Dr Daniel Simsion1,2, Dr Melisa Wood1, Dr Joseph Sakdalan1,3
1Forensicare, Melbourne, Australia, 2La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia, 3Cairnmillar Institute, Melbourne, Australia
Biography:
Dr Daniel Simsion, Dr Melisa Wood and Dr Joseph Sakdalan are all principal psychologists at the Victorian statewide forensic mental health service, Forensicare. All are active researchers and current or previous leaders of Forensicare's psychology court report program, which provides high quality expert reports to the Courts for a range of matters, including in the presentence context. They share an interest in understanding how the judiciary receive expert reports and using this knowledge to improve those reports.
In Victoria, since the decision of Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 212, personality disorder can now be considered as relevant to sentencing in a range of ways, bringing it in line with other mental health conditions. Consistent with R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102, personality disorder can now influence a sentence through reducing the defendant’s moral culpability and the relevance of general and specific deterrence, impacting the type of sentence being considered, and consideration of the hardship which may be experienced in prison. Based on a review of publicly available sentencing judgements in the Victorian County and Supreme Courts between 2021 and 2025, this presentation explores how the courts have considered personality disorder since the Brown decision. Specifically, the relevance of various clinical factors (specific personality disorders, diagnostic framework, clinical assessment methodology, presence of comorbidity) and the limbs of Verdins will be considered. In addition, Judge’s perceptions of the expert witness evidence will also be considered, with a focus on factors that have led to the sentencing judges incorporating or rejecting expert evidence, and the specific components of personality disorder which have been considered most relevant to Verdins. Based on this review, recommendations will be provided to clinicians as to how to best meet the needs of the Courts when providing evidence as an expert in sentencing matters.