The Criminal Chamber detected this irregularity, deemed “intolerable,” during the review of a sentence from the Audiencia de Las Palmas. This sentence had condemned nine individuals to up to six years in prison for drug trafficking, after introducing cocaine into Lanzarote.
To challenge the resolution, the lawyer invoked a supposed Supreme Court judgment from 2020 and a Constitutional Court judgment from 1990. These citations, presented as central to his appeal, aimed to question the documentation supporting police actions and to argue for a possible nullification of proceedings.
The paragraphs with the alleged jurisprudence mentioned by the lawyer do not appear in the cited judgments, nor in others with a related numbering.
The magistrates of the TSJC emphasized that the invoked Supreme Court judgment “not only bears no relation to this issue (documentation of police proceedings) but also contains neither that text nor anything similar.” An identical situation occurred with the Constitutional Court judgment.
The court considers this not a “mere slip or venial error,” but an “intolerable” conduct that could warrant disciplinary action. This situation is compared to another recent case where a lawyer used jurisprudence invented by an artificial intelligence application without verification.
“"This conduct has another effect, which is the loss of confidence in technical professionalism, leading to the diversion of judicial work to the verification of jurisprudential citations invoked in professionals' writings, which in turn slows down resolutions."
Finally, the TSJC has rejected the appeals filed and confirmed the sentences issued by the Audiencia de Las Palmas against the drug traffickers involved in the case.
