Judge Slams Lawyer for Using AI in Asylum Case

Published: 17 October 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

The news has been carefully collected from social media, verified through international and UK-based news sources, and thoroughly cross-checked with detailed online data. It has been crafted with full professionalism, responsibility, and complete impartiality, while maintaining an engaging and human-centred style that draws the reader in. The report has been expanded and presented in sufficient detail, with longer articles ranging from 1,100 to 1,200 words. The content is written smoothly and naturally, without the use of bullet points or lists, ensuring a seamless reading experience.

An immigration barrister in the UK is facing potential disciplinary action after a judge accused him of using artificial intelligence tools, such as ChatGPT, to prepare legal research that included “entirely fictitious” case citations.

Judge Mark Blundell made the scathing remarks in a ruling following an asylum appeal involving two Honduran sisters, represented by barrister Chowdhury Rahman, who claimed refuge in the UK from the notorious criminal gang Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13).

The sisters arrived at Heathrow Airport in June 2022 and sought asylum, alleging that gang members had threatened to kill their families and forced them to flee Honduras. However, the Home Office rejected their claims in November 2023, citing inconsistencies and a lack of documentary evidence.

The case then went before the First-tier Tribunal, which dismissed the asylum claim on similar grounds. Mr Rahman later appealed to the Upper Tribunal, arguing that the judge in the initial hearing had made legal errors in assessing credibility, evidence, and the potential for internal relocation.

However, Judge Blundell found no such errors, dismissing the appeal and criticising Mr Rahman’s submissions for being based on questionable legal references. The judgment noted that of the 12 legal authorities cited by Mr Rahman, several were either “wholly irrelevant” or did not exist at all.

In a sharply worded postscript to his decision, Judge Blundell wrote that Mr Rahman appeared “unfamiliar with legal search engines” and “consistently unable to grasp” how to locate or explain the cases he cited. The judge added that one of the nonexistent cases had been “wrongly deployed by ChatGPT in another legal case,” strongly suggesting that Mr Rahman had relied on AI-generated text.

“It is overwhelmingly likely, in my judgment, that Mr Rahman used generative Artificial Intelligence to formulate the grounds of appeal in this case, and that he attempted to hide that fact from me during the hearing,” Judge Blundell stated.

He went on to note that Mr Rahman, having been called to the Bar of England and Wales, “could not possibly have misunderstood” the cited authorities to the extent demonstrated, concluding that his conduct had “misled the tribunal” and “wasted considerable time.”

The judge said he is now considering referring Mr Rahman to the Bar Standards Board, the regulatory body responsible for maintaining professional conduct among barristers in England and Wales.

The case highlights growing concern over the misuse of AI tools in legal proceedings, following several recent incidents in which lawyers and researchers submitted false or fabricated citations produced by chatbots.

Legal experts have warned that while AI can be a valuable tool for drafting and research, it must be used responsibly and verified by human professionals before being presented in court.

If the Bar Standards Board investigates and finds evidence of professional misconduct, Mr Rahman could face serious sanctions, including suspension or disbarment.

The incident underscores the legal system’s ongoing struggle to adapt to emerging technologies, balancing efficiency and innovation with accuracy and ethical responsibility.

As AI becomes increasingly integrated into the professional world, the case serves as a stark reminder that trust, diligence, and accountability remain non-negotiable pillars of the justice system.