Checklist · Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents
Federal Court checklist: generative AI and evidentiary material
A checklist for evidentiary material in the Federal Court where generative AI may have been used: when the practice note requires disclosure, what that disclosure must say, and what must not be put into a tool.
- Kind
- Checklist. Steps or checks to work through and tick off.
- Where it applies
- Commonwealth
- AI use
- Yellow You and the tool draft together, with you directing. You check every statement you rely on.
- Law stated as at
- 22 October 2026
- Status
- Maintained. Checked on 22 October 2026 against the authority it cites, for Commonwealth.
- Version
- 1
- Source
- Written for this library
When to use it
Use before a document intended as evidence or opinion is filed or shown in the Federal Court, or before an exhibit is put into a generative AI tool. It does not draft the affidavit, the expert report, or the disclosure. It is not the production-set log.
Used for these tasks
- Draft an authenticity challenge or expert-instruction letter
- Flag candidate synthetic or altered items in a production set
Each task page says how far AI may help with the task and what the lawyer must review.
How AI may be used
AI may list whether a file was summarised, analysed, or created with a generative tool, from instructions the lawyer has already marked; the lawyer decides whether disclosure is required and what is filed.
AI may
- List each exhibit the lawyer has marked as summarised, analysed, or created with a generative tool
- Record which of the three disclosure categories on the practice note the lawyer is considering
AI must not
- Must not draft the affidavit, the witness statement, the expert report, or the words of the disclosure
- Must not describe a file as a deepfake or as authentic
- Must not put confidential, privileged, suppressed, or private material into a generative tool
The lawyer checks
- Disclosure, where it is required, is at the start of the document and states where and how the tool was used
- An image, video, or sound created with a generative tool is identified as such, and only if the lawyer has decided the creation was necessary
- Paragraphs 4.13 to 4.15 are considered before any part of the material is entered into a tool, including a closed tool
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 available after you log in. It is free. When you log 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)
- Metadata comparison schedule for a digital file
- Letter requesting native files, metadata and device examination (Evidence Act s 167)
- NSW Supreme Court limits on generative AI in evidentiary material
- Production-set log for candidate synthetic or altered media
- Letter instructing a digital forensics expert on suspected synthetic or altered media
- Protocol for exchange of native electronic files where authenticity is in issue
- NSW gate before compelled or suppressed material enters a generative AI program
- Client warning letter on AI-fabricated or altered evidence
- Letter asking that devices and native files be preserved
- NSW verification of citations and evidence references in written submissions
- Digital evidence intake and chain-of-custody record
- Response sheet: suspected non-consensual intimate deepfake
- 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