[2025] UKUT 00305 (IAC)

We have considered the guidance provided by the Administrative Court in Ayinde in deciding what steps we should take following this Hamid hearing.

We do not consider that this is a case where there is evidence that there has been a deliberate placing of false material before the Tribunal with the intention that the Tribunal will treat it as genuine. This is because we find that Mr Rahman did not know that AI large language models, and ChatGPT in particular, were capable of producing false authorities. It follows that this is not a case where it would be appropriate to refer the matter for police investigation or to initiate contempt proceedings.

We do however conclude that this is a case where referral to a regulator, in this instance the BSB, is most definitely appropriate. At paragraph 29 of Ayinde it is clearly stated that where false citations are placed before the Court, because of the lack of proper checks or otherwise, that referral to a regulator is likely to be appropriate. Mr Rahman undoubtedly carried out no proper checks. In this respect what is said at paragraph 81 of Ayinde is also relevant: “A lawyer is not entitled to rely on their lay client for the accuracy of citations of authority or quotations that are contained in documents put before the court by the lawyer. It is a lawyer’s professional responsibility to ensure the accuracy of such material.” Mr Rahman did not ensure the accuracy of what was placed before the Upper Tribunal. We are also guided in making this referral by the factors listed at paragraph 24 of Ayinde. In particular we find a referral is appropriate so that proper standards are set to stop false material coming before the Tribunal, which, in this case, we find contributed to the grant of permission, and thus potentially to the wrongful prolonging of the litigation, and has led to considerable public expense in addressing it through this hearing. We also find that it is relevant to the making of this referral that there was no immediate, full and truthful explanation given by Mr Rahman when he was first challenged by the Panel, and in particular that his letter written on 24th June 2025 was, we find, a less than honest attempt to pretend that he had made a simple typographical error and had not relied upon ChatGPT to do research and thereby on a false citation.

We trust the BSB will consider this referral, along with our previous referral in relation to Mr Rahman, in a timely fashion due to the gravity of the matter raised.