Precedents: Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents
6 starting-point precedents for this area. Each one names the law it rests on and says how far AI may help.
- Precedents in this area
- 6
- Full text
- For signed-in accounts
- Newest law stated as at
- 17 October 2026
- Guidance for this area
- Tasks and AI use in Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents
| Precedent | Kind | Where it applies | AI use | Law stated as at |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deepfake and synthetic evidence authenticity checklist (images, audio, video and documents)Step-by-step checklist for testing whether an image, recording, video, message or document has been generated or altered with AI before relying on it or challenging it: preserve, trace provenance, examine, corroborate, and decide on expert and procedural steps. | Checklist | Australia, New South Wales, Victoria, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United States | Red | 17 October 2026 |
| Letter requesting native files, metadata and device examination (Evidence Act s 167)Letter to the other side requesting production of the original native file and metadata, examination and testing of the file and the device that produced it, and the person who created it, where AI generation or alteration is suspected. | Letter | Australia, New South Wales, Victoria | Yellow | 17 October 2026 |
| Letter instructing a digital forensics expert on suspected synthetic or altered mediaInstruction letter to a digital forensics expert to examine whether images, recordings, video or documents were generated or altered with AI, setting the questions, method, chain of custody, code of conduct and AI-disclosure requirements. | Letter | Australia, New South Wales, Victoria | Red | 17 October 2026 |
| Client warning letter on AI-fabricated or altered evidenceLetter warning a client that creating, altering or "enhancing" evidence with AI is serious misconduct and may be a crime, explaining what the firm must do if it learns evidence is false, and asking for originals and provenance. | Letter | Australia, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland | Yellow | 17 October 2026 |
| Digital evidence intake and chain-of-custody recordForm for recording how a digital exhibit was obtained, its hash values, every transfer, access and copy, and integrity checks, so that its authenticity and handling can be proved. | Form | Australia, New South Wales, Victoria | Yellow | 17 October 2026 |
| Outline of submissions objecting to evidence suspected to be AI-generated or alteredOutline of written submissions opposing, or seeking limits on, the tender of a document, image or recording on authenticity grounds under the uniform Evidence Acts, with alternative orders for production and forensic examination. | Court document | Australia, New South Wales, Victoria | Red | 17 October 2026 |
AI use levels: Green means AI can do most of the drafting and a lawyer reviews it. Yellow means AI helps in set ways and a lawyer checks specific points. Red means a lawyer does the work and AI stays out of the decisive steps.