English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In  DPP v O’Neill , the Victorian Court of Appeal excluded personality disorders from the scope of the sentencing principles that apply to offenders with mental health problems around Australia (the ‘ Verdins  principles’). This decision was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of personality disorders and had the potential to create serious injustice for many marginalised people. To redress this problem, the authors engaged in a unique process of strategic advocacy, which resulted in the Victorian Court of Appeal overturning  O’Neill  in the recent case of  Brown v The Queen . This article examines the evolution of the  Verdins  principles, the problems that arose in  O’Neill , the collaborative strategy used to address those problems and the successful outcome of that interdisciplinary strategy.

Sentencing and mental disorder: the evolution of the Verdins Principles , strategic interdisciplinary advocacy and evidence-based reform