FARIHAH Abdul Aziz, a 31 year-old unemployed woman, was sentenced to 12 months jail by the magistrate’s court after pleading guilty for “intentionally hiding her stillborn baby and cutting up the body into eight pieces”.
The accused had admitted to flushing the body parts into a septic tank in Kampung Manggol, Jitra where she lived.
Psychiatrists are often asked to provide an opinion on cases such as this. However, it was not reported if an opinion was indeed sought in the case of Farihah.
A forensic psychiatric opinion would normally warrant admission into a forensic psychiatry facility where the accused would be observed and examined in detail. The accused was reported to have committed the offence on July 6 and she was swiftly sentenced on July 29, exactly 23 days later.
Judging from newspaper reports, it is unlikely that a proper psychiatric evaluation was done.
When is there a need for a psychiatric evaluation and opinion?
The underlying principle is that a person should not be regarded as culpable of a crime unless he or she understands the nature of the act she was doing at the time of committing the act and or did not understand the legal consequences of his or her action.
The media dramatically portrayed the fact that Farihah cut the body into eight parts with clinical precision. It was also shown on television the anatomical outline of the dissection of the stillborn baby.
One wonders, which mother with a sane mind would bring herself to cut the body of her stillborn in such a manner before disposing it.
A stillborn by definition is a fully formed or almost a fully formed baby, albeit a dead baby.
Even in a planned or anticipated pregnancy, stillbirth can bring shame, guilt, failure, depression and psychosis. In an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, the psychological distress could further be complicated by dishonour, remorse and confusion.
A psychiatric evaluation would have been warranted in this case.
Additionally the newspapers reported that Farihah pleaded guilty when the charges were read out and “remained calm” when she was handed the sentence.
One wonders if she was competent to stand trial or in legalese, was she “fit to plead”. It was not reported if this matter was raised by the defence, the prosecution or the learned magistrate.
Among other elements, it would have been necessary to determine if the accused really understood the nature of the charges and if indeed was able to distinguish between the difference of pleading guilty or not guilty, and the consequence of such a plea.
An unfortunate and inadvertent error on the part of a lower court is not without recourse. A psychiatric evaluation of Farihah was a right evidently overlooked.
Ubi jus ibi remedium, a Latin tag connoting that where there is a right, there is a remedy, may invariably be resorted to by any judge of a court of higher jurisdiction to unilaterally call for a judicial review.
Datuk Dr Andrew Mohanraj, Deputy President, Malaysian Mental Health Association
Dr. Andrew Mohanraj 