---
title: "Build a serious-harm evidence table under the uniform defamation Acts"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law/build-a-serious-harm-or-threshold-evidence-table/australia"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A33-T1-R3-AU"
practice_area: "Defamation & Media Law"
tier: "yellow"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["AU"]
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Build a serious-harm evidence table under the uniform defamation Acts

> From the analytics, correspondence and witness notes, list evidence of extent, gravity and actual impact under s 10A of the uniform Acts, with gaps marked.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law/build-a-serious-harm-or-threshold-evidence-table/australia  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

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

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Defamation & Media Law](https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law.md) |
| Human involvement | Yellow: Lawyer and AI draft together |
| How AI is used | From the analytics, correspondence and witness notes, list evidence of extent, gravity and actual impact under s 10A of the uniform Acts, with gaps marked. |
| What the lawyer must review | Verify cases on AustLII; serious harm is applied inconsistently Note s 10A (Stage 1) applies in NSW, Vic, SA, Qld, Tas, NT and ACT Check Stage 2: NSW/ACT 1 July 2024; Vic 11 Sept 2024; Tas Amendment Act 2025 Check Stage 2 in Qld (Dec 2025) and SA (partial) Avoid UK Lachaux reasoning Use real facts on reach, recipients and what they understood |
| Written for | Australia |
| Applies to | [Build a serious-harm or threshold-evidence table](https://ailawframework.com/practice/defamation-and-media-law/build-a-serious-harm-or-threshold-evidence-table.md) |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer review required**

The responsible lawyer reviews the work against the instructions, sources and intended use.

- What the AI does: Potential support includes organising research leads and summarising source material. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Open each relied-on authority independently. Confirm its existence, current status, proposition and any quotation or pinpoint reference.
2. Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
3. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
4. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

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