Editorial – A Supreme Court judge’s recent decision to scrutinise a medical certificate and seek clarification from the doctor who issued it raises an important question for Tonga’s justice system: should courts make it standard practice to independently verify medical evidence that excuses a defendant from appearing or could halt proceedings?
The judge’s intervention is particularly significant given some recent court outcomes involving defendants with reported mental-health conditions that have surprised members of the Tongan community. Some people who claimed to know the defendants have questioned on social media whether they were genuinely mentally incapacitated.
While community perceptions cannot be used to disqualify medical evidence, they should not be dismissed entirely in serious cases in a small and closely connected society such as Tonga. In a community where people are highly visible and interdependent, people’s knowledge of one another’s behaviour and conduct inevitably shapes public perceptions, and controversial court decisions can easily undermine confidence in the justice system.
The Tongan community is characterised by nofo ʻa kāinga, a closely interconnected social system in which people, including those in positions of authority, are bound by relationships and expectations of mutual assistance. Within this system, helping one another is regarded as a normal social obligation, even in circumstances where such assistance could potentially conflict with legal or institutional responsibilities.
While we cannot discuss certain cases in detail for legal reasons, the Ministry of Justice and the courts should be able to identify them from their records. These include several high-profile drug cases and cases in which people were reportedly recommended for release from prison on medical grounds because their illness was considered incurable, yet, several years later, remain actively involved in community activities. Although this does not necessarily invalidate the original medical assessment, it may understandably raise questions within the community.
Such cases have long been the subject of mockery within the community. Public scepticism has become so entrenched that, when serious criminal cases come before the courts, some people cynically joke that the accused need only obtain a medical certificate declaring them mentally incapacitated to avoid standing trial.
This is where making independent verification standard practice becomes particularly important: it would protect the credibility of both the justice and health systems by ensuring that medical evidence affecting serious court proceedings has been properly scrutinised, leaving less room for public doubt when court outcomes appear inconsistent with community perceptions.
Standardising Medical Evidence Verification
A good standard practice would be to routinely verify any medical certificate or other medical evidence that materially affects court proceedings, while requiring an independent medical assessment or second opinion where the seriousness or circumstances of a case warrant additional scrutiny.
A second opinion from an overseas medical authority, including an appropriately qualified specialist in New Zealand, should also be considered where the consequences are particularly significant, or the necessary specialist expertise is unavailable in Tonga.
Tonga has previously relied on New Zealand medical and laboratory authorities for independent verification, including the retesting of suspected COVID-19 cases.
Although psychiatric assessments are different, this demonstrates that seeking external expertise is not unusual when additional certainty or specialist assessment is required.
Judicial Follow-Up Sets Example
Although the law may already allow courts to scrutinise medical certificates, the Supreme Court’s recent decision to contact the issuing doctor directly provides a practical example of why courts should take a second look at medical evidence when it could materially affect proceedings.
Justice Paul Garlick KC recently sought clarification from a doctor about a certificate submitted during the electoral bribery case involving former Infrastructure and Tourism Minister Sēmisi Sika.
Sika requested an adjournment during cross-examination, citing fatigue. When the court reconvened, a medical certificate was submitted stating that he had returned home after feeling unwell.
As Kaniva News previously reported, Justice Garlick was concerned that the certificate did not specify Sika’s illness. A staff member claimed in court the minister had recorded high blood pressure, but the judge noted that this was not stated in the certificate.
The judge reportedly attempted to contact the issuing doctor for clarification. The proceedings ultimately continued, with Sika participating from home by Zoom.
The case did not involve a claim of mental incapacity. Nevertheless, the judge’s approach demonstrated an important principle: courts are not required to accept an unclear medical certificate without asking reasonable questions. The importance of such scrutiny extends beyond the individual case to public confidence in the justice system. Courts should also be mindful that decisions substantially influenced by medical evidence have, in some cases, become the subject of public ridicule and scepticism when the outcome appears inconsistent with what people who know the accused believe about their condition.
Justice Garlick’s action may not constitute a binding legal precedent, but it offers a valuable example. Tonga’s courts should adopt a consistent practice of closely examining medical evidence whenever it could determine whether an accused person remains answerable before the law.
