Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Department of Justice v Wise on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

Department of Justice v Wise

Court
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Decided
2025-05-13
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
Warning
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Party cited 'Re Bowen [2010] QCAT 246' which the Tribunal found does not exist; citation belongs to an unrelated case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Party cited 'Baha v Queensland Police Service [2011] QCAT 156' which the Tribunal found does not exist; citation belongs to an unrelated case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Party cited 'Brock v Medical Board [2020] QCAT 223' which the Tribunal found does not exist; citation belongs to an unrelated case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Party cited 'TCT v Office of the Health Ombudsman [2021] QCAT 44' which the Tribunal found does not exist; citation belongs to an unrelated case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Party relied on Re JRL; Ex parte CJL to claim a member cannot decide their own recusal; Tribunal held the case does not support that and confirmed the practice is the member decides their recusal. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Party invoked QCAT Act s 220(3) to argue another member should determine recusal/stay; Tribunal held s 220 concerns excluding disruptive persons and is irrelevant. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Party asserted QCAT Act s 214(2) required publication of reasons relating to medical incapacity; Tribunal held s 214 deals with witness offences and is not relevant. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Party claimed written reasons for the 1 May 2025 stay refusal were not provided; Tribunal found written reasons were provided on 1 May 2025. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Party claimed to have filed a third recusal application on 13 March 2025; Tribunal found no such application on file and no attachment evidencing it. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Party asserted there was a refusal to list medical evidence for hearing; Tribunal noted the application based on medical evidence was listed for hearing on 14 May 2025.

Details

The second respondent, Carly Dakota Wise, a self-represented litigant, filed an application for the recusal of a tribunal member, alleging bias and procedural unfairness. The application was based on several grounds, including fabricated legal citations - despite Ms. Wise having been warned in interlocutory proceedings to check the authorities she relied on. The court cited the local Guidelines for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidelines for Responsible Use by Non-Lawyers, available here, to stress that self-represented litigants need to check the accuracy of their pleadings.

Sanction teardown · Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Australia · 2025-05-13

Department of Justice v Wise

What happened

In Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Australia, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Party cited 'Re Bowen [2010] QCAT 246' which the Tribunal found does not exist; citation belongs to an unrelated case.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Party cited 'Baha v Queensland Police Service [2011] QCAT 156' which the Tribunal found does not exist; citation belongs to an unrelated case.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Party cited 'Brock v Medical Board [2020] QCAT 223' which the Tribunal found does not exist; citation belongs to an unrelated case.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Party cited 'TCT v Office of the Health Ombudsman [2021] QCAT 44' which the Tribunal found does not exist; citation belongs to an unrelated case.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Party relied on Re JRL; Ex parte CJL to claim a member cannot decide their own recusal; Tribunal held the case does not support that and confirmed the practice is the member decides their recusal.
  • Misrepresented (Legal Norm)
    Party invoked QCAT Act s 220(3) to argue another member should determine recusal/stay; Tribunal held s 220 concerns excluding disruptive persons and is irrelevant.
  • Misrepresented (Legal Norm)
    Party asserted QCAT Act s 214(2) required publication of reasons relating to medical incapacity; Tribunal held s 214 deals with witness offences and is not relevant.
  • Misrepresented (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Party claimed written reasons for the 1 May 2025 stay refusal were not provided; Tribunal found written reasons were provided on 1 May 2025.
  • Misrepresented (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Party claimed to have filed a third recusal application on 13 March 2025; Tribunal found no such application on file and no attachment evidencing it.
  • Misrepresented (Exhibits & Submissions)
    Party asserted there was a refusal to list medical evidence for hearing; Tribunal noted the application based on medical evidence was listed for hearing on 14 May 2025.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Warning

Additional detail

The second respondent, Carly Dakota Wise, a self-represented litigant, filed an application for the recusal of a tribunal member, alleging bias and procedural unfairness. The application was based on several grounds, including fabricated legal citations - despite Ms. Wise having been warned in interlocutory proceedings to check the authorities she relied on. The court cited the local Guidelines for the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Guidelines for Responsible Use by Non-Lawyers, available here, to stress that self-represented litigants need to check the accuracy of their pleadings.

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/553/Department_of_Justice_v_Wise_Australia_11_June_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/553/Department_of_Justice_v_Wise_Australia_11_June_2025.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template