From 31 December 2025, psychiatrists who wish to give expert psychiatric evidence in criminal proceedings in Singapore must first be admitted to an official psychiatric expert panel. This reform is part of new criminal procedure rules governing expert evidence.
The change was introduced due to a significant increase in the use of psychiatric evidence in criminal cases, particularly in relation to:
- Whether the accused had a mental disorder at the time of the offence
- Whether such a disorder negated intent
- Mitigation during sentencing
- Applications for Mandatory Treatment Orders (MTOs)
The Ministry of Law stated that psychiatric evidence plays a critical role in criminal justice and therefore must meet consistent standards of objectivity and competence.
A selection committee comprising a Supreme Court judge, a district judge, and a Ministry of Health officer will vet applicants. Eligibility includes registered local psychiatrists, supervised trainees, and foreign psychiatrists with good standing. There is an appeal mechanism for rejected applicants, and a transitional phase for ongoing cases.
The panel will maintain a public directory of approved psychiatrists.
The article cites concerns from legal practitioners about past instances where psychiatric experts allegedly lacked objectivity or appeared to advocate for their clients rather than assist the court. A 2014 case is referenced where the Chief Justice criticised a psychiatric report as plainly erroneous and lacking objectivity.
Critical Commentary (Measured and Constructive)
While the objective of improving quality and objectivity in psychiatric expert evidence is understandable, the new rules raise several important concerns.
First, the creation of a gatekeeping panel dominated by judicial and executive actors may risk conflating expert independence with institutional conformity. Psychiatry is inherently a field of clinical judgment, and disagreement between experts is not misconduct but a feature of legitimate scientific debate. Screening experts based on perceived “objectivity” may unintentionally penalise dissenting or defence-oriented opinions, particularly in contested cases involving criminal responsibility.
Second, the reform appears to respond to anecdotal misuse rather than systemic failure. The article itself acknowledges that professional disagreement among psychiatrists is normal. Yet the new framework risks overcorrecting by imposing pre-emptive credential controls, rather than relying on traditional safeguards such as cross-examination, judicial scrutiny, and reasoned judgments.
Third, requiring panel admission may disproportionately affect defence access to psychiatric expertise. Accused persons—especially those of limited means—may face a narrower pool of experts willing or able to testify, potentially undermining equality of arms in criminal trials.
Finally, the emphasis on preventing experts from “parroting” clients’ wishes is valid, but this concern is not unique to psychiatry. Similar risks exist with forensic accountants, engineers, or medical experts, yet no equivalent panels exist for those disciplines. This raises questions about why psychiatry is being singled out rather than addressing expert evidence standards holistically across all forensic fields.
Bottom line
The reforms aim to strengthen confidence in psychiatric evidence, but they must be applied cautiously to avoid chilling legitimate expert opinion, narrowing defence rights, or transforming expert witnesses into quasi-institutional actors rather than independent professionals assisting the court.
