InquirerDepEd, cops probe alleged gun threat at Baguio schoolThe Jerusalem PostSaudi civil defense sends all-clear after alerts issued for Riyadh in first since Houthi escalationESPN DeportesFC Juárez rompe su mala racha con triunfo sobre TigresPunchFG plans low-key celebration for 66th Independence Dayוואלהתחזית מזג האוויר: טפטוף עד גשם מקומי קל ברחבי הארץESPNWeek 3 preview: Florida State's bleak future, revenge game in Oxford, more한겨레한동훈, 김승원 사퇴에 “국민 승리…민주당 결사 옹호에도 이겨”SözcüKozinoğlu'nun ölümünde 14 dakikalık sır: Koğuşun görüntüleri ortaya çıktıCNN TürkHava Durumu (19-09-2026)Sky TG24Roma Future Week 2026, programma e ospiti della kermesse dedicata all'innovazione경향신문잠이 안 온다면 저녁 식탁부터 바꿔보자…숙면에 도움 되는 음식 5가지RapplerLIVE UPDATES: First BARMM parliamentary elections
The Daily Newsstand · Free, Always
Saturday, September 19, 2026

Parole board used AI, cited fake case law in murderer’s release conditions

Translate

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

Tasmania’s justice department on Friday evening confirmed the review was occurring, four days after a parole condition of convicted killer Susan Neill-Fraser was deemed invalid.

Neill-Fraser’s parole conditions were overturned.Facebook

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 to claim her innocence or an 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 that the parole board relied on a document prepared with the help of AI and cited case law that didn’t 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 to the department.

Prisoners Legal Service Tasmania chair Greg Barns said the conditions placed on Neill-Fraser were deeply troubling, and it was extraordinary that the case law relied on wasn’t 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.”

A spokesperson for the parole board has said it does not comment on individual matters and was unable to answer questions about the extent of its AI use.

Neill-Fraser, who has launched multiple failed appeals against her conviction, has vowed to continue her fight to clear her name.

Attorney-General Guy Barnett has written to the parole board asking for an explanation and said the mistake was unacceptable.

View the original on The Sydney Morning Herald

KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.