---
title: "Criminal Law"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law"
type: "practice_area"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A20"
task_count: 42
last_reviewed: "2026-10-10"
---

# Criminal Law

> Maintain direct control over instructions, evidence and decisions affecting a person’s liberty. Independently check legal authorities, procedural dates and every fact used in advice, advocacy or court documents.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-10

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

Also covers: Criminal defence; prosecution practice; criminal litigation; summary and indictable proceedings; criminal appeals; proceeds of crime; bail; sentencing

Criminal law involves the highest personal stakes in Australian legal practice — liberty, livelihood, and reputation — and operates in a fact-specific, jurisdiction-specific, and procedurally rigid environment where AI hallucination in citations, evidence summaries, or sentencing precedents directly risks wrongful outcomes. The core AI risk profile is compounded by verified Australian court AI-prohibition practice notes across every major jurisdiction, a documented pattern of practitioners submitting AI-fabricated authorities in criminal proceedings (Rishi Nathwani KC, VSC August 2025; Re Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166; DPP v Khan [2024] ACTSC 19), and heightened confidentiality obligations around accused persons whose information — if fed into public LLMs — may compromise privilege, witness safety, and APP obligations; the policy-theatre risk is acute because informal daily AI use (drafting submissions, summarising briefs) routinely outpaces formal firm policy.

## Key facts

- Tasks: 42
- Green: 6, Yellow: 21, Red: 15
- Levels: Green is AI drafts and the lawyer checks; Yellow is lawyer and AI draft together; Red is the lawyer writes and AI may only check, clarify or collect data.

## Principles

- **Keep decisions affecting liberty with the lawyer**: AI may organise permitted material, but plea advice, bail advice, credibility, admissibility and trial strategy require direct legal judgement and client instructions.
- **Check the brief beyond the summary**: Read the evidence itself. Track missing exhibits, inconsistencies, recordings and untested allegations; an AI summary cannot establish that the prosecution case is complete.
- **Use the actual court’s current rules**: From 12 January 2026, the NSW Local Court adopts SC Gen 23 in its current form and as amended. Check its restrictions on protected information, witness evidence and expert reports before using GenAI.

## Checklist

- Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference.
- Confirm each factual assertion with the witness and original record. Preserve the witness’s own knowledge and words, and check the court’s rules for this document.
- Calculate operative dates independently from the current rule and actual triggering event. Check exceptions and record the verified deadline.
- Check the current court or regulator requirements, prescribed form and attachments for the intended document and filing.
- Review operative clauses in the complete document, including definitions, cross-references, schedules and inconsistencies with the instructions.
- Confirm that the wording reflects the client’s instructions and contains no unintended admission, concession or commitment. Check the recipient and tone.
- Confirm that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
- Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
- Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Restrictions

- Confirm firm, client and applicable court or professional restrictions before using any AI feature.

## Jurisdiction note

Apply this guidance to the actual matter and jurisdiction. Confirm current requirements before relying on an example.

## Basis

Suggested practical workflows informed by current primary and professional sources. Confirm each source’s jurisdiction and scope.

## Current requirements

Keep decisions affecting liberty with the lawyer. AI may organise permitted material, but plea advice, bail advice, credibility, admissibility and trial strategy require direct legal judgement and client instructions.

## Current requirements

Check the brief beyond the summary. Read the evidence itself. Track missing exhibits, inconsistencies, recordings and untested allegations; an AI summary cannot establish that the prosecution case is complete.

## Current requirements

Use the actual court’s current rules. From 12 January 2026, the NSW Local Court adopts SC Gen 23 in its current form and as amended. Check its restrictions on protected information, witness evidence and expert reports before using GenAI.

Also covers: Criminal defence; prosecution practice; criminal litigation; summary and indictable proceedings; criminal appeals; proceeds of crime; bail; sentencing

Criminal law involves the highest personal stakes in Australian legal practice — liberty, livelihood, and reputation — and operates in a fact-specific, jurisdiction-specific, and procedurally rigid environment where AI hallucination in citations, evidence summaries, or sentencing precedents directly risks wrongful outcomes. The core AI risk profile is compounded by verified Australian court AI-prohibition practice notes across every major jurisdiction, a documented pattern of practitioners submitting AI-fabricated authorities in criminal proceedings (Rishi Nathwani KC, VSC August 2025; Re Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166; DPP v Khan [2024] ACTSC 19), and heightened confidentiality obligations around accused persons whose information — if fed into public LLMs — may compromise privilege, witness safety, and APP obligations; the policy-theatre risk is acute because informal daily AI use (drafting submissions, summarising briefs) routinely outpaces formal firm policy.

