logo
Judge sprays Melbourne lawyers for filing error-riddled AI papers

Judge sprays Melbourne lawyers for filing error-riddled AI papers

1News16 hours ago
A judge has slammed lawyers acting for a boy accused of murder for filing misleading information with the courts after failing to check documents created using artificial intelligence.
"It is not acceptable for AI to be used unless the product of that use is independently and thoroughly verified," Justice James Elliott told the Supreme Court in Melbourne.
The documents related to a 16-year-old boy, who was today found not guilty by way of mental impairment over the murder a 41-year-old woman in Abbotsford in April 2023.
Prosecution, defence and two psychiatrists all agreed the boy, who cannot be legally named, was mentally impaired during the killing because he was suffering schizophrenic delusions.
His lawyers, including senior barrister Rishi Nathwani KC and his junior Amelia Beech, did not properly check their submissions before they were filed to the court containing errors, the court was told.
ADVERTISEMENT
This included references to non-existent case citations and inaccurate quotes from a parliamentary speech.
Justice Elliott said the documents were not signed by barristers or solicitors when they were filed and defence admitted it had used AI when the court could not locate the referenced material.
The submissions were sent to prosecutors, who also did not verify all the information was correct and then created their own submissions based on the defence documents.
Defence apologised to the judge for the error and re-filed documents with the court.
But Justice Elliott said "the misleading information caused by AI did not end there" and the revised documents referred to made-up laws.
"Revised submissions were not reviewed by either side... and referred to legislation that did not exist, an act that was appealed that never occurred," the judge said.
Defence apologised again and eventually filed their documents without AI inaccuracies.
ADVERTISEMENT
"The manner in which these events have unfolded is unsatisfactory," Justice Elliott said.
He said the ability of the court to rely on submissions was "fundamental to the administration of justice" and all litigants should adhere to the Supreme Court's guidelines on AI.
"Use of AI without careful oversight of counsel would seriously undermine this court's ability to deliver justice," he said.
The guidelines state use of AI must not "directly mislead another participant in the litigation process as to the nature of any work understand or the content produced by that program".
Nathwani offered his "genuine and sincere apologies" to the judge and said he was embarrassed by what had occurred.
Prosecutor Daniel Porceddu also apologised and admitted he did not read the defence's references and citations.
He did not further verify the documents' contents because he agreed with the conclusion reached in the defence submissions, he said.
ADVERTISEMENT
The boy, who sat in court as the issue was raised, has been directed to remain under supervision at a Youth Justice Centre following the mental impairment finding.
He was accused, on the basis of complicity, of agreeing to commit the murder with a co-accused in order to steal the woman's car, drive to the Grampians, blow up a bridge and build an anti-communist army to take over Australia.
The plan was never enacted and he was arrested after the killing near Ballarat.
He was found to be mentally impaired during the offending as his schizophrenia was untreated at the time and he followed "grandiose delusions" that he was a prophet of God.
Justice Elliott noted, unlike in NSW, there were no adolescent psychiatric units in Victoria that he could be taken to.
He said he would continue to receive anti-psychotic treatment for his schizophrenia in youth justice.
The boy would return to court for a supervision hearing on November 5.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

New Offence For Demonstrations Outside Homes
New Offence For Demonstrations Outside Homes

Scoop

time2 hours ago

  • Scoop

New Offence For Demonstrations Outside Homes

Minister of Justice The Government is introducing a new offence for engaging in disruptive demonstrations outside private homes, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says. 'The public's ability to demonstrate is a cornerstone of our free and democratic society. It is a key way for citizens to express themselves and engage in political activity. 'However, in recent times, we have seen increased reports of demonstrations targeting private residences, especially of public persons, such as MPs, judges, and other public officials. "Everyone in New Zealand, and their families, should be able to expect peace and privacy in their own home, no matter what their daytime job is. 'We intend to stop this intrusive behaviour, while protecting the public's right to demonstrate in a reasonable manner. 'The ability to protest is protected under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and that will not change. All rights are subject to reasonable limitations. This new offence is such a reasonable limitation and provides a good balance of the interests involved. 'The new law will be tightly targeted. It will only apply to demonstrations directed at a person in their home. It will prohibit unreasonable disruptions for residents, and will consider factors like the time of day, duration, the actions of demonstrators, noise levels and distance to the premises. 'Just as we value the right to protest, privacy is also a key value of our society. Unreasonable intrusions into people's privacy are simply unacceptable.' The legislation will contain a new offence for engaging in a targeted and disruptive demonstration outside residential premises. The Bill includes a maximum penalty of three months in jail or a fine of up to $2,000.

'Your family could be next', warns coward punch victim's brother
'Your family could be next', warns coward punch victim's brother

