Sarah Forey and Haringey Law Centre face a damning High Court rebuke after inventing legal precedents.
A High Court judge has blasted a barrister and a team of solicitors for fabricating five entirely fictitious legal cases in a judicial review—branding their behaviour “appalling” and “grossly unprofessional.”
Sarah Forey, a barrister at 3 Bolt Court Chambers, and her instructing solicitors at Haringey Law Centre submitted five made-up cases to bolster their arguments against Haringey Council. The defendants grew suspicious after failing to locate any of the cited judgments and raised the alarm.
Rather than admit fault, solicitor Sunnelah Hussain responded with a bizarre letter full of legal bluster and obfuscation. “We write in respect of your letter dated 13 February 2025 on the matter at subject is referred,” she began. Justice Ritchie, unimpressed, dryly noted: “I have not made an error in reading that part out.”
Embed from Getty ImagesHussain attempted to brush off the fabricated citations as “cosmetic errors” and accused the council’s legal team of trying to dodge serious research. The judge dismissed her letter as evasive and “a grossly unprofessional categorisation.”
Forey’s in-court defence raised further eyebrows. She claimed to use a personal index of legal cases stored in a box to prepare her pleadings. But Justice Ritchie wasn’t buying it. “I do not understand that explanation or how it hangs together,” he said. “The case could not have been in that box—it does not exist.”
He systematically dismantled Forey’s excuses, pointing out that each of the five “supporting cases” was a fabrication. The list included:
- R (El Gendi) v Camden LBC [2020] EWHC 2435 (Admin) — a ruling on homelessness that never happened.
- R (Ibrahim) v Waltham Forest LBC [2019] EWHC 1873 (Admin) — “a fake,” the judge declared.
- R (H) v Ealing LBC [2021] EWHC 939 (Admin) — also non-existent.
- R (KN) v Barnet LBC [2020] EWHC 1066 (Admin) — sounded plausible, but was another fiction.
- R (Balogun) v Lambeth [2020] EWCA Civ 1442 — a supposed Court of Appeal case that was entirely invented.
“This was not a clerical mistake,” Justice Ritchie said. “Ms Forey intentionally put these cases into her statement of facts and grounds, not caring whether they existed or not.”
The opposing legal team suspected that Forey may have relied on artificial intelligence—possibly ChatGPT—to draft her submission, citing the classic signs of AI hallucination. While the judge declined to draw conclusions about AI use, he said the situation was “extremely troubling.”
He also levelled sharp criticism at Haringey Law Centre for failing to verify the barrister’s work. Instead of correcting the record, the solicitors issued evasive replies and “hid behind their letters.” Their failure, he said, was “unprofessional.”
Justice Ritchie did not spare the council’s own legal team, censuring them for procedural failings. They failed to submit required documents, including a defence, and breached a court order. But he was clear: “That does not outweigh the appalling professional misbehaviour of the Claimant’s solicitors and the barrister.”
He ordered that the judgment be made public and sent directly to the Bar Standards Board and Solicitors Regulation Authority. “This sort of behaviour should not be left unexposed,” he warned.
Both Forey and Haringey Law Centre must pay £2,000 each, and the court struck out £5,000 from the law centre’s fees as a penalty. The judge added that he would leave it to the legal professionals to self-report their misconduct to their regulators.
Justice Ritchie’s conclusion was damning: “Their conduct undermines the integrity of the legal profession and the Bar. It was improper, unreasonable, and negligent.