{"id":"nsw:act-1922-006","name":"Unauthorised Documents Act 1922","slug":"unauthorised-documents-act-1922","collection":"act","jurisdiction":"nsw","status":"in_force","isInForce":true,"actNumber":"6 of 1922","makingDate":null,"administeringDepartment":null,"currentVersion":{"id":111930,"registerId":"nsw-act-1922-006-current","compilationNumber":null,"startDate":"2026-04-03","status":"InForce","reasons":null,"registeredAt":null},"sections":[{"sectionNumber":"1","sectionType":"section","heading":"Name of Act","content":"#### 1 Name of Act\n\n1 Name of Act\n\n> This Act may be cited as the [Unauthorised Documents Act 1922](/view/html/inforce/current/act-1922-006).","sortOrder":0},{"sectionNumber":"2","sectionType":"section","heading":"Definitions","content":"#### 2 Definitions\n\n2 Definitions\n\n> In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:\n> \n> Court means any court of justice in the State.\n> \n> State means State of New South Wales.","sortOrder":1},{"sectionNumber":"3","sectionType":"section","heading":null,"content":"#### 3\n\n3 (Repealed)","sortOrder":2},{"sectionNumber":"4","sectionType":"section","heading":"Sending or delivering false process","content":"#### 4 Sending or delivering false process\n\n4 Sending or delivering false process\n\n> > (1) Every person who sends or delivers to or serves on or causes to be sent or delivered to or served on any other person any paper or writing which is not an original or a copy of a document published or issued out of or by or under the authority or with the sanction of any tribunal, but which in the opinion of the court in which or the judge before whom any proceedings under this section are brought is reasonably capable of conveying to such other person the impression that such paper or writing is an original or a copy of a document published or issued out of or by or under the authority or with the sanction of any tribunal shall be guilty of an offence and every person who prints publishes or sells or offers or exhibits for sale or causes to be printed published or sold or offered or exhibited for sale any paper or writing which is not an original or a copy of a document published or issued as aforesaid, but which in the opinion of the court in which or the judge before whom any proceedings under this section are brought is reasonably capable of conveying to any person whomsoever the impression that such paper or writing is such an original or copy shall be guilty of an offence.\n> \n> > (1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), in determining whether a paper or writing is reasonably capable of conveying the impression that the paper or writing is an original or a copy of a document published or issued out of or by or under the authority or with the sanction of any tribunal any statement in the paper or writing that or to the effect that:\n> > \n> > > (a) it is not such a document or a copy of such a document, or\n> > \n> > > (b) it is not intended to convey the impression that it is such a document or a copy of such a document,\n> > \n> > shall be disregarded unless the statement is printed in a conspicuous position on the paper or writing and in a type that is more conspicuous than any other type used in the paper or writing.\n> \n> > (2) Every person guilty of an offence under this section:\n> > \n> > > (a) shall be deemed guilty of a contempt of the Supreme Court and may be punished accordingly by such Court or a judge thereof in chambers upon the application of any person complaining thereof, or\n> > \n> > > (b) shall be liable to a penalty of not more than 10 penalty units.\n> \n> > (3) In any proceedings under this section if any person is named on any such paper or writing in such a way as to imply that the person is the printer publisher seller or sender of the same such person shall prima facie be deemed to be the person who printed published sold or sent such paper or writing.\n> \n> > (4) In this section unless inconsistent with the context or subject-matter:\n> > \n> > Document includes any notice claim demand or process or any document relating to any extra-judicial remedy and whether in existence or not.\n> > \n> > Tribunal includes any court judge magistrate or public officer whether in or out of New South Wales and whether in existence or not.