'AI hallucinations' scuttle parole board's gag order on convicted murderer

A parole condition preventing convicted murderer Susan Neill-Fraser from protesting her innocence to the media has been declared invalid by Tasmania's Supreme Court.

Neill-Fraser was found guilty of murdering her partner Bob Chappell aboard his yacht in Hobart in 2009.

She served 13 years in prison and was released on parole in 2022.

In December 2024, the Parole Board of Tasmania added a condition that she not speak "directly or indirectly with any media outlet to claim (her) alleged innocence and/or wrongful conviction".

This was replaced by a new parole condition in May 2025, which the Human Rights Law Centre said was more restrictive.

Today in the Supreme Court in Hobart Justice Stephen Estcourt ruled the condition was invalid because it denied her procedural fairness, was legally unreasonable, and created uncertainty.

Justice Estcourt also accepted that the parole board's decision-making was affected by a document that cited case law that did not exist, and was instead likely "AI hallucinations".

Speaking outside court, Neill-Fraser said she was "pleased and relieved" the condition was quashed.

"As you will be aware, I have always maintained my innocence, and I am continuing in the quest to clear my name and advocate for the broader issue of wrongful convictions in Australia. I cannot walk away from this," she said.

"I'm going to take some time now to consider what my next steps will be."

AI hallucinations key to condition being ruled invalid

Neill-Fraser's lawyer, Patrick Coleridge, told the court that parole board secretary Ben Hancock used artificial intelligence to prepare a rationale justifying the parole condition, citing case law that was "fictitious" and likely "AI hallucinations".

Mr Coleridge said the document "argued forcefully" in support of the condition.

The court heard that in August, Neill-Fraser's legal team brought to the court's attention that the case law referred to in the document did not exist.

Mr Coleridge said the parole board met and withdrew the condition that same month, with requests for an explanation of why it was withdrawn refused.

Sarah Schwartz, legal director at the Human Rights Law Centre, said the case revealed "serious deficiencies" with Tasmania's parole system.

"Sue's case reveals that parole should not prevent a person from being able to speak on matters of public importance," she said.

Ms Schwartz said the use of AI by the parole board was "deeply troubling".

"It's really concerning that the Parole Board of Tasmania, a public authority, used AI in generating this document that so severely has restricted our client's fundamental freedoms, her freedom to speak in regard to her matter,"

she said.

Tasmania's Attorney-General Guy Barnett said he would write to the chair of the parole board to seek an explanation about its professional standards, which he described as "unacceptable".

"I will be seeking assurances around how the Board will ensure this doesn't happen again," he said.