It was recently revealed that the Tasmanian Parole Board had cited a fake case generated by AI to justify a controversial and unlawful parole condition. The condition, placed on Susan Neill Fraser, prevented her from speaking publicly or to the media about her claims of innocence.
The Tasmanian Supreme Court ruled that the condition was unlawful as it was uncertain, ambiguous and legally unreasonable and that she was denied procedural fairness.
The court also heard that the Tasmanian Parole Board had relied on a case that had been generated by AI and did not actually exist, known as a “hallucination”.
The case has amplified existing concerns about a lack of transparency with the parole process around the country, and the use of AI in important decision-making processes.
The Human Rights Law Centre represented Neill-Fraser, and its legal director Sarah Schwartz said that the use of AI in the parole process was “really concerning”.
“Do we want people’s fundamental human rights to be mediated by AI?” Schwartz told About Time. “There are reasons why parole boards are set up in the way they are, with community decision-makers. If they’re relying on AI to justify decisions as opposed to human reason, that’s pretty concerning.”
Tasmanian Greens Justice spokesperson Cassy O’Connor said the reliance on AI by the parole board was “deeply disturbing”, while Attorney-General Guy Barnett said it was “unacceptable”.
The Tasmanian Justice Department is reviewing past parole decisions in Tasmania to determine if artificial intelligence (AI) was used, and Prisoners’ Legal Service Tasmania is also sifting through past parole decisions to see if there were other uses of AI.
About Time asked the parole boards in each state and territory whether AI was being used at all in the parole process.
The Victoria, Western Australian and ACT parole boards said that AI was not used for researching or writing parole decisions or reasons.
In the ACT, parole board members have limited access to ACT Government AI, in accordance with the territory’s AI policy.
The use of AI in Tasmania would have gone undetected if Neill-Fraser hadn’t challenged her parole condition at the Supreme Court, Schwartz said.
“Most people on parole don’t bring judicial review proceedings challenging parole decisions – that’s costly, lengthy and onerous,” she said.
“We don’t know the extent of malpractice amongst parole boards in Tasmania and around the country.”
This is illustrative of the need for more transparency and accountability in the parole process around Australia, she said.
“This speaks to a much broader issue about the extent to which administrative decision-makers in these sorts of quasi-legal environments that have such a huge impact on people’s human rights are using AI to justify their decisions,” Schwartz said.
“There’s a need for proper transparency in those places. There’s the broader issue of the black box that is parole-decision-making in this country. There needs to be greater transparency and accountability. We need proper human rights safeguards and access to legal representatives.”
In Victoria the adult and youth parole boards are expressly exempt from the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, and the rules of natural justice, which include the right to a fair hearing and to appeal a decision.
The parole boards in Queensland and the ACT are subject to human rights charters.
South Australia, the ACT and the NT are the only jurisdictions where you are entitled to representation from a lawyer or can make a submission from a legal representative.
Decisions are published publicly in some states and territories, and not all require full reasons to be given to the individual impacted by the parole decision.
The faulty use of AI in Tasmania would have been picked up far earlier if the woman had access to legal representation before the Supreme Court challenge, Schwartz said.
“If our client had a legal representative in this matter, and they had been given reasons and had access to make their own submissions, this is something that could have been picked up a lot earlier, rather than two years down the track,” she said.
“This document would have gone completely unnoticed if we hadn’t brought this legal case to the Supreme Court.”
About Time asked the parole boards in each state and territory whether AI was being used at all in the parole process.
The Victoria, Western Australian and ACT parole boards said that AI was not used for researching or writing parole decisions or reasons.
In the ACT, parole board members have limited access to ACT Government AI, in accordance with the territory’s AI policy.
The use of AI in Tasmania would have gone undetected if Neill-Fraser hadn’t challenged her parole condition at the Supreme Court, Schwartz said.
“Most people on parole don’t bring judicial review proceedings challenging parole decisions – that’s costly, lengthy and onerous,” she said.
“We don’t know the extent of malpractice amongst parole boards in Tasmania and around the country.”
This is illustrative of the need for more transparency and accountability in the parole process around Australia, she said.
“This speaks to a much broader issue about the extent to which administrative decision-makers in these sorts of quasi-legal environments that have such a huge impact on people’s human rights are using AI to justify their decisions,” Schwartz said.
“There’s a need for proper transparency in those places. There’s the broader issue of the black box that is parole-decision-making in this country. There needs to be greater transparency and accountability. We need proper human rights safeguards and access to legal representatives.”
In Victoria the adult and youth parole boards are expressly exempt from the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, and the rules of natural justice, which include the right to a fair hearing and to appeal a decision.
The parole boards in Queensland and the ACT are subject to human rights charters.
South Australia, the ACT and the NT are the only jurisdictions where you are entitled to representation from a lawyer or can make a submission from a legal representative.
Decisions are published publicly in some states and territories, and not all require full reasons to be given to the individual impacted by the parole decision.
The faulty use of AI in Tasmania would have been picked up far earlier if the woman had access to legal representation before the Supreme Court challenge, Schwartz said.
“If our client had a legal representative in this matter, and they had been given reasons and had access to make their own submissions, this is something that could have been picked up a lot earlier, rather than two years down the track,” she said.
“This document would have gone completely unnoticed if we hadn’t brought this legal case to the Supreme Court.”
