10 Oct 2009
"Psychiatrists, don't be hired guns."
Beware of being taken for a ride by offenders, prosecutor
advises.
FORENSIC psychiatrists run the risk of being seen as 'hired
guns' of defence lawyers if they are not objective and truthful in
court, Principal Senior State Counsel Bala Reddy said
yesterday.
Speaking on the second day of the first Forensics Conference
here organised by the Singapore Academy of Law, the former district
judge said defence lawyers are increasingly relying on forensic
psychiatry to support claims that their clients offended because of
mental illness.
Soon after Justice of Appeal V.K. Rajah set a sentencing
precedent in 2007 when he granted a serial shoplifter suffering
from kleptomania probation instead of jail, Mr Reddy said there was
a 'significant spike' in the number of people accused of theft
claiming a similar illness.
He noted that in just the past six months, there have been 10
Newton hearings, where private psychiatry reports were challenged
by the prosecution after the accused had pleaded guilty.
A Newton hearing is a hearing held to resolve disputed points in
a case and ascertain the correct basis for sentencing.
The prosecution usually obtains psychiatric evaluations from the
Institute of Mental Health (IMH), while the defence can opt for a
private psychiatrist.
Over the same period last year, such hearings were practically
non-existent, said Mr Reddy.
The prosecutor said many disputes were resolved after the
defence's psychiatrist conceded that he had erred in his
diagnosis.
'Psychiatric reports are prepared by professionals who are
experts in the field of psychiatry. Forensic psychiatrists must be
prepared to defend every finding or diagnosis made,' Mr Reddy
said.
He cited the example of primary school teacher Shanti
Krishnasamy, who pleaded guilty to altering three examination
scripts earlier this year.
Psychiatric reports from a private psychiatrist diagnosed her
with major depressive disorder.
However, after the prosecution decided to challenge the
assessment, the psychiatrist withdrew his findings.
Mr Reddy said forensic psychiatrists should ensure they keep a
healthy dose of scepticism to ensure that they do not get taken for
a ride by offenders.
A clear ethical framework and a requirement that all psychiatric
expert witnesses be made legally, or professionally, accountable
for their diagnoses and testimonies in court could be another
solution, he said.
Mr Reddy also proposed that offenders be diagnosed by the IMH,
as the hospital is known to be objective, impartial and willing to
stand by its reports.
Senior lawyer Peter Low of Colin Ng & Partners felt that
forensic psychiatrists who provide unreliable evidence in court
will be found out very quickly.
'The forensic psychiatrist has a duty to assist the court and
should be impartial regardless of who has hired him...no expert
wants to go to court and be labelled as not credible.'
You think miss low really has multi-polar? 
