Overview

• Judge Mark Blundell concluded it was overwhelmingly likely that barrister Chowdhury Rahman used generative AI to draft the appeal grounds and sought to conceal that use.
• Of 12 authorities cited, some did not exist and others failed to support the legal propositions advanced, rendering the submissions misleading.
• The judge said tribunal time was wasted and that he is minded to refer the conduct to the Bar Standards Board, with no referral outcome announced.
• The underlying case involved two Honduran sisters seeking asylum, and the Upper Tribunal dismissed the appeal after finding no error of law in the earlier decision.
• Rahman attributed problems to his drafting style and research approach, as the judgment noted his unfamiliarity with legal search tools, with the ruling issued in September and published this week.