Mr Justice Ritchie said the lawyers involved in Ayinde, R v The London Borough of Haringey had engaged in “appalling professional misbehaviour” and sought to mislead the court. He ordered that his judgment be sent to the Bar Standards Board and the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

The citations appeared in written submissions prepared by barrister Sarah Forey of 3 Bolt Court Chambers, who was instructed by Haringey Law Centre. The defendant pointed out that none of the five cited cases existed.

The court heard that solicitor Sunnelah Hussain later responded in writing to suggest the citations were merely “cosmetic errors” that did not require explanation. Mr Justice Ritchie described this claim as “remarkable”, adding that it was neither professional, reasonable nor fair to dismiss the matter in such terms. He described her comment as a “grossly unprofessional categorisation”.

The judge noted that the defendant had requested copies of the cited authorities but received none, and subsequently applied for a wasted costs order on the basis that the cases had been fabricated.

Ms Forey told the court she maintained a box of case reports and had inadvertently inserted the wrong one into the submission. The judge rejected this explanation, finding as fact that the cases were fictitious. Ms Forey initially described the problem as “minor citation errors”, but later conceded the seriousness of the issue after judicial intervention.

Counsel for the defendant suggested that the false authorities may have been generated using AI – a possibility the judge acknowledged but said he could not determine, as Ms Forey was not cross-examined.

He concluded: “Ms Forey put a completely fake case in her submissions. That much was admitted. It is such a professional shame. The submission was a good one. The medical evidence was strong. The ground was potentially good. Why put a fake case in?”

Among the fabricated authorities was one purportedly from the Court of Appeal. Mr Justice Ritchie said he had “substantial difficulty with members of the bar who put fake cases in statements of facts and grounds”.

He found that the conduct of both Ms Forey and the instructing solicitors was improper, unreasonable and negligent, stating: “I should say it is the responsibility of the legal team, including the solicitors, to see that the statement of facts and grounds are correct.

“They should have been shocked when they were told that the citations did not exist. Ms Forey should have reported herself to the Bar Council. I think also that the solicitors should have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I consider that providing a fake description of five fake cases, including a Court of Appeal case, qualifies quite clearly as professional misconduct.”

Although the underlying judicial review was ultimately successful and costs were awarded to the claimant, the sum was reduced by £7,000 to reflect the lawyers’ conduct.