Practice Note on AI issued by Australia’s Supreme Court of Victoria

Australia’s Supreme Court of Victoria has issued a Practice Note for court users and Judicial Guidelines for judicial officers on the use of AI, setting out how the technology may be used in court processes while preserving accuracy, privacy, accountability and fairness.

The Practice Note recognises that AI may enhance access to justice, but warns court users to understand the risks when using AI to prepare court documents. It states that users remain responsible for the content of documents they file, whether or not AI has been used.

Court users are also warned that filing documents containing inaccuracies could lead to costs orders. The Practice Note outlines privacy issues linked to different types of AI tools and notes possible sanctions for legal practitioners who rely on unverified AI outputs.

The Judicial Guidelines state that generative AI must not be used for judicial decision-making. Court-approved AI tools may, however, assist judicial officers and court staff with supportive tasks such as organising and locating case materials, producing summaries and chronologies, aiding legal research and proofreading.

The guidelines stress that such uses are not a substitute for reading or listening to evidence and submissions, or for fact-finding where required in judicial decision-making. Judicial officers must consider each matter before them and exercise their own judgement in reaching decisions and giving reasons where appropriate.

The Court said the new documents build on earlier AI guidelines developed in 2024 and respond to a review by the Victorian Law Reform Commission. Chief Justice Richard Niall said the Practice Note and Judicial Guidelines would help mitigate actual and perceived risks of AI use.

Niall said AI should be ‘an aid to, not a replacement of, judicial decision-making’, adding that the Court would continue adapting its practice without sacrificing impartiality, privacy, accountability and fairness.

Why does it matter?

The guidance shows how courts are beginning to define practical limits for AI use without banning it entirely. By allowing supportive uses while excluding generative AI from judicial decision-making, Victoria’s Supreme Court is drawing a line between administrative assistance and the exercise of judicial judgement, a distinction likely to become increasingly important as AI tools enter legal practice.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!