This week, we begin exploring of the most heavily researched and practised areas in forensic psychology: the study of mental disorders and their relationship with criminal conduct. This segment of study encompasses a good grasp of both psychological and legal concepts, both of which you will find to be closely intertwined in this area. The relationship between psychological models of mental disorders and legal definitions of culpability and competence, while mostly facilitative, may at times be troubling for key actors in the criminal justice system. In the next few weeks, we will look at how various forms mental deficiencies may affect the blameworthiness of an accused person (culpability) and/or whether or not an accused person can meaningfully participate in the investigation process and in his or her own defence at trial (competence).

​

A working understanding of common mental disorders is important in establishing the foundations you need to further appreciate the implications these disorders have for legal constructs/procedures such as culpability, competence, blameworthiness, sentencing, and even treatment. For starters, we embark on a crash course in abnormal psychology. We'll take a look at major mental disorders, their causes, their symptoms, and the ways in which they are treated. ​​

​

In a related vein, we then explore forensic mental health assessment and expert evidence given by mental health professionals, especially when having to prove the existence of a mental disorder to court . In particular, we will discuss the following:

• The methods and tools by which clinicians assess and diagnose mental disorders.

• The structure and format of psychological/psychiatric reports, as used in the Singapore courts.

• Treatment and analysis by our judiciary of expert evidence from mental health professionals. 

​To fully appreciate the case readings, you may also wish to refresh your memory on criminal law concepts such as unsoundness of mind, the M'Naughten Rule, and diminished responsibility.

​

Readings

Read these materials with the accompany questions/comments (in brown, italicised text) in mind. 

Hyperlinks are provided where possible. Otherwise, cases can be found on Lawnet (accessible through the library's Law Research Navigator)

​

The following chapters from NOBA 

• History of Mental Illness – Ingrid G. Farreras

• Mood Disorders – Anda Gershon & Renee Thompson

• Personality Disorders – Cristina Crego & Thomas Widiger

• Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorders – Deanna M. Barch

​

American Psychiatric Association, Practice Guideline for the Psychiatric Evaluation of Adults 2nd Ed, (APA, 2006)

Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology, (APA, 2013) (pay particular attention to Guidelines 9 and 10; glance through the rest)

What, to a mental health professional, constitutes sound assessment practice? What should the assessor look out for? Who should she speak to? What tools may she use? What questions should she ask?

​

Sample psychiatric reports (1 to 6) (available on eLearn)

For whose benefit is/are psychiatric/psychological reports prepared? What are the features of a psychiatric report that render it understandable and useful to its intended audience? Do these reports meet the standards espoused by the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology? What, if any, can be improved/added to these reports to make them more reliable?

Kanagaratnam Nicholas Jens v Public Prosecutor [2019] 5 SLR 887

Ong Pang Siew v Public Prosecutor [2011] 1 SLR 606

Teh Thiam Huat v Public Prosecutor [1996] 3 SLR(R) 234

When will a Singapore court be satisfied that a psychiatric/psychological evaluation of an accused person was carried out in a robust and credible manner? What does the court look out for? 

​

Iskandar bin Rahmat v Public Prosecutor and other matters  [2017] 1 SLR 505

Can a psychiatric report prepared long after an offender commits the crime in question be adduced as evidence? How would you describe the thought/analytical process that the court in this case used to evaluate the opposing expert psychiatric evidence from both the prosecution and the defence? 

​

PP v Juminem and another [2005] 4 SLR(R) 536 

How would you describe the thought/analytical process that the court in this case used to evaluate the opposing expert psychiatric evidence from both the prosecution and the defence? 

​

Pathip Selvan s/o Sugumaran v Public Prosecutor [2012] 4 SLR 453

The accused person in this case was diagnosed with a mental disorder. How did the court treat such a diagnosis?

​

Rahimah Bte Mohd Salim v PP [2016] SGHC 219 

Are psychiatric reports protected from disclosure by the doctrine of litigation privilege?