CRPD/C/22/D/18/2013
Springs Correctional Centre, where he remained until April 2013. He therefore spent a total
of four years and nine months in custody in prison, which is almost five times the period of
custody he would have been required to serve had he been convicted of the offences with
which he was charged.
2.5
For almost the whole period, the author was held in maximum security, being
confined to his cell in isolation for long periods. He was provided with very limited access
to the mental health services necessary for the stabilization of his mental health condition
and his recovery, or to the habilitation and rehabilitation programmes necessary for him to
develop communications, social and living skills and behaviours. As a consequence, the
author’s mental health condition and social functioning deteriorated, and he became more
dependent and institutionalized.
2.6
When the Northern Territory Supreme Court committed the author to custody in
prison, it set a date for a major review of the order to determine whether he ought to be
released. On 15 June 2010, the Court ordered that the author should remain in custody,
despite having already served 22 months, namely almost twice the period to which he
would have been sentenced had he been convicted. The Court also purportedly conducted
periodic reviews of the author’s circumstances. A review commenced in March 2012 but
remains incomplete as the only outcome of that review was the ordering of further reports.
2.7
In April 2013, the author was transferred to Kwiyernpe House, a custodial facility
built in 2013 by the Northern Territory government and operated by the Aged and
Disability Program of the Northern Territory Department of Health.
The complaint
3.1 The author submits that the State party has violated his rights under articles 5, 12, 13,
14, 15, 19, 25, 26 and 28 of the Convention. His communication concerns conduct carried
out after 19 September 2009, prior conduct being included by way of background
information only.
3.2
The author’s right to equality and non-discrimination under article 5, his right to
liberty and security under article 14 and his right to freedom from torture and cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under article 15 of the Convention were
violated because until April 2013 he was committed to indefinite custody in prison without
having been convicted of an offence. A person without a disability could not be committed
to indefinite custody in prison without having been convicted of an offence. In that sense,
part II.A of the Northern Territory Criminal Code is a discriminatory law in that it applies
only to persons with disabilities.
3.3
The author’s right to non-discrimination under article 5 has also been violated
because after April 2013 he was detained in a secure facility established according to the
provisions of part 3 of the Disability Services Act of the Northern Territory of Australia,
which deals with the “involuntary treatment and care of persons with a disability”. Part 3 of
the Act is also a discriminatory law in that it applies only to persons with disabilities. The
major and periodic reviews of the author’s custodial supervision order have failed to protect
his right to equality before the law under article 12 of the Convention. They have simply
resulted in the perpetuation of his inequality. Consequently, the law authorizes and does not
protect the author from such discrimination.
3.4
The author’s rights under articles 5, 14 and 15, as well as his right to equal
recognition before the law under article 12, his right to access to justice under article 13 and
his right to live independently and be included in the community under article 19 of the
Convention have been violated because he was held in custody in prison for a period five
times longer than the period for which a person without a disability would have been
committed to custody in equivalent circumstances.
3.5
Articles 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Convention have been violated because the Court
determined that the author was unfit to be tried on the grounds of not having the legal
capacity to answer the charges brought against him. He was not convicted for the alleged
offences, but was subjected to a regime of custody and control. The author was not
3