A senior judge has accused the Home Office of relying on “AI hallucinated” information to refuse an asylum claim.
The case relates to a Moroccan woman and her child who fled her country after experiencing forced underage marriage and extreme violence, including rape. The woman claimed asylum on the basis of fears that she would be killed by her husband: a powerful, previously convicted criminal.
The Home Office refused her case, citing evidence from a supposedly independent and authoritative document known as a country policy information note (CPIN), which they said confirmed that Morocco would be safe for her.
But the document could not be found, although its existence was relied upon by a judge who rejected her appeal against the Home Office’s refusal decision in an immigration court known as the first-tier tribunal.
The woman lodged a further appeal to a more senior court, the upper tribunal, where another judge raised concerns about the unlocated document. In a decision on 14 July, the judge said: “It appears that no such CPIN has ever existed.”
He added in relation to the missing document: “No such document has been located in the public domain and moreover the Home Office’s country policy and information team has been unable to confirm its existence.”
He said that after looking at the Home Office’s letter refusing the woman’s asylum claim, “it bears hallmarks consistent with the use of artificial intelligence. It may therefore transpire that references to country information note Morocco July 2021 in that letter are a result of an AI ‘hallucination’. If so that would represent an extremely serious failing on the part of the respondent [the Home Office].”
In a further critical statement, the judge said that relying on a document that did not exist was “analogous to relying on bogus evidence”. He determined that the issue was a “procedural irregularity”.
The Guardian asked the Home Office if the document existed and where it was. After initially sending a link to an archive where the document could not be found, the Home Office produced a different document, a piece of unpublished internal guidance known as a country information note (CIN).
No CPIN has been published on Morocco since 2017. In the course of the case, the Home Office’s references changed from the internal guidance CIN to the CPIN, which are generally treated as authoritative by judges.
The internal document, which was never disclosed to the court in legal proceedings, does not conclude that Morocco is a safe country for the forcible return of women such as the one appealing against the decision.
It states that in 2018 exemptions were made granting 40,000 child marriages, one-fifth of the total marriages that year. It adds that Morocco’s laws do not explicitly criminalise marital rape and that women who report this may be criminalised for engaging in sex outside marriage if they are disbelieved by the authorities.
Home Office sources said they were able to provide additional information about the case that the judge had requested.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “The home secretary is restoring order and control to our asylum system by removing incentives drawing illegal migrants to the UK and ramping up removals of those with no right to be on British soil.
“We keep our asylum system under constant review. Claims are always considered on their individual merits and based on the latest evidence to ensure only those in genuine need are granted UK protection.”
The woman’s case continues.