The mere fact that a party challenges the accuracy of a substantially material fact does not mean the Mental Health Court must find a s 269 dispute exists; the determination of whether the fact is 'so in dispute' it would be unsafe to decide is a matter of judgment and degree for the MHC. Where the unanimous body of expert psychiatric evidence accepts the accuracy of an accused's self-reported account of delusional thinking at the time of a killing, the MHC is entitled to conclude there is no s 269 dispute, notwithstanding that the accused initially gave a false account, delayed disclosure for 14 months, and later recanted parts of the account while unwell.
The full text is available to signed-in members.