Content warning: This article mentions graphic descriptions of violent crime, including stabbing and physical assault. Reader discretion is advised.

In a shocking turn of events, a man accused of stabbing a Centrelink worker in Melbourne in 2023 has pleaded not guilty, with his lawyers hinting at a possible 'mental impairment' defence.

Elijah Chase, a 35-year-old man, was arrested in May last year following the alleged stabbing of Centrelink employee Joeanne Cassar, 55, at Centrelink’s Airport West branch in Melbourne.

The incident is said to have left Ms Cassar in a pool of blood, sparking a nationwide conversation about the safety of Centrelink workers.

During a hearing at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, Mr Chase maintained his innocence against charges of intentionally causing serious injury, recklessly causing serious injury, reckless conduct endangering life, common law assault, and use and possession of a controlled weapon.

The prosecution, led by Jordan O’Toole, presented a compelling case against the defendant. After hearing the evidence, magistrate Abigail Burchill stated she was 'satisfied' that the evidence could support a conviction and ordered Mr Chase to stand trial in the County Court.

The attack on Cassar led to intense conversations on workplace safety for Centrelink employees. Image Credit: Shutterstock

The court heard that Ms Cassar was allegedly stabbed in her lower back, narrowly missing vital organs. However, she has suffered from pain, psychological trauma, and nerve damage in the months following the incident.

Clinical Forensic Physician Jo Ann Parkin suggested that Ms Cassar would likely experience 'some degree of total personal disability' as a result of the alleged attack.

Ms Cassar's career with Services Australia spans two decades, during which she has reportedly experienced 'a number of violent assaults' as a Centrelink team member. This incident has highlighted the potential dangers faced by Centrelink staff and has led to calls for improved safety measures.

Mr Chase was identified as a suspect by a witness at the Centrelink branch and was arrested on a tram shortly after the alleged incident. He was reportedly found with blood on his hands and two knives nearby.

Mr Chase's lawyer, Honorah Edwards, questioned Detective Acting Sergeant Dale Eagle about Chase's behaviour at the time of his arrest.

Sergeant Eagle confirmed that he had concerns about Chase's mental state and had requested a doctor assess whether he was 'fit' to be interviewed. However, Mr Chase refused to speak with a doctor, and Sergeant Eagle proceeded with the interview.

Edwards hinted that the admissibility of the interview might be challenged at trial, given that Chase had not been given access to a lawyer despite expressing that he 'probably should' have one.

She also revealed that a psychiatrist had recently assessed Chase, with a mental impairment defence assessment report due 'soon'.

Chase has been remanded and will appear in the County Court for a directions hearing at a later date.

Following the alleged attack, Government Services Minister Bill Shorten announced a safety review of Centrelink’s 318 centres across Australia.

The review led to 44 recommendations, all of which the government has committed to implementing. These include additional security guards, improved IT systems, and better centre designs.

As the case unfolds, it will undoubtedly continue to spark debate about the measures needed to protect those who serve our community.

Our thoughts are with Ms Cassar and all Centrelink workers who continue to serve the public despite the potential risks they face.

Key Takeaways

• Elijah Chase, accused of stabbing Centrelink worker Joeanne Cassar, has pleaded not guilty while his lawyers prepare to explore a mental impairment defence.
• Chase faces multiple charges, including intentionally causing serious injury and use and possession of a controlled weapon, following the incident at Centrelink’s Airport West branch in Melbourne.
• After a hearing, magistrate Abigail Burchill ordered Elijah Chase to stand trial in the County Court, indicating the evidence could support a conviction.
• Following a safety review of Centrelink centres, the government has committed to implementing 44 recommendations, including additional security and improved centre designs.

Have you or someone you know ever experienced violence or threats in the workplace? Share your experiences and thoughts on how we can better protect our workers in the comments below.

 

[amandaloisjupp1961]

Why is it all or most persons who front court plead "My brain is not right so I am not guilty"? What a load of crap. Carrying two knives whilst out and about is breaking the law anyway. So, LOCK the idiot up for at least ten years.

Have to agree I have a mental illness and I certainly don’t go around with the intention of harming other people

 

[Knell]

I have a mental illness and it is under control with medication.

