Checklist · Incoming evidence — deepfakes & synthetic documents
NSW verification of citations and evidence references in written submissions
A checklist for the verification Supreme Court Practice Note SC Gen 23 requires in written submissions: citations exist, are accurate and relevant, and references to evidence were checked by a person rather than only by a generative tool.
- 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 written submissions or a summary of argument in a New South Wales court covered by SC Gen 23 refer to a digital exhibit or other evidence, and a generative tool was used in preparing them. It is not an outline of an authenticity objection.
Used for these tasks
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 citations and exhibit references that appear in a draft the lawyer supplies; the lawyer verifies each one and signs the verification in the submissions.
AI may
- Extract the citation and exhibit references from a draft the lawyer has supplied
- Leave a blank row beside each reference for the person who checked it
AI must not
- Must not verify a citation or an evidence reference by using only a generative AI tool
- Must not write the submissions or an objection outline
- Must not mark a reference as accurate because a tool said so
The lawyer checks
- The verification required by paragraph 16 is in the body of the submissions, not only on this checklist
- A person, not only a generative tool, has checked that each citation exists, is accurate, and is relevant
- References to evidence in affidavits or transcript are checked against the source the lawyer names
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
- 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
- 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