Police officer ‘used AI to ensure suspects were charged’
TL;DR:
- A suspended Derbyshire officer allegedly used AI to generate paperwork that helped secure charges against suspects.
- Derbyshire Constabulary has launched a criminal investigation into perverting the course of justice and is reviewing affected cases with the CPS.
- The officer reportedly worked on rape cases and used AI to write victim impact statements designed to maximise effect.
A police officer suspended last week is alleged to have used an AI chatbot to produce case paperwork that ensured suspects were charged, in a case that lands awkwardly for a service rapidly expanding its use of the technology. Derbyshire Constabulary confirmed it is investigating an officer on suspicion of perverting the course of justice, with the Financial Times first reporting the detail of how the software was used.
What the officer is accused of
The unnamed officer, who had worked on a number of rape cases before being removed from frontline duties, reportedly asked AI to draft prosecutor briefings that would help bring charges and to write victim impact statements that heightened the apparent harm of the crime. One person familiar with events said the officer “used good-sounding words to make sure he gets the result”. The force says no arrests have been made and is working with the Crown Prosecution Service to identify any cases that may have been compromised.
The risk is sharpened by the nature of the tools involved. Generative AI is prone to fabricating details — so-called hallucinations — which is precisely the failure mode that makes machine-drafted evidence so dangerous in a courtroom. It is not the first such episode: earlier this year a chief constable left his post after AI-generated material was used to justify banning Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from a match.
Looking forward
The timing is pointed. UK forces launched a national police AI centre only last week to cut administrative burdens, and Derbyshire says any lessons will be passed to it. The case exposes the gap between deploying AI for efficiency and governing how individual officers actually use it. For a justice system where evidence must be reliable and accountable, the episode is a warning that productivity tools without strict oversight can corrode the very outcomes they are meant to support — and that “saving time” on paperwork can carry a heavy price.