The rise of the 'auditor-in-person'

AI enables individual citizens to launch constitutional legal challenges against state abuse of power

This is the first time an AI-aided litigant has forced the High Court to confront the existence of its own ghost courts. How so?

A key theme of recent years has been the erosion of public belief in the authority and legitimacy of the state. Covid lockdowns and coerced medical interventions triggered a collapse of confidence. Many of us began to investigate other areas of power, only to find the rot far deeper than imagined.

The TV news issues narratives that jar with lived experience, so we tune it out. Friends who mocked us as “anti-vaxxers” now fall silent. A painful awareness of systemic abuse lingers in the collective consciousness, though it has not yet fully broken into the foreground of public debate.

The information war once centred on social media and citizen journalism. That is shifting. AI is now encroaching into everyday life. I rarely “search the web” anymore — instead I spend hours each day in dialogue with chatbots. Whether for medical concerns, home maintenance, or skirmishes with bureaucracy, I go straight to the prompt for clarity.

The impact has been transformative in law, a field I never sought, yet have been compelled by duty and circumstance to engage with. My preference would be to focus on photography or seminars on spiritual themes. Instead, my days are consumed drafting filings, assisted by AI.

This reshapes the citizen–state relationship in real time, for better and worse. While others have pioneered civil rights cases with support, I may be the first to run solo High Court actions at the rare constitutional depth normally reserved for NGOs or well-funded interests.

Today I assembled a short note for my Part 8 filing, seeking declaratory relief over a “ghost court”, to make transparent the methods I use. This, I believe, marks a phase change in the legal system. AI will soon absorb most rote adjudication, leaving humans in a supervisory role.

This is the absolute frontier in the sense that I am funded by my loyal readers, have no distractions like young children, and am able to work full-time on seeking lawful remedy. I have no property to place a lien against, minimal savings worth raiding for costs, and my career disappeared years ago as a whistleblower.

Even with AI as a legal assistant, few are in a position to act, with nothing to lose.

My hope is that this text energises others to push back against procedural fraud. It is hard — but it is feasible. What emerges is a new civic role: the auditor-in-person. Not a campaigner by choice, nor a lawyer by training, but an ordinary citizen compelled by necessity to verify whether the State itself abides by its own constitutive law.

---

AI AUDITOR-IN-PERSON
BRIEFING NOTE

Prepared by Martin Geddes
18^th August 2025

1. Status and Role

The Claimant appears not as a conventional litigant in person, but as an auditor-in-person. The case arises from defects in court administration and prosecutorial practice so serious that the very existence of a lawful tribunal is in issue. In such circumstances, the citizen—though notionally cast as a defendant—is compelled into a role of governance: holding the state to its own statute.

The Claimant came to this matter with no specialist legal background. Any appearance as a campaigner for rigour in the justice system is incidental, arising only through necessity and not by choice. With no litigation experience beyond two minor small-claims actions, and only incidental exposure to routine enforcement matters, the Claimant expected merely to contest the modest question of whether parking beside a bush amounted to an offence. Instead, the defects encountered compelled engagement with questions of covenant, ontology, and the constitutional continuity of courts.

2. Depth of Defects

It is precisely this contrast that underscores the seriousness of the defects: they are so fundamental that even an ordinary layperson, propelled beyond their depth, cannot avoid confronting them. The corollary is that defects lying at the deepest strata of jurisprudence—difficult even for professionals to confront—demand access not only to profound legal knowledge but also to the breadth of material required for proper analysis. The present case encompasses statute, common law, constitutional doctrine, and procedural code; no single remedy or precedent suffices in isolation.

3. Barriers to Challenge

Yet the reason no one has previously brought such defects before the court by way of a Part 8 filing is that the machinery of the state ordinarily grinds down the individual long before that point is reached. Exhausting all remedies is, in practice, exhausting—and those inside the system know it, so assume no litigant in person will be able to withstand sustained obstruction or procedural abuse. The decisive difference in this case is the use of AI assistance, which has tipped the balance—making feasible what would otherwise be beyond the endurance or capacity of a private citizen.

4. AI as Audit Tool

The Claimant is a highly educated individual with a background in mathematics and computer science. This has enabled the Claimant to structure the use of artificial intelligence in ways that are pioneering within the field of litigation. Artificial intelligence has been employed as the Claimant’s principal audit tool.

Its functions have been fivefold:

• assisting in the drafting of correspondence, PAPs, and filings;

• performing deep legal and constitutional analysis that would ordinarily require institutional resources;

• auditing the record against statute and procedural rules;

• maintaining intermediate structures such as timelines, bundles, and procedural plans, ensuring coherence across multiple strands of litigation; and

• serving as an emotional buffer, by interposing itself between the Claimant and contentious or abusive correspondence, thereby reducing burnout and enabling sustained engagement with the process.

3. Safeguards and Integrity

The Claimant remains responsible for all submissions. Artificial intelligence is not employed as an oracle but as an instrument—akin to a calculator or a forensic database. The Claimant is fully aware of the risks of so-called ‘hallucination’ or substitution for original thought. To mitigate these risks, multiple independent AI engines (up to three) are used to cross-check citations, alongside manual review.

Initial drafts are generated to specification by the Claimant, sometimes with input guided by briefing questionnaires drawn up by AI. No output is placed before the Court without careful review and often several layers of iteration to ensure precision and clarity.

This discipline mirrors professional quality-control practices in law—such as multi-counsel drafting, peer review, or structured case management—and is designed to achieve the same outcome: accuracy and accountability. AI is therefore more than a spell-check, but the spirit, intent, and responsibility for every submission remains entirely the Claimant’s.

4. Systemic Implications

This approach illustrates a broader truth: rigorous audit of judicial integrity is now within the reach of citizens. Where administrative error or evasion would once overwhelm an individual, AI enables systematic checking and structured rebuttal. The Court is therefore presented not with eccentric pleadings but with disciplined audit findings. In this sense, the present case may be the first example of an ‘AI-assisted litigant in person’ bringing a constitutional claim under Part 8 — but it is unlikely to be the last.

5. A Landmark Test Case

The Claimant’s role as an ‘AI auditor-in-person’ should be seen in that light. The issue is not whether one defendant seeks to out-lawyer the State, but whether the State itself has observed its own constitutive statutes. AI has enabled the Claimant to perform the supervisory function that stare decisis and the rule of law demand — ensuring the continuity of lawful courts and the prevention of ad hoc reinvention. This therefore constitutes a landmark test case, not merely in respect of the outcome on jurisdiction, but as to whether an AI-assisted litigant in person can successfully discharge a task that would ordinarily have required the resources of KCs and an NGO.