\n> \n> **s 4:** Subst 1941 No 38, sec 2. Am 1978 No 113, sec 2 (b); 1992 No 112, Sch 1; 2001 No 121, Sch 2.197.","sortOrder":4},{"sectionNumber":"5","sectionType":"section","heading":"Penalties etc in case of bodies corporate","content":"#### 5 Penalties etc in case of bodies corporate\n\n5 Penalties etc in case of bodies corporate\n\n> Without affecting any other liability of any person under this Act or otherwise, a company or other body corporate shall be liable to any penalty or punishment for any offence under this Act as if it were a private person so far as such penalty or punishment is enforceable against a company or body corporate; and every director manager secretary or officer of any such company and every member of the managing body or any such body corporate who commits or knowingly authorises or permits an offence under this Act shall also be liable to the penalty or punishment for that offence.\n> \n> **s 5:** Ins 1941 No 38, sec 2.","sortOrder":5},{"sectionNumber":"6","sectionType":"section","heading":"Other proceedings not affected","content":"#### 6 Other proceedings not affected\n\n6 Other proceedings not affected\n\n> Nothing in this Act shall be held to affect any other proceeding civil or criminal which might have been taken against any person if this Act had not passed but no person shall be punished for the same offence under any such proceeding and under this Act.\n> \n> **s 6:** Ins 1941 No 38, sec 2.","sortOrder":6}],"analysis":{"flash_summary_failed":{"failed":true,"reason":"Unauthenticated. Configure AI_GATEWAY_API_KEY or use a provider module. Learn more: https://ai-sdk.dev/unauthenticated-ai-gateway","source":"analysis-cron"},"issue_detection":{"absurdities":[],"contradictions":[]},"summary":{"complexity_score":2,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"Scope cannot be meaningfully assessed as the substantive provisions of the Act were not included in the text provided. Only administrative and navigational metadata was available for analysis."},"complexity_factors":["The actual operative provisions of the Act were not included in the provided text, making substantive analysis impossible","Only metadata, navigation elements, and administrative information were provided","The Act's age (1922) may mean it uses archaic legal language in its actual text","Without the full text, it is unclear how many sections, definitions, or exceptions exist"],"plain_english_summary":"The Unauthorised Documents Act 1922 (NSW) is a long‑standing state law, currently in force and administered by the Attorney‑General, whose title indicates it targets creation or use of official documents without proper authority (e.g., forged or improperly issued papers). The provided material contains only metadata and not the operative provisions, so to know precise offences, scope and penalties you must consult the full Act on the NSW legislation website."},"flash_summary":{"complexity_score":5,"scope_assessment":{"changed":true,"description":"The Act’s scope has been altered since enactment: one section has been repealed and s 4 has been substituted and amended; corporate/officer liability (s 5) and the disclaimer rule (s 4(1A)) were introduced and penalty/remedial options were adjusted. Those amendments changed who can be liable and added procedural and evidential rules governing enforcement."},"complexity_factors":["Judicially‑assessed standard: whether a paper is \"reasonably capable of conveying\" an impression requires fact‑intensive judicial determination (s 4(1)).","Disclaimers largely ineffective unless printed conspicuously and in the most conspicuous type, creating a formal compliance requirement for publishers (s 4(1A)).","Dual enforcement routes: contempt jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or a capped monetary penalty, introducing prosecutorial and remedial choice (s 4(2)(a)–(b)).","Prima facie attribution where a person is named as printer/publisher/sender, shifting evidential burdens (s 4(3)).","Broad definitions widen reach: \"document\" and \"tribunal\" intentionally cover diverse papers and bodies (s 4(4)).","Corporate and officer liability extends exposure beyond natural persons and may create vicarious or direct officer liability (s 5).","Savings clause preserves alternative civil and criminal remedies, requiring coordination with other laws and preventing double punishment (s 6).","Historical amendments and a repealed section indicate the Act’s scope and details have changed over time (repeal/amendment notes)."],"plain_english_summary":"This Act makes it an offence to send, deliver, print, publish, sell or offer papers that are not genuine tribunal documents but are reasonably capable of conveying the impression they are. A court or judge decides whether a paper creates that impression; penalties include being treated as contempt of the Supreme Court or a monetary penalty of up to 10 penalty units.