Tasmania Begins Review of Parole AI Use After Nonexistent Case Citation

Tasmania’s Justice Department is reviewing whether AI may have informed earlier Parole Board decisions after a court challenge exposed a document prepared with AI assistance that cited case law that did not exist. The department declined further comment while the review is under way.

The restriction at issue

The case centered on Susan Neill-Fraser, whose parole conditions barred her from speaking to the media about her claim of innocence or an alleged wrongful conviction. She challenged that restriction in court.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania ruled that the condition was invalid and made without procedural fairness. During the challenge, the court was told the Parole Board had relied on an AI-assisted document containing non-existent case law.

Reviewing past decisions

The department said its review will determine the extent to which AI may have been used to inform past Tasmanian Parole Board decisions. The board is an independent decision-making body, rather than part of the department.

A Parole Board spokesperson said the board does not comment on individual matters and could not answer questions about the extent of its AI use. That leaves the department’s review as the official route for establishing how broadly AI-assisted material may have informed earlier decisions.

Sarah Schwartz of the Human Rights Law Centre, which represented Neill-Fraser, said the case had exposed serious deficiencies. She said the condition had severely restricted her client’s freedom to speak about her case.

A separate audit widens scrutiny

Tasmania’s attorney general, Guy Barnett, has asked the Parole Board for an explanation and called the error unacceptable. Separately, Prisoners Legal Service Tasmania said it was auditing two years of board decisions for signs of AI use or mistakes.

The immediate question is whether the problem was confined to Neill-Fraser’s case or whether AI-assisted legal material played a role in other decisions that set parole conditions. The two reviews are now examining that question from different directions.