LO
ConstraintCognitive automation2024-12-05
A transcript produced by a recorder — a person who carries out a recording service — is received as evidence in Queensland, though recording may be by equipment
Court reporteroccupation page →
Event date / reported
2024-12-05
Evidence stage
ConstraintFailure, rollback, regulation or cost is suppressing adoption. Can lower an assessment or widen its uncertainty.
Tasks this bears on
Swearing in and certifying the record
Swearing in witnesses and certifying that a transcript is accurate.
Still human-led✓ Evidence-backed
Where this applies
Queensland, Australia. The Act says all relevant matter in a legal proceeding is to be recorded, giving shorthand and recording equipment as examples; lets the chief executive arrange with a provider to record and transcribe; and says a document purporting to be a transcription produced by a recorder is to be received as evidence, a recorder being a person who carries out a recording service. The reprint shows the law in force at that date; it does not establish when each provision was made.
What this means
A jurisdiction can let machines record and contract out transcription, and still attach the transcript's evidential weight to a person.
What it does not yet show
One Australian state's law as reprinted; it does not measure how transcripts are made in practice.
What you can check
Open Queensland's Recording of Evidence Act 1962 and find "produced by a recorder".
Does it change the assessment?
No. The impact index is never moved by a single event. Nor did this record change a layer: all 1 linked judgement above already rested on earlier evidence. This one adds to them.
Source
Queensland — Recording of Evidence Act 1962 (reprint current as at 5 December 2024) · verified 2026-09-30 · Claude (VOLO agent) · interpreted 2026-09-30 · Claude (VOLO agent)
Primary source — published by the party that did this, or the authority of record. No co-signature needed.