Yes, a great result. But are you misinterpreting me? I am against 'Institutions' unless it has been proven a crime of violence has occurred and they then go into not a mainstream jail, but one that caters for their needs - but only if a violent crime has been committed. Other than that we do have mental health wards at most hospitals to help stabilise if needed.

 

[Knell]

Have to agree I have a mental illness and I certainly don’t go around with the intention of harming other people

"Why is it all or most persons who front court plead "My brain is not right so I am not guilty"?" --
Because the not so nice people will try any legal defence they can when they actually have no excuse.

 

[Knell]

Hopefully we will have a more enlightened generation of parents coming through that understand that "hard love" i.e. smacking when their child is not conforming, should in fact be a matter for further medical testing. How many ADHA, Autistic, Dyslexic etc got punished as children due to parents taking the wooden spoon in hand. How many parents then kicked them out as teenagers, causing them to develop anti-social behaviours? Most who commit crimes are not mentally ill therefore no other 'institution' required other than jail for these crimes. Bad temper, revengeful, self-entitled do not fit the bill.

 

[MariaG]

She's been the victim of several violent attacks, speaks volumes about how she treats people. Need I say more?

It could be more a case of what Centrelink puts people through. May well have been the straw breaking the camel's back. However, there is no excuse for violence to that degree.
Time to look at the way the powers to be are doing business. If one more person says "why don't you go online", I'll scream. I think that is what is amiss. Not enough caring people on the coal face.
The treatment of folk with mental disorders is something that needs addressing.
The mental health system seems to be in a state of limbo and its guns blazing to make sure the popular sections of society are cared for properly.
All should be treated equally, no matter the age or circumstance.
I will say again though ... violence is not the answer.

 

[Robbo3006]

And throw away the key....

Obviously you can judge because you don't have to deal with any disorders? If you ever had one maybe then you'd understand, but I do agree that some don't have disorders and use it as an excuse for abhorrent behaviour, trouble is, how do we know? Everyone thinks I'm normal, but I'm definitely not.

 

[Robbo3006]

Maybe not. It's a very stressful job dealing with government assistance. I had a friend who used to work where they gave emergency government handouts and they would get abused and threatened on a daily basis. More often than not, the police were called especially when the allocated money finished. They had to put up glass partitions and make sure they weren't followed. The car tyres were also slashed on occassion. This worker is only following protocol to what the procedures are. I am glad this incident has caused them to review security. At the same time, there is a shortfall of service and resources so frustration levels are also high.

If she doesn't like the job, find another one, some ,not many, but some in centrelink are absolutely horrid to deal with, some are wonderful. I can't imagine the good ones being attacked several times.

 

[SandraMae]

This attack is terrible.

I worked in Centrelink, as it is called now, in the 1990s.

We worked behind counters or used interview cubicles for client contact. I believe that is better for clients and staff. The interview rooms were separate to the back office area.

When I visited a modern Centrelink office with its open plan design I was horrified by the safety risk.

Most Centrelink recipients are decent law-abiding citizens and it is very satisfying to help them. I loved my work. I loved helping people navigate the systems to get their payments and the support they wre entitled to receive.

But remember, Centrelink caters to all people, and has clients whose unfortunate circumstances can distress them, even to tears of grief, or all the way through to explosive anger.

Current low staffing levels and computerised services can lead to payment delay, which leads to client frustration.

State Mental Health services are underfunded and inadequate.

It is woth remembering that Centrelink also caters, for example, to newly released prisoners including some who committed very violent crimes, and others with records of violence.

People with mental health issues are likely to be Centrelink clients. The majority of these clients are peaceful even when frustrated with Centrelink. (Acrually they are more likely to harm themselves than others, so intetviews need to be handled very sensitively.) But a minority may have self-control issues.

Then there is the general public with its vast range of personalities, with some quick to act unreasonably towards barriers to getting what they want. Others are traumatised by natural disasters, or personal curcumstances like divorce proceedings, child custody disputes, debt or legal issues. They can be near an emotional breaking point, understandably.

Add all this to a system of automatic IT processes, long phone wait times, and client difficulties in navigating the systems, staffing levels, and you can see why staff risk must be taken seriously.

An open office plan gives no safety nor privacy for staff and clients, no sense of security, and no door to lock if a dangerous situation occurs.