\n\nIt applies to individuals and corporations (officers can be liable), treats small disclaimers as ineffective unless conspicuous, and preserves other civil or criminal remedies. The stated aim is to prevent misleading tribunal papers; compliance and enforcement costs fall on printers, publishers, sellers and company officers."},"kimi_summary":{"content_quality":"ok","complexity_score":3,"scope_assessment":{"changed":false,"description":"The legislation remains tightly focused on its original 1922 purpose: preventing the circulation of false legal process and documents purporting to be from courts or tribunals. The 1941 amendments added corporate liability and preserved other legal remedies, while later amendments modernised penalties and strengthened disclaimer requirements. These are natural evolutions within the original scope rather than scope creep. The Act has not expanded into adjacent areas like electronic documents or identity fraud more broadly."},"complexity_factors":["Single operative section (s 4) containing all substantive offences, but with dense, 200+ word sentence structure in subsection (1)","Nested definitions within s 4(4) rather than in the general definitions section, creating scattered interpretation rules","Counter-intuitive disclaimer rule in s 4(1A) requiring specific formatting (conspicuous position, most prominent type) to be effective","Dual penalty structure (contempt of court OR monetary penalty) creating procedural choice for prosecutors","Rebuttable presumption in s 4(3) shifting burden of proof regarding identity of publisher/printer","Broad, counterfactual definitions: 'whether in existence or not' for both documents and tribunals","Only 2 defined terms in the general definitions section (Court, State), but extensive implicit definitions through inclusive definitions in s 4(4)","Historical amendments visible in text (repealed sections, amendment notes) create visual clutter but don't affect operative complexity"],"plain_english_summary":"**What this law does:**\n\nThis Act makes it a crime to create, send, sell, or distribute fake legal documents that look like they come from a court, judge, or government authority.\n\n**Who it affects:**\n\n- **Scammers and fraudsters** – anyone trying to trick people with fake court papers, fake legal demands, or fake official notices\n- **Businesses** – companies can be fined, and their directors or managers can be personally punished if they knew about or allowed the fake documents\n- **Victims** – people who receive convincing-looking fake legal threats\n\n**How it works:**\n\n- **Section 4** is the heart of the Act. It bans:\n  - Sending someone a document that *looks* like it came from a court or official authority (even if it didn't)\n  - Printing, publishing, or selling such fake documents\n  \n- **The \"get out of jail free\" disclaimer doesn't work easily.** If you put a small note saying \"this isn't real\" on a fake document, the court will ignore that note *unless* it's printed in the **most obvious, prominent way possible** – bigger and more noticeable than everything else on the page.\n\n- **Two ways to be punished:**\n  1. **Contempt of court** – the Supreme Court can punish you directly (serious, immediate consequences)\n  2. **Fine** – up to 10 penalty units (roughly $1,100 in today's money, though penalty unit values change over time)\n\n- **If your name is on it, you're presumed responsible.** If a document names someone as the printer, publisher, or sender, that person is assumed to be guilty unless they can prove otherwise.\n\n- **\"Document\" and \"tribunal\" are defined very broadly.** Even documents that don't actually exist, or authorities that don't exist, are covered. This catches creative scammers who invent fake courts or fake legal processes.\n\n**Why it matters:**\n\nThis is essentially Australia's anti-\"fake legal documents\" law. It protects people from being intimidated or defrauded by convincing forgeries of court orders, legal demands, or official notices. It's particularly relevant today for:\n- \"Sovereign citizen\" scams using fake legal processes\n- Debt collection fraud using fake court documents\n- Online scams involving fake legal threats\n\nThe law is old (1922) but has been updated several times, including to ensure companies can't escape liability and to strengthen the rules about disclaimers."}},"importantCases":[],"_links":{"self":"/api/acts/unauthorised-documents-act-1922","history":"/api/acts/unauthorised-documents-act-1922/history","analysis":"/api/acts/unauthorised-documents-act-1922/analysis","conflicts":"/api/acts/unauthorised-documents-act-1922/conflicts","importantCases":"/api/acts/unauthorised-documents-act-1922/important-cases","documents":"/api/acts/unauthorised-documents-act-1922/documents"}}