Minister for Home Affairs v Pender (Preliminary) [2021] NSWSC 921

Minister for Home Affairs v Pender (Preliminary) [2021] NSWSC 921

The Court was satisfied that appointing experts would materially assist in deciding whether to make a continuing detention order because the existing psychiatric and psychological reports were limited by the absence of clinical examination, the defendant's risk presentation involved multifactorial causes including severe mental illness and substance abuse, contemporaneous assessment before release would assist the unacceptable risk inquiry, and the psychiatrist and psychologist brought different disciplines and expertise. In the particular circumstances, despite the usual need to limit experts and the overlap between two psychiatrists, Dr Ellis, Dr Eagle and Dr Dewson should each be...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Application for a Continuing Detention Order Under S 105 A.7(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (cth) / Preliminary Hearing Concerning Appointment of Experts Under S 105 A.6(3) and Protective Orders
Outcome
Orders made appointing three experts, making protective orders, and adjourning the proceedings for further directions.
Legal Topics
['continuing Detention Orders' 'convicted Commonwealth Terrorist Offender' 'appointment of Relevant Experts' 'risk Assessment' 'protective Orders' 'vera 2 R Tool']
['criminal Law' 'high Risk Offenders' 'terrorism' 'suppression and Non Publication Orders'] ['continuing Detention Orders' 'convicted Commonwealth Terrorist Offender' 'appointment of Relevant Experts' 'risk Assessment' 'protective Orders' 'vera 2 R Tool']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for a Continuing Detention Order Under S 105 A.7(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (cth) / Preliminary Hearing Concerning Appointment of Experts Under S 105 A.6(3) and Protective Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether one or more relevant experts should be appointed under s 105A.6(3) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) because doing so is likely to materially assist the Court in deciding whether to make a continuing detention order.' 'Whether Dr Andrew Ellis, Dr Kerri Eagle and Dr Chelsey Dewson should be appointed to assess the risk of the defendant committing a serious Part 5.3 offence if released into the community.' 'Whether protective orders should be made in respect of documents listed in the Schedule to the Summons, the open Wilson affidavit, and the VERA-2R evidence sheet.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that appointing experts would materially assist in deciding whether to make a continuing detention order because the existing psychiatric and psychological reports were limited by the absence of clinical examination, the defendant's risk presentation involved multifactorial causes including severe mental illness and substance abuse, contemporaneous assessment before release would assist the unacceptable risk inquiry, and the psychiatrist and psychologist brought different disciplines and expertise. In the particular circumstances, despite the usual need to limit experts and the overlap between two psychiatrists, Dr Ellis, Dr Eagle and Dr Dewson should each be...

Court Disposition

Orders made appointing three experts, making protective orders, and adjourning the proceedings for further directions.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 105A.6(3) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), Dr Andrew Ellis, Dr Kerri Eagle and Dr Chelsey Dewson be appointed to conduct an assessment of the risk of the defendant committing a serious Part 5.3 offence if released into the community and provide a report of the assessment to the Court, the...