The decision to grant leave to the man who killed the parents of Wendy Robinson has sparked renewed debate about how NSW manages forensic patients and assesses risks before allowing supervised community access.

Scott Settree, who was responsible for the deaths of Wendy Robinson’s parents, was granted leave by the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT), a decision that has caused significant distress for the victim’s family and led to calls for greater transparency and stronger safeguards.

Wendy Robinson has spoken about the emotional impact of learning that the person responsible for her parents’ deaths was permitted to leave a secure mental health setting. She and other victims’ families have questioned whether their experiences and concerns are given enough consideration during decisions about forensic patients.

Forensic patients are people who have been found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible due to mental illness or cognitive impairment. Their treatment and supervision are managed through a legal and health framework designed to balance community safety, rehabilitation and individual rights.

The MHRT reviews forensic patients and makes decisions about matters such as treatment conditions, detention and supervised leave. These decisions are based on expert assessments, including evaluations of a person’s mental health, behaviour, progress in treatment and potential risks.

However, recent concerns raised by victims’ advocates have focused on whether families affected by serious crimes have enough involvement and information throughout the review process.

The controversy surrounding Settree’s leave decision has contributed to broader calls for an inquiry into the forensic mental health system. Critics argue that victims and their families need stronger protections and clearer explanations when decisions are made involving offenders convicted of serious crimes.

Supporters of the current system argue that rehabilitation and gradual community reintegration are important parts of managing forensic patients. They say decisions are made through careful assessment processes involving mental health professionals, legal representatives and review authorities.

The debate highlights the difficult balance between protecting the community, supporting victims and ensuring people with severe mental health conditions receive appropriate treatment.

Families affected by violent crimes have repeatedly called for improvements in communication, arguing that they should be informed about significant changes involving offenders connected to their trauma.

The NSW Government and relevant authorities are facing increasing pressure to examine whether current processes provide enough accountability and whether victims’ voices are properly considered.

The inquiry discussions come amid wider national conversations about forensic mental health services, including how governments manage long-term patients, risk assessments and transitions back into the community.

For Wendy Robinson and other affected families, the issue is not only about one individual decision but about confidence in a system designed to protect both the community and the rights of victims.