Predicting the Risk of Future Terrorism: Lessons for Mental Health Experts from the Benbrika Case.

Risk assessment is an important component of judicial decision-making in many areas of the law. In Australia, those convicted of terrorist offences may be the subject of continued detention in prison or extended supervision in the community if there is an "unacceptable risk" of them committing future terrorism offences. Forensic psychologists and psychiatrists may provide evidence of risk through identifying and measuring risk factors with the aid of tools that use scales based on statistical or actuarial risk prediction.

Interdisciplinary Collaboration in the Mental Health Sector: Legislating the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing.

This column explores how the law might support interdisciplinary collaboration in research and practice in the mental health sector. It provides an overview of the Victorian Collaborative Centre for Mental Health and Wellbeing which was established by statute to support collaboration across multiple disciplines and services for the benefit of mental health consumers. It suggests that interdisciplinary collaboration, which has the lived experience and knowledge of mental health consumers at its heart, has the potential for transformative and beneficial systemic change.

Human rights promotion and the 'Geneva impasse' in mental healthcare: scoping review.

Background: The World Psychiatric Association recently emphasised that the protection of human rights in mental healthcare was a 'central concern'. This paper examines recent literature on human rights and mental healthcare.

Aims: To (a) outline how international human rights law distinguishes between the protection and promotion of human rights; and (b) explore the literature on promoting human rights in mental healthcare which avoids what has been termed the 'Geneva impasse' between those who argue that compulsory care and treatment can never comply with human rights law and those who argue that they can if certain conditions are met.

An analysis of arguments for the retention of the defence of mental impairment.

This article summarises the main arguments for the retention of the defence of mental impairment presented in an online debate that took place in August 2021. It canvases the justifications for the defence, rebuts human rights arguments for its abolition and outlines why there is a lack of viable alternatives. It concludes that advances in knowledge should lead to the reform of the defence rather than its abolition.

Seizures, Postictal States and Criminal Responsibility.

This column provides an overview of how courts have taken into account seizures and postictal states in terms of assigning criminal responsibility. In England, New Zealand and Australia, courts have generally treated evidence of epileptic seizures and postictal states as raising the defence of mental impairment which often results in indefinite detention. In comparison, there is a series of Canadian cases that have resulted in acquittals after evidence of seizures has been accepted as negating voluntariness or the fault element of the offence.