Objective: The objective of this case report is to highlight some learning points
behind the reasoning of the Appellate Court in a case where there were two
different expert opinions by two forensic psychiatrists from two distinctive
Malaysian Approved Psychiatric Hospital in regard to the soundness of mind of
Mr. A for an alleged offence punishable by a death penalty. Methods: This case
report is based on the reasoning of the Appellate Court in rejecting the plea of
the prosecutor. Results: The High Court order remained in which the defendant
was found not guilty due to reason of insanity (NGRI) provided by the
Malaysian Law under Section 84 of Penal Code for the charge of dangerous drug
trafficking, and he was ordered by court to undergo treatment for his underlying
mental illness in a Psychiatric Institution under Section 348(1) of the Malaysian
Criminal Procedure Code. Conclusion: In writing expert report, it is preferable
to use a singular first-person pronoun in stating the conclusion. If there are other
experts involved in either current or previous assessment, it would be beneficial
to address their different opinions in the expert report. However, expert opinion
is still an ‘opinion',’ and the court would be perfectly entitled to reject or differ
from any of the expert opinions when there are proper grounds to do so.