Tasmania launches review after AI-assisted document cited non-existent case law in convicted killer’s parole case

A review of potential artificial intelligence use in parole decisions will be undertaken after a “concerning” error in the case of a high-profile murderer.

Tasmania’s Department of Justice on Friday evening confirmed the review would take place, four days after a parole condition imposed on convicted killer Susan Neill-Fraser was deemed invalid.

Neill-Fraser was released on parole in 2022 after serving 13 years behind bars for murdering her partner Bob Chappell on their yacht in 2009.

The state parole board later added conditions preventing her from speaking to the media about her claims of innocence or alleged wrongful conviction.

On Tuesday, after a legal challenge from Neill-Fraser, the Supreme Court of Tasmania ruled the condition was invalid and made without procedural fairness.

It was revealed in court the parole board relied on a document prepared with the help of AI, which cited non-existent case law.

“The department will undertake a review to determine the extent to which artificial intelligence may have been used to inform past Tasmanian parole board decisions,” a justice department spokesperson said.

“The department is unable to comment further while the review is in progress.”

The parole board is an independent decision-making body separate from the department.

Prisoners Legal Service Tasmania chair Greg Barns said the conditions placed on Neill-Fraser were deeply troubling, and it was extraordinary the case law relied on had not been checked.

The legal service was undertaking its own audit of two years’ worth of parole board decisions to see if there were any signs of AI use or mistakes, Mr Barns said.

Sarah Schwartz, from the Human Rights Law Centre, which represented Neill-Fraser, said the case had revealed serious deficiencies.

“It’s really concerning that the parole board of Tasmania ... used AI in generating this document,” she said outside court on Tuesday.

“(It) severely restricted our client’s fundamental freedoms, her freedom to speak in regard to her matter.”