My remark, when visiting a local Centrelink office recently, was that I would not work in such an open office environment, and that I disliked it as a customer as well.

I worked in Social Security and the Commonwealth Employment Sercice (CES) from 1990 to 2001, then the Department of Veteran's Affairs. All were public contact roles.

I extend my concern and caring to the victim and family, colleagues and friends, first responders, and any other people impacted by this dreadful attack.

With regards,
Sandra B.
Adelaide South Australia.

 

[Littleboy8]

This attack is terrible.

I worked in Centrelink, as it is called now, in the 1990s.

We worked behind counters or used interview cubicles for client contact. I believe that is better for clients and staff. The interview rooms were separate to the back office area.

When I visited a modern Centrelink office with its open plan design I was horrified by the safety risk.

Most Centrelink recipients are decent law-abiding citizens and it is very satisfying to help them. I loved my work. I loved helping people navigate the systems to get their payments and the support they wre entitled to receive.

But remember, Centrelink caters to all people, and has clients whose unfortunate circumstances can distress them, even to tears of grief, or all the way through to explosive anger.

Current low staffing levels and computerised services can lead to payment delay, which leads to client frustration.

State Mental Health services are underfunded and inadequate.

It is woth remembering that Centrelink also caters, for example, to newly released prisoners including some who committed very violent crimes, and others with records of violence.

People with mental health issues are likely to be Centrelink clients. The majority of these clients are peaceful even when frustrated with Centrelink. (Acrually they are more likely to harm themselves than others, so intetviews need to be handled very sensitively.) But a minority may have self-control issues.

Then there is the general public with its vast range of personalities, with some quick to act unreasonably towards barriers to getting what they want. Others are traumatised by natural disasters, or personal curcumstances like divorce proceedings, child custody disputes, debt or legal issues. They can be near an emotional breaking point, understandably.

Add all this to a system of automatic IT processes, long phone wait times, and client difficulties in navigating the systems, staffing levels, and you can see why staff risk must be taken seriously.

An open office plan gives no safety nor privacy for staff and clients, no sense of security, and no door to lock if a dangerous situation occurs.

My remark, when visiting a local Centrelink office recently, was that I would not work in such an open office environment, and that I disliked it as a customer as well.

I worked in Social Security and the Commonwealth Employment Sercice (CES) from 1990 to 2001, then the Department of Veteran's Affairs. All were public contact roles.

I extend my concern and caring to the victim and family, colleagues and friends, first responders, and any other people impacted by this dreadful attack.

With regards,
Sandra B.
Adelaide South Australia.

Last year I went to Centrelink for an interview they had booths. Now they interview me over the phone on the seniors line which suits me better every couple of months.

 

[SandraMae]

If she doesn't like the job, find another one, some ,not many, but some in centrelink are absolutely horrid to deal with, some are wonderful. I can't imagine the good ones being attacked

Finding another job is not the correct response to staff being abused. No worker should put up with abuse. Management has to mitigate risk and ensure staff are safe as per OH&S laws.

I suugest end compliments to thosecwonderful staff, it helps them get proper recognition and goid performance reviews. You can lodge complaints about the horrid ones.

You are saying ' the good ones don't get attacked'. This is classic Victim Blaming. That is horrid. i can personally assure you, good people do get attacked.

I wonder whether you casting negative aspersions on the victim is appropriate for a case still before the courts?

 

[SandraMae]

Last year I went to Centrelink for an interview they had booths. Now they interview me over the phone on the seniors line which suits me better every couple of months.

Yes, I helped a friend with the online services. It was easy after the first few rimes. They like the phone too.

 

[SandraMae]

She's been the victim of several violent attacks, speaks volumes about how she treats people. Need I say more?

That's nasty Victim Blaming. What if she had died, would you still say she deserved being stabbed? You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Knell]

I can say Centrelink have never missed a beat for my son and we have never needed to contact them again after initial application. Our Mental Health System I cannot fault. I understand our Emergency Hospitals and Services are overwhelmed with Mental Health Patients - a lot of substance abuse - repeat customers.

 

[SandraMae]

Please this person has taken a knive to an office he knew how to get there a premeditated act of violence, now we are going to have mental assessment, next we will hear his Mum smacked him when he was younger his teacher yelled at him. When are thugs going to be held accountable.

