Checklist · Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents
NSW gate before compelled or suppressed material enters a generative AI program
A gate, under Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 paragraph 9A, before subpoenaed, suppressed, or compulsion material is entered into any generative AI program, including a closed one.
- Kind
- Checklist. Steps or checks to work through and tick off.
- Where it applies
- New South Wales
- 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 New South Wales.
- Version
- 1
- Source
- Written for this library
When to use it
Use before a New South Wales proceeding's subpoena material, suppressed material, or other material produced under compulsion is entered into a generative AI program. It is not a log of candidate files and it is not limited to public tools.
Used for these tasks
- Flag candidate synthetic or altered items in a production set
- Build a chain-of-custody log from the capture papers
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 the lawyer's marks for subpoena, suppression, and compulsion; the lawyer decides whether paragraph 9A is satisfied before any program is used.
AI may
- List documents the lawyer has marked as produced on subpoena or as subject to a suppression or non-publication order
- Record the platform name the lawyer is considering, without sending it the document
AI must not
- Must not enter the material into a generative AI program
- Must not treat a closed or paid program as outside paragraph 9A
- Must not decide that the confidentiality conditions are satisfied
The lawyer checks
- Each of paragraphs 9A(a), 9A(b) and 9A(c) is addressed before any entry, or the material is not entered
- The satisfaction is the lawyer's, or that of the person responsible for the conduct of the proceeding
- A use allowed by paragraph 9B is still refused where paragraph 9A is not satisfied
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
- Protocol for exchange of native electronic files where authenticity is in issue
- 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