List the dangers that can limit the use of evidence
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- Set out the two dangers in section 136, each as a blank: that a particular use of the evidence might be unfairly prejudicial to a party, and that a particular use might be misleading or confusing. Do not say that the use should be limited. Do not add undue waste of time.
- What the lawyer must review
- The lawyer decides whether there is a danger in a particular use and whether to ask the court to limit that use. Section 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) says the court may limit the use to be made of evidence if there is a danger that a particular use might be unfairly prejudicial to a party or be misleading or confusing. It does not include undue waste of time. That danger is in the exclusion discretion, which is a separate task. This task assumes the evidence is being considered for a limited use. It does not decide admission.
- Written for / version
- US
Open a jurisdiction version of this task to see which instruments apply: US
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | Do not begin AI assistance until the responsible lawyer has defined and confirmed its permitted scope. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- List only the two dangers in section 136. Do not add undue waste of time.
- Do not say that a use is limited.
- Do not treat this list as a refusal to admit the evidence.
- Name the particular use only if the lawyer has already written it.
Sources
These are suggested working checks. Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts; the checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.