This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial-prosecutor-requests-mental-evaluation-9362240.html

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
Oscar Pistorius Trial: Prosecutor requests 'mental evaluation' for athlete Oscar Pistorius trial: Athlete's lawyers may have undermined his defence by fighting request for psychiatric assessment
(about 20 hours later)
The chief prosecutor at the Oscar Pistorius trial has asked for the athlete to undergo an independent 'psychiatric evaluation' after an expert defence witness claimed he suffers from an "anxiety disorder". When police officers took Oscar Pistorius from his home on Valentine’s Day morning last year, the question the world wanted answering seemed simple enough. When he fired four bullets through his locked toilet cubicle door in the middle of the night, did he believe it was an intruder or his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on the other side?
Prosecutor Gerrie Nel cited the testimony of Dr Merryll Vorster, a psychiatrist and witness for the defence, who argued the athlete's generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) coupled with his physical disability "may" have played a role in the shooting of girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. After 15 months in the hands of South Africa’s cleverest lawyers, that question has been contorted into a far more complicated shape, and the most bewildering twist of all may occur this morning. Eleven weeks into the trial, and approaching the point at which a verdict was looking imminent, Judge Thokozile Matilda Masipa  must decide whether to grant a request from the prosecution to send the athlete for a psychiatric assessment that could take up to a month and delay the case for substantially longer.
The prosecutor also questioned the timing of her testimony and suggested the defence will now argue Pistorius has "diminished responsibility" for the shooting given his level of anxiety, introducing a mental disorder to the case. Even though a psychiatric assessment could conclude that Mr Pistorius, 27, has a mental disorder, and so legally diminish his responsibility for his actions on the night he killed his girlfriend, and it is the state that wants it to happen. Mr Pistorius himself has called it “a joke” and his own defence counsel has fought to prevent it. This week, the High Court in Pretoria has heard from Dr Merryl  Vorster, a psychiatrist that Mr Pistorius’s legal team recently asked to assess him and testify in court. She has simultaneously bolstered and undermined the athlete’s case.
"There was no indication before Dr Vorster gave evidence of any psychiatric condition that may have affected the accused," he said. "The defence now calls a witness to say GAD may have played a role on that particular day." Dr Vorster claimed Mr Pistorius has a “generalised anxiety disorder” as a consequence of his double amputation at 11 months old – a painful event his young brain would have been unable to understand properly, and would have processed as a “traumatic assault”. His mother, who died when he was 15, slept with a firearm under her pillow for fear of intruders, a fear that Mr Pistorius apparently shares. That he locked himself in his bedroom to sleep every night is evidence of this, she said.
He later added: "If one is, at this stage of the trial, confronted by at least three defences, then I say the court would err on the side of caution expecting that there could be another defence raised now." When faced with a “fight or flight” situation, such as facing an intruder in his home, Mr Pistorius, when on his stumps and incapable of “flight”, would be more inclined to fight, she claimed.
The defence initially claimed the athlete shot Ms Steenkamp in self-defence on the basis that Pistorius perceived that his life was in danger. Last month, the athlete appeared to change his version, suggesting he didn't mean to shoot at the intruder and fired by accident. But the problem for Mr Pistorius is that this is not his own defence, at least not originally, and the state prosecutor, Gerrie Nel, has argued that the court has a right “to know what his defence is”. Originally, it was putative self-defence – that he falsely imagined himself to be in danger. But this seemed to change during his cross-examination to involuntary action – that he fired four shots through the door “before I knew what was happening”. Now a mental disorder is suddenly relevant.
Judge Thokozile Masipa has not yet ruled on the request, which could see Pistorius spending up to 30 days in observation at a mental health institution in South Africa. The athlete's defence has opposed the request claiming the state's application has "no merits". But even this generalised anxiety disorder would not have affected the athlete’s ability to distinguish right from wrong. And Mr Pistorius’s lawyers know that, even if the judge comes to believe that he thought he was shooting at an intruder, it is possible he can still be convicted of the lesser charge of culpable homicide, or even murder. At the heart of the matter is what is known in the South African legal system as dolus eventualis. It is a complex legal term: in essence, it is to be held responsible for the likely consequences of a course of action, even if they were not intended.
It was expected that the defence would conclude its case by the end of the week- after which both sides would present their closing arguments. If Pistorius is sent for evaluation the trial could be delayed for more than a month. Mr Pistorius was asked several weeks ago why he did not fire “a warning shot” into the shower cubicle next to the bathroom. He replied that  he knew “a ricochet” could hit him and kill him. To this end, he knew that four shots fired into the toilet cubicle could kill whoever was in there, and he did not know who was.
Generalised anxiety disorder is characterised by excessive, uncontrollable and often irrational worry that may cause sleeping problems, lack of concentration and prevent an individual from leading a normal life. That his own psychiatrist has suggested he is more likely to fight than to flee casts doubt on the athlete’s own assertion that he acted out of fear, and possibly involuntarily.
Yesterday, Dr Vorster told the court his double leg amputation as a baby and his complicated relationship with his parents turned him into a "distrusting and guarded" person who often kept his feelings to himself and felt "alone and isolated" despite his fame and status as South Africa's national hero. The type of evidence given by Dr Vorster is unusual in the course of a murder trial. It is more commonly heard in mitigation after a conviction has been made. Mr Nel has suggested that Mr Pistorius could be inserting evidence now that could later be used as the basis for an appeal. As such, the independent psychiatric assessment is, for Mr Nel, “in the interests of justice”.
She said Pistorius was "reared to view the world as threatening" from an early age and this made him "perceive his surroundings as being threatening when perhaps they're not". If exposed to a threatening situation, Pistorius is more likely to "fight" than "flight". If the application for an independent psychiatric assessment is granted, it will delay the trial substantially. The assessment would require observation for “up to 30 days”. It has also been reported that the clinic that would carry out the assessment currently has a six-month waiting list. But other aspects of this case have been fast-tracked.
In cross examination, Mr Nel asked the psychiatrist if someone suffering from an anxiety disorder similar to the kind that she had diagnosed in Pistorius, and had access to guns, would be a danger to society. Dr Vorster conceded the person would be a danger. Mr Pistorius’s defence counsel, Barry Roux, had indicated that he would be finished with his witnesses by the end of this week, and a verdict was expected some time in late May or early June.
She saw Pistorius twice, on 2 May and 7 May, after the athlete had testified and was cross-examined, and diagnosed him based on interviews with Pistorius himself, family members and friends. If convicted of murder, Mr Pistorius faces a mandatory life sentence which usually carries a minimum of 25 years in jail, though mitigation could reduce it in this case. If found guilty of the lesser charge of culpable homicide, he could face 15 years or a non-custodial sentence.
The state argues the athlete shot and killed his girlfriend deliberately, knowing full well she was behind the toilet door, following a domestic dispute in the early hours of Valentine's Day 2013. He claims he killed his girlfriend in a case of mistaken identity thinking she was an intruder hiding in a toilet cubicle at his Pretoria home. The trial continues.
South Africa does not have trial by jury, meaning Judge Thokozile Masipa will decide Pistorius' fate with the help of two assessors.
The murder trial continues.