Checklist · Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents
NSW Supreme Court limits on generative AI in evidentiary material
A checklist of Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 on affidavits, witness statements, exhibits, and expert reports: the prohibition, the disclosure that generative AI was not used, and what an application for leave must identify.
- 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 when evidentiary material is being prepared for a New South Wales court to which SC Gen 23 applies, including before an expert is instructed. It does not draft the affidavit, the statement, the exhibit, or the expert report.
Used for these tasks
- Draft an authenticity challenge or expert-instruction letter
- Build an authenticity checklist for a key digital exhibit
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 which paragraph of SC Gen 23 the lawyer is applying and whether leave has been sought; the lawyer decides whether generative AI may be used and settles anything a witness signs.
AI may
- Record the program name and version if the lawyer is considering an application for leave
- Tick whether paragraph 13 or paragraph 22 disclosure is present, once the lawyer has checked the document
AI must not
- Must not generate or rephrase the content of an affidavit, witness statement, character reference, or expert report
- Must not write the disclosure that generative AI was not used, as if it were the witness's words
- Must not treat preparatory work as permission to generate the evidence itself
The lawyer checks
- Paragraph 10 is applied to the evidence, and paragraph 13 disclosure is in the document that needs it
- Any leave application identifies the four matters paragraph 15 or paragraph 21 requires, as applicable
- The expert has been shown the practice note, as paragraph 24 requires, before the report is prepared
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)
- 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