The Magistrates' Court of Victoria has issued AI guidelines for all court users, including a ban on AI transcription of unauthorised recordings

Key takeaways

• The guidelines apply to all venues of the Court and to all court users, not only lawyers.
• Court users are responsible and accountable for any AI-generated material they prepare, file or rely on.
• Using AI to transcribe unauthorised recordings of proceedings is not permitted, and an AI transcript of an authorised recording is not an official record.
• The Court may direct users to give further information about AI-assisted documents.

Who do the Magistrates' Court of Victoria AI guidelines cover, and are they binding?

They cover everyone. Paragraph 2 applies the guidelines to all venues of the Court and to all court users, and paragraph 3 defines a court user as any person who interacts with, participates in, or uses the Court's services, facilities and procedures. The definition lists practitioners, litigants whether legally represented or self-represented, accused persons, applicants, respondents, prosecutors and witnesses. "Practitioners" means Australian legal practitioners under the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (Vic), and police prosecutors.

On status, the document is titled "Guidelines", and the Court's web page describes its purpose as providing "guidance". The text nonetheless uses "must" in most operative paragraphs, and paragraph 11 states that inaccurate filings could result in cost orders or referral to professional regulatory bodies. The source does not say how the guidelines are enforced beyond that, and it names no commencement date. A reader should treat the "must" wording as the Court's stated expectation. For context across the region, see the AI Regulation News hub and the Asia-Pacific tracker.

What must court users do about AI-generated material?

Verify it. Paragraph 4 says court users are "responsible and accountable" for material prepared, filed and relied upon, including AI generated material. Paragraph 5 makes them responsible for the accuracy of propositions, case quotes and citations in any filed document, and says they must verify AI generated material before submission. Paragraph 6 tells users to act on the basis that AI can produce incorrect, out of date, biased or misleading information, or information not applicable to the jurisdiction.

Paragraph 9 requires materials prepared with AI tools to be verified "with meaningful human control". Under paragraphs 12 and 13, the Court may direct users to provide further information about AI-assisted documents, and users "must be prepared" to identify the specific portions produced with AI and explain how the output was verified.

What extra duties do practitioners have for affidavits and expert reports?

Paragraph 7 says practitioners must comply with existing professional obligations and duties to the court, including as regards AI use. Paragraph 8 asks for particular caution where AI tools help prepare affidavit materials, witness statements, expert reports or other documents that are or may become evidence. Practitioners must ensure such documents are sworn, affirmed or finalised in a form that reflects the person's own knowledge and words, the paragraph says.

In practice, a draft produced by an AI tool from a witness interview or file notes is exactly the case paragraph 8 describes. The source does not prescribe a process. Any method for showing that the final text is the witness's own, such as comparing the draft against the witness's instructions, is our editorial suggestion and not a requirement of the guidelines.

What do the guidelines say about recording and AI transcription of proceedings?

Paragraph 14 says recording of court proceedings by court users is not permitted, and paragraph 15 says using AI to transcribe unauthorised recordings is not permitted. Paragraph 16 notes that the Court records proceedings on its own audio equipment, and that a copy of the audio may be requested under Practice Direction No. 2 of 2023.

Paragraph 17 addresses output from an authorised recording: an AI generated transcript "is not an official record of the court proceeding and will not be accepted by the Court as an official record". Paragraph 18 leaves court users responsible for the accuracy of any transcript or summary they rely on. The guidelines impose duties on court users, not on technology vendors. Paragraph 3(b) lists "transcriptions from recordings" among the outputs of AI tools, so a court user's use of an AI transcription product falls within the document's scope.

What should Victorian practitioners, prosecutors and litigants do now?

• Check every proposition, case quote and citation in AI-assisted drafts against the underlying source before filing (paragraphs 5, 6 and 9). Keeping a note of how you did it is our editorial suggestion, not a requirement.
• Be able to point to the AI-produced portions of a document, since the Court may ask under paragraph 13.
• For affidavits, witness statements and expert reports, confirm the final text reflects the person's own knowledge and words.
• Switch off any AI note-taker or transcription feature that could capture a hearing, and rely on the Court's audio and the process in Practice Direction No. 2 of 2023.
• Where you rely on an AI transcript or summary, verify it yourself, because paragraph 18 leaves accuracy with you.

Which dates matter for the Magistrates' Court of Victoria AI guidelines?

Only the issue date is stated. The table lists what the page and PDF show.

What we did not verify

What we opened: the Court's publication page and the four-page guidelines PDF it links, both on 25 October 2026. The page and PDF both show 19 October 2026.

What we did not open: Practice Direction No. 2 of 2023, the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (Vic), any other Victorian court's AI guidance, and any statement from the Court about enforcement or commencement.

What we refuse to claim: that a particular sanction applies to a breach, that the guidelines take effect on a date other than issue, or that they bind anyone beyond what their text says.

Related briefings

• AI Regulation News hub
• Asia-Pacific AI regulation tracker
• Attorneys and AI regulation
• Planning Panels Victoria practice note on AI use statements
• Federal Court of Australia practice note on generative AI disclosure
• Federal Court of Australia costs ruling on AI use
• Administrative Review Tribunal practice direction on generative AI