F: I am saying that what makes op different from other people is he has a physical disability and an anxiety disorder. Not a mental illness.
Nel: Are you saying his vunerability, if you say it is a possability that his diminished responsibility.
F: His reactions would be different to a normal generalised person.
Nel: Taking that into account, section 78 would lead to a referal.
F: That is a possibility.
Nel: i know you spent many years observating people in Sterkfontein, now 78.2.
Nel: If a person has a mental illness or effect, or it appears to the court in criminal proceedings, the court shall and may direct the court to section 78.
Nel: You have said a mental illness, generalised order.
F: I do not per see this as a mental illness. I am trying to bring to the courts attention is that his anxiety disorder affects him.
F: He did not have an illusion that people entered his house.
Nel: If the court is under the impression that the accused might suffer from a mental disorder. But when it is severe it will affect your capacity?
F: It is not an uncommon anxiety disorder, there are many people who suffer from this generalized anxiety disorder.
Nel: I understand that it is not uncommon. You were called by the defense and you linked this generalized anxiety disorder to the event.
F: A mental disorder would be a disorder that affect ones capacity to see right from wrong. I don't believe that an anxiety disorder can ado that.
F: I don't believe there is any lack of reality.
Nel: Depending on the features of the general anxiety disorder may have affected his capacity?
F: One may even say it affected how he would react, the court would then have to decide would the incidence then have become pertaintent. or not.
Nel: it is very relevant, his defense said that he thought there was an intruder in his house and there was not. It is very relevant that it makes its more relevant.
F: It would be for the court to decide if the the accused should be referred for observation.
Nel: That is very correct. The facts and the relevance is that we should have the accused sent for observation. You have sat with many of those people. The fact of the matter is we are dealing with the act.
Nel: My lady, may I take an adjournment. As the court can see we only received the report as the witness walked in and I would like to see the Act to see the relevance to this report.
Nel: May I have until 13:30 and then we won't take lunch after that.
Judge: We will take a break.
Judge: You are still under oath?
Nel: I apologise my lady, I thought we adjourned until 13: 30.
Judge: We all understood.
Nel: You got involved on the 2 May?
V: That is correct my lady.
Nel: That was after the trial began, did you follow the case?
Nel: Did you follow his testimony?
Nel: It was not going well for the accused, do you think that increased his anxiety levels?
Nel: During stages, he said "I'm fighting for my life".
Nel: Am I right in saying that you had two interviews with him?
Nel: Am I right in saying that you also had two interviews with the other people in your report?
Nel: First interview with the accused was 2 May, and your other interviews with the other people?
V: Mrs. Binge was the 2 May after the accused.