Court document · Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents
Outline of submissions objecting to evidence suspected to be AI-generated or altered
Outline 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.
- Kind
- Court document. A document filed or served in a court or tribunal.
- Where it applies
- Australia, New South Wales, Victoria
- AI use
- Red Keep AI out of the decisive steps. A lawyer does the work.
- Law stated as at
- 17 October 2026
- Status
- Maintained. Checked against the cited sources on 17 October 2026.
- Version
- 1
- Source
- Written for this library
When to use it
Use in uniform evidence law courts when a party seeks to tender digital material whose authenticity is in genuine doubt and you have an evidentiary basis for the objection (expert evidence, metadata inconsistencies or a refused s 167 request). Do not use to raise speculative allegations.
How AI may be used
Lawyer-led. AI may assemble the evidentiary references and check each assertion against a numbered item in the evidence, but the lawyer writes the submissions and verifies every authority against the source.
AI may
- Build a table linking each factual assertion in the draft to the exhibit, affidavit paragraph or expert report that supports it, and list unsupported assertions.
- Check statutory references against the current Act on the official register.
- Produce a chronology of the requests made and responses received.
AI must not
- Must not draft allegations of fabrication or fraud.
- Must not insert case citations; any authority must be found and verified by the lawyer from an authorised source.
- Must not be the only means of verifying citations (NSW SC Gen 23 para 17).
The lawyer checks
- Every allegation has a proper evidentiary basis.
- Every authority exists, is current and supports the proposition.
- Any AI-use verification statement or responsible-person naming required by the forum is included.
Method: how the Green, Yellow and Red levels are decided. This is guidance for planning, not legal advice.
Read the full text
The full text is for signed-in accounts. It is free. When you sign in you can:
- read the whole precedent, with its drafting notes beside it;
- copy it, or download it as a Word file or Markdown;
- add it to your firm’s knowledge base, so colleagues can find it;
- let the AI tools you connect read it from that knowledge base.
The summary, the law it rests on and the AI-use guidance above stay public. Privacy.
More in Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents
- Deepfake and synthetic evidence authenticity checklist (images, audio, video and documents)
- Letter requesting native files, metadata and device examination (Evidence Act s 167)
- Letter instructing a digital forensics expert on suspected synthetic or altered media
- Client warning letter on AI-fabricated or altered evidence
- Digital evidence intake and chain-of-custody record
All precedents for Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents · Tasks and AI use in this area