Further reading and case studies
Serious offences
A Serious Offence
Keith has an intellectual disability and an acquired brain injury. He is anxious about lifts, insects, paper clips and loud noises. He resides with his father and is heavily dependent upon him. He had certain obsessive compulsive traits including having his father check his mouth repeatedly to ensure there was nothing causing him to choke. He also has a history of making false calls to the police.
Keith’s family had planned to return to their country of origin for an important family event. A full time carer was arranged to supervise Keith for the 10 days of the trip while the rest of the family was away.
The carer was unable to manage Keith and his behaviour. Keith played up: he phoned an airline making a bomb threat to ground the plane his family was on. He then called 000 claiming that there was an emergency outside his house. The day turned into a circus of fire brigades, police and bomb squad cars. Keith was charged with 4 counts of assaulting police and a number of charges involving falsely reporting a person or property in danger.
Two days later, Keith put a knife to his newly replaced carer after an incident that caused Keith to become highly stressed and anxious. The new carer had received no briefing about avoiding situations that were known to cause Keith extreme anxiety. Keith was charged with Malicious Wounding and no bail was applied for as, until his father returned, there were no suitable accommodation services. He spent some time in prison.
IDRS made representations to the DPP to retain the matter in the Local Court given Keith’s disability. Evidence was led from Behavioural Intervention Specialist from ADHC who was able to detail the support and treatment that could be provided to Keith if he was to be released into his father’s care; support and treatment that could not be provided to Keith whilst he was in gaol.
The magistrate was most reluctant to deal with the matter of Malicious Wounding under this section as it was too serious a matter.
Particular detail had to be addressed as to why it was appropriate for the magistrate to exercise her discretion to deal with the matter under s32. The fact that the victim had only received 3 stiches and the attitude of the victim were referred to in submissions. Detailed submissions were made in relation to the the link between the offences and Keith’s developmental disabilities in addition to the significant adverse effect gaol would have on him. It was submitted that that none of the recommendations suggested in the support plan could be put into place whilst Keith was in gaol.
Her Honour dealt with the application and dismissed the matter under S32.
A Serious Offence in the Children’s Court
At 15, Anthony was charged with 3 counts of aggravated indecent assault of a victim under the age of 16. Anthony was alleged to have touched his younger sister on the breasts and genitals during a game. She was under 16 years of age.
Anthony had been diagnosed as having a mild intellectual disability and autism. He lived in a stable family home with both his parents. The younger sister told her mother that her brother had hurt her during the game. Trying to help both her children the mother contacted the Department of Community Services. JIRT came to the family home arrested Anthony and held him in custody for 17 days.
IDRS appeared on behalf of Anthony and made an application for bail; Anthony was granted bail but was unable to reside with his family.
Psychological assessments revealed that Anthony had received very little sex education. The sex education he had received he did not have the ability to understand or comprehend. Anthony was unable to judge what appropriate behaviour was. He had found a pornographic video in his parent’s bedroom and watched it.
IDRS made representation to the DPP to retain the matter in the Children’s Court. Anthony was, for the first time, linked with disability services, in particular services specifically aimed at educating persons with intellectual disability about sexuality.
An application was made under section 32 on behalf of Anthony. The matter was adjourned a number of times over a 24 month period to allow Anthony to undertake extensive training, counselling and education in relation to sexuality. Assessments were then provided to the Court that outlined the Anthony had progressed significantly in his understanding and the support plan included continuing intensive counselling and behaviour intervention.
Almost two years after Anthony was charged the Magistrate dismissed the charges under section 32.