In New Zealand and across the wider world, the use of Artificial Intelligence in legal proceedings has become increasingly common.  This is particularly noticeable in the use of AI by self-represented litigants whose lack of formal legal education can make them less equipped than lawyers to spot inaccuracies in material prepared by AI.

In order to address the serious implications that the misuse of AI can have for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system, the New Zealand Supreme Court has released a judgment in February 2026 that states reliance on false citations, including the unverified outputs of AI applications, may in serious cases amount to obstruction of justice or contempt of court.

Background

The laws of New Zealand are not limited to Acts of Parliament.  Court cases also contribute to our laws under the doctrine of precedent.  A court dealing with a particular set of facts must follow earlier decisions that dealt with materially similar sets of facts.  This is subject to the hierarchy of the courts, so for example the Supreme Court could choose to deviate from the principles set out in an earlier decision of the High Court even when the relevant facts are materially similar.

Unlike Acts of Parliament, however, many decisions of New Zealand’s courts are locked behind databases that can only be accessed with paid subscriptions.  Because of this, generative AI models such as ChatGPT do not have a high level of access to New Zealand court cases.  This means that, although generative AI is generally mediocre when producing advice or draft documents for their users based purely on legislation, it becomes far less effective when producing material based on court cases.

Generative AI’s lack of access to court case databases in New Zealand has given rise to what the Supreme Court has referred to as ‘hallucinations’.  This is a phenomenon whereby generative AI invents (‘hallucinates’) a court case to support a position, or cites a real case but hallucinates the legal principles AI claims are derived from that case.  This problem is exacerbated by the fact that self-represented litigants usually do not have access to those databases either, meaning they cannot verify the citations AI has produced for them.

Jones v Family Court of Whangarei

The self-represented applicant in this case, Mr Jones, filed submissions that were prepared using AI.  The AI had cited real case names with incorrect citations.  The genuine cases matching those names and citations, respectively, were of no direct relevance to Mr Jones’ application.  Mr Jones’ submissions also misattributed certain principles of law to a number of genuine but erroneously cited cases.

The Supreme Court cited the guidelines currently applicable to the use of AI by non-lawyers in New Zealand court cases:

“You are responsible for ensuring that all information you provide to the court/tribunal is accurate.  You must check the accuracy of any information you get from a [generative AI] chatbot before using that information in court/tribunal proceedings.”

The Supreme Court then went on to say that reliance on false citations, including the unverified outputs of AI applications, may in serious cases amount to obstruction of justice or contempt of court.  It may take a further court case before New Zealand has clarity on what might constitute ‘serious cases’ where relying on false citations is concerned.

Possible Penalties

As a footnote to its above point about obstruction of justice or contempt of court, the Supreme Court referred to sections 116 and 117(e) of the Crimes Act 1961 and section 26 of the Contempt of Court Act 2019.  Section 116 of the Crimes Act provides that:

“Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who conspires to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice in New Zealand or the course of justice in an overseas jurisdiction.”

Section 117(e) of the Crimes Act, meanwhile, provides:

“Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who—

(e)     wilfully attempts in any other way to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice in New Zealand or the course of justice in an overseas jurisdiction.”

The Contempt of Court Act gives the higher courts the power in this context to impose fines of up to $25,000 or order imprisonment for up to 6 months.

While New Zealand does not yet have clarity about the level to which relying on false citations produced by AI would have to rise to constitute a breach of Crimes Act sections 116 or 117(e), the possibility of imprisonment for up to 7 years should make New Zealanders representing themselves in court think twice before filing documents prepared with the assistance of AI.

Leading law firms committed to helping clients cost-effectively will have a range of fixed-price Initial Consultations to suit most people’s needs in quickly learning what their options are.  At Rainey Collins we have an experienced team who can answer your questions and put you on the right track.