Dr Daniel Simsion1,2, Hannah Chadwick2, Luke Griffis-Collier2, Mark Guindy2, Mary Gourdouros2, Dr Joseph Sakdalan1,3, Dr Melisa Wood1,4
1Forensicare, Melbourne, Australia, 2La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia, 3Cairnmillar Institute, Melbourne, Australia, 4Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, Swinburne University, Melbourne, Australia
Biography:
Dr Daniel Simsion is clinical and forensic psychologist, clinical educator and researcher. He is a principal psychologist for court reports and a psychology educator with Forensicare, as well as an adjunct lecturer with La Trobe University. He has experience in working with a range of complex presentations across forensic community, inpatient and prison settings. He practices from a third-wave therapy stand point, in particular employing Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (DBT).
He is a past-president of the ANZ chapter of the Association of Contextual Behavioural Science and is the current vice-president of the Victorian Psychologists Association.
Abstract:
Expert psychological and psychiatric presentence reports play a pivotal role in informing judicial decision-making, particularly where mental impairment is considered (e.g., under the Verdins principles; R v Verdins 2007 16 VR 269). Despite their importance, there is limited empirical evidence describing how these assessments are conducted in Australia. Furthermore, no national guidelines exist for many aspects of forensic mental health assessment, including the evaluation and reporting of response validity. This study examined contemporary practices in court-ordered forensic presentence expert reports to inform evidence-based professional guidance.
A retrospective audit was conducted of 146 court-ordered presentence expert reports authored by psychologists and psychiatrists within the Victorian statewide forensic mental health service, Forensicare. Variables examined included report length, interview time, use of collateral information, use of psychometric testing, use of structured risk assessment, and the use and reporting of symptom validity tests (SVTs) and performance validity tests (PVTs). Similarities and differences in reporting practices between psychology and psychiatry were also examined.
The findings provide one of the first empirical descriptions of contemporary forensic reporting practices in an Australian specialist service. Formal assessment of response validity using SVTs and PVTs was relatively uncommon, with clinicians more frequently relying on broader clinical assessment when considering possible response distortion. Some differences were observed between psychologists and psychiatrists, with psychiatrists demonstrating greater consistency in conducting such assessments.
These findings establish an empirical foundation for evidence-informed forensic reporting guidelines and support clearer recommendations regarding response validity assessment, clinician training, and future policy development.