---
title: "List the dangers weighed before evidence is refused admission"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/list-the-dangers-weighed-before-evidence-is-refused-admission"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A44-FL20261022-19"
practice_area: "Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# List the dangers weighed before evidence is refused admission

> Set out the three dangers in section 135, each as a blank: that the evidence might be unfairly prejudicial to a party; that it might be misleading or confusing; and that it might cause or result in undue waste of time.…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/list-the-dangers-weighed-before-evidence-is-refused-admission  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | Set out the three dangers in section 135, each as a blank: that the evidence might be unfairly prejudicial to a party; that it might be misleading or confusing; and that it might cause or result in undue waste of time. Do not compare them with probative value. Do not say that the evidence should be refused. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer decides whether probative value is substantially outweighed by one of those dangers, and whether to ask the court to refuse admission. Section 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) says the court may refuse to admit evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that the evidence might be unfairly prejudicial to a party, be misleading or confusing, or cause or result in undue waste of time. The section does not require refusal. A separate task deals with limiting the use of evidence that is admitted. This task does not decide authenticity. |
| Written for / versions | 1 jurisdiction versions below |

## Checking plan

**Source-by-source verification**

Trace relied-on content to independent sources and check for relevant material the output has missed.

- What the AI does: Set out the three dangers in section 135, each as a blank: that the evidence might be unfairly prejudicial to a party; that it might be misleading or confusing; and that it might cause or result in undue waste of time. Do not compare them with probative value. Do not say that the evidence should be refused.
- What the lawyer does: The lawyer decides whether probative value is substantially outweighed by one of those dangers, and whether to ask the court to refuse admission. Section 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) says the court may refuse to admit evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that the evidence might be unfairly prejudicial to a party, be misleading or confusing, or cause or result in undue waste of time. The section does not require refusal. A separate task deals with limiting the use of evidence that is admitted. This task does not decide authenticity.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Practical workflow informed by the linked primary sources; the traffic light and working checks are editorial guidance, not a court classification.
- Why: The level reflects what the work is, the consequence of an error, and how much of the output the lawyer must independently re-derive.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Keep all three dangers. Do not drop undue waste of time.
2. Do not say the evidence is refused, and do not weigh probative value.
3. Do not use this list as a limit on the use of evidence that is admitted.
4. Do not treat the list as an authenticity finding.

## Notes

- 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.

## Sources

- [Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 135, general discretion to exclude evidence](https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s135.html) (checked 2026-10-22)

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/list-the-dangers-weighed-before-evidence-is-refused-admission/united-states.md) | Yellow |

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*