---
title: "Record the hearsay rule for a previous representation"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/record-the-hearsay-rule-for-a-previous-representation"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A44-FL20261022-22"
practice_area: "Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Record the hearsay rule for a previous representation

> From the previous representation the lawyer has marked, record that evidence of it is not admissible to prove a fact that it can reasonably be supposed the person intended to assert by the representation.…

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/record-the-hearsay-rule-for-a-previous-representation  
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 | From the previous representation the lawyer has marked, record that evidence of it is not admissible to prove a fact that it can reasonably be supposed the person intended to assert by the representation. Record that such a fact is an asserted fact, and that the circumstances in which the representation was made may be regarded when that supposition is decided. Record that the exclusion does not apply to a certificate or other document given or made under regulations under another Act, and only to the extent those regulations give the certificate or document evidentiary effect. Do not apply any exception. Do not decide that the representation is inadmissible. |
| What the lawyer must review | The lawyer decides whether the hearsay rule applies and whether any exception applies. Section 59(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) says evidence of a previous representation made by a person is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert by the representation. Subsection (2) calls that fact an asserted fact. Subsection (2A) lets the court have regard to the circumstances in which the representation was made. The note to subsection (2A) names a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. That note is not applied as a holding. Subsection (3) saves a certificate or other document under regulations made under another Act, only to the extent the regulations provide that it has evidentiary effect. Those regulations were not opened. The note lists exceptions, including the business-record exception and the electronic-communication exception, and says other provisions or other laws may be further exceptions. Those exceptions are not applied. Separate tasks already test a business record and record what an electronic communication says. This task does not decide admission. |
| 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: From the previous representation the lawyer has marked, record that evidence of it is not admissible to prove a fact that it can reasonably be supposed the person intended to assert by the representation. Record that such a fact is an asserted fact, and that the circumstances in which the representation was made may be regarded when that supposition is decided. Record that the exclusion does not apply to a certificate or other document given or made under regulations under another Act, and only to the extent those regulations give the certificate or document evidentiary effect. Do not apply any exception. Do not decide that the representation is inadmissible.
- What the lawyer does: The lawyer decides whether the hearsay rule applies and whether any exception applies. Section 59(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) says evidence of a previous representation made by a person is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert by the representation. Subsection (2) calls that fact an asserted fact. Subsection (2A) lets the court have regard to the circumstances in which the representation was made. The note to subsection (2A) names a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. That note is not applied as a holding. Subsection (3) saves a certificate or other document under regulations made under another Act, only to the extent the regulations provide that it has evidentiary effect. Those regulations were not opened. The note lists exceptions, including the business-record exception and the electronic-communication exception, and says other provisions or other laws may be further exceptions. Those exceptions are not applied. Separate tasks already test a business record and record what an electronic communication says. This task does not decide admission.
- 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. Copy only the representation the lawyer has marked.
2. Record the exclusion, the asserted-fact label, and the circumstances that may be regarded.
3. Record the certificate carve-out without applying regulations that were not opened.
4. Do not apply an exception and do not decide that the representation is inadmissible.

## 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 59, the hearsay rule](https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s59.html) (checked 2026-10-22)

## Jurisdiction versions

| Jurisdiction | Level |
| --- | --- |
| [United States](https://ailawframework.com/obligations/incoming-evidence-deepfakes-and-synthetic-documents/record-the-hearsay-rule-for-a-previous-representation/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.*