Tasmania’s Department of Justice is to conduct a review of artificial intelligence use in parole decisions after a document containing non-existent case law was relied on in the case of convicted killer Susan Neill-Fraser.
The review was confirmed on Friday evening, four days after the Supreme Court of Tasmania ruled that a parole condition imposed on Neill-Fraser was invalid and had been made without procedural fairness.
Neill-Fraser was released on parole in 2022 after serving 13 years in prison for murdering her partner, Bob Chappell, on their yacht in 2009. The parole board later imposed conditions preventing her from speaking to the media about her claims of innocence or alleged wrongful conviction.
During her legal challenge, the court heard that the board had relied on a document prepared with the assistance of artificial intelligence. The document cited case law that did not exist.
“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. A spokesperson for the board said it did not comment on individual matters and could not answer questions about the extent of its use of artificial intelligence.
Greg Barns, chair of Prisoners Legal Service Tasmania, described the conditions imposed on Neill-Fraser as deeply troubling and said it was extraordinary that the cited case law had not been checked.
His organisation is carrying out its own audit of two years of parole board decisions to look for signs of artificial intelligence use or other mistakes.
Sarah Schwartz, of the Human Rights Law Centre, which represented Neill-Fraser, said the case had exposed 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.”
Attorney-General Guy Barnett has written to the parole board seeking an explanation and said the mistake was unacceptable.
Neill-Fraser, who has made multiple unsuccessful appeals against her conviction, has vowed to continue her efforts to clear her name.
