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 the Supreme Court 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. No official judgment was available to automated checks on 16 September 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 that cited legal authorities likely generated by AI and not in fact existing. The Supreme Court reportedly declared media-related parole conditions invalid after the State conceded procedural unfairness, uncertainty, legal unreasonableness and jurisdictional error.
- 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
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 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.