#OscarPistorius: Psychologist accused of bias
The state has raised questions about the impartiality of a psychologist testifying in mitigation of Oscar Pistorius' murder sentence.
|||Pretoria - A psychologist expert testifying in mitigation of Oscar Pistorius' murder sentence has been accused of bias by the State.
In December, Pistorius was convicted of murder for the 2013 killing of his model girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, after the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) overturned his previous conviction of culpable homicide.
The SCA believed Pretoria High Court Judge, Thokozile Masipa, had erred in ruling Pistorius had no intention to kill when he fired four bullets on a closed bathroom door at his Pretoria estate. The SCA found that by firing on the door, regardless of whether an intruder was behind it or not, Pistorius should have known that the person inside the bathroom could have been killed. He was therefore found guilty of murder dolus eventualis, or murder with indirect intent.
Pistorius this year launched an application at the Constitutional Court to overturn the SCA ruling, but the apex court chose not to hear it.
This morning, sentencing proceedings for the Paralympian began at the High Court in Pretoria with his defence team, led by Advocate Barry Roux, calling psychologist Professor Jonathan Scholtz to testify.
Scholtz said Pistorius' deteriorating mental health meant that he should not serve a prison sentence for the murder, and be given an opportunity to do community service and charity work instead. He also said Pistorius wasn't mentally well enough to testify during these proceedings.
While prosecutor Gerrie Nel initially questioned Pistorius' character during cross-examination, he then turned to the professor's own credibility later.
Nel asked if Scholtz had received medical reports from Pistorius' other medical practitioners, namely his psychiatrist. Scholtz said he had not, but had spoken with the psychiatrist, and still believes the athlete should be hospitalised and more prison time could exacerbate his condition.
Scholtz did say he raised his concerns with the doctor.
Nel asked if Scholtz could still be neutral in his testimony, and the professor agreed.
The prosecutor said he had discovered another report in Scholtz' own by another doctor differing in opinion on Pistorius' diagnosis. Scholtz said he didn't deem it necessary to include its facts in his own report.
“I can see why,” said Nel.
According to the report, Pistorius struggled to adapt in prison in his first month, and was aggressive and verbally violent towards officials. “I disagreed with her report... It was a poor report in my opinion,” he said.
“I find your answers to be... biased towards the accused,” said Nel.
“Why would you select only positive things that suits your view?” he continued, accusing the professor of not annexing the document in his own report.
Scholtz said he didn't annex every report he had read while constructing his own.
Nel asked why Scholtz had not tried to consult with the prison doctor who made the report if he disagreed with her. “I didn't see the need to speak with these people, I had their reports,” Scholtz said.
The professor insisted that Pistorius' Post Traumatic Stress Disorder meant that he could be difficult or irritable at times, but that he wasn't a violent person.
Judge Thokozile Masipa interjected, pointing out that the report did not suggest Pistorius was “violent in nature”, as the state was seemingly claiming.
Scholtz insisted that he had seen the athlete a year after the initial prison report was written, and Pistorius had changed in that time.
Nel asked if a person exhibiting aggressive behaviour should be allowed to work with children, which Pistorius said he desired to do if he received a suspended sentence.
Scholtz said it would not be a problem, and that he would not have an emotional eruption with a child.
“I have to put it to you... that in your report, you are biased towards the accused,” Nel reiterated.
But Scholtz insisted on his neutrality, and that he wanted to point out the “real person” that the court has to sentence.
In his re-examination, Roux also referred to the prison doctor's report, which suggested that Pistorius is at very low risk of violently re-offending.
Scholtz agreed.
According to Roux, the reason for Pistorius' temper tantrum, where he slammed his hand on the desk of a correctional services official, was because the official had refused to give him voltaren gel delivered by his family.
However, Scholtz said that the hand-banging incident had to be measured against a lifelong pattern of behaviour, rather than as an isolated incident.
Roux then asked about the prescription drugs - antidepressants - found in Pistorius' cell during his initial 10 month stay, reiterating that the drugs were not illegal.
The trial continues on Tuesday.
Shain.germaner@inl.co.za
The Star