## Limits on AI assistance

Red lines — never in this area

## Limits on AI assistance

AI must never generate or substantially rewrite the content of a character reference, affidavit, or witness statement to be filed or tendered in criminal proceedings — expressly prohibited by NSW SC Gen 23 (eff. 3 Feb 2025), Vic SC Gen 25 (eff. 14 May 2026), and contrary to the principle that such material must reflect the witness's own knowledge and words; the practitioner must obtain and file the prescribed non-AI declaration. AI must never be treated as a source of verified criminal history, antecedents, or prior conviction records — it has no access to LEAP, JusticeLink, CRIMTRAC, or any state criminal history database; AI-generated antecedent summaries are confabulation and must not leave the firm. AI must never be used to calculate or advise on limitation periods, filing deadlines, or appeal timeframes without independent verification by the lawyer from the current legislation — these are jurisdictional and irrecoverable if wrong. AI-generated citations or case summaries must never be filed in court without every citation being independently retrieved and verified on AustLII, Westlaw, or LexisNexis; and one AI tool must not be used to confirm the output of another AI tool (Vic SC Gen 25) — fabricated citations in criminal proceedings have already produced disciplinary action in Australia (Rishi Nathwani KC, VSC August 2025; Re Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166; DPP v Khan [2024] ACTSC 19). Client-identifying information, police brief contents, witness statements, criminal history, suppressed material, or any material subject to a Harman undertaking or non-publication order must never be entered into a public or unvetted commercial LLM — this risks breach of ASCR Rule 9 (confidentiality), APP 11 (data security), NSW SC Gen 23, and potential waiver of legal professional privilege. AI must never produce, interpret, or summarise forensic science evidence (DNA statistics, digital forensics methodology, AN0M message authentication, toxicology results) for reliance in proceedings — technical accuracy cannot be verified without a qualified independent expert. AI must not independently assess prospects of acquittal, recommend a plea, or generate a formal advice to plead — these require a qualified practitioner's judgment and carry negligence and professional conduct exposure if adopted without independent verification. AI must never draft or be the final author of an agreed statement of facts, jury direction request, or any document containing factual assertions that will be placed before a court — the practitioner must re-derive and verify all factual content before any such document leaves the firm. AI must not be used to confirm the existence or content of a case by querying another AI tool — this creates a closed-loop hallucination cycle; verification must use a primary legal database (AustLII, Westlaw, LexisNexis).

- AI must never generate or substantially rewrite the content of a character reference, affidavit, or witness statement to be filed or tendered in criminal proceedings — expressly prohibited by NSW SC Gen 23 (eff. 3 Feb 2025), Vic SC Gen 25 (eff. 14 May 2026), and contrary to the principle that such material must reflect the witness's own knowledge and words; the practitioner must obtain and file the prescribed non-AI declaration.
- AI must never be treated as a source of verified criminal history, antecedents, or prior conviction records — it has no access to LEAP, JusticeLink, CRIMTRAC, or any state criminal history database; AI-generated antecedent summaries are confabulation and must not leave the firm.
- AI must never be used to calculate or advise on limitation periods, filing deadlines, or appeal timeframes without independent verification by the lawyer from the current legislation — these are jurisdictional and irrecoverable if wrong.
- AI-generated citations or case summaries must never be filed in court without every citation being independently retrieved and verified on AustLII, Westlaw, or LexisNexis; and one AI tool must not be used to confirm the output of another AI tool (Vic SC Gen 25) — fabricated citations in criminal proceedings have already produced disciplinary action in Australia (Rishi Nathwani KC, VSC August 2025; Re Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166; DPP v Khan [2024] ACTSC 19).
- Client-identifying information, police brief contents, witness statements, criminal history, suppressed material, or any material subject to a Harman undertaking or non-publication order must never be entered into a public or unvetted commercial LLM — this risks breach of ASCR Rule 9 (confidentiality), APP 11 (data security), NSW SC Gen 23, and potential waiver of legal professional privilege.
- AI must never produce, interpret, or summarise forensic science evidence (DNA statistics, digital forensics methodology, AN0M message authentication, toxicology results) for reliance in proceedings — technical accuracy cannot be verified without a qualified independent expert.
- AI must not independently assess prospects of acquittal, recommend a plea, or generate a formal advice to plead — these require a qualified practitioner's judgment and carry negligence and professional conduct exposure if adopted without independent verification.
- AI must never draft or be the final author of an agreed statement of facts, jury direction request, or any document containing factual assertions that will be placed before a court — the practitioner must re-derive and verify all factual content before any such document leaves the firm.
- AI must not be used to confirm the existence or content of a case by querying another AI tool — this creates a closed-loop hallucination cycle; verification must use a primary legal database (AustLII, Westlaw, LexisNexis).

