Man cites fake case in Singapore lawsuit

SINGAPORE – A man who took his wife to court and claimed she caused him to be destitute by denying him food and money had his application for a personal protection order dismissed.

The man was also criticised by Magistrate Soh Kian Peng for using generative artificial intelligence in the documents he submitted to the court after it was found he had cited a fictitious case to the judge.

According to a judgment dated June 30, the husband filed applications for a personal protection order and a domestic exclusion order, among other things, against his wife. The pair were also undergoing divorce proceedings at the time.

A domestic exclusion order restricts the perpetrator from entering the applicant’s house or parts of the house to ensure the latter’s safety.

The names and ages of the couple, who have a son, were not stated in court documents.

The husband claimed his wife had subjected him to emotional and psychological abuse, and that she had controlled him for over a decade, reducing him to a pathetic and destitute state.

He also claimed it was only after his 2024 application to the Ministry of Social and Family Development for assistance was granted that he was able to get back on his feet and “throw off the shackles of living under his wife’s yoke”.

The husband claimed he was severely malnourished as his wife had deprived him of access to food. As a result, he claimed his bones became brittle and his teeth had rotted so much he had to make trips back to India to fix them as he could not afford dental care in Singapore.

Claims were hard to believe

However, the magistrate said he found this hard to believe as the husband had testified how he would buy three bags of flour weighing 5kg each and haul them 1.2km back to his home.

It was not stated in what context this testimony was given.

The magistrate said: “If he was indeed destitute, and left in such a state where he was so physically weak such that his bones had become brittle, and his teeth had rotted away, it was quite unlikely – even giving generous allowances for the resilience of the human body and the strength of the human spirit – that he would have been able to haul that quantity of flour, over that distance, all the way home.”

Two videos showing interactions between husband and wife, which were submitted to the court, also provided the magistrate a snapshot of the real dynamics between the couple.

“The husband was clearly able to hold his ground with a clear air of defiance,” he said.

Noting how the husband’s retrenchment in 2009 had severely impacted him, the magistrate said: “It was also evident to me that he did not have healthy ways of coping and adjusting, and as a result, fell into a destructive spiral.

“In my judgment, it is the husband, and not the wife, who was responsible for the destitute state that he found himself in.”

Consequently, the magistrate dismissed the husband’s application for a personal protection order and ordered him to pay $10,000 in costs to his wife.

AI in court statements

The magistrate also addressed the issue of the husband using AI to prepare statements submitted to court.

In arguing for his wife’s counselling reports to be disclosed to him, the husband cited a case that did not exist.

When the magistrate asked for details of which AI tools he had used and how he had used them, the husband claimed he did not use AI to create, alter or fabricate any evidence.

The husband said he used AI only to create the first drafts of legal documents and get empty standard templates for affidavits, which he then reviewed and revised.

The magistrate, however, noted the speed at which the court statements had been prepared and the peculiar nature of the structure and syntax of these statements.

For instance, the husband shifted between referring to himself in the first and third person in the statements.

Noting that he placed no reliance on these statements, the magistrate said: “It bears emphasising that litigants are not prohibited from using generative AI.

“But they must take responsibility for its output, especially where this is evidence that will be presented to the court. The very issue with using generative AI in the drafting of such documents is the temptation to rely entirely on the algorithm without applying one’s mind to the actual output.”

Read Full Article At Source