Neill-Fraser v Tasmania Parole Board (Supreme Court of Tasmania, reported 15 Sep 2026)
·Supreme Court of Tasmania·AUOtherunverified
In Tasmania, ABC and the Human Rights Law Centre reported that Justice Stephen Estcourt set aside Susan Neill-Fraser's media-related parole conditions after the State conceded the Parole Board relied on a document with likely AI-generated authorities that did not exist. The Justice Department announced a review. No official judgment was available to automated checks on 5 October 2026.
- Court
- Supreme Court of Tasmania
- Date
- 2026-09-15
- Who used the AI
- Other
- AI tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Conduct
- ABC, the Human Rights Law Centre and Pulse Tasmania reported that the Parole Board of Tasmania relied on a rationale document, prepared with AI by the board secretary, that cited legal authorities likely generated by AI and not in fact existing. Justice Stephen Estcourt reportedly declared the media-related parole conditions invalid after the State conceded procedural unfairness, uncertainty, legal unreasonableness and jurisdictional error. Tasmania's Justice Department later told the ABC it would review AI use in past Parole Board decisions.
- Outcome
- Other
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Unverified — pending primary-source confirmation
- Last checked
- Not separately recorded
Primary sources for this incident
- ABC News report on Neill-Fraser parole condition and likely AI hallucinations (15 Sep 2026)
- Human Rights Law Centre statement on Supreme Court decision (15 Sep 2026)
- Pulse Tasmania report on calls for review after fake AI case-law revelation (16 Sep 2026)
- ABC News report on Tasmania's Justice Department review of AI use in past parole board decisions (19 Sep 2026)
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- Shahin v Industrial Relations Secretary on behalf of Multicultural NSW (No 2) [2026] NSWIRComm 112026-07-21 · Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales (Full Bench) · OtherA Full Bench of the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales refused leave to appeal an unfair-dismissal decision, criticising the self-represented appellant's use of generative AI under Practice Note 33 after…
- McCarthy v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (3d Cir. 2026), No. 24-27042026-03-27 · US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · WarningThe US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reprimanded an attorney whose opening brief contained AI-hallucinated case summaries and a nonexistent authority that he failed to correct. As its first AI-hallucination cas…
- Dayal [2024] FedCFamC2F 11662024-08-27 · Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) · OtherIn Australia's Federal Circuit and Family Court, a Victorian solicitor tendered four non-existent authorities generated by the AI tool in his LEAP practice software. Judge Humphreys referred him to the Victorian Legal S…
- Vijay Ghanshyam Gadiya v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 9472026-09-02 · Supreme Court of India · OtherExtending Pooja Ramesh Singh from tribunals to executive adjudicators, the Supreme Court of India set aside a customs penalty order of INR 4.25 billion, and the High Court judgment upholding it, because the order relied…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Neill-Fraser v Tasmania Parole Board (Supreme Court of Tasmania, reported 15 Sep 2026)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/neill-fraser-v-tasmania-parole-board (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.