Checklist · Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents
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.
- Kind
- Checklist. Steps or checks to work through and tick off.
- Where it applies
- Australia, New South Wales, Victoria, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United States
- 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 for any key digital exhibit, whether it comes from your client, the other side or a third party, and before it is served, tendered or challenged. Use it early: preservation steps cannot be done later.
How AI may be used
Lawyer-led. AI may list the source, capture date, metadata fields, hashes and gaps against the authenticity questions the lawyer has set, but it must not be treated as determining whether an item is genuine.
AI may
- From the file, list each exhibit's claimed source, capture date, metadata fields, hash values and custody gaps.
- Compare claimed author, date and device fields with the produced file's properties and list mismatches.
- From a permitted production set, list items with missing metadata, inconsistent formatting or reuse patterns as a sample for human review.
AI must not
- Must not state that an item is or is not a deepfake or forgery.
- Must not alter, convert, compress or "enhance" any original file.
- Must not be used as an AI-detection tool whose output is relied on as evidence without expert validation and any required court leave or disclosure.
The lawyer checks
- Originals are preserved with hash values and a complete chain of custody before any examination.
- Any conclusion on authenticity is based on expert evidence and corroboration, not a detector score.
- Court-specific AI disclosure and leave requirements for experts have been checked.
Method: how the Green, Yellow and Red levels are decided. This is guidance for planning, not legal advice.
Official form
Open the official form. Always use the current version from the issuer.
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
- 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
- Outline of submissions objecting to evidence suspected to be AI-generated or altered
All precedents for Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents · Tasks and AI use in this area