Botswana lawyers', magistrates', and judges' opinions about mental health expert testimony and reports used in criminal cases: A pilot study

The current study examined the opinions of Botswana criminal lawyers, magistrates and judges about mental health evaluation reports and mental health expert witnesses they have utilized in criminal proceedings. The study consisted of a convenience sample of 35 participants of whom 20 were prosecutors, 9 defense attorneys, 3 judges and 3 magistrates. Majority the participants (80%) indicated that mental health reports written by psychologists and psychiatrists are equally valuable and efficient in criminal proceedings and respondents also showed no preference of which professionals (psychiatrists vs. psychologists) should be expert witnesses. However, more than half of the participants reported that evaluators do not use sufficient collateral data to augment their psycholegal opinions. Furthermore, not surprising, the majority of the participants (77.1%) indicated that both psychiatrists and psychologists have to improve the quality of their reports.;In addition, less than half of the participants (45.7%) opined that all mental health experts in Botswana are credible witnesses. There was a significant difference (p = .030) between female and males opinions with regards to evaluators' objectivity. Only 2 (18%) of the female participants agreed that being retained by the court did not influence the evaluators' objectivity whereas 18 (50%) of the men agreed with the statement. Of concern is evaluators' utility of psychological tests that have not been standardized on Botswana population as that bears meaning to the integrity of the reports that experts provide to the courts. Finally, recommendations of how to advance forensic mental health practice in Botswana are also discussed.