Dr Joseph Sakdalan1, Ms Sabine Visser2
1Forensicare, Clifton Hill, Australia, 2Regional Forensic Psychiatry Services, Auckland, New Zealand, 3Cairmillar Institute, Hawthorn East, Australia
Biography:
Dr Joseph Sakdalan is an AHPRA and NZ-registered Psychologist with endorsements in clinical psychology, counselling psychology, and clinical neuropsychology. He has more than 25 years of clinical experience, providing assessment and treatment for clients with complex presentations, including mental health issues, cognitive difficulties, neurodivergence, personality problems, complex trauma, and offending behaviours.
Joseph is a Principal Psychologist for Court Reports at Forensicare and a Senior Lecturer and Supervisor in Clinical Psychology at the Cairnmillar Institute in Melbourne, Australia. He has provided training in neurodiversity-affirming approaches and trauma-focused interventions and has published in his areas of speciality.
Abstract:
Forensic psychological assessment has historically been viewed as an objective, court-oriented process in which therapeutic benefits are neither intended nor encouraged. This paper contends that such a perspective is both outdated in research and costly in practical application. Increasing evidence indicates that the way assessments are conducted, framed, and communicated can lead to meaningful therapeutic outcomes — including enhanced self-awareness, greater motivation to change, and a solid basis for rehabilitation — all while upholding the assessor's primary obligation to the court.
Drawing upon Finn and colleagues’ Therapeutic Assessment model (Poston & Hanson, 2010; d = 0.42 in meta-analysis), the Risk-Need-Responsivity framework, the Good Lives Model, desistance theories, and recent research on working alliances in mandated settings, this paper proposes a collaborative framework for forensic assessment that is both ethically sound and practically feasible. It suggests four specific shifts: jointly developed assessment questions, clear and ongoing disclosure of boundaries of confidentiality, feedback sessions structured as dialogue rather than verdicts, and a strengths- and needs-based formulation that combines risk language with primary goods and capabilities. The discussion addresses ethical tensions — including dual roles, coercion, and confidentiality — emphasising that these are conditions to be carefully managed rather than obstacles to collaborative practice.
A case example will illustrate the application of the model, highlighting how cultural responsiveness with Indigenous clients is integrated as a fundamental methodological principle. The paper concludes with recommendations for future research, including controlled trials, updated ethical guidelines, and the more intentional integration of assessment into rehabilitation processes.