The assessment that a defendant has a mental disability must be authenticated in order for it to qualify as evidence in the trial. The authentication of forensic evidence, including mental health assessments, has become an area of conflict in many trials amid criticism that judges lack expertise and the courage to make an independent judgement when faced with conflicting opinions. Experts will normally only be called to give evidence in court if the expert evidence is contested. Testimony before the court, however, is normally limited to a brief summary of the key points. Defence counsel is not always given permission to cross examine expert witnesses. There are plans for an evidence law which would include a chapter on judicial assessments, including those for mental health. There is no appeal procedure if the defence request for an authenticated mental health assessment is turned down by the courts. In some cases, the defence will commission an assessment by an independent assessment centre. The defence may be able to use such an assessment to try and persuade the court to reconsider its decision, but the assessment has no formal probative value since it cannot be authenticated. Akmal Shaikh, a British citizen, was arrested in Urumqi in September 2007 for carrying 4 kilos of heroin. He was convicted and sentenced to immediate execution by Urumqi Intermediate Court in December 2007; his appeal to the Xinjiang Higher Court was turned down in August 2009 and his case was transferred to the Supreme People’s Court for review in October 2009. Evidence submitted by British NGO, Reprieve, indicated that Mr Shaikh had a bipolar disorder and Mr Shaikh’s lawyer recommended a mental health assessment; no mental health assessment was ordered to be carried out by the Chinese courts. The SPC approved his death sentence and, despite appeals at the highest level by the British government, Mr Shaikh was executed on 29 December 2009. Poverty and the Death Penalty Many Chinese criminal defence lawyers are concerned at the disparity in the quality of legal assistance between well-off defendants and the poorest. Where wealthy clients are able to hire a team of lawyers to help at each stage of the case and offer compensation to victims, the poor can only hope that their legal aid lawyer is highly motivated and will be willing to subsidise their time and expenses. Poor persons caught up in the Chinese criminal justice system not only lack the funds to pay for an experienced lawyer, but they also lack the social networks that can help access a lawyer. Low levels of education and literacy leave many of the poor with little understanding of the law itself or how it works in practice. There is some limited evidence that judges are starting to take the offender’s socioeconomic situation into account as they try to reach a sentencing decision. Of the four drug-related crimes which may attract the death penalty, judges and scholars have raised most concerns with sentencing for drug transportation. Although the amount of drug that was being transported has long been seen to be the critical factor in sentencing someone to death penalty with immediate execution, factors, such as low household income and incitement by traffickers, may be considered in discretionary mitigation. 25