The record of how evidence was made
When the evidence itself is made by AI
The rest of this site records lawyers citing cases that do not exist. This section records the other half of the problem: material produced by a machine and offered as evidence, regardless of who offers it.
A fabricated citation wastes a court's time. Fabricated evidence can affect whether someone is convicted. The same tools now sit on both sides of that line, and in 2026 the question stopped being theoretical in England.
Why this section exists
The sanctions record answers one question: what happens to an attorney who files an authority that a machine invented. It is a real question and courts are answering it in public.
It is not the harder question. The harder question is what happens when the machine writes the witness statement, the intelligence dossier, or the exhibit, and nobody kept a record of which parts a person actually observed. At that point the stakes can include a conviction.
That distinction is why this site exists at all. A record made at the moment of creation, saying which tool was involved and what a named person personally checked, can answer questions that may be impossible to reconstruct reliably later.
Verifiable AI evidence
Verifiable AI evidence is the name for the class of record that answers the question later: made at the moment of creation, carrying what a named person authorized and checked, and capable of being tested by someone who does not trust the party holding it.
It is the umbrella. Underneath it sit the specific forms, each doing a narrower job:
- The Regulayer Receipt. The sealed record of AI use, human review and the certification the signer made. What the Receipt records.
- Witness. The seal mode that binds a second party to the record at the moment it is made.
- Decision evidence. The record of what the AI attempted, what human authority applied, and whether it was allowed, corrected, held or stopped.
- Verification, and the verifier. The independent check itself. A recipient can run it without an active Regulayer licence and without sending the underlying work to us. Open verifier · Verify free.
The cases below show why verifiable AI evidence matters in practice.
The record so far
England · June 2026 · investigation open
Derbyshire: an officer investigated over AI-created evidential material
A criminal investigation into an allegation of perverting the course of justice, over the alleged use of AI to create evidential material in a number of cases. Reported as the first of its kind in the United Kingdom. No charge, no finding, no name.
Read the pageEngland and Wales · June 2026 · guidance
PoliceAI asks forces to pause generative AI in court statements
Days after the national centre launched, its head asked forces to stop using generative AI to prepare court documents while safeguards are built, and set the accuracy standard at “beyond reasonable doubt”. Includes the West Midlands dossier that invented a football match.
Read the pageWhat we will add here
This section grows the same way the sanctions record did, one verified entry at a time. The categories we are tracking, in every jurisdiction and not only this one:
- Evidential material alleged to have been produced or altered by AI, by police, prosecutors or investigators.
- Expert reports and witness statements prepared with generative tools without disclosure.
- Intelligence and disclosure documents built on AI output that turned out to be invented.
- Deepfaked exhibits offered in civil and criminal proceedings, and how courts tested them.
- Guidance from policing bodies, prosecutors and courts on all of the above.
The rule that would govern it in United States federal courts. Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 would apply the Rule 702 expert-evidence standard to machine-generated evidence. As at 20 August 2026 it remains a proposed rule with no effective date: the Standing Committee declined to advance it in June 2026 and returned it for revision and further study, with a mini-conference on 15 October 2026 part of that continuing review. Rule 707, what has and has not happened · Rules 901 and 902, authenticating the record.