Further reading and case studies
Internal appeal of ADHC ineligibility
Gary was 33 years old with an Intellectual Disability. He had been diagnosed with medical a condition called acrodysosyosis, a chromosomal disorder associated with short stature and short fingers. Gary has a lengthy criminal history. He had been incarcerated on four occasions between 2005 and 2007. Offences included make false calls to emergency services and intentionally cause fire and be reckless to its spread.
Despite many of Gary’s offences being nuisance offences prior to IDRS involvement Gary had been receiving custodial sentences of up to 12 months as a result of the habitual nature of his offences. On this occasion Gary was charged with making false calls to emergency services. It was alleged he called emergency services from a payphone at the train station a total of 37 times. When the phone calls were made it was alleged that he would not say anything but only hiccupped a few times. The police found Gary waiting for them at the pay phone.
Gary has been reported to state to friends that he liked going to prison because “he has friends there” and does not have the same sense of boredom and loneliness that he does at home. He had never received any support services but lived at home with his mum.
Gary had been previously denied services by ADHC as although he met the criteria for having an IQ under 70 he was not assessed as having two adaptive behaviour deficits. IDRS referred the mater back to ADHC for review and were able to supply a more recent psychological assessment obtained for the purposed of his up-coming section 32 application.
With new psychological evidence ADHC assessed Gary as eligible and prepared a Support Plan and Court Report for Gary.
-
The treatment plan prepared by ADHC included:
- Direct case management
- Counselling
- Anger management
- Support in vocational activities and job support
- Drug and alcohol counselling
- Assistance with finding accommodation
- Referral to the Community Justice Program (a specialist service of ADHC)
The Magistrate agreed that the most appropriate way to deal with Gary was through diversionary support services particularly given that previous legal intervention had not had any impact of Gary’s offending. Gary’s charges were dismissed on the condition that he complies with the treatment plan provided by ADHC.