AI hallucination cases in Australia
Nash v Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
[2023] WASCA 75
| Detail | What the trackers record |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of Western Australia — Court of Appeal |
| Jurisdiction | Western Australia |
| Date | 8 May 2023 |
| Who used AI | Self-represented |
| Tool named by the trackers | Not named |
| Sanction for the AI use | No professional sanction |
| Outcome | Appeal dismissed |
| Citation | [2023] WASCA 75 |
Summary from the trackers
OBITER
On appeal against conviction, the self‑represented litigant (Appellant) prepared the case, with possible assistance in later submissions (perhaps from an AI program such as ChatGPT). Quinlan CJ said (at [9]): ‘[n]either form of submission made coherent submissions as to why the trial judge’s decision was affected by material error or otherwise gave rise to a miscarriage of justice. Nor did the material sought to be adduced by … [the appellant] as additional evidence on the appeal disclose any mi
The tracker extract ends in the middle of a sentence.
Court AI rules
Sources
- OBITER AI Hallucination Cases: Australia
- AustLII
- AI Hallucination Cases Database, Damien Charlotin (CC BY 4.0)
All AI hallucination cases in Australia · Western Australia · Court AI practice notes