A police officer used Microsoft Copilot, an AI-powered tool that assists with writing and information retrieval, to create a victim personal statement in a criminal case. The statement was intended to "make a judge or reader weep" and to secure the "highest sentence," the Court of Appeal has heard. The statement was used in the conviction of Jerome Gibson, 23, who admitted to kicking a door down and threatening his partner with a knife in May 2024. In a separate incident, he admitted to causing grievous bodily harm to a police officer while fleeing. Gibson was sentenced to 44 months in prison for all offenses at Nottingham Crown Court last year and has since appealed the sentence at the Court of Appeal in London. Lucky Thandi, representing Gibson, argued that the victim personal statement, presented as being written by Gibson’s partner, referred to as F, had actually been generated by the police officer handling the case. She claimed this influenced the judge in Nottingham to place more emphasis on the harm caused. However, the judges at the Court of Appeal ruled that the use of the AI-generated statement did not affect the overall sentence and rejected Gibson's appeal. Thandi said the officer had made "multiple entries" into Microsoft Copilot while aiming to create a statement that would evoke strong emotions. She said: "It does make powerful reading, and it is clear from the material provided to the appellants and those who instruct me that this officer had made great efforts to ensure the victim personal statement was as impactful as possible." Denis Barry, representing the Crown Prosecution Service, stated that the previous judge would have seen various statements and was experienced enough to determine the appropriate sentence. He said: "Everyone in court would agree that facts in criminal cases speak for themselves and do not require exaggerated language in criminal proceedings." He added that the officer’s conduct was concerning, not because of the use of technology, but due to the questionable way evidence was gathered. The officer has since been removed from frontline duties. Mr Justice Lavender, sitting with Lord Justice Edis and Mr Justice Linden, noted that the officer had instructed the AI to create "the most impactful personal statement." The officer reportedly told the AI: "I want you to create it so that it meets the higher harm category." The judge said the officer also instructed the AI "to make a judge or reader weep" and "to reach the highest sentence." However, Mr Justice Lavender clarified that the facts the previous judge relied on were not fabricated by AI. He stated: "These facts were not AI-generated hallucinations but things F had stated in her interview." He added: "It does not appear that the use of AI, deplorable though it is, caused the appellant’s sentence to be any longer than it otherwise would have." The judge concluded: "We do not consider that the total sentence was manifestly excessive."