RNZ News

time13 hours ago

  • RNZ News

'Your family could be next', warns coward punch victim's brother

Coward punch marchers outside the High Court at New Plymouth. Photo: Robin Martin / RNZ A Taranaki father has shared his sense of loss and anger following the death of his son in a one-punch assault. About 200 people gathered at the Tukapa Rugby Club in New Plymouth on Friday to remember Daniel Nganeko and join a march calling for tougher penalties for coward-punch-style offences. Daniel Nganeko died on 29 July after being struck by Daytona Thompson, 22, in what police described as an unprovoked attack at the Tukapa senior prizegiving three days earlier. Te Uraura Nganeko was still coming to terms with his son's death. "It's a tragedy, just a waste of a beautiful life and a beautiful soul. It's just this huge sense of loss and anger. It should never have happened, and that's why we are here on Friday." He said the 37-year-old - a former visual journalist who planned to retrain as a teacher - deserved better. "Daniel was harmless. In the context of this kaupapa Daniel was harmless, he wouldn't hurt a fly. He accepted people as they are and everyone loved him." The Nganeko family organised the march from the Tukapa clubrooms to the High Court, where Thompson was due to plead to a manslaughter charge. Their message was clear. "We are marching because coward punches kill and our laws don't treat them seriously enough. We are here for justice for Daniel and other victims and to change the justice system to stop this happening again. One punch took Daniel's life and we want laws that reflect the reality." Sarah Coward was one of many at the clubrooms wearing a white T-shirt bearing Daniel's image and the slogan "March for Daniel, March for Change". She was feeling his loss keenly. "He was loving, passionate, happy. I mean look at all these people here, you know, like he was great. He was just the best. Talked to everyone, always had time for people and wouldn't hurt anybody." A mate of Daniel's twin brother Cameron - Steve Dent - reinforced the message for tougher penalties. "[The offender] was just out to get another notch on the belt. I think that's the culture we need to change. We need tougher sentencing so these guys know that if they engage in that sort of behaviour that they will go away for life." Cameron Nganeko, meanwhile, rallied the marchers from a lectern before they headed to the courthouse. "How long must we wait for the government to act? If we remain silent, if we do nothing your family could be next. Let's come together as one, stand side-by-side and stand up, speak out and defend those who no longer can [defend themselves]. Enough is enough, it's time for change and it starts now." Thompson pleaded guilty to the manslaughter charge and will be sentenced in October. Te Uraura Nganeko predicted the plea - but it was little relief. "I really haven't got a message for him. He killed my son." He said Thompson had a good lawyer. "There is a system in play here, and that's one of the issues I have with the discounts offenders get for pleading guilty. I don't believe they should get any discounts for violent offences." The government aimed to introduce legislation recognising one-punch attacks as a specific offence - with lengthy jail terms - before the end of the year, and have it passed into law before the next general election. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

Supreme Court declines family's bid for man's release after 20 years in secure care
Supreme Court declines family's bid for man's release after 20 years in secure care

NZ Herald

time15 hours ago

  • NZ Herald

Supreme Court declines family's bid for man's release after 20 years in secure care

Efforts to free the man from compulsory care have been heard in multiple courts, including the Supreme Court. Photo / 123RF The man was living with his mother when in June 2004 he carried an axe on to a neighbour's property. He said he was 'James Bond' and used the axe to break windows in the neighbour's garage and van. A judge found at a later disposition hearing that the man had an intellectual disability. His risk to his health and safety of others was such that a secure care order for a term of two years was considered necessary. The compulsory care order has been extended multiple times since 2006, most recently for a period of three years from April 2023, on the grounds of the risk posed to the community if he was released. The judge noted the likelihood he would return to his mother's home, which evidence showed did not meet the required standards either in terms of security or staffing. The man was transferred early on from a care facility to a secure hospital-level service, following reports of his absconding, hiding weapons and property damage. In 2017, the Family Court extended the order by 18 months and varied it to a 'secure' order, under which he was transferred to a psychiatric hospital. Appeals lodged on his behalf challenged the validity of the compulsory care order's renewal on multiple occasions. The man, supported by his mother who acted as his welfare guardian, wanted his detention to end so he could live with her. Appeals to the High Court and Court of Appeal failed after it was found the man posed a 'high or very high risk' of committing acts of violence if released from care. His main argument in relation to the initial offending was that the period of detention must be proportionate to the original crime. The Supreme Court acknowledged it was apparent that detention itself had impacted adversely on the man. A doctor's view was that he appeared to have become 'increasingly less treatable over the years', as his behaviour created 'major impediments to fostering any level of therapeutic engagement'. 'Against this background, it can be seen, albeit with the benefit of hindsight, that there were opportunities to allow (him) to be cared for in a less restrictive environment at a much earlier point in time. 'Indeed, it can also be said that the failure to release (him) earlier goes some way to explaining why (his) case presents as an intractable problem for both courts and caregivers,' Justices Joe Williams, Forrest Miller, Dame Helen Winkelmann, Dame Ellen France said in a decision made public today. In the High Court, the judge addressed several matters, including the man's appeal of the Family Court's decision in 2017 to extend the decision; an application for judicial review addressing his 'arbitrary detention', the 'discriminatory nature' of the Act and other breaches of the Bill of Rights. The Court of Appeal heard a joint appeal against the High Court judgment, and an appeal against a subsequent decision of the Family Court in 2020 to extend the compulsory care order. The appeal court dismissed both appeals in December 2023. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, and asked that three matters be addressed, including the correctness of the approach to the decision to extend a compulsory care order. It also asked whether there have been breaches of the man's rights, and the consequences of any breaches if found. The appeal to the Supreme Court has partly succeeded, but the man will remain in care. The Justices said it was a tragic case, but releasing the man into the community could only lead to further tragedy. The higher court found by a majority that the Court of Appeal was incorrect in its approach to a section of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act. 'Given the conflict of rights in this case, the law's primary impulse must be to ensure that (he) continues to receive care in an environment in which he and others will be kept safe,' the Supreme Court said. Final determination of the man's circumstances will require updating evidence to be considered by the Family Court. Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ's regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store