## Jurisdiction-specific considerations

Australian traps

## Jurisdiction-specific considerations

MULTI-JURISDICTION COURT AI RULES — PRACTITIONER MUST CHECK EACH COURT: NSW SC Gen 23 (eff. 3 Feb 2025) — prohibits AI-generated affidavits, witness statements, and character references; requires non-AI declaration per UCPR rr 31.4(3B) and 35.3B(2); prohibits uploading Harman undertaking material to AI. Vic SC Gen 25 (eff. 14 May 2026) — applies to all court users; disclosure of AI assistance ordinarily required to the other party and court; one AI tool cannot verify another. Qld SC PD 5 of 2025 — requires named responsible practitioner on submissions; AI must not produce fabricated authorities; violations may result in referral to the Legal Services Commissioner and personal costs orders. Qld SC PD 14 of 2024 (as amended) — expert reports using AI must annex all prompts and disclose AI program and methodology. Federal Court GPN-AI (16 April 2026) — disclosure required in specified circumstances; confidential and privileged material must not be entered into open AI platforms. WA Supreme Court AI Practice Direction — consultation note issued; check current status before filing. Practitioners must check each court's current instrument before using AI for any document going to that court. VERIFIED AUSTRALIAN AI DISCIPLINE CASES IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: (1) Rishi Nathwani KC, VSC (August 2025) — King's Counsel filed AI-fabricated citations and fictitious quotes in a murder sentencing matter before Justice Elliott; errors discovered by the judge's associates; KC apologised; Justice Elliott stated 'The ability of the court to rely upon the accuracy of submissions made by counsel is fundamental to the due administration of justice.' The minor defendant was ultimately found not guilty of murder on mental impairment grounds after a 24-hour delay. (2) Re Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166 (also cited as 386 FLR 359) — solicitor submitted non-existent AI-generated authorities; referred to VLSB+C; result: prohibited from practising as principal, barred from trust money, required to close own practice, two years supervised employment as employee solicitor. (3) DPP v Khan [2024] ACTSC 19 — AI-generated character reference; Mossop J inferred AI use from stylistic features; held reference was entitled to 'very little probative value.' These are the controlling Australian precedents on competence obligations in criminal AI use. CRIMINAL CODE VS CRIMES ACT JURISDICTION TRAP: Qld, WA, NT, and ACT have codified criminal law under their respective Criminal Codes; NSW, Vic, SA, and Tas operate under Crimes Acts with common law overlay. AI tools routinely import elements, defences, and penalties from the wrong legislative framework. An authority construing a Criminal Code provision on intention is not directly applicable to a Crimes Act matter. The practitioner must verify the legislative foundation of every authority cited and every element relied upon. BAIL LEGISLATION CURRENCY: Bail Acts across Australian states have been substantially amended since 2020 (domestic violence show cause, terrorism, serious violent offences, youth bail). AI training data does not reliably capture recent amendments. Always verify against the current consolidated version on the relevant state legislation website and check for commencement of any amendment Act sections. MANDATORY SENTENCING AND NON-PAROLE PERIODS: Several Australian jurisdictions have mandatory minimum, standard non-parole, or presumptive sentencing regimes that AI frequently fails to identify: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 54D (repeat serious violent offenders); standard non-parole periods under Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Pt 4 Div 1A; Criminal Code (Qld) mandatory sentences for particular offences; NT mandatory sentencing provisions; Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) presumptive non-parole periods. A wrong plea advice caused by failure to identify a mandatory regime is a known negligence and conduct exposure. DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES — MIGRATION ACT 1958 (CTH) s 501: Non-citizen clients convicted of offences attracting a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or more, or convicted of certain offences regardless of sentence length (including certain sexual and drug offences), face mandatory visa cancellation. AI does not know the client's visa status and does not reliably identify when s 501 is triggered. Failure to advise a non-citizen client of this risk before plea is a well-established negligence exposure. Obtain specialist migration law advice for every non-citizen client in criminal proceedings. SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION — JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC: Each state and territory has its own Sex Offenders Registration Act with different trigger offences, registration periods (ranging from 8 years to life), and reporting obligations. AI errors on which convictions trigger registration, for how long, and whether they apply to offences committed interstate. Verify against the relevant jurisdiction's current Act for every matter involving a sexual offence. AN0M / OPERATION IRONSIDE DIGITAL EVIDENCE: The High Court in CD v Commonwealth [2025] HCA 37 (October 2025) unanimously upheld admissibility of AN0M-derived evidence and the validity of the retrospective Confirmation Act. Approximately 390 defendants and 2,000 charges are affected. AI tools have no training data on the specific admissibility framework established by this decision and on the specific chain-of-custody requirements for AN0M messages. Defence practitioners in Ironside-related matters must obtain specialist digital forensics and constitutional advice — AI cannot guide this. QLS GUIDANCE STATEMENT NO. 37 (June 2024): The Queensland Law Society issued Australia's first law society AI guidance statement, applying ASCR Rules 4, 5, 9, 17, 19, and 37 to AI use. Technological incompetence — including failure to verify AI output — is not a defence to a conduct finding. The Law Council of Australia's Technology and the Law Committee has confirmed that competence under ASCR Rule 4 now includes understanding AI limitations. DATA SOVEREIGNTY AND POLICE BRIEF MATERIAL: Australian Privacy Principles (Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) as amended) govern sensitive personal information in police briefs. The Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) introduced a statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy (commenced June 2025). Uploading police brief material to any cloud AI tool without a confirmed data processing agreement, Australian data residency or equivalent standard, and firm-level data handling policy is a high-risk act engaging APP 11 and potentially the new statutory tort.

