A Consideration of the Relationship between the Rules of Court and the Code of Ethics in Forensic Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective To consider the relationship between the Rules of Court for expert witnesses and the revised Ethical Guideline No. 9 and Practice Guideline No. 9 of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) and how this affects the responsibilities that psychiatrists have to a court and to their profession, when they enter the legal arena. Method Literature relevant to the subject, the Federal Court rules relating to expert witnesses and the RANZCP Guidelines are discussed and compared, with examples used to illustrate particular issues that arise from time to time in the civil jurisdiction. A distinction is drawn between the functions of those psychiatrists who undertake forensic assessment and those who undertake clinical work, and some of the ethical challenges facing forensic psychiatrists are considered. Results The Rules of Court relating to expert witnesses and the RANZCP Guidelines No. 9 have a complementary relationship and are thus ethically consistent with each other and provide a basis for psychiatrists to maintain and enhance the integrity of their profession. Conclusion Forensic psychiatry is a particularly complex medical speciality and one that can create enormous personal conflict for clinicians, especially those who are not forensic consultants. It may therefore be time for the College to develop an accreditation process for those prepared to undertake further study in the nature and practice of forensic psychiatry.