SIZE MATTERS Expert’s evidence accepted by court
ESIDIMENI HEARINGS: STATE WANTS IT THROWN OUT
Mental health practitioner says trauma patients suffered almost akin to torture.
State attorney Tebogo Hutamo has requested that a clinical psychologist’s evidence describing the trauma and anxiety experienced by former Life Esidimeni patients be set aside at the arbitration.
Hutamo said Coralie Trotter’s evidence should be ruled inadmissible as she did not personally interview victims’ families. The documents on which she based her evidence were provided by public interest law centre Section 27, pointing to possible influence, he added.
“I submit that you make a ruling on the difficulties we have had with the witness since Friday. She is entirely relying on hearsay evidence. The witness’ evidence is based on information she was not privy to… there were people who were privy to the information.
“It has been clearly stated that she did not interview a single family member,” said Hutamo yesterday.
“All that she relies on is her colleagues … those are the people who are in a better position to express on this evidence. The opinion should be made and based on facts known by those who collated the evidence, not the other way around.”
Arbitration chairperson former deputy chief justice Dikgang Moseneke dismissed Hutamo’s application.
Trotter testified last week that the treatment of the patients that resulted in 143 of them dying at unlicensed NGOs was dehumanising and caused anxiety and trauma to them and their families.
Moving the former Life Esidimeni mental patients had a deep impact on these vulnerable patients, who were shocked by the sudden change of environment. The trauma was almost similar to torture, said Trotter.
Moseneke asked whether an expert could only testify on evidence solely collected by that person and not others.
“Do you want each of those 17 clinicians [who interviewed the victims’ families] to come here and testify?” he asked, to which Hutamo replied that it was up to Section 27 whether all or one comes forward to testify, but that he objected to Trotter’s evidence.
Moseneke replied: “An expert can formulate an opinion based on facts. She does not have to produce the facts … the facts are placed before the expert and she is entitled to provide an opinion. Are you saying there are no underlying facts?”
“Yes, we say the opinion is based on hearsay evidence, her opinion will be flawed if it is not based on facts before the arbitration,” Hutamo replied.
Adilla Hassim, for Section 27, dismissed Hutamo’s argument.
“The methodology was to work together with the [psychiatric team] and gather the facts and expert reports, not just from an ordinary person but from experts.
“Trotter – and her team did this work pro bono – further told us that so concerned was she by the process that she had it independently peer-reviewed by an attorney and an expert professor in psychoanalysis to provide oversight for her and her team,” said Hassim.
Based on facts presented to Trotter, she put forward an expert opinion to assist this process, she added. – ANA