The Federal Court held that a tribunal's decision to give limited weight to a psychologist's report on recidivism risk was not unreasonable or irrational where the tribunal identified logical concerns about the report's reliance on self-reporting by a demonstrably unreliable applicant, the psychologist's apparent lack of awareness of incidents in detention, and incorrect assumptions about protective factors. The Court confirmed that tribunals are not required to accept expert evidence uncritically and may assess its weight based on rational concerns about its foundation and reliability.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.