CCPR/C/125/D/2684/2015
1.1
The author of the communication is T, a citizen of New Zealand born in 1976. He
claims that the State party has violated his rights under articles 7 and/or 9 (1), 10 (1) and 14
(1) and (3) (a) (d) (f) and (g) of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for
the State party on 26 August 1989. The author is represented by counsel.
1.2
On 14 March 2016, following the State party’s request dated 19 January 2016, the
Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim
measures, and pursuant to rule 97 of the its rules of procedure, decided to consider the
admissibility of the communication separately from the merits.
Factual background
2.1
At the time of submission of the communication, the author had an intellectual
disability with an intelligence quotient (IQ) score of 62, putting him in the bottom 1 per
cent among his peers of the same age.
2.2
On 27 May 2004, the author was arrested by the police for disorderly behaviour at a
train station. He was taken to the Johnsonville Community Policing Centre, where he
confessed to robbery at a liquor store. Then he was taken to Porirua Police Station, where
he was interviewed again and signed the notes from the interview as “correct and true”.
Later the same morning, he was presented before Porirua District Court on a charge of
aggravated robbery. In the presence of a duty solicitor, the court remanded the author in
custody until 1 June 2004.
2.3
On 31 May 2004, Dr. B-W – a consultant psychologist – met with the author in the
Rimutaka Prison. On the same day, he wrote to the District Court that the author suffered
from mild intellectual disability, and substance abuse, and displayed antisocial and
borderline behaviour. Dr. B-W recommended that the District Court seek a report under
section 121 (2) (b) (i) of the Criminal Justice Act (which deals with the power of courts to
require a psychiatric report). On 1 June 2004, the District Court extended the author’s
custody until 15 June 2004 for a psychiatric assessment to be conducted. On 2 June 2004,
the prison superintendent requested psychiatric assessment of the author, on the basis of his
self-harming behaviour as he had bitten off and eaten a piece of flesh from his arm. The
author appears to have been admitted to Porirua Hospital on the same day. On 11 June 2004,
a psychiatric report was made by Dr. B-W under section 121 of the Criminal Justice Act.
The report concluded that the author was fit to plead, but that he suffered from intellectual
disability, to an unknown extent because the psychiatrist had not reviewed any
neuropsychological tests.
2.4
On 29 June 2004, on the advice of a State-appointed counsel, the author pleaded
guilty to aggravated robbery charges. On 13 August 2004, Wellington District Court
sentenced him to three years and six months of prison.
2.5
On 29 July 2005, the author became eligible for parole. On 23 February 2006, while
the author was still in prison, the Family Court (a branch of the District Court) ordered his
detention in compulsory intellectual disability care under section 45 (on jurisdiction to
make a compulsory care order) of the Intellectual Disability Act 2003. The Family Court’s
decision was based on the finding that the author had an intellectual disability. The end of
the detention was set for the same date as the end of his prison term, that is, 29 November
2007. Despite this order, the author remained in prison. On 6 April 2006, the Parole Board
authorized the author’s release on parole as of 19 April 2006. The author was to reside at
Timata Hou, a care facility, where the compulsory care order of the Family Court applied.
On 12 October 2006, the Family Court increased the level of supervision of the author at
Timata Hou. On 15 May 2007, the Family Court ordered cancellation of the compulsory
care order with effect from 29 May 2007. Its decision was based on a report of 26 January
2007 by Dr. W, an expert intellectual disability assessor, that the author no longer needed
special care.
2.6
At Timata Hou, the author began relations with a female staff member and at some
point moved in with her. The relationship ended at the end of January 2007 when the author
was reported for using threatening language. He pleaded guilty, and on 31 January 2007 the
Parole Board recalled him to prison. On an unspecified date in 2007, the High Court
2