Psychiatry's 'Guesswork' Underpins Secret Court Orders

Senior psychiatrists are raising concerns about the use of psychiatric assessments in court suppression orders, stating that predicting an accused person's mental health risks, including self-harm or suicide, is unreliable. These clinicians argue that it is virtually impossible to discern the specific impact of media reporting from the general stress of appearing in court, making the reports relied upon by judges inexact. This reliance on an "uncertain art" is seen as undermining Australia's open justice system.

Recent prominent cases, including those involving alleged sexual assault, have seen individuals successfully argue for suppression of their identities for extended periods, citing psychological safety. For instance, one celebrity agent's identity was suppressed for over three years. Experts highlight that while a person may be vulnerable, naming them is rarely the decisive factor leading to adverse mental health outcomes, making the justification for secrecy questionable.

Legal experts and criminologists echo these concerns, noting that psychiatric opinions are difficult to challenge in court, creating an imbalance. They argue that projecting future reactions is outside psychiatry's scope and that the repeated use of such reports by the same individuals should raise alarms. This practice can also lead to perceptions of special treatment for well-connected clients, eroding public faith in the justice system.

The privileging of an accused perpetrator's psychological safety over that of victim-survivors is also a significant concern. In cases where perpetrators are protected, sometimes even after conviction, it raises questions about justice for victims. Furthermore, in sexual offense cases, while perpetrators' mental health is protected, victims' private counseling records can become subject to subpoena, creating a stark imbalance and what some describe as "systems abuse."