I read the sentencing remarks and have some questions, if the legal minds here would be kind enough to educate a humble pleb.

1) The remarks understandably outline personal circumstances, and one aspect of that is offending history (from driving offences to violent outbursts and threats). A big deal appears to be made about personality/mood/depressive disorders, "a complex personality", but my question is: why is it only now, despite several previous encounters with the Court, is an ongoing mental health supervision issued?

2) Is the Court admitting, tacitly, that they have repeatedly thrown back into the community an individual who, by their own metrics (Verdins principles I think it was?), is evaluated to need ongoing psychiatric supervision, but who has apparently not needed those things in the past, even though his prior offending history is, as Dr Deacon states (to paraphrase), inexorably connected to his myriad disorders and impairments?

3) Does this indicate that a mental health assessment was not performed prior to this case for any of his other offences?

Thanks very much for explaining.