and warned that the financial burden would “destroy my life.”

Although rare, tied elections in UK local councils are not unprecedented. In Blyth, Northumberland, in 2007, a council seat was decided by drawing straws after a tie, while in Yorkshire in 2022, candidates initially proposed deciding the result with a game of poker before defaulting to drawing straws. These methods, though unusual, are legally sanctioned and intended to provide a quick, impartial resolution when elections result in dead heats.

The court’s rejection of Williams’ petition highlights the growing debate around the use of AI in legal proceedings. While artificial intelligence tools can assist in legal research, experts warn that reliance on unverified AI-generated content can have serious consequences. In Williams’ case, the purported “hallucinated” cases undermined her credibility and contributed to the dismissal of her petition. Legal commentators have expressed concern that AI-generated references could become more common in litigation, underscoring the importance of verification and due diligence.

Williams’ case has sparked wider discussion about the fairness and accessibility of election challenges. While her use of AI-generated legal authorities may have been misguided, her broader concerns about transparency in the random ballot process have drawn sympathy from some quarters. Advocates for electoral reform argue that clearer guidance and oversight in tie-breaking procedures could prevent disputes and ensure confidence in local democracy.

Robson, the Green Party winner, has largely remained silent on the legal dispute. However, her campaign emphasised that the electoral process was conducted according to established law and that she won her seat fairly. Local residents, meanwhile, expressed both amusement and frustration at the unusual circumstances, noting that the tie and subsequent legal battle drew national attention to a small rural election.

The case also raises questions about the potential consequences of relying on AI without human verification in high-stakes situations. While AI tools are increasingly integrated into research, drafting, and analysis, courts expect litigants and their lawyers to verify sources and ensure that references are accurate. In this instance, the use of AI-generated or fabricated legal authorities proved costly and detrimental to Williams’ credibility, ultimately costing her both the legal case and significant financial damages.

Legal experts suggest that this case may serve as a cautionary tale for future candidates, particularly in local elections where margins can be extremely narrow. They emphasise that adherence to statutory deadlines and reliance on verified sources remain fundamental to legal challenges in the electoral system.

In conclusion, Liz Williams’ attempt to overturn her defeat in the Worcestershire county election illustrates the intersection of technology, law, and democracy in modern UK politics. While her claims about the election process and transparency sparked debate, the use of AI-generated legal authorities and the failure to meet the statutory filing deadline ultimately led to the dismissal of her case and a £19,000 cost order. This unusual episode serves as a reminder of both the rigidity of electoral law and the importance of verifying legal references before seeking judicial intervention.