The Supreme Court has ruled that a psychiatrist appointed to examine spouses in marriage nullity proceedings could not independently interview friends or relatives as part of his court report.
The appeal arose from proceedings brought by McG seeking a decree that his marriage to F, otherwise McG, was null and void. He alleged that one or both parties lacked the psychological or emotional capacity to enter into or sustain a normal lifelong marital relationship when they married. The respondent denied those allegations and contended that the nullity proceedings were an attempt to avoid judicial separation proceedings which had already begun.
By consent, psychiatrist Dr Gerard Byrne was appointed in 1997 to examine both parties and report to the High Court. Each spouse attended two separate interviews with him.
During one interview, the petitioner asked Dr Byrne to speak with five other people, including four of his friends and his brother. Dr Byrne considered interviews with third-party informants standard psychiatric practice where personality disorder was suspected. The respondent objected and also opposed a proposal that her diary be provided to the psychiatrist, alleging that it had been taken from her.
The High Court ruled that the psychiatrist should remain within the terms of his appointment and interview only the two spouses. McG appealed.
Mrs Justice Denham upheld that decision. She found that marriage nullity proceedings are adversarial court proceedings, unlike wardship cases, and that allowing the psychiatrist to interview outside witnesses would effectively permit him to conduct a preliminary evidential hearing.
The court said this could create difficulties over hearsay, cross-examination and the weight to be given to statements made outside court. The psychiatrist’s expert opinion remained important, but deciding the case was a judicial function and evidence had to be presented according to ordinary legal procedures and fair procedures.
The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the appeal. It also held that any use of the respondent’s diary should be dealt with through another procedural route, such as discovery.