Andrew L. Urban.
Tasmania’s Supreme Court has laid down the rules of AI use, in the wake of Parole Board’s AI generated erroneous submission in the Sue Neill-Fraser parole restrictions controversy. But the question is surely not whether AI is to be used in court, but how can its use prevent or at least minimise wrongful convictions, as we have proposed in previous articles. See HERE and HERE, and HERE . The Court’s new rules do not require the Crown to produce an independent, AI assessed audit of the merits of its case. That would be revolutionary reform.
The Supreme Court’s rules, issued on October 21, 2026, a month after the Parole Board humiliation, run to 4 pages plus 4 pages of Appendices, all available on the Court’s website under Publications. Perhaps the most pertinent paragraphs are these:
4.4 Court users are not required to certify the use of Gen AI in preparing documents. However,
- all court users must disclose the use of Gen AI, if asked (emphasis added)
- expert witnesses must disclose the use of Gen AI in accordance with their obligations under the Expert Witness Code of Conduct.
4.5 Any person who uses Gen AI in preparing a court document is expected to be able to explain to the Court which Gen AI tool was used, how it was used, and what steps the person took to check the content of the document.
5.1 If Gen AI is used inconsistently with these guidelines or the Court’s orders or directions, there may be consequences. Consequences may include:
- documents being given less weight by the Court or being disregarded
- adjournments or delays
- costs orders
- the case being dismissed.
5.2 For lawyers, the inappropriate use of Gen AI may result in referral to the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania or personal costs orders.
In any case, the Supreme Court’s reaction to the Parole Board’s misadventure with AI is understandable. It may lead to the recognition of other rules around AI that would assist the court’s pursuit of strengthening the rule of law in Tasmania.