Instances when AI-augmented Evidence Has Been Tendered as Evidence before Court of Law in Singapore
Ministry of LawSpeakers
Summary
This question concerns inquiries by Ms Hany Soh on whether artificial intelligence (AI)-fabricated or augmented evidence has been tendered in court and if judicial personnel are trained to handle such instances. Minister Edwin Tong Chun Fai stated that there are no published findings of deliberate AI-fabricated evidence, though tendering false evidence carries criminal liability and unexplained AI-reliant evidence has been disregarded. He highlighted that sanctions were imposed in at least two cases where lawyers negligently introduced inaccurate AI-generated content into court documents. Official guidelines issued in 2024 and March 2026 mandate that court users must independently verify the accuracy and authenticity of all submitted materials. Finally, he affirmed that judges receive continuous training from the Singapore Judicial College on digital evidence, admissibility, and forensic verification to keep pace with technological advancements.
Transcript
73 Ms Hany Soh asked the Minister for Law whether (i) the Ministry is aware of instances in which artificial intelligence-fabricated or augmented evidence has been tendered as evidence before a Court of law and (ii) judicial staff and officers are sufficiently trained and equipped to guard against such cases.
Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Artificial intelligence (AI)-fabricated or augmented evidence tendered in Court proceedings may arise in two broad scenarios.
First is the deliberate fabrication or manipulation of evidence using AI, such as deepfake images or videos. The Singapore Courts have confirmed that there have yet to be such findings in a published decision. However, the Courts have in instances disregarded evidence where a party cannot satisfactorily explain the extent of reliance on AI in preparing the document. Nevertheless, any party who knowingly tenders false evidence faces serious consequences under the law, including criminal liability.
The second scenario is the use of AI tools in the preparation of documents filed in Court, such as affidavits and reports. The concern here is not the use of AI in itself, but where the negligent or careless use of AI introduces inaccuracies, fabrications or fictitious citations into Court documents.
In 2024, the Singapore Courts issued the Guide on the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools by Court Users which makes clear that Court users are responsible for ensuring that all materials placed before the Court are accurate, relevant and independently verified. This responsibility is underscored in the Ministry's Guide for the Use of Generative AI in the Legal Sector issued in March 2026. There have been at least two published cases where the Singapore Courts have imposed sanctions on lawyers for failing in such responsibility.
To detect such occurrences, the Singapore Judicial College provides training to judges to deal with issues of admissibility, authenticity and reliability of evidence, including digital evidence. Where authenticity or reliability is contested, the Courts may also rely on expert evidence and digital forensic analysis for verification.
The Singapore Courts keep pace with technological developments through a range of learning platforms supported by technical and expert assistance. Judges, in particular, are trained to deal with evidentiary issues in litigation as part of a multi-pronged comprehensive continuous training framework.