Derbyshire Police refer a senior detective to the police watchdog, which opens a gross misconduct investigation into the officer's use of AI
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) said, as reported by the BBC on 10 August 2026, that Derbyshire Constabulary had made a voluntary conduct referral on 23 June 2026, following an internal review of an officer's use of artificial intelligence and concerns that it was not in line with guidance and conditions issued by the force. The IOPC decided the matter warranted an investigation, and the officer was served notice of an investigation for alleged gross misconduct. The BBC, citing the Financial Times, reported that a person familiar with events said the officer is a detective chief inspector alleged to have used AI to maintain decision logs, which investigators keep to record their reasoning and which can be disclosed to defence lawyers. The BBC describes the case as unrelated to the criminal investigation opened in June into another Derbyshire officer. The AI system and the outcome are not reported.
- AI system
- Unidentified AI system
- Occurred
- 23 Jun 2026
- Reported
- 10 August 2026
- Event location
- United Kingdom
- What the AI did
- Relation unknown
- Reported harm
- Professional Harm
- Whose AI use
- Their own AI use
- Setting
- Work · Justice
- Evidence
- AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source
- 3 claims: 3 reported. 3 open questions
- People reported harmed
- 1 person
AI system as recorded: AI used by a senior detective, reportedly to maintain investigative decision logs, contrary to force guidance according to the IOPC (system not identified)
What Happened
The referral and investigation. The IOPC said, as quoted by the BBC: 'Derbyshire Constabulary made a voluntary conduct referral to us on 23 June following an internal review of an officer's use of artificial intelligence and concerns it was not in line with guidance and conditions issued by the force.' It said it had decided the matter warranted an investigation and that 'The officer in question has been served notice that they are under investigation for alleged gross misconduct.' Derbyshire Police said the investigation was being independently led by the IOPC and that it could not comment further.
What the AI was reportedly used for. The BBC, citing the Financial Times, reports that a person familiar with events said the case involved a detective chief inspector alleged to have used AI to maintain decision logs. Senior investigators keep such logs to record why they took each step, and the logs can be disclosed to defence lawyers during court cases.
Context. The BBC says the referral came two months after a criminal investigation was opened into another, unrelated Derbyshire officer accused of using AI systems to create evidential material, and that the FT also reported the dismissal of a Gloucestershire Police staff member after bypassing safeguards to use an AI chatbot for police-related work.
What is not established. The AI system, what it produced, whether any log entry was inaccurate, and whether any case was affected are not reported. The misconduct allegation is untested.
Reported harm
A senior detective was referred to the police watchdog after an internal review of the officer's AI use, and was served notice of an investigation for alleged gross misconduct.
Outcome
OngoingDerbyshire Constabulary referred the officer to the IOPC on 23 June 2026 after an internal review. The IOPC decided the matter warranted an investigation, which it leads independently, and served the officer notice of an investigation for alleged gross misconduct. No outcome is reported.
What remains unknown
- Which AI system was used, and what it produced
- Whether any decision-log entry was inaccurate or any case was affected
- The outcome of the IOPC investigation
What the evidence supports
AI involvement: reported. The harm is an institutional response to the officer's own use of AI: the IOPC says the force referred the officer after an internal review of the officer's use of artificial intelligence and concerns that it breached force guidance, and the watchdog opened a gross misconduct investigation. The FT, as relayed by the BBC, reports that the AI was allegedly used to maintain investigative decision logs. No AI output reaching a decision about a person is described, so the relation is unknown under the consequential-response exemption.
3 claims: 3 reported. What the statuses mean
Reported The IOPC said Derbyshire Constabulary made a voluntary conduct referral on 23 June following an internal review of an officer's use of artificial intelligence and concerns it was not in line with force guidance, decided the matter warranted an investigation, and served the officer notice of an investigation for alleged gross misconduct.
Causal attribution. The watchdog's own statement as quoted by the BBC.
- bbc.co.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
'Derbyshire Constabulary made a voluntary conduct referral to us on 23 June following an internal review of an officer's use of artificial intelligence and concerns it was not in line with guidance and conditions issued by the force.'; 'The organisation added it had decided the matter warranted an investigation.'; 'The officer in question has been served notice that they are under investigation for alleged gross misconduct.'
Reported A person familiar with events told the Financial Times that the case involved a detective chief inspector alleged to have used AI to maintain decision logs, which can be disclosed to defence lawyers during court cases.
Causal attribution. An unnamed person's account to the FT, relayed by the BBC.
- bbc.co.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
'the case involved a detective chief inspector at the force alleged to have used AI to maintain'; 'they can be disclosed for defence lawyers to scrutinise during court cases'
Reported The BBC describes the case as unrelated to the June criminal investigation into another Derbyshire officer accused of using AI systems to create evidential material.
Causal attribution. The outlet's description; it separates the two events.
- bbc.co.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
'In June, the force started an unrelated criminal investigation into another detective'
Sources
1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.