- MULTI-JURISDICTION COURT AI RULES — PRACTITIONER MUST CHECK EACH COURT: NSW SC Gen 23 (eff. 3 Feb 2025) — prohibits AI-generated affidavits, witness statements, and character references; requires non-AI declaration per UCPR rr 31.4(3B) and 35.3B(2); prohibits uploading Harman undertaking material to AI. Vic SC Gen 25 (eff. 14 May 2026) — applies to all court users; disclosure of AI assistance ordinarily required to the other party and court; one AI tool cannot verify another. Qld SC PD 5 of 2025 — requires named responsible practitioner on submissions; AI must not produce fabricated authorities; violations may result in referral to the Legal Services Commissioner and personal costs orders. Qld SC PD 14 of 2024 (as amended) — expert reports using AI must annex all prompts and disclose AI program and methodology. Federal Court GPN-AI (16 April 2026) — disclosure required in specified circumstances; confidential and privileged material must not be entered into open AI platforms. WA Supreme Court AI Practice Direction — consultation note issued; check current status before filing. Practitioners must check each court's current instrument before using AI for any document going to that court.
- VERIFIED AUSTRALIAN AI DISCIPLINE CASES IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: (1) Rishi Nathwani KC, VSC (August 2025) — King's Counsel filed AI-fabricated citations and fictitious quotes in a murder sentencing matter before Justice Elliott; errors discovered by the judge's associates; KC apologised; Justice Elliott stated 'The ability of the court to rely upon the accuracy of submissions made by counsel is fundamental to the due administration of justice.' The minor defendant was ultimately found not guilty of murder on mental impairment grounds after a 24-hour delay. (2) Re Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166 (also cited as 386 FLR 359) — solicitor submitted non-existent AI-generated authorities; referred to VLSB+C; result: prohibited from practising as principal, barred from trust money, required to close own practice, two years supervised employment as employee solicitor. (3) DPP v Khan [2024] ACTSC 19 — AI-generated character reference; Mossop J inferred AI use from stylistic features; held reference was entitled to 'very little probative value.' These are the controlling Australian precedents on competence obligations in criminal AI use.
- CRIMINAL CODE VS CRIMES ACT JURISDICTION TRAP: Qld, WA, NT, and ACT have codified criminal law under their respective Criminal Codes; NSW, Vic, SA, and Tas operate under Crimes Acts with common law overlay. AI tools routinely import elements, defences, and penalties from the wrong legislative framework. An authority construing a Criminal Code provision on intention is not directly applicable to a Crimes Act matter. The practitioner must verify the legislative foundation of every authority cited and every element relied upon.
- BAIL LEGISLATION CURRENCY: Bail Acts across Australian states have been substantially amended since 2020 (domestic violence show cause, terrorism, serious violent offences, youth bail). AI training data does not reliably capture recent amendments. Always verify against the current consolidated version on the relevant state legislation website and check for commencement of any amendment Act sections.
- MANDATORY SENTENCING AND NON-PAROLE PERIODS: Several Australian jurisdictions have mandatory minimum, standard non-parole, or presumptive sentencing regimes that AI frequently fails to identify: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 54D (repeat serious violent offenders); standard non-parole periods under Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Pt 4 Div 1A; Criminal Code (Qld) mandatory sentences for particular offences; NT mandatory sentencing provisions; Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) presumptive non-parole periods. A wrong plea advice caused by failure to identify a mandatory regime is a known negligence and conduct exposure.
- DEPORTATION CONSEQUENCES — MIGRATION ACT 1958 (CTH) s 501: Non-citizen clients convicted of offences attracting a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or more, or convicted of certain offences regardless of sentence length (including certain sexual and drug offences), face mandatory visa cancellation. AI does not know the client's visa status and does not reliably identify when s 501 is triggered. Failure to advise a non-citizen client of this risk before plea is a well-established negligence exposure. Obtain specialist migration law advice for every non-citizen client in criminal proceedings.
- SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION — JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC: Each state and territory has its own Sex Offenders Registration Act with different trigger offences, registration periods (ranging from 8 years to life), and reporting obligations. AI errors on which convictions trigger registration, for how long, and whether they apply to offences committed interstate. Verify against the relevant jurisdiction's current Act for every matter involving a sexual offence.
- AN0M / OPERATION IRONSIDE DIGITAL EVIDENCE: The High Court in CD v Commonwealth [2025] HCA 37 (October 2025) unanimously upheld admissibility of AN0M-derived evidence and the validity of the retrospective Confirmation Act. Approximately 390 defendants and 2,000 charges are affected. AI tools have no training data on the specific admissibility framework established by this decision and on the specific chain-of-custody requirements for AN0M messages. Defence practitioners in Ironside-related matters must obtain specialist digital forensics and constitutional advice — AI cannot guide this.
- QLS GUIDANCE STATEMENT NO. 37 (June 2024): The Queensland Law Society issued Australia's first law society AI guidance statement, applying ASCR Rules 4, 5, 9, 17, 19, and 37 to AI use. Technological incompetence — including failure to verify AI output — is not a defence to a conduct finding. The Law Council of Australia's Technology and the Law Committee has confirmed that competence under ASCR Rule 4 now includes understanding AI limitations.
- DATA SOVEREIGNTY AND POLICE BRIEF MATERIAL: Australian Privacy Principles (Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) as amended) govern sensitive personal information in police briefs. The Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) introduced a statutory tort for serious invasion of privacy (commenced June 2025). Uploading police brief material to any cloud AI tool without a confirmed data processing agreement, Australian data residency or equivalent standard, and firm-level data handling policy is a high-risk act engaging APP 11 and potentially the new statutory tort.

## Risks to address

How it goes wrong

## Risks to address

Fabricated case citations filed in court: AI generates plausible-looking but non-existent Australian criminal law authorities — the direct cause of disciplinary action against Rishi Nathwani KC (VSC August 2025) and the supervised practice order in Re Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166. Particularly dangerous in sentencing submissions where specific comparable cases determine the sentencing range, and in appeals where the appellate court checks every authority. Wrong jurisdiction sentencing data: AI conflates sentencing ranges across Australian jurisdictions (NSW, Vic, Qld penalties and ranges are materially different for the same offence type); a sentencing submission based on the wrong state's cases may actively mislead the sentencing judge. Criminal Code vs Crimes Act confusion: AI imports elements, defences, or penalties from a Crimes Act jurisdiction into a Criminal Code jurisdiction (or vice versa) — the wrong mental element standard, a non-existent defence, or a wrong maximum penalty may be relied upon without detection. Stale bail legislation: AI applies repealed or pre-amendment bail provisions — particularly high risk post-2022 bail reforms in NSW and Vic following domestic violence law changes; an incorrectly framed show cause argument may fail. AI-generated character references tendered as authentic: As in DPP v Khan [2024] ACTSC 19, AI-generated references purporting to reflect personal knowledge may be identified by the court from stylistic features, receive minimal weight, and risk a misleading conduct finding against the practitioner. Missed mandatory sentencing regime: AI fails to identify a mandatory minimum or standard non-parole period for the specific charge — practitioner advises client without awareness, leading to wrong plea advice or inadequate sentence preparation.

