http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2014/169.html
After the testimony of the accused the State applied to re-open its case, which application was not opposed and was granted.
[17] Jacobus Cornelius Coetzee (Coetzee) is a registered Clinical Psychologist who.....(snipped).
[18]
He evaluated the accused at the request of the court whilst the accused was under observation at Weskoppies Hospital in Pretoria.
[19] In his psychological interview with the accused, the accused reported to him the voices that scream at him usually at night, and throw him with birds and chickens. The voices tell him to take a cable wire to hang himself and sometimes cut himself with a razor or to fight people.
[20] Coetzee conducted a psychometric test on the accused.
20.1 Under the personality assessment inventory (PAI), which test provides information relevant for clinical diagnosis, treatment planning and screening for psychypathology and covers constructs most relevant to a broad-based assessment of mental disorders,
the accused answered the questions in a way to create a distorted profile. His interpretation of the marked elevation on the negative impression scale is that
the accused made a deliberate attempt to create an overly negative impression of himself. Coetzee holds the view that this is indicative of an attempt to malinger psychiatric symptoms.
20.2 Under structured inventory of malingered symptomatology (SIMS), which test is a multi-axial, self-administered screening measure for detection of malingering in clinical and forensic settings, the accused scored positive for attempted malingering for all of the scales on psychosis, neurologic impairment, amnestic disorders, low intelligence and affective disorders. Coetzee interprets this as that the accused endorsed a high frequency of symptoms that are highly atypical in patients with genuine psychiatric or cognitive disorders, this may indicate an attempt to malinger these symptoms.
20.3 Under the inventory of legal knowledge (ILK), which is a test designed to assist the forensic examiner in assessing reponse styles of defendants undergoing evaluations of their competency to stand trial and is a measure of a defendant’s approach to inquiries about his legal knowledge, the accused obtained a score of 50, which score falls in the upper end of the normal range. Coetzee interprets this as that the test results support the fact that the accused did not attempt to feign limitations in his ability to understand or participate in the legal process.
[21] Coetzee’s opinion is that the accused does not currently suffer from any clinical psychiatric disorders and
that at the time of the incident he did not suffer from any clinical psychiatric disorder. Coetzee’s opinion is that the accused shows antisocial and narcissistic personality traits. Coetzee is also of the opinion that the accused is currently malingering some psychiatric symptoms, specifically those in the psychotic disorder spectrum.
[22] Coetzee’s conclusion is that the accused is capable of understanding the court proceedings and can meaningfully contribute to his own defence, and that at the time of the commission of the offence,
the accused was able to distinguish between right and wrong and was able to act in accordance with such understanding.
[23] Dr K Naidu, a State Psychiatrist and Dr PH De Wet, a Psychiatrist appointed by the Court, are both duly registered psychiatrists who compiled a joint report regarding the mental condition of the accused, which was handed in by agreement between the parties.
[24] Their examination
consisted of clinical interviews with the accused and observation of his general behaviour in the ward. He was physically examined. A summary of court proceedings was made available to them, a psychosocial report was complied and he was psychologically evaluated.
[25] The two Psychiatrists found no psychiatric diagnosis. The diagnosis they found was malingering. They both noted his previous medical and psychiatric history.
[26] Their opinion is that the accused is capable of understanding court proceedings and is able to contribute meaningfully to his defence.
[27] Their opinion is also that at the time of the alleged offences, the accused did not suffer from a mental disorder or mental defect that affected his ability to distinguish between the rightful or wrongful nature of his deeds. A mental disorder or mental defect did not affect his ability to act in accordance with the said appreciation of the rightful or wrongful nature of his deeds.
[32]
The court accepts the opinion of Coetzee, and finds that the accused has anti-social and narcissistic personality traits.
[54]
The court also takes into account that the accused has an antisocial personality disorder and a narcissistic personality disorder. The evidence of Coetzee is that these disorders may be genetically transferred, but can also be acquired from the systems under which one grows up or from the society from which one emerges.
The court is inclined to find that the accused’s antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder were nurtured and developed by the family from which he emerges.
In my view, the presence of the accused within the environment of his family c
onstitutes a danger to society, unless and until there are programmes for interventions. As things stand, the accused is a danger to society.
http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2014/169.html
