Federal Court (Full Court). Should a tribunal of fact "be hesitant about reaching its own conclusions about a person’s state of mind where there is expert evidence on the subject"? Is the Tribunal bound by opinions expressed by experts? Was the Tribunal required to refer in its reasons to every matter to which the expert psychologist had regard?
Some of the questions to the Full Court of the Federal Court (FCAFC) were as follows:
Question 1: Without more, is the fact that there has been a change of counsel insufficient to justify a grant of leave to raise a ground of judicial review for the first time on appeal?
Question 2: In the absence of prejudice to the respondent, is it the case that "the more meritorious the point, the more likely it is that leave will be granted notwithstanding the other considerations which favour its refusal"?
Question 3: Should a tribunal of fact "be hesitant about reaching its own conclusions about a person’s state of mind where there is expert evidence on the subject"?
Question 4: Is the Tribunal bound by opinions expressed by experts?
Question 5: In circumstances where the Applicant's evidence "as to the extent to which he had been rehabilitated and the level of his risk of reoffending and therefore the degree of risk he posed to the Australian community" tended to undermine the opinions expressed by his own expert psychologist, was the Tribunal obliged to take into account that evidence from the Applicant?
Question 6: Was the Tribunal required to refer in its reasons to every matter to which the expert psychologist had regard?
The FCAFC answered those questions as follows: