Printable version

l'Information Psychiatrique. Volume 84, Number 9, 853-60, Novembre 2008, à propos de…

Résumé   Article gratuit

Author(s) : Bernard Lachaux, Laetitia Michaud, Constant Houssou, Daniel Gautiez

Summary : Credibility and psychiatric expert opinion.The place of the psychiatric expert’s opinion in lawful procedures was recently questioned following “The Outreau case”, which was tragic. Within the compass of expert evidence of credibility of victims, the expert remains an auxiliary to the legal system and is supposed to give a cautious advice. He must be comprehensible and accessible so as to inform the judges and even members of juries on specific medical and psychological knowledge that they do not possess. He is requested as to the credibility of a person and not as to the truth of his declarations. He must assess whether the pathologies presented are compatible with the facts put forward, or if there might be exaggeration or simulation in order to gain advantages or through the desire to harm someone. An expert must not forget that his legitimacy is based on his professional competence, in other words, in the case of a medical doctor, on his clinical knowledge. He speaks more about the personality of the victim, the coherence of his discourse, his suggestibility, or even his pathology, than about his credibility. In the most difficult cases, the expert can confront psychometric tests with clinical observation in order to come to his conclusions. Currently, the way an expert is appointed is unclear. His appointment occurs according to decision-making conducted by an independent body. It could be interesting to review the nomination criteria and the procedure. To be an expert could require a more solid training and more wide-ranging clinical background, in terms of psychiatry, of criminology, of victimology, or of personal injury compensation. One could imagine decision-making by drawing lots from a whole group of competent experts, or appointment by a collegial system which would equitably dispatch the expertise assignments to be performed. Lastly, in order to increase the quality of expert medical evidences carried out, it seems obvious to increase the remuneration of expert evidence which is presently not very attractive.

Keywords : psychiatric expert opinion, nosology, simulation, victim, mythomania, professional training