SINGAPORE: A family court magistrate considering personal protection order (PPO) applications from two former spouses realised that none of the 14 cases cited by the self-represented man exist.
When probed, the man admitted that he had used ChatGPT to help identify relevant local legal precedents in seeking a PPO for himself and his two daughters against his ex-wife.
However, he failed to verify the cases before including them in his submissions, and said he was not aware that the family court had a guide on the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools by court users.
In a judgment made available on Wednesday (Sep 10), Magistrate Soh Kian Peng noted that the guide emphasises that court users remain responsible for all the content in their court documents.
They must ensure that any AI-generated output in court documents they submit is accurate and relevant.
There will be consequences for non-compliance, such as adverse cost orders being made, or a disregarding of the material submitted to the court.
THE CASE
The case involved a dispute between former spouses who returned to court after their divorce was finalised to seek PPOS for themselves and their two daughters against the other.
In his written submissions, the father referenced provisions of the Women’s Charter that were outdated and inapplicable. He also cited 14 cases which he said were similar to his case.
Mr Soh said that some of the cases were “quite obviously fictitious” but others appeared to be legitimate cases “at first blush” but were not.
The main two incidents that formed the basis for the PPO applications by both the man and his ex-wife took place in early March this year.
The pair had had issues with access arrangements for their daughters, with the man “frustrated by what he perceived to be the mother’s attempt to deny him access to the children in spite of the court order that was made”.
The mother felt justified in acting the way she did on the basis that she, as well as the children, felt threatened by how the father had behaved during his period of access, the court noted.
However, the magistrate viewed closed-circuit television footage showing the pair engaged in a “tug of war over their eldest child” and found that neither the father nor mother had committed family violence on each other.
They did not act aggressively towards each other, although the father seemed “visibly more frustrated than the mother”, said Mr Soh.
While their actions were “less than ideal” as their child was caught in the crossfire, they did not cross the line and “stray into the realm” of physical, emotional or psychological abuse, said the magistrate.
He also found that neither parent was likely to commit family violence on their children, as each of them cares for them in their own way.
While the court ultimately dismissed all PPO applications, from both the ex-wife and the ex-husband against each other for themselves and their two daughters, the magistrate ordered the ex-husband to pay costs of S$1,000 to the mother.
ORDER SPECIFIC TO THE MAN
To guard against citing “AI-hallucinated material to the court”, Mr Soh also ordered the man to declare in writing if he uses generative AI in preparing any document for submission to the court in future. He must also state that he has complied with the relevant guide.
Mr Soh said the citation of cases to the court plays an important role in a common law system like Singapore’s.
“If common law is to continue operating in the modern age alongside technology such as generative AI, the courts must be able to take, at face value, the cases which parties have cited either in their written submissions or their bundle of authorities,” said Mr Soh.
“The citation of fake or AI hallucinated cases to the courts thus has a deeply corrosive effect on the legal system. If there is a suspicion that the cases, or paragraphs from cases cited are not genuine, then time and effort will have to be spent checking the provenance and authenticity of the material which had been cited.”
Mr Soh clarified that his order does not prohibit the man from using generative AI. Such use is not prohibited, but he has to make the necessary declarations if he uses it to prepare court documents.
“I considered this approach to be one that struck a fair balance between allowing the use of generative AI and ensuring that the court is not taken by surprise by the product of AI hallucinations,” said Mr Soh.
He emphasised that the fact that the man was self-represented did not absolve him of responsibility of ensuring that the information he submitted to the court was accurate.
He concluded by quoting a poem by Kahlil Gibran titled On Children and told the former couple to think of their children and not to let their animosity with each other stand in way of their developmental needs.
The poem he read includes the lines:
Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
The magistrate said he was heartened by the efforts of the parents to resume counselling to improve the situation regarding access to the children and encouraged them to “stay the course”.
