Dr Joseph Sakdalan1, Dr Melisa Wood1, Dr Daniel Simsion1
1Forensicare, Clifton Hill, 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 of 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 in Psychology at the Cairnmillar Institute in Melbourne, Australia. He has provided training in neurodiversity-affirming approaches and trauma-focused interventions across community and forensic settings and has published in forensic rehabilitation, intellectual disability, and psychological assessment.
Abstract:
Expert evidence on personality disorder is among the most impactful and debated aspects presented in Victorian courts. Despite its significance, there is no unified standard guiding how assessments should be performed, how findings should be integrated, or how opinions should be articulated. This leads to a situation in which the same individual might receive markedly different expert evaluations depending on the assessor and the methods employed.
This paper draws on recently developed Forensicare practice guidelines for personality disorder assessment within forensic contexts to explore current practices, identify critical gaps, and propose a clear minimum standard. Four key issues are highlighted. First, the need for a multi-method approach involving clinical interview, supporting psychometric tools, structured diagnostic instruments, and thorough consideration of validity. Second, the need for clarity in applying categorical versus dimensional diagnostic frameworks and how each affects the communication of findings to non-clinical audiences. Third, the potential misattribution of features of neurodevelopmental conditions as personality characteristics, which can adversely impact treatment, risk assessment, and sentencing decisions. Fourth, the importance of explicit cultural considerations, particularly when assessing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients, for whom misclassification of personality disorder can have particularly serious consequences.
The paper concludes with a practical framework for presenting evidence of personality disorders in court reports. This includes guidance on assessment methods, diagnostic systems, validity testing, causal formulation, and risk integration, as well as recommendations for governance and training. Building these standards is essential to ensure fair, accurate, and consistent evaluations—ultimately serving justice and the individuals involved.