Attorney-general demands explanation over AI court blunder

Tasmania's attorney-general has sought an explanation from the state's parole board about its professional standards after it was revealed that AI-generated case law was used to justify a parole condition for convicted murderer Sue Neill-Fraser.Neill-Fraser served 13 years in jail for the murder of her partner Bob Chappell aboard their yacht in 2009.She was released on parole in 2022, with the parole board later adding a condition that prevented her from speaking to the media about her alleged innocence or claimed wrongful conviction.In the Supreme Court in Hobart on Tuesday, Justice Stephen Escourt ruled the condition was invalid because it denied Neill-Fraser procedural fairness, was legally unreasonable, and created uncertainty.Justice Escourt also found that when the parole board made the decision to impose this condition, it had relied on a document that cited case law that was "fictitious" and likely "AI hallucinations".Legal director of Human Rights Law Centre Sarah Schwartz speaking to the media after the Parol Board's decision was overturned on Tuesday. (ABC News: Ebony ten Broeke)The court heard that the document "argued forcefully" in favour of keeping the parole condition.It took Neill-Fraser's legal team to bring it to the court's attention that the case law referred to didn't exist.Speaking outside the court, legal director at the Human Rights Law Centre Sarah Schwartz said the case had revealed "serious deficiencies" within the state's parole system."It's really concerning that the Parole Board of Tasmania, a public authority, used AI in generating this document that so severely has restricted our client's fundamental freedoms, her freedom to speak in regard to her matter," Ms Schwartz said.In his response to the findings, Tasmanian Attorney-General Guy Barnett noted the parole board was independent and the government had "no role in its decision-making"."However, I will be writing to the chair of the Parole Board seeking an explanation about its professional standards after inaccurate information was produced in this case, which is not acceptable," Mr Barnett said."I will be seeking assurances around how the Board will ensure this doesn't happen again."Mr Barnett also asked the head of the justice department to remind employees that they "must comply with the AI use policy".Calls for parole board resignationsSpeaking to 936 ABC Hobart, barrister and chair of Prisoners Legal Service, Greg Barns SC, questioned how widespread the parole board's use of AI was and called for an audit to be undertaken."It's extraordinary," Mr Barns said."There've been plenty of warnings about AI from courts and other legal organisations, and more generally."Our view is [the Parol Board] have no choice but to resign, but there should be an audit, and we're certainly going to be talking to our clients and checking whether there are written decisions in their cases."If case law is used, we're going to check it."Greg Barns SC has called for an audit of the Parole Board of Tasmania. (ABC News: Kate Nickels)Community Legal Centres Tasmania president Ryan Gilmour said he and other lawyers had seen an increasing number of cases of AI causing issues in the legal system."We've started to see probably over the last six months in particular … clients drafting their instructions to us in advance of an appointment with the assistance of AI," Mr Gilmour said.He said it was normally obvious when a client had used AI, because the instructions would be much longer than they needed to be and often drifted into unnecessary territory."The challenge for us in that respect is that we then have to unpack some of what they've been told and so we can explain to them what their issue really is and give them proper advice."Clients then question the advice you're providing them because it may differ from what they've been told from AI."Mr Gilmour said he had also encountered AI hallucinations or AI-made case law, something he said other members of Community Legal Centres around the state were seeing too.AI usage creeps into legal fieldEarlier this year, a self-represented litigant cited case law that had been entirely made up, with the presiding judge, Chief Justice Chris Shanahan, writing that it "proved to be an 'hallucination' generated by artificial intelligence".In his judgement, Chief Justice Shanahan dedicated a section to the "hallucination", writing that the applicant's reliance on the AI citation was of "considerable concern" and some "considerable effort" was put into identifying whether it was real.Artificial intelligence is being used in a growing number of legal scenarios in Tasmania. (ABC News: Maren Preuss)Last year, the Tenants Union of Tasmania also put up social media post urging people to be cautious when using AI."We have seen an increase in people using AI for legal advice before contacting us," it said."While we think it's great that renters research information themselves before calling us, screenshots we have seen of AI advice most of the time did not hit the mark."AI will get better over time, but at this stage we strongly recommend searching reputable and local sources directly."The Parole Board of Tasmania has been contacted for comment.