Agreement · Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents
Protocol for exchange of native electronic files where authenticity is in issue
Short protocol the parties can adopt for a file whose authenticity, identity or provenance is disputed: native file, hash, metadata export, no public AI, and a timetable for a s 167 request.
- Kind
- Agreement. A contract between two or more parties.
- Where it applies
- Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, Australian Capital Territory, Northern Territory, Tasmania
- AI use
- Red You write the text. The tool writes nothing into the document. Where permitted, it may check, clarify or collect data, and anything it checks or collects is verified.
- Law stated as at
- 22 October 2026
- Status
- Maintained. Checked on 22 October 2026 against the 5 authorities it cites, for 6 jurisdictions.
- Version
- 1
- Source
- Written for this library
When to use it
Use at a directions hearing or in correspondence when a particular image, message export, audio or video is disputed. It is an agreement about handling that material. It is not a submission on admissibility and it does not replace an expert report.
Used for these tasks
- Draft an authenticity challenge or expert-instruction letter
- Compare claimed source metadata with the file actually produced
Each task page says how far AI may help with the task and what the lawyer must review.
How AI may be used
The lawyer writes and negotiates the protocol; a tool may only insert agreed item identifiers, dates and party names from the instructions into the schedule.
AI may
- Insert item identifiers, party names and proposed dates from a list the lawyer has approved.
- Check the schedule for blank rows after the lawyer has filled the operative clauses.
AI must not
- Must not draft or amend the operative clauses that the parties are asked to adopt.
- Must not describe either party's file as authentic or as fabricated.
- Must not send the protocol.
The lawyer checks
- The item list matches the files actually in dispute, not the whole production.
- The hash method, the holder of the native file, and the dates are agreed or clearly marked as proposed.
- Clause 6 matches GPN-AI paras 4.13 to 4.15 if the proceeding is in the Federal Court, and any suppression or confidentiality order.
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)
- Federal Court checklist: generative AI and evidentiary material
- 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
- 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