Court Rejects Appeal Over AI-Written Victim Statement

By the Editorial Team · Wednesday, September 23, 2026

A police officer’s use of Microsoft Copilot to draft an emotionally charged victim impact statement was scrutinized during Jerome Gibson’s appeal against his 44-month prison sentence, but the Court of Appeal upheld the original ruling. The case highlights concerns over the ethical use of AI in legal processes and has led to the officer’s removal from frontline duties pending investigation.

A police officer’s use of artificial intelligence to draft a victim impact statement intended to elicit a strong emotional response from a judge was examined during an appeal hearing at the Court of Appeal in London. The appeal, brought by Jerome Gibson, challenged his 44-month prison sentence, arguing that the AI-generated statement improperly influenced the original sentencing at Nottingham Crown Court.

Gibson, 23, was convicted last year of multiple offenses, including domestic abuse, threatening his partner with a knife, forcibly kicking down a door, and causing grievous bodily harm to a police officer in a separate incident. His legal team contended that the involvement of AI in crafting the victim’s statement unfairly swayed the judge’s judgment.

During the appeal, it was revealed that the police officer involved had instructed Microsoft Copilot to produce a statement designed to “make a judge or reader weep” and aimed “to achieve the highest sentence” for Gibson. Despite this, the court ultimately rejected the appeal, upholding the original sentence.

Mr Justice Lavender described the officer’s use of AI as “deplorable” but acknowledged that the generated text was strictly derived from the victim’s own interview. Importantly, the judge noted there were no fabricated or misleading elements introduced by the AI, sometimes referred to as “hallucinations.” The judgment made clear that the content of the statement was factual and rooted in the victim’s account.

The Crown Prosecution Service, represented by Denis Barry, highlighted that the underlying facts of the case “spoke for themselves” regarding the gravity of Gibson’s offenses. Barry also expressed concern over the officer’s conduct, emphasizing that the method of evidence gathering raised troubling questions about appropriate police procedure. As a result of the incident, the officer has been removed from frontline duties pending further review.

The case underscores ongoing debates about the ethical use of AI in legal proceedings and the potential impact technology may have on judicial impartiality. While the court affirmed the sentence in this instance, the scrutiny of AI-assisted practices within law enforcement remains a matter of professional and public interest.

This article was reported by synthesizing coverage from multiple independent news outlets to present a balanced, unbiased account. Read about our editorial standards. Spotted an error? Let us know.