In a bizarre twist to a tightly contested local election in Worcestershire, Reform UK candidate Liz Williams has been slapped with a £19,000 legal bill after her High Court challenge ended in failure and embarrassment.
Williams, who narrowly lost the Littletons ward seat to Green Party candidate Hannah Robson after an unusual tie-breaking draw, launched legal action to overturn the result.
Reform UK Candidate’s AI Court Claim Backfires Badly
But the case unravelled when it emerged that part of her argument relied on fabricated legal cases apparently conjured by artificial intelligence.
The election back in May saw dramatic scenes at the Pershore Leisure Centre as both Williams and Robson finished with an identical 889 votes. With neither side ahead, officials turned to a rarely used method to determine the winner: a random draw.
Two used ballot papers bearing the candidates’ names were placed in a box, and Robson’s name was pulled, securing her place on the Worcestershire County Council.
Unhappy with the outcome, Williams submitted a legal petition claiming the draw was flawed, improper, and left no room for her to seek independent advice.
“The declared result was determined only by folding and placing two used election ballot papers into a ballot box, and the deputy returning officer pulling one out. The petitioner believes this process was not carried out in accordance with due process of law, open to fraud and corruption…,” she said.
She also claimed that she wasn’t allowed to fully observe the procedure and raised concerns over the handling of the draw.
A quick, deadlocked election ends in chaos and a £19k penalty. But the real shock? Fake court cases, AI-generated, are used in an official challenge.
AI ‘Hallucination’ and Legal Trouble
Despite her passionate claims, Williams’ case was dismissed last week. The key reason? Timing.
Election petitions must be filed within 21 days, a deadline Williams missed by a day. But what truly drew attention was the legal backing she attempted to use.
Among her references were supposed precedents: “R v Hackney ex parte Sidebothem 1912” and “The Mayor of Tower Hamlets v Electoral Commission 2015.”
Mr Justice Martin Spencer, presiding over the case, noted that no such cases could be located.
“It appears it may have been an invention, indeed a hallucination, of AI,” he said.
Barrister Timothy Straker KC, representing the returning officers, confirmed extensive searches yielded no trace of the citations online or in official legal databases.
The judge clarified he wasn’t criticising Williams directly, acknowledging she had recognised “errors” in her documents. Nonetheless, he firmly ruled that the petition could not proceed.
“The petition wasn’t presented within the time limit prescribed by Section 129 (1) [of the Representation of the People Act 1983]… The primary legislation doesn’t provide any power to the court to extend time for the presentation of a petition.”
As a result, the court dismissed her petition and ordered Williams to pay £19,000 in costs.
The financial penalty left Williams distraught. She said the ruling made her feel “oppressed and silenced” and added, “This will destroy my life.”
Her additional claims of irregularities on voting day, including allegations of campaigning near polling stations, were not considered, as the case had already been struck out.
When Randomness Rules
While rare, this isn’t the first time randomness has decided a local election in the UK. In Blyth in 2007, straws were drawn to determine a winner.
In Yorkshire in 2022, a candidate suggested poker before also settling the result by drawing straws.
The Electoral Commission backs such methods when candidates are tied: “When two or more candidates have the same number of votes. You must decide between the candidates by lot. Whichever candidate wins the lot is treated as though they had received an additional vote.”
Though the story has elements of humour and absurdity, fake AI court cases, a ballot box draw, and a steep court bill, it also shines a light on the real-world complications of mixing technology, legality, and politics.
For candidates and campaigners alike, this tale serves as a cautionary reminder: in high-stakes elections, process is everything and cutting corners or trusting unverified AI tools can come with a heavy cost.
