CRPD/C/22/D/18/2013
Protocol entered into force for the State party on 19 September 2009. The author is
represented by counsel.
A.
Summary of the information and arguments submitted by the parties
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
The author has intellectual and psychosocial impairments. On 14 August 2008, he
was arrested and charged with common assault in a circumstance of aggravation because he
threatened a person with a shard of glass, which is considered an offensive weapon
pursuant to section 188 of the Criminal Code of the Northern Territory of Australia, 1 and
with damage to property in a circumstance of aggravation because the damages were valued
at approximately 5,200 Australian dollars. 2 At the time, the author was living in a
temporary supported accommodation provided by the government of the Northern Territory
of Australia under its Aged and Disability Program. On the afternoon of 14 August 2008,
the author appears to have experienced a psychotic episode that involved delusions of
hallucinations triggered by the sound of a group of girls laughing as they passed by the
house. The episode was very distressing to the author because he was convinced that the
girls were making fun of him. He threatened a disability support worker who was providing
him with treatment that day. He did not harm him, but he damaged some windows, some
furniture and a motor vehicle that also belonged to the support services.
2.2
Following his arrest, the author was remanded in custody and incarcerated in a highsecurity section of Alice Springs Correctional Centre. He was brought before the Northern
Territory Supreme Court on an indictment dated 8 October 2008. In view of his intellectual
impairment, the Court applied the provisions of part II.A of the Northern Territory Criminal
Code