Tasmania to review AI use in parole board decisions after fictitious case law scandal

In short:

Tasmania's Justice Department says it will review the extent to which artificial intelligence may have been used to inform past Tasmanian parole board decisions.

It comes after revelations the parole board relied on a document in the case of Susan Neill-Fraser that cited case law that was "fictitious" and likely "AI hallucinations".

What's next?

Barrister Greg Barns SC says anyone involved in generating the fake case law used in Neill-Fraser's case should resign or be sacked.

Tasmania's Justice Department will undertake a review of past parole board decisions to understand the extent to which artificial intelligence (AI) has been used and whether it informed the outcome.

It follows revelations that AI-generated case law was used to justify a parole condition for convicted murderer Susan Neill-Fraser.

Neill-Fraser, who served 13 years in jail for the murder of her partner Bob Chappell in 2009, was released on parole in 2022.

A parole condition that prevented her from speaking to the media about her alleged innocence or claimed wrongful conviction was removed earlier this week, after Justice Stephen Estcourt ruled it denied her procedural fairness, was legally unreasonable and created uncertainty.

Justice Estcourt 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".

In response, the state's Attorney-General Guy Barnett said he would be writing to the parole board "seeking an explanation about its professional standards".

Opposition parties said that needed to include a review of past cases to understand how widespread the issue is.

On Wednesday morning, the ABC asked the parole board if it could provide a statement on its use of AI more broadly and if it would be conducting a review.

It received a response yesterday evening with the Justice Department confirming there would be an audit of past cases.

"The Department will undertake a review to determine the extent to which Artificial Intelligence (AI) may have been used to inform past Tasmanian Parole Board decisions," a spokesperson said in a statement.

"The Department is unable to comment further while the review is in progress."

The parole board itself has repeatedly declined to respond to media enquiries, providing only a short statement.

"The Parole Board does not comment on individual matters and is unable to provide any further response to the additional questions raised at this time," a spokesperson said.

While opposition parties were satisfied with a review, Greg Barns SC from the Prisoner's Legal Service wanted it to go further. He called for anyone involved in generating the fake case law used in Neill-Fraser's case to resign or be sacked.

The government has previously said the parole board is independent and the department would not comment on "employment matters relating to individuals".