The mental assessment is appropriate. The points you made are valid, but his lawyers have to find a defence for him. Claiming innocence is (allegedly) off the list, so this comes next, I suppose. They also appear to be checking if the rules were followed correctly by the police.

Roughly, our laws don't condone a crime committed while mentally ill. I believe a person has to be so ill, they were unable to distinguish right from wrong at the time of they action , to be found innocent. The defence has to prove it.

All the things you mentioned about past history and mental illness may or may not influence any sentence the judge gives if the defendant is found guilty.

That is the Australian justice system that applies to all of us.

I hope this helps explain it.

 

[SandraMae]

Here we go again, claiming he has a mental issues, NO BLOODY EXCUSE, so anyone can commit a crime and say poor me, i have a mental illness and get away with it, LOCK HIM UP.

No, that's not how it works at all. I gave a detailed reply to another comment. I hope that explains the issue. ( I am not a lawyer though.)

 

[SandraMae]

Yes, be careful.

 

[SandraMae]

When I say 'lucky it was only a knife', I recognise that a knife crime can lead to more than one victim in a spree attack. But on the other hand, thank goodness for our gun control laws, and for our society for not being a gun culture, like the USA is now.

 

[NotNats]

Content warning: This article mentions graphic descriptions of violent crime, including stabbing and physical assault. Reader discretion is advised.

In a shocking turn of events, a man accused of stabbing a Centrelink worker in Melbourne in 2023 has pleaded not guilty, with his lawyers hinting at a possible 'mental impairment' defence.

Elijah Chase, a 35-year-old man, was arrested in May last year following the alleged stabbing of Centrelink employee Joeanne Cassar, 55, at Centrelink’s Airport West branch in Melbourne.

The incident is said to have left Ms Cassar in a pool of blood, sparking a nationwide conversation about the safety of Centrelink workers.

During a hearing at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, Mr Chase maintained his innocence against charges of intentionally causing serious injury, recklessly causing serious injury, reckless conduct endangering life, common law assault, and use and possession of a controlled weapon.

The prosecution, led by Jordan O’Toole, presented a compelling case against the defendant. After hearing the evidence, magistrate Abigail Burchill stated she was 'satisfied' that the evidence could support a conviction and ordered Mr Chase to stand trial in the County Court.

View attachment 39840

The attack on Cassar led to intense conversations on workplace safety for Centrelink employees. Image Credit: Shutterstock

The court heard that Ms Cassar was allegedly stabbed in her lower back, narrowly missing vital organs. However, she has suffered from pain, psychological trauma, and nerve damage in the months following the incident.

Clinical Forensic Physician Jo Ann Parkin suggested that Ms Cassar would likely experience 'some degree of total personal disability' as a result of the alleged attack.

Ms Cassar's career with Services Australia spans two decades, during which she has reportedly experienced 'a number of violent assaults' as a Centrelink team member. This incident has highlighted the potential dangers faced by Centrelink staff and has led to calls for improved safety measures.

Mr Chase was identified as a suspect by a witness at the Centrelink branch and was arrested on a tram shortly after the alleged incident. He was reportedly found with blood on his hands and two knives nearby.

Mr Chase's lawyer, Honorah Edwards, questioned Detective Acting Sergeant Dale Eagle about Chase's behaviour at the time of his arrest.

Sergeant Eagle confirmed that he had concerns about Chase's mental state and had requested a doctor assess whether he was 'fit' to be interviewed. However, Mr Chase refused to speak with a doctor, and Sergeant Eagle proceeded with the interview.

Edwards hinted that the admissibility of the interview might be challenged at trial, given that Chase had not been given access to a lawyer despite expressing that he 'probably should' have one.

She also revealed that a psychiatrist had recently assessed Chase, with a mental impairment defence assessment report due 'soon'.

Chase has been remanded and will appear in the County Court for a directions hearing at a later date.

Following the alleged attack, Government Services Minister Bill Shorten announced a safety review of Centrelink’s 318 centres across Australia.

The review led to 44 recommendations, all of which the government has committed to implementing. These include additional security guards, improved IT systems, and better centre designs.

As the case unfolds, it will undoubtedly continue to spark debate about the measures needed to protect those who serve our community.

