State of New South Wales v O'Hara [2021] NSWSC 1667

State of New South Wales v O'Hara [2021] NSWSC 1667

The Court held that the plaintiff's proposed form of correspondence to the Court-appointed experts was broadly appropriate because the experts were appointed to assist the Court, should not be required to provide a detailed exegesis of actuarial or statistical material beyond their expertise, could properly be asked as a standalone matter about the defendant's attitude to past violent offending, and should not be confined by the defendant's proposed formulation of the risk-management question.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2021
Procedural Posture
High Risk Offender Proceedings / Notice of Motion for Directions About Letters of Instruction to Court Appointed Experts
Outcome
The plaintiff was directed to provide the draft letter to the Court; the Crown Solicitor's Office was to issue letters of instruction in the form annexed to the orders; the Notice of Motion was otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
['court Appointed Experts' 'letters of Instruction' 'actuarial Risk Assessment Tools' 'extended Supervision Orders' 'risk of Future Serious Violence']
['civil Procedure' 'high Risk Offenders' 'evidence'] ['court Appointed Experts' 'letters of Instruction' 'actuarial Risk Assessment Tools' 'extended Supervision Orders' 'risk of Future Serious Violence']

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

High Risk Offender Proceedings / Notice of Motion for Directions About Letters of Instruction to Court Appointed Experts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Court-appointed experts should be asked to provide detailed mathematical, statistical, algorithmic, actuarial or similar information underpinning any risk assessment tools used.' "Whether experts should be asked, as a standalone question, about the defendant's attitude to his prior violent offending." 'How the question to experts about management of future risk in the community should be formulated.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the plaintiff's proposed form of correspondence to the Court-appointed experts was broadly appropriate because the experts were appointed to assist the Court, should not be required to provide a detailed exegesis of actuarial or statistical material beyond their expertise, could properly be asked as a standalone matter about the defendant's attitude to past violent offending, and should not be confined by the defendant's proposed formulation of the risk-management question.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff was directed to provide the draft letter to the Court; the Crown Solicitor's Office was to issue letters of instruction in the form annexed to the orders; the Notice of Motion was otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff is to provide the Court, by email to the Associate to Wilson J, a word document containing the letters of instruction drafted by it for the Court appointed experts by 2pm today; thereafter' 'The Office of the Crown Solicitor is to issue letters of instruction to the Court appointed experts in the...