Record whether evidence could rationally affect a fact in issue
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- From the fact in issue the lawyer has written down, and from the evidence the lawyer has marked, leave blank whether the evidence, if accepted, could rationally affect the assessment of the probability that the fact exists. Record that evidence is not taken to be irrelevant only because it relates only to the credibility of a witness, the admissibility of other evidence, or a failure to adduce evidence. Do not decide relevance.
- What the lawyer must review
- The lawyer decides relevance. Section 55(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) says the evidence that is relevant in a proceeding is evidence that, if it were accepted, could rationally affect, directly or indirectly, the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue. Subsection (2) says evidence is not taken to be irrelevant only because it relates only to the credibility of a witness, the admissibility of other evidence, or a failure to adduce evidence. The tool does not apply that test. A separate task lists what is on the face of a document before any inference is drawn. This task does not draw an inference and 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
- Copy the fact in issue only if the lawyer has written it. Do not invent a fact.
- Leave the rational-effect conclusion blank.
- Keep the three cases in subsection (2). Do not treat them as the only relevant evidence.
- Do not decide that the evidence is admissible.
Sources
- Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 55, relevant evidence · 2026-10-22
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.