Our thoughts are with Ms Cassar and all Centrelink workers who continue to serve the public despite the potential risks they face.

Key Takeaways

• Elijah Chase, accused of stabbing Centrelink worker Joeanne Cassar, has pleaded not guilty while his lawyers prepare to explore a mental impairment defence.
• Chase faces multiple charges, including intentionally causing serious injury and use and possession of a controlled weapon, following the incident at Centrelink’s Airport West branch in Melbourne.
• After a hearing, magistrate Abigail Burchill ordered Elijah Chase to stand trial in the County Court, indicating the evidence could support a conviction.
• Following a safety review of Centrelink centres, the government has committed to implementing 44 recommendations, including additional security and improved centre designs.

Have you or someone you know ever experienced violence or threats in the workplace? Share your experiences and thoughts on how we can better protect our workers in the comments below.

Sick and tired of LAWYERS & PEOPLE using the defence of "Mental Impairment" or "age" or "Hardship or Hard Life"- plain and simple "1 crime = 1 sentence/conviction" no matter what. About time the LAW got rid of all the "LOOP HOLES" and become the LAW.

 

[Jarred Santos]

This attack is terrible.

I worked in Centrelink, as it is called now, in the 1990s.

We worked behind counters or used interview cubicles for client contact. I believe that is better for clients and staff. The interview rooms were separate to the back office area.

When I visited a modern Centrelink office with its open plan design I was horrified by the safety risk.

Most Centrelink recipients are decent law-abiding citizens and it is very satisfying to help them. I loved my work. I loved helping people navigate the systems to get their payments and the support they wre entitled to receive.

But remember, Centrelink caters to all people, and has clients whose unfortunate circumstances can distress them, even to tears of grief, or all the way through to explosive anger.

Current low staffing levels and computerised services can lead to payment delay, which leads to client frustration.

State Mental Health services are underfunded and inadequate.

It is woth remembering that Centrelink also caters, for example, to newly released prisoners including some who committed very violent crimes, and others with records of violence.

People with mental health issues are likely to be Centrelink clients. The majority of these clients are peaceful even when frustrated with Centrelink. (Acrually they are more likely to harm themselves than others, so intetviews need to be handled very sensitively.) But a minority may have self-control issues.

Then there is the general public with its vast range of personalities, with some quick to act unreasonably towards barriers to getting what they want. Others are traumatised by natural disasters, or personal curcumstances like divorce proceedings, child custody disputes, debt or legal issues. They can be near an emotional breaking point, understandably.

Add all this to a system of automatic IT processes, long phone wait times, and client difficulties in navigating the systems, staffing levels, and you can see why staff risk must be taken seriously.

An open office plan gives no safety nor privacy for staff and clients, no sense of security, and no door to lock if a dangerous situation occurs.

My remark, when visiting a local Centrelink office recently, was that I would not work in such an open office environment, and that I disliked it as a customer as well.

I worked in Social Security and the Commonwealth Employment Sercice (CES) from 1990 to 2001, then the Department of Veteran's Affairs. All were public contact roles.

I extend my concern and caring to the victim and family, colleagues and friends, first responders, and any other people impacted by this dreadful attack.

With regards,
Sandra B.
Adelaide South Australia.

The mental assessment is appropriate. The points you made are valid, but his lawyers have to find a defence for him. Claiming innocence is (allegedly) off the list, so this comes next, I suppose. They also appear to be checking if the rules were followed correctly by the police.

Roughly, our laws don't condone a crime committed while mentally ill. I believe a person has to be so ill, they were unable to distinguish right from wrong at the time of they action , to be found innocent. The defence has to prove it.

All the things you mentioned about past history and mental illness may or may not influence any sentence the judge gives if the defendant is found guilty.

That is the Australian justice system that applies to all of us.

I hope this helps explain it.

What a response, Sandra. Very eloquent and well thought out! Any stories about dealing with difficult people while on the job at Centrelink? :O

 

[Robbo3006]

That's nasty Victim Blaming. What if she had died, would you still say she deserved being stabbed? You should be ashamed of yourself.

So should you, obviously you're entitled, never been to centrelink, some of them treat you worse than a dog and are racist beyond your wildest imagination. He's a nutter and she pushed him too far.