A court report, an envelope of money and a consultant who knows the family
You are the senior registrar in a district psychiatric unit. Six weeks ago a 34-year-old man with schizophrenia was assessed by you after he stabbed a neighbour during an argument. You recorded that he had been drinking that evening, that he was guarded and suspicious but not frankly delusional, and that the rest of his mental state examination was unremarkable. He has now been charged with attempted murder and you have been asked to prepare a court report. On the morning it is due, his family visits and brings an envelope containing Rs 50,000, asking that you write that he was mad at the time. Your consultant, who has known the family for years, says: just say he was psychotic and leave out the drinking, it will help him get treatment rather than prison. The defence lawyer then offers to sponsor your presentation at a conference in Singapore if the report reflects the mitigation. The report must be filed tomorrow, and the court has specifically asked whether the patient was able to know the nature and quality of his act.
1. Set out the ethical and legal issues and how you would respond to each of the three parties.
Read the worked answer
Two duties are being pulled apart: a duty to the court to give an independent, honest opinion, and a clinical duty to the patient. Neither is served by writing a convenient version of events, because a report that collapses under cross-examination harms the patient as well as you.
The family and the money: decline the envelope immediately, politely, and do not take it even to return later. Return it in front of a witness, and record the offer in the notes. Accepting payment from a party to litigation creates an obligation and is prohibited by medical council guidance beyond trivial value.
The consultant: acknowledge the humane intuition, treatment is usually better than prison, but point out that the court asks a factual question about the mental state at the time, that your contemporaneous note records drinking and no frank delusions, and that a court-ordered independent report vouching for psychosis he did not have exposes both of you to professional sanction. Offer to write the report jointly or to seek an independent second opinion.
The lawyer: decline the sponsorship outright, and say so in writing. Party-linked funding while preparing a report is a conflict of interest, whether or not it changes your opinion.
2. What would you actually write in the report, and how do you handle the consultant if he insists?
Read the worked answer
Write what the evidence supports and state the limits of your opinion. Include the history, your contemporaneous examination, the collateral account (police, neighbours, family), the documented alcohol use and amount, and the explicit caveat that you examined him six weeks after the event and cannot reconstruct his state at the time with certainty.
Then answer the court's specific question in the terms it uses: whether he could know the nature and quality of his act and whether he knew it was wrong. Give a reasoned opinion: a diagnosis of schizophrenia does not by itself displace criminal responsibility, positive symptoms at the material time may, intoxication is a separate matter in law from mental disorder, and if the records cannot settle it, say so plainly rather than filling the gap.
Keep risk and treatment recommendations in a separate section so that the court is not confused about what is opinion and what is fact.
If the consultant insists: tell him you cannot sign a report you do not believe, put your concerns in a file note with dates, do not sign anything drafted by him, and escalate to the head of department or clinical governance. Ask for the report to be prepared by an independent psychiatrist. This protects the patient, your consultant and you.
3. The patient does not know his family approached you or that your consultant wants a different report. What do you tell him, and why?
Read the worked answer
He is your patient and the subject of the report, so he should be told what you are going to say about him before it is filed, and given a chance to correct factual errors, dates, amounts drunk, previous treatment, what he remembers of the offence. Correcting facts is different from dictating the opinion; be explicit about which is which, or the conversation becomes negotiation.
Explain the structure of the report, that it must answer the court's question honestly, that a diagnosis does not automatically make the act excusable, and that the alcohol will be mentioned because the court will discover it anyway and concealment would discredit him.
On the family's offer, tell him only what he needs to know: that you have declined any payment and that the report will be independent of his family's wishes. Do not disclose the family's private approach in detail, since that would damage a supportive relationship, but do not collude with them against him either. Record the conversation and give him the chance to have a relative or lawyer present for it.