- BBC News, 10 August 2026: Senior Derbyshire detective under investigation over use of AI(opens in new tab)
s1 · bbc.co.uk · News report · English · Inspected · 10 August 2026 · Primary
How the sources were read, and where the events happened
Read in English on 2026-10-14 (HTTP 200; datePublished 2026-08-10). Quotes the IOPC and Derbyshire Police directly and relays the Financial Times for the decision-log detail. Applies to s1.
Event countries: United Kingdom. Affected-person countries: United Kingdom. Court countries: Unknown.
Event: an internal review and conduct referral by Derbyshire Constabulary, an English force, and an IOPC investigation. Affected person: a serving Derbyshire officer. No court is involved.
Reviewed for publication 2026-10-14: Published as a reported consequential-response case on the IOPC's own statement: Derbyshire Constabulary referred an officer after an internal review of the officer's AI use and concerns that it breached force guidance, and the officer was served notice of a gross misconduct investigation. The decision-log detail comes from an unnamed person via the FT and is attributed. The officer is not named.
People described
A senior Derbyshire Police detective referred to the IOPC and served notice of an investigation for alleged gross misconduct over their use of AI
People reported harmed in this case
1 person
1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed
One person: the officer whose use of AI the force reviewed and who was served notice of the gross misconduct investigation (claim c1). The IOPC describes the officer's AI use as a fact under review, so the officer is counted as the direct AI user. No other person is reported as affected.
Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.
Cite this case
Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.
APA
NOPE. (2026). Derbyshire Police refer a senior detective to the police watchdog, which opens a gross misconduct investigation into the officer's use of AI. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-derbyshire-police-senior-detective-gross-misconduct-investigation-over-ai-use
BibTeX
@misc{2026_derbyshire_police_senior_detective_gross_misconduct_investigation_over_ai_use,
title = {Derbyshire Police refer a senior detective to the police watchdog, which opens a gross misconduct investigation into the officer's use of AI},
author = {NOPE},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {AI incidents},
url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-derbyshire-police-senior-detective-gross-misconduct-investigation-over-ai-use}
} Related cases
SDT strikes solicitor Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after AI-generated false citations in his SRA defence
On 25 August 2026 the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after finding proved that his 12 March 2026 Answer to the SRA's Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations produced with generative AI — including a non-existent 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502' and a miscited 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' that is actually an intellectual-property case — and that his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted with further errors. The tribunal said it would have struck him off on that allegation alone; the parallel ground was his January 2024 conviction under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. This is the SDT's first case on a lawyer's use of AI, per the SRA's counsel.
UK Upper Tribunal refers a supervising solicitor to the SRA over false citations in judicial review grounds; tribunal records he accepted they were AI-generated
Judicial review grounds lodged in the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) on 26 June 2025 by a solicitors' firm cited four authorities that the judge could not find or that carried wrong citations and propositions. The firm's compliance officer, a solicitor whose name was on the claim form, said a junior fee-earner had drafted the grounds under his supervision; his written explanation named an outdated precedent, practitioner blogs and personal notes as the sources. After a Hamid hearing on 5 November 2025, the tribunal recorded that he accepted the fee-earner had relied on false citations generated by AI, and in a judgment promulgated on 17 November 2025 it referred him to the Solicitors Regulation Authority for the false citations and his failure to supervise. The tribunal said it does not matter how such errors come about. It also announced that the Upper Tribunal judicial review claim form now requires a statement of truth that cited authorities exist and support the propositions they are cited for.
UK Upper Tribunal: immigration adviser gives Google AI Mode as his best guess for a non-existent case in grounds he drafted; he self-reported to regulators
In the first of two matters decided together in [2026] UKUT 81 (IAC), promulgated on 17 November 2025, the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) examined grounds of appeal dated 17 March 2025 that cited a non-existent Court of Appeal case under the citation of an unrelated equal-pay case. The adviser who drafted them first denied using AI, then told the tribunal his best guess was that he had inadvertently used Google's 'AI Mode', and the tribunal recorded that he had concluded it was probable the case came from inadvertent AI use; the panel itself got Google AI to produce varying benches for the fictitious case. He reported himself to the Immigration Advice Authority and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and the tribunal said it would otherwise have referred him. He also told the tribunal that he had put client emails and uploaded Home Office decision letters into ChatGPT to summarise them, which he called a data breach he would disclose to the clients; the tribunal said such uploads breach client confidentiality and waive privilege.
Derbyshire Police remove a detective from frontline duties and open a criminal investigation over alleged use of AI to create evidential material
Derbyshire Police said in June 2026 that it had launched a criminal investigation into an allegation of perverting the course of justice after the alleged use of AI systems by an officer to create evidential material in a number of cases, and that the officer had been removed from frontline duties; no arrests had been made. The Crown Prosecution Service said it was engaging with defence teams and the courts in appropriate cases. Scottish Legal News, citing sources familiar with the matter, reported that the detective allegedly used an AI chatbot to prepare documents including victim impact statements and case summaries for prosecutors. It also reported that a number of rape convictions were being reviewed. In October 2026 the head of the Independent Office for Police Conduct referred to the case when warning that AI mistakes could lead to a mistrial. The officer is not named, the AI system is not identified, and the allegations have not been tested.
If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.