- Fabricated case citations filed in court: AI generates plausible-looking but non-existent Australian criminal law authorities — the direct cause of disciplinary action against Rishi Nathwani KC (VSC August 2025) and the supervised practice order in Re Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166. Particularly dangerous in sentencing submissions where specific comparable cases determine the sentencing range, and in appeals where the appellate court checks every authority.
- Wrong jurisdiction sentencing data: AI conflates sentencing ranges across Australian jurisdictions (NSW, Vic, Qld penalties and ranges are materially different for the same offence type); a sentencing submission based on the wrong state's cases may actively mislead the sentencing judge.
- Criminal Code vs Crimes Act confusion: AI imports elements, defences, or penalties from a Crimes Act jurisdiction into a Criminal Code jurisdiction (or vice versa) — the wrong mental element standard, a non-existent defence, or a wrong maximum penalty may be relied upon without detection.
- Stale bail legislation: AI applies repealed or pre-amendment bail provisions — particularly high risk post-2022 bail reforms in NSW and Vic following domestic violence law changes; an incorrectly framed show cause argument may fail.
- AI-generated character references tendered as authentic: As in DPP v Khan [2024] ACTSC 19, AI-generated references purporting to reflect personal knowledge may be identified by the court from stylistic features, receive minimal weight, and risk a misleading conduct finding against the practitioner.
- Missed mandatory sentencing regime: AI fails to identify a mandatory minimum or standard non-parole period for the specific charge — practitioner advises client without awareness, leading to wrong plea advice or inadequate sentence preparation.

## Review checklist

The lawyer's review checklist

## Review checklist

CITATIONS VERIFIED ON PRIMARY SOURCE: Every case name, citation, and quoted passage in AI-generated research or submissions has been independently retrieved on AustLII, Westlaw, or LexisNexis — no citation relied on AI output alone, and no AI tool was used to confirm another AI tool's output. STATUTE CURRENCY AND CORRECT JURISDICTION: Every legislative provision cited (charges, elements, penalties, bail tests, sentencing provisions) has been verified against the current consolidated version in the correct jurisdiction (Criminal Code vs Crimes Act framework confirmed for each authority). COURT AI RULES CHECKED FOR THIS PROCEEDING: The current practice note or practice direction for the specific court, registry, and matter type has been reviewed, any required AI disclosure has been made to the court and/or opposing party, and all prohibited AI uses (affidavits, witness statements, character references, Harman undertaking material) have been avoided. CLIENT DATA HYGIENE CONFIRMED: No client-identifying information, police brief content, witness statement material, suppressed material, Harman undertaking material, or privileged communication was entered into a public LLM or unvetted AI tool; or if a vetted enterprise tool was used, a current data processing agreement with APP-compliant data handling is in place. EVIDENTIARY DOCUMENTS — NON-AI DECLARATION: All affidavits, witness statements, and character references contain the required non-AI declaration per UCPR rr 31.4(3B) and 35.3B(2) (NSW) or equivalent, and the practitioner has confirmed the content is in the author's own words, not AI-generated or AI-rephrased. FACTUAL ACCURACY AGAINST SOURCE: All factual claims in AI-generated drafts (client background, offence circumstances, criminal history, co-accused details, agreed facts) have been verified against source documents or confirmed client instructions — not accepted from AI output. ANCILLARY CONSEQUENCES CHECKED: Migration Act s 501 deportation risk (non-citizen clients), sex offender registration trigger and period, firearm prohibition orders, mandatory non-parole periods, and any DVO/restraining order consequences have been independently assessed by the practitioner, not by AI. DEADLINES AND LIMITATIONS FROM STATUTE: All filing deadlines, appeal periods, and mandatory timeframes have been verified from the current legislation in the relevant jurisdiction — AI-stated deadlines have not been relied upon.

- CITATIONS VERIFIED ON PRIMARY SOURCE: Every case name, citation, and quoted passage in AI-generated research or submissions has been independently retrieved on AustLII, Westlaw, or LexisNexis — no citation relied on AI output alone, and no AI tool was used to confirm another AI tool's output.
- STATUTE CURRENCY AND CORRECT JURISDICTION: Every legislative provision cited (charges, elements, penalties, bail tests, sentencing provisions) has been verified against the current consolidated version in the correct jurisdiction (Criminal Code vs Crimes Act framework confirmed for each authority).
- COURT AI RULES CHECKED FOR THIS PROCEEDING: The current practice note or practice direction for the specific court, registry, and matter type has been reviewed, any required AI disclosure has been made to the court and/or opposing party, and all prohibited AI uses (affidavits, witness statements, character references, Harman undertaking material) have been avoided.
- CLIENT DATA HYGIENE CONFIRMED: No client-identifying information, police brief content, witness statement material, suppressed material, Harman undertaking material, or privileged communication was entered into a public LLM or unvetted AI tool; or if a vetted enterprise tool was used, a current data processing agreement with APP-compliant data handling is in place.
- EVIDENTIARY DOCUMENTS — NON-AI DECLARATION: All affidavits, witness statements, and character references contain the required non-AI declaration per UCPR rr 31.4(3B) and 35.3B(2) (NSW) or equivalent, and the practitioner has confirmed the content is in the author's own words, not AI-generated or AI-rephrased.
- FACTUAL ACCURACY AGAINST SOURCE: All factual claims in AI-generated drafts (client background, offence circumstances, criminal history, co-accused details, agreed facts) have been verified against source documents or confirmed client instructions — not accepted from AI output.
- ANCILLARY CONSEQUENCES CHECKED: Migration Act s 501 deportation risk (non-citizen clients), sex offender registration trigger and period, firearm prohibition orders, mandatory non-parole periods, and any DVO/restraining order consequences have been independently assessed by the practitioner, not by AI.
- DEADLINES AND LIMITATIONS FROM STATUTE: All filing deadlines, appeal periods, and mandatory timeframes have been verified from the current legislation in the relevant jurisdiction — AI-stated deadlines have not been relied upon.

## Tasks (42)

| Task | Level | How AI is used | What the lawyer must review |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Prepare a missing-brief and exhibit request list](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/prepare-a-missing-brief-and-exhibit-request-list.md) | Yellow | Compare references in a permitted brief with the supplied inventory and draft a list of apparently absent material. | Read the relevant statements Decide what additional material to request and why |
| [Map a charge to the evidence requiring legal review](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/map-a-charge-to-the-evidence-requiring-legal-review.md) | Red | Populate a preliminary table using offence elements supplied and verified by the lawyer, with exact references to the permitted brief. | Determine the law, admissibility and evidential sufficiency Give the advice to the client yourself |
| [Check a client’s bail-conditions summary](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/check-a-client-s-bail-conditions-summary.md) | Red | Draft plain-language headings from the complete current bail documents, keeping each operative condition traceable to the source. | Explain the actual conditions and consequences to the client Check practical conflicts across orders |
| [Prepare the defended-hearing attendance checklist](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/prepare-the-defended-hearing-attendance-checklist.md) | Green | Organise a lawyer-approved witness list and court timetable into an attendance and arrangements checklist using permitted information. | Confirm witness requirements and court directions Confirm interpreter or accessibility arrangements |
| [Draft plea, sentence or bail submissions from the brief](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/draft-plea-sentence-or-bail-submissions-from-the-brief.md) | Red | From the permitted brief, the facts sheet, the antecedents and the client's instructions, the tool tables which prosecution facts the client accepts and which… | The lawyer drafts the submissions and checks their own draft against the table: every fact asserted is one the client has instructed and the brief supports,… |
| Prepare a mitigation pack: character material and a facts-check list | Red | Index the character references, employer letters, treatment and psychological reports and course certificates the lawyer has collected, and table the client's… | Check that every reference and report in the index is signed, dated, addressed to the court and given by a referee who has been told what the client has… |
| Prepare a bail application pack from the charge and the proposed conditions | Red | Organise the grounds and the conditions the lawyer has drafted into a bail pack index.… | Which statutory bail test applies — show cause, or unacceptable risk — is a legal question for the lawyer, and the lawyer writes the outline and settles every… |
| Summarise the police brief and list proof issues | Yellow | From the permitted brief, produce a witness-and-exhibit map, a chronology and a list of apparent proof gaps and inconsistencies. | Check against the brief, which governs; this is not the missing-material request Do not load restricted brief material into a public tool |
| Draft agreed facts, a plea document or a request to particularise | Red | From the charge and the brief, draft proposed agreed facts, a plea-indication note or a request for particulars, with a list of facts the client does not… | Do not draft charging documents for the defence Read every line of agreed facts; they bind the client Make particulars requests yourself |
| Table the criminal history against the sentencing issues in this matter | Red | From the supplied record, table priors, dates, outcomes and how the prosecution is likely to use them, plus gaps (spent convictions, appeals). | Confirm the record with the court or police source Do not treat a generated table as the certified history |
| Prepare a cross-examination plan from the witness statement | Yellow | From the statement and the brief, list topics, prior inconsistent passages with page cites, and facts still needing instructions. | Write the questions yourself Do not give the client a generated plan as a script to follow |
| Identify appeal grounds from the transcript and draft a grounds outline | Yellow | From the transcript and exhibits, list possible grounds with page cites and a note of what is missing (summing-up, exhibits, reasons). | Decide the merit of an appeal yourself Verify every transcript cite Check time limits; missing one is fatal |
| Draft a plea-advice letter from the brief and instructions | Yellow | Draft a structured advice letter (elements, evidence, options, likely process) from the brief summary the lawyer has approved. | Give plea advice yourself and check the client understands Do not send a generated letter |
| Draft instructions to a forensic expert and review the draft report | Red | Table the disputed facts, the exhibits and the continuity gaps in the brief of evidence with a page cite beside each, drawing only on the brief material the… | The lawyer writes the letter of instruction and owns the assumed facts and the question in it, checking each assumption against the client's instructions and… |
| Build a disclosure and unused-material tracker | Yellow | From the disclosure lists and the brief, table served / unused / requested items and draft a chase list. | Apply the disclosure duties for your side; prosecution and defence differ Do not load unused material into a tool without a clearance decision |
| Draft a charge-negotiation position note for the prosecutor | Yellow | From the brief and instructions, draft a without-prejudice note (facts accepted, facts not accepted, proposed charges or basis) for the lawyer to send. | Take offers from client instructions Do not concede facts the client has not accepted |
| [Prepare a proceeds-of-crime or asset-restraint response pack](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/prepare-a-proceeds-of-crime-or-asset-restraint-response-pack.md) | Yellow | From the restraining papers and asset list, draft a response pack: property table, third-party interests and a restraint-date chronology, noting the statute… | Check which confiscation regime applies; federal and state regimes differ Identify innocent third-party interests Verify court filings against the current Act |
| Prepare requested jury directions from the issues in the trial | Red | From the issues list and the lawyer-selected direction bench book, draft a list of proposed directions and objections to the other side's list, with citations… | Remember directions are for the trial judge Verify every citation in the current bench book Skip this task in judge-alone matters |
| Draft a defended-hearing running sheet from the brief and instructions | Yellow | From the attendance checklist and the brief, draft a running sheet (appearances, objections, witness order, exhibit list, closing points). | Do the advocacy yourself; the sheet is a prompt, not a script Confirm the court's current hearing procedure |
| [Screen character references for AI generation before sentencing](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/screen-character-references-for-ai-generation-before-sentencing.md) | Yellow | Flag references showing generic or machine-like language and list follow-up questions for the referee. | Speak to referees; obtain references in their own words; check disclosure rules (e.g. NSW SC Gen 23 / District Court GPN2). |
| [Prepare a Queensland expert report checklist for Gen AI use](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/prepare-a-queensland-expert-report-checklist-for-gen-ai-use.md) | Yellow | Check the report addresses any Gen AI use in forming or expressing opinions. | Confirm with the expert and decide on any objection. |
| [Build a sentencing-comparables table from lawyer-selected judgments](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/build-a-sentencing-comparables-table-from-lawyer-selected-judgments.md) | Yellow | Tabulate offence, plea, priors and sentence from cited judgments. | Read every judgment in full; AI-produced citations must be verified per court practice notes. |
| [Prepare a bail application summary for a self-represented accused (legal aid duty)](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/prepare-a-bail-application-summary-for-a-self-represented-accused.md) | Yellow | Turn instructions into a plain-language summary of conditions sought. | Lawyer verifies conditions and criminal history; no AI-generated character references. |
| [Verify a list of authorities before handing up](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/verify-a-list-of-authorities-before-handing-up.md) | Red | Check each case exists. | Australian-first penalty for fake citations. |
| [Use specialist AI for criminal law research with verification](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/use-specialist-ai-for-criminal-law-research-with-verification.md) | Yellow | Research with linked citations then verify. | Lawyer reads authorities. |
| [Check AI rules for character references and affidavits in criminal matters](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/check-ai-rules-for-character-references-and-affidavits-in-criminal-matte.md) | Yellow | Map practice notes on AI in evidence. | NSW rules limit AI in evidence. |
| [Summarise legislation changes for criminal practice](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/summarise-legislation-changes-for-criminal-practice.md) | Green | Summarise recent amendments. | Check against legislation register. |
| [Brief a client on not using AI for their own submissions](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/brief-a-client-on-not-using-ai-for-their-own-submissions.md) | Green | Explain risks. | Lawyer advises. |
| Review brief of evidence and draft a chronology | Yellow | Summarise statements into a chronology. | Lawyer verifies; keep in a secure tool. |
| Check AI-assisted sentencing submissions against authorities | Green | Verify cited sentencing cases. | Lawyer signs off; see DPP v GR. |
| Prepare a client explanation of bail conditions | Green | Draft plain-language conditions. | Lawyer checks. |
| Draft the accused's affidavit for a bail application in the Supreme Court of New South Wales | Red | Do not generate the affidavit. List the bail facts the accused will cover in their own account. | Take the affidavit from the accused. Disclose that generative AI was not used to generate its content. |
| Draft a character reference for a sentence hearing in the Supreme Court of New South Wales | Red | Do not generate the reference. List the topics the referee will cover in their own words. | The reference must reflect the referee. Disclose that generative AI was not used to generate its content. |
| Draft the complainant's witness statement for a Local Court of New South Wales hearing | Red | Do not generate the statement. List the topics the complainant will cover in their own words. | The statement stays in the complainant's own account. The Local Court note adopts SC Gen 23. |
| Prepare a draft Crown Case Statement, index and witness list for a Supreme Court of New South Wales trial | Green | Prepare a draft Crown Case Statement, index and witness list from the brief. | Check every witness and document against the brief. Paragraph 9B allows this use. It does not allow a generated witness statement. |
| Draft written submissions on sentence in the Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yellow | Draft submissions from the facts and the authorities the lawyer has opened. | Verify in the body that every citation exists, is accurate and is relevant. |
| Draft written submissions on a plea in the Local Court of New South Wales | Yellow | Draft the plea submissions from the facts and the authorities the lawyer has opened. | Verify citations in the body. The Local Court note adopts SC Gen 23. |
| Draft the accused's affidavit in a criminal proceeding in the Supreme Court of Western Australia | Red | Do not substitute the accused's words. List the topics the accused will address. | The affidavit stays in the accused's own words. Do not enter suppressed material into a public tool. |
| [Prepare Local Court of NSW criminal documents under the Gen AI practice note](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/prepare-local-court-of-nsw-criminal-documents-under-the-gen-ai-practice.md) | Yellow | Check a draft against the Local Court practice note, which adopts SC Gen 23 for every Local Court proceeding from 12 January 2026. | The responsible lawyer confirms the Local Court note applies, that affidavit, witness-statement, character-reference and other evidentiary content was not… |
| [Verify references in a Queensland Supreme Court or District Court submission](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/verify-references-in-a-queensland-supreme-court-or-district-court-submis.md) | Red | List the citations in a draft submission so the named practitioner can check each one against the source. | The individual practitioner named on the submission verifies each reference. Naming the firm is not enough.… |
| [Use the South Australian courts Gen AI guidelines in a criminal matter](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/use-the-south-australian-courts-gen-ai-guidelines-in-a-criminal-matter.md) | Yellow | Draft a chronology or submission outline for a criminal step in a court the guidelines cover, for the lawyer to check. | From 1 January 2026 the guidelines cover steps under the Joint Criminal Rules in the Supreme Court, District Court, Magistrates Court, Youth Court, ERD Court… |
| [Check the ACT Magistrates Court practice directions list before assuming an AI direction](https://ailawframework.com/practice/criminal-law/check-the-act-magistrates-court-practice-directions-list-before-assuming.md) | Yellow | Compare the listed practice directions with the criminal filing checklist. | The practice directions list fetched on 10 October 2026 includes directions through 2026 and a 2024 direction on remote appearances and courtroom technology.… |

## Jurisdiction notes

### Australia

- Character references, affidavits and witness statements must be the witness's own words: NSW SC Gen 23 (3 Feb 2025), Vic SC Gen 25 (14 May 2026). See DPP v Khan [2024] ACTSC 19. File the non-AI declaration.
- Verify every citation on AustLII, Westlaw or LexisNexis before filing. See Rishi Nathwani KC (VSC, August 2025) and Re Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 1166.
- Never put client details, brief contents, statements, criminal history, suppressed or Harman material in a public or unvetted tool: ASCR r 9, APP 11, NSW SC Gen 23, privilege.
- Never check a case by asking another AI tool (Vic SC Gen 25). Retrieve it from AustLII, Westlaw or LexisNexis.

Sources:

- [Legal Aid NSW: Preparing a defended hearing in the Local Court, September 2020](https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/legalaidnsw/documents/pdf/for-lawyers/professional-development/lawyer-education-series/summary-crime-part-1/preparing-a-defended-hearing-in-the-local-court.pdf) (checked 2026-09-16)
- [Legal Aid NSW: Preparing for a defended hearing](https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/my-problem-is-about/a-criminal-charge/going-to-court/pleading-not-guilty/step-by-step-guide-preparing-for-defended-hearing) (checked 2026-09-16)
- [NSW Local Court: Generative Artificial Intelligence practice note, 12 January 2026](https://localcourt.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/dcj/ctsd/localcourt/documents/practice-notes/other/Practice_Note_Generative_Artificial_Intelligence_Commences_12.01.26.pdf) (checked 2026-09-16)
- [Legal Aid NSW: A guide to bail](https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/ways-to-get-help/publications-and-resources/a-guide-to-bail) (checked 2026-09-16)

### New Zealand

#### Procedure and offences

Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Offences mainly in the Crimes Act 1961 and other enactments.

#### Courts

Trials in the District Court or High Court. The Youth Court is listed in the Courts of New Zealand GenAI guidelines.

#### Not Australian law

No NSW Local Court, no committal under an Australian Act and no Australian jury-directions bench book.

#### Bail and sentencing

Take bail, sentencing and proceeds of crime from the New Zealand statutes in force.

- Do not file a generated citation, quote or statutory reference until you have opened it in legislation.govt.nz or a trusted case database.
- Do not enter private, confidential, suppressed or privileged material into a public chatbot.
- Do not invent police evidence, witnesses or prior convictions.

Sources:

- [Criminal Procedure Act 2011](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2011/81/en/latest/) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [Crimes Act 1961](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/43/en/latest/) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [Courts of New Zealand: GenAI guidelines — Lawyers (7 December 2023)](https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/6-Going-to-Court/practice-directions/practice-guidelines/all-benches/20231207-GenAI-Guidelines-Lawyers.pdf) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [NZLS: Generative AI guidance for lawyers (March 2024)](https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/professional-practice/rules-and-maintaining-professional-standards/generative-ai-guidance-for-lawyers/) (checked 2026-09-23)

### United States

Local name: Criminal law

#### Dual sovereignty

Federal crimes in federal court under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; state crimes in state court. No single national criminal code.

#### Candor

Rule 11 works differently in criminal cases, but Model Rule 3.3 and standing orders apply. Fabricated authorities risk discipline and ineffective-assistance claims.

- Do not put the brief of evidence, witness particulars or client admissions into a public generative tool.

Sources:

- [ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (29 July 2024)](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [ABA Model Rule 3.3, Candor Toward the Tribunal](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_3_candor_toward_the_tribunal/) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [ABA Model Rule 1.6, Confidentiality of Information](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/) (checked 2026-09-23)
- [Mata v. Avianca, Inc., Opinion and Order on Sanctions (S.D.N.Y. 22 June 2023)](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2022cv01461/575368/54/) (checked 2026-09-23)

## Sources

- [Legal Aid NSW: Preparing a defended hearing in the Local Court, September 2020](https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/legalaidnsw/documents/pdf/for-lawyers/professional-development/lawyer-education-series/summary-crime-part-1/preparing-a-defended-hearing-in-the-local-court.pdf) (checked 2026-09-16)
- [Legal Aid NSW: Preparing for a defended hearing](https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/my-problem-is-about/a-criminal-charge/going-to-court/pleading-not-guilty/step-by-step-guide-preparing-for-defended-hearing) (checked 2026-09-16)
- [NSW Local Court: Generative Artificial Intelligence practice note, 12 January 2026](https://localcourt.nsw.gov.au/content/dam/dcj/ctsd/localcourt/documents/practice-notes/other/Practice_Note_Generative_Artificial_Intelligence_Commences_12.01.26.pdf) (checked 2026-09-16)
- [Legal Aid NSW: A guide to bail](https://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/ways-to-get-help/publications-and-resources/a-guide-to-bail) (checked 2026-09-16)

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