Proposed psychiatric panel must be large enough for smoother defence: Lawyers
TODAY file photo
SINGAPORE — Laws proposed to regulate psychiatrists eligible to provide expert evidence in criminal cases could save time, but their numbers must be large enough in order not to hamper the defence of accused persons, said lawyers.
A new court-administered panel of psychiatrists was one of 50 changes to the Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act proposed by the Ministry of Law this week.
The ministry wants psychiatrists on the panel to have trained or worked in forensic psychiatry. Admission will be for two years, and the psychiatrists must produce two character references from certain members of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore.
They will be removed from the panel for at least three years if there are “a number” of judgments commenting adversely on their independence or competence as expert witnesses.
This would ensure the evidence given by psychiatrists is “competently arrived at and objective”, after concerns were raised in past cases, said the ministry.
Having a panel of psychiatrists could shave time off court proceedings, if it means prosecutors do not challenge reports from private psychiatrists tendered by the defence in future, said Mr Sunil Sudheesan, president of the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore.
Private psychiatrists have sometimes been unfairly labelled as “hired guns” who only provide favourable opinions for the defence, he said.
Less time could be spent questioning the competence of the experts in court, added criminal lawyer Kalidass Murugaiyan.
But the panel’s size and composition are important. If there are too few psychiatrists on the panel, they could be overwhelmed by the workload and thus slow down court processes, said Mr Sudheesan.
Defence lawyers generally approach private practitioners due to convenience and accessibility — they are able to produce a medical report in a month or less, as opposed to those at the Institute of Mental Health, who can take about three to four months, said the lawyers.
Lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam said the panel could be restrictive, as a doctor most qualified in a particular area of psychiatry may not be on it.
The defence may also want to call upon a foreign psychiatrist, noted veteran lawyer Peter Low, who felt lawyers should not be restricted to psychiatrists on the panel.
According to Singapore Medical Council figures, there were 228 psychiatrists in Singapore as of Dec 31 last year, and nearly three-quarters of them were in the public sector.
The Ministry of Law is proposing that psychiatrists apply to be admitted to the panel, said a spokesperson.
On whether foreign experts might have difficulty meeting some requirements, he said the ministry is looking into how character references for foreign experts could be obtained.
It intends to consult stakeholders.
Although he felt changes were needed, National University of Singapore law professor Kumaralingam Amirthalingam said the proposed panel could limit the choice of experts for both the prosecution and defence.
This could be seen as intruding on their freedom to run their respective cases and create a “tension” within the adversarial model of justice in Singapore.
The prospect of removal from the panel, after repeated adverse judgments on a psychiatrist’s independence and competence, could potentially have a “chilling effect on a psychiatrist defending his or her honest expert opinion in some cases”, he said.
While a large panel would provide more choice and lower the risk of the panel experts “developing a particular culture or mode of thinking”, a smaller group may be more efficient and reliable, said Prof Amirthalingam.
In 2014, a psychiatrist’s report was singled out by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon for seeming “exceedingly favourable” to a defendant and “patently lacking in objectivity”.
The case involved Indian national Mehra Radhika, who was convicted for arranging a marriage of convenience between a Singaporean woman and a male Indian national for the latter get a work permit and extended stay in Singapore.
“Experts owe their duty first and foremost to the court and not to the client who pays their fee.
“The doctor in this case did himself no credit because he did not give me the sense that he had even a basic conception of the responsibility he owed the court when he put himself forward as an expert,” Chief Justice Menon had said.
While giving his opinion, an expert may “inadvertently become an advocate for his client”, said Prof Amirthalingam.
Countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia have tried to overcome the risk by allowing the court to appoint its own expert, provide joint reports or require “hot-tubbing”, in which expert witnesses give their evidence in court concurrently. Siau Ming En, with ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY KELLY NG
