Introduction

There have been recent challenges with legal pluralism and the rise of AI-generated deepfakes that have complicated efforts to protect the independence of justice systems. Recent events from across the globe highlight new issues posed to the legal system. Deepfakes pose serious challenges for the law related to how evidence can be changed or altered and what new rules may need to be created. Additionally, in Malaysia, legal pluralism can sometimes undermine public trust in government and judicial institutions when individuals are unable to access consistent protections for their rights. These events will both serve as useful case studies for discussion within the committee.

Deepfakes in the Judiciary: Australia (2025)

AI deepfakes can create serious problems for the justice system. Deepfakes are fake images or videos that look real. When introduced into legal disputes or public discourse, deepfakes can undermine the reliability of digital evidence. This can complicate the courts’ ability to determine truth, posing a direct challenge to judicial independence.

In September 2025, the Federal Court of Australia made an important decision in a case involving deepfake abuse. A man named Antonio Rotondo created and posted fake sexual images of six Australian women. He used artificial intelligence (AI) tools to make the women appear naked. However, no photos like this existed in reality. These fake images were then uploaded to the internet on public pages.

The courts found that Rotondo posted 12 fake images between 2022 and 2023. He admitted that the images were fake and shared without the women’s consent. He also ignored an order to remove the images, leaving them online for an extra year. The court decided that his actions were intentional and harmful. As a result, Rotondo was fined AUD 343,000 and was ordered to pay the eSafety Commissioner’s legal fees. The eSafety Commissioner is a government office in Australia that protects people from online harm. It helps remove dangerous or illegal content from the internet. It can also take legal action against people who post harmful material.

The case showed how deepfakes can impact everyday people, but governments and courts are standing up to the threat. The eSafety Commissioner said that the “situation sends a strong message that deepfake abuse will not be tolerated.” The victims described deep fear, shame, and emotional harm during the offenses. They felt unsafe and exposed by the images. Their experiences generated public discussions about the rise of deepfakes and the threat they pose to public safety.

AI tools are becoming easier to use, which makes it even simpler to create deepfakes. Online platforms allow people to post harmful content anonymously, which makes it challenging to track offenders. Further, many countries do not yet have strong laws that clearly punish deepfake abuse. In jurisdictions without clear legal frameworks, these gaps risk weakening judicial independence by limiting courts’ ability to prosecute offenders and protect victims from digitally manufactured evidence.

The case illustrates the role of an independent judiciary in responding to new technological threats. By recognizing deepfake abuse as intentional harm and enforcing penalties, the Australian court protected the integrity of legal processes and public trust, reinforcing the justice system’s ability to operate free from digital manipulation. Continuing to manage this issue will require international cooperation, as digital content is not limited by national borders. As technology continues to improve, governments must ensure that legal systems remain capable of addressing deepfake abuse to protect human rights and uphold judicial independence.

Legal Pluralism in the Judicial System of Malaysia 

Legal pluralism occurs when a country has multiple court systems that govern different areas of law or groups of people, which can create challenges for consistent rights protection and judicial independence. Overlapping jurisdictions can create gaps in judicial authority, making it harder for courts to consistently uphold constitutional rights and protect human rights.

A key example of legal pluralism is from Malaysia. Malaysia’s legal system is a result of its history and diverse population. During British rule, much of the legal system followed English law, especially for criminal cases. However, Muslim subjects had a parallel court system for personal and religious matters, creating a dual legal structure alongside federal courts. When Malaysia achieved independence, the separation was formalized, and the multi-court system was cemented into place. Thus, for most personal and religious matters, Muslims in Malaysia go through a separate system. Yet, they are still held to federal courts and laws for criminal matters.

However, these systems often collide and cause division in the country. Delegates should consider how legal systems can respect diversity while ensuring all courts retain the ability to uphold fundamental rights. For instance, a man in Malaysia, who quietly converted to Christianity in 2010, had repeatedly sought to convert legally. After failing in the Islamic system, he turned to the civil courts to resolve the case. The High Court confirmed in 2023 that it lacked authority to intervene. In May 2025, the Court of Appeals dismissed his case. This reaffirmed that the matter falls solely under the Islamic court and that civil courts cannot interfere.

This case illustrates how overlapping court jurisdictions can limit the enforcement of individual rights when systems do not have mechanisms for cross-review. Similarly, in 2007, Lina Joy, a previous convert to Islam for marriage, sought to renounce the religion. Even with the constitutional right to choose her religion, she faced significant challenges. Such changes could only be done if she got permission from an Islamic court. The court case took six years to conclude and created fierce debate within the country about the role of these courts. Lina was ultimately denied the right to renounce the religion. Dual legal systems can create barriers for individuals exercising constitutional rights, restricting judicial independence when courts cannot review decisions across parallel systems.

Malaysia illustrates how plural legal systems can create conflicts between courts, complicating the consistent application of law and highlighting the need to safeguard judicial independence across all systems. Protecting certain rights within a state can often come at the cost of a person’s rights in other areas of the law. Delegates must carefully assess the outcomes of these courts and recommend reforms as legal pluralism continues to expand.

Conclusion 

Understanding the context and effect of these legal decisions will serve as a valuable tool for any debate on the issue. Delegates will need to propose recommendations in response to these recent cases to help protect the rule of law across the globe. Whether it be deepfakes or pluralism, many challenges remain in the world of law. SOCHUM will need to find models that can effectively respond.

Bibliography

1. Australian Associated Press, “Man Fined $340,000 for Deepfake Pornography of Prominent Australian Women in First-of-Its-Kind Case,” The Guardian, September 26, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/26/man-fined-34000-for-deepfake-pornography-of-prominent-australian-women-in-first-of-its-kind-case.
2. Ian MacKinnon, “Malaysia Rejects Bid for Christian Convert to Remove Islam ID Tag,” The Guardian, May 30, 2007, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/may/31/religion.islam.
3. Joseph Masilamany, “Malaysian Court Stops Muslim Man’s Return to Christian Faith- UCA News,” Union of Catholic Asian News, May 16, 2025, https://www.ucanews.com/amp/malaysian-court-stops-muslim-mans-return-to-christian-faith/109020.
4. Paul W. Grimm, “Proposed FRE 707 and AI Evidence in Federal Court,” Reuters, October 1, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/practical-law-the-journal/litigation/proposed-fre-707-ai-evidence-federal-court-2025-10-01/.
5. Siti Nur Fathihah Wilter, “Navigating through the Jurisdictional Boundaries Between Shariah and Civil Courts in Malaysia.,” Record Of Law, May 4, 2025, https://recordoflaw.in/navigating-through-the-jurisdictional-boundaries-between-shariah-and-civil-courts-in-malaysia/.
6. The World Factbook, “Malaysia” (Central Intelligence Agency, December 10, 2025), https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/malaysia/.
7. Tobi Loftus, “Man Fined over Deepfake Porn in Australian First,” ABC News, September 26, 2025, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-26/qld-deepfake-pornography-federal-court-charge/105822448.