Criminal barristers' opinions and perceptions of mental health expert witnesses

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate criminal barristers' opinions and perceptions of clinical psychologists and psychiatrists as expert witnesses. A questionnaire was developed and posted to 148 criminal barristers; 62 (42%) were returned. As predicted, the respondents reported significantly more contact with psychiatrists than clinical psychologists, and had more faith in the expert evidence of the former. However, content analysis revealed they were sometimes unaware of when dual mental health expertise was beneficial in court. Most respondents were in favour of accredited training for expert witnesses. Clarity of language, firm conclusions, impartiality, and consistency were considered important factors for good practice. The findings emphasise the importance of accredited (quality assured) training for expert witnesses as well as training and/or guidelines for legal professionals regarding the instruction of expert witnesses. There is also a need for those in the psychological community to market their skills and expertise more effectively.

Forensic psychiatric experts under the legal microscope

“…It is our clear impression that the legal actors prefer court‐appointed experts, and when they are party‐appointed, they should still present neutral and professionally based assessments. We find that this is a good answer to the challenge given by (Leslie et al ., ).…”

“…We did not offer incentives to complete the survey. The survey was developed on the basis of the questionnaire used by Leslie et al (2007), and modified and extended to fit the Norwegian criminal court system. The data collection for the present and our previous study targeting the experts (Grøndahl et al, 2013) ran concurrently.…”

“…What are the implications of such findings for how the legal actors perceive the cooperation with the experts in court? Leslie, Young, Valentine, and Gudjonsson (2007) investigated criminal barristers' opinions and perceptions of British mental health experts. They developed a questionnaire with a mix of quantitative and qualitative questions covering topics such as the experts' report-writing skills, their experience with experts testifying in court, their training and mode of presentation.…”

The Magic or Myth of Expertise: A Comparison of Judgment Processes between Forensic Experts and Lay Persons Based on Psychiatric Case Vignettes

“…Despite the fact that the professionals in our study showed less confidence in their judgments than the laypersons, such carefulness in expert witnesses may not always be evident in practice. The expert is of course presumed to be an expert, and may be ''carried away'' in court proceedings either due to narcissistic functioning (Gutheil & Simon, 2005), or because of experiencing pressure from the court and the legal parties to provide consistent and firm conclusions and lack of ''mumbo jumbo'' (Leslie, Young, Valentine, & Gudjonsson, 2007). Experts do not always outperform less experienced persons such as students or laypersons in making accurate diagnoses or better predictions etc, (Camerer & Johnson, 1997;Garb, 1989).…”

Scandinavian forensic psychiatric practices – an overview and evaluation

“…give valuable knowledge to better optimise forensic psychiatric examinations. A Norwegian replication of a study conducted in the UK (Leslie et al, 2007) is called for.…”