A sentencing judge is entitled to reject a psychologist's opinion where the factual history upon which it is based is demonstrated to be false, without giving prior notice, provided the disputed facts were resolved through the accusatorial process and the offender's counsel was aware of the contest. The guiding principle is whether the course of the proceeding should have alerted the offender to the possibility that rejection of the disputed history would result in rejection of the expert opinion. Psychologists' conclusions as to the causal connection between a mental condition and offending may go beyond their expertise and into the field of psychiatry, and a sentencing judge is not obliged to give weight to such conclusions.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.