Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Department of Justice v Wise
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal · May 13, 2025
AustraliaEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityadministrative
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Party cited 'Re Bowen [2010] QCAT 246' which the Tribunal found does not exist; citation belongs to an unrelated case. Outcome: Warning. 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.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Pro-se respondent repeated fabricated citations after prior warning; QCAT relied on non-lawyer AI guidelines to caution rather than sanction.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Party cited 'Re Bowen [2010] QCAT 246' which the Tribunal found does not exist; citation belongs to an unrelated case. Outcome: Warning. 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.
Operational lesson
Pro-se respondent repeated fabricated citations after prior warning; QCAT relied on non-lawyer AI guidelines to caution rather than sanction.
Record details
CourtQueensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateMay 13, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Warning
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
10 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- 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.
Show 2 additional discrepancies
- 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.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Department of Justice v Wise?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Party cited 'Re Bowen [2010] QCAT 246' which the Tribunal found does not exist; citation belongs to an unrelated case. Outcome: Warning. 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.…
- Why does Department of Justice v Wise matter for legal AI risk?
- Pro-se respondent repeated fabricated citations after prior warning; QCAT relied on non-lawyer AI guidelines to caution rather than sanction.
- What does the public record establish about Department of Justice v Wise?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Department of Justice v Wise summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.