En Belgique, dans la foulée de la nouvelle loi d’internement des personnes (2014), un Arrêté Royal (2018) précise que les experts doivent rédiger leurs constations selon un modèle type : un canevas d’expertise psychiatrique. Nouveauté majeure dans le paysage judiciaire belge, il vise à structurer la démarche expertale. À l’aube de la mise en œuvre de ce canevas d’expertise médico-légale, nous avons examiné dans un premier temps le contenu de 50 expertises produites avant cette obligation légale. Les résultats indiquent que si certains domaines, obligatoires dans le nouveau canevas, étaient déjà largement rapportés dans les expertises jusqu’alors, d’autres, comme le risque de récidive, sont moins systématiquement envisagés. Dans un second temps, nous avons sollicité l’avis de dix experts sur la mise en œuvre de ce canevas. Ces résultats mettent en évidence que l’obligation de recourir à un modèle type constitue une étape importante dans l’amélioration de la qualité des expertises pour apporter un avis spécialisé et éclairé au juge.

In Belgium, following the new law on the internment of persons (2014), a Royal Decree (2018) specifies that experts must draw up their conclusions according to a standard model: a framework of psychiatric expertise. This major novelty in the Belgian judicial landscape aims to structure the expert approach. At the dawn of the implementation of this framework, we want to provide a “screening” of the content of 50 expertise produced before this legal obligation. Secondly, we asked the opinion of ten Belgian experts on the implementation of this framework.

For the first study, we analyzed 50 expertise of forensic patients from the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital “Les Marronniers” in Tournai (Belgium). First, we consulted the expertise of the last 50 patients arriving at the Hospital and who consented to the research. We created a table listing the domains investigated by two existing tools: 12-P (Bénézech, 2012) and the framework of psychiatric expertise (Moniteur Belge, 2018). Secondly, in order to gather the Belgian expert's opinions, we interviewed five psychiatrists and five psychologists working in the forensic sector and performing expertise.

The results indicate that while certain domains, which are mandatory in the new framework, were already reported in the field of expertise (e.g. anamnesis and major mental disorders), other areas, such as risk assessment, were less systematically considered. This is somewhat surprising since the risk assessment is an obligation in the new framework of expertise. The results also highlight that the joint work of psychiatrist and psychologist during the expertise facilitates a more structured evaluation. The results of the interviews highlight that the obligation to use a standard psychiatric framework is an important step in improving the quality of the expertise in order to provide specialized information to the judge.

The framework of psychiatric expertise aims, through an systematic list, to objectify the specific areas to consider when requesting expertise. The experts unanimously outlined the interest of this framework in the development of a structured approach of expertise. They consider it as a “checklist” concerning the domains included in the framework.