Summarise surveillance already on a Queensland file
MaintainedLast reviewed
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- From surveillance and social-media material already on the file, produce a dated summary with exhibit references and a list of apparent inconsistencies with the claimed disabilities. Do not collect further material and do not make a credibility finding.
- What the lawyer must review
- Use only material already held on the file
- Check provenance before any use in court
- Keep the material out of a public chatbot
- A credibility finding is for the lawyer and the court
Rules that apply
The document starts from the task name. Change it if this piece of work is different.
The work product
Forum. Queensland personal-injury file on which surveillance or social-media material has already been collected
Produce. A dated summary with exhibit references, and no credibility conclusion.
Have ready. The footage, images or posts already on the file; The claimed disabilities the lawyer identifies; The exhibit numbers the lawyer assigns.
Example of the limit. Illustrative example: The draft says the footage proves the person can work. The lawyer replaces that sentence with the dates, the activities shown and the exhibit numbers.
Stop and hand it back when
- The material is not already on the file.
- The draft states a credibility conclusion.
Sources for this task were checked on 2026-10-23.
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | From surveillance and social-media material already on the file, produce a dated summary with exhibit references and a list of apparent inconsistencies with the claimed disabilities. Do not collect further material and do not make a credibility finding. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- Queensland Courts tells users not to enter private, confidential, suppressed or privileged information into a public generative-AI chatbot. The user remains responsible for accuracy. Use a firm-controlled tool.
- If the summary is used in written submissions in the Supreme Court, Practice Direction 5 of 2025 requires the responsible person to be named, and a legal practitioner responsible person must be the individual practitioner, not the firm. That person verifies every reference.
- District Court Practice Direction 12 of 2025 is to the same effect for written submissions, and the person speaking is also a responsible person for the written submissions. In the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, Practice Direction 1 of 2026 requires the same naming and verification.
- The summary lists dates, what is shown and the exhibit reference. It does not say the claimed disabilities are false. No Queensland surveillance statute was opened for this version.
Sources
- Queensland Courts: Using generative AI · 2026-10-23
- Supreme Court of Queensland Practice Direction 5 of 2025 · 2026-10-23
- District Court of Queensland Practice Direction 12 of 2025 · 2026-10-23
- QIRC Practice Direction 1 of 2026 · 2026-10-23
Do not scrape or ask the tool to look for further social-media material.
A reference in a submission to a non-existent source may be referred to the Legal Services Commissioner, and personal costs may be sought. The named practitioner checks every reference.
Surveillance and medical comparisons are personal information. Apply ASCR r 9 and APP 11, and consider Privacy Act notification.