The full case is at
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2007/1503.html?query=^Behrouz%20Foroughi
Whether Mr Foroughi is a pathological gambler
105 Mr Foroughi called evidence from Mr Ross Colquhoun, a clinical psychologist, to support his case. Mr Colquhoun saw Mr Foroughi on 2 and 9 November 2006 and, with the assistance of a colleague, took a history and administered a series of psychological tests.
106 Mr Colquhoun concluded that Mr Foroughi met the diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling stipulated in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed text revision, American Psychiatric Association Washington, 2000) (”DSM-IV”).
107 Mr Colquhoun went on to say that the essential feature of pathological gambling is persistent and recurrent maladaptive gambling behaviour that negatively affects personal, family and vocational functioning. In his view, Mr Foroughi suffers from this disorder, which he said is synonymous with other addictions. He stated that neuroscientific evidence indicates that, over time, pathological gamblers suffer from long-lasting structural changes to the brain with reduced capacity to make rational decisions to cease gambling.
108 Star City’s expert psychologist, Professor Blaszczynski was, until recently, the Head of the Department of Medical Psychology at Westmead Hospital . Since December 2006 he has been a full time academic, holding the Chair in Psychology at the University of Sydney . His curriculum vitae reveals a high level of specialised knowledge in the area of problem gambling in which he has written and worked extensively.
109 Professor Blaszczynski agreed that the essential feature of pathological gambling is persistent and recurrent maladaptive gambling behaviour. He also agreed that Mr Foroughi demonstrated five of the ten diagnostic criteria for pathological gambling under DSM-IV, a number consistent with the disorder’s diagnosis.
110 Although Mr Foroughi met five of the formal criteria stated in DSM-IV, Professor Blaszczynski expressed the clinical opinion that he is more correctly described as a problem gambler than a pathological gambler. Professor Blaszczynski came to this view principally because Mr Foroughi did not exhibit an important feature accepted as indicating impaired control, namely repeated unsuccessful efforts to control, cut back or cease gambling. Professor Blaszczynski expanded on his views in a second report dated 21 August 2006.
111 In my view, Professor Blaszczynski’s opinion is amply supported by the evidence. In particular:
• Mr Foroughi agreed that he told Professor Blaszczynski that he did not make any repeated genuine or concerted efforts to address his gambling problem.
• Mr Foroughi was given a package of information listing problem gambling services that were available at the time when the exclusion order was made yet he did not go to any of those services.
• Mr Foroughi understood on 18 May 2004 that he was undertaking to the casino to seek the assistance of a qualified gambling counsellor but he did not do so. He accepted that, apart from seeking expert evidence for these proceedings, he did not seek the assistance of a recognised and qualified problem gambling counsellor.
112 Senior counsel for Mr Foroughi made a strenuous attack upon Professor Blaszczynski’s evidence. He suggested that Professor Blaszczynski should have treated Mr Foroughi ’s prayers to cease gambling as indicating active steps to overcome his gambling problems. In my opinion, Professor Blaszczynski was correct to reject this suggestion.
113 Professor Blaszczynski concluded that Mr Foroughi ’s gambling was not motivated by a desire to escape problems or relieve dysphoric moods; his gambling was motivated by excitement and a desire to win, not to prevent or reduce distress or some dreaded event.
114 These conclusions were supported by statements made by Mr Foroughi to Professor Blaszczynski. In particular, Mr Foroughi told Professor Blaszczynski that he was motivated to gamble because he found the activity exciting and it provided him with an opportunity to win and recoup losses.
115 Professor Blaszczynski was an impressive witness and I accept his evidence in preference to the views of Mr Colquhoun. Whilst I thought Mr Colquhoun was doing his best to assist the Court, I have taken into account the relative experience and learning of both expert witnesses.
116 Professor Blaszczynski’s curriculum vitae contains a compelling statement of his expertise. He has received awards for his contributions to research on pathological gambling, as well as a large number of grants to carry out studies in this field. He has also published widely in the area.
117 I reject Mr Laughton’s attack on Professor Blaszczynski that “there is no evidence of the extent of his clinical experience.” The Professor’s curriculum vitae is ample testament to his clinical experience.
118 Indeed, Mr Colquhoun’s experience in the field of problem gambling is relatively slight. He says his expertise is in “addictions generally” with a main focus on drugs and alcohol. There is little in his curriculum vitae that specifically relates to problem or pathological gambling. His experience appears to be limited to some work he did in the area of gambling for the Department of Corrective Services approximately 10 years ago and in oral evidence he stated:
“I have seen a number of gamblers over time and treated them…and I’ve written a number of reports…mainly regarding the criminal activity attached to gambling.”
119 Even if I were to accept that Mr Foroughi is a pathological gambler, Professor Blaszczynski’s evidence is that such persons can exercise control and limit or cease gambling if they choose to do so. I accept this opinion which is supported by Mr Foroughi ’s own evidence that he felt able to keep away from the casino without professional assistance and, indeed, that he had been able to do so for a period of six months prior to seeing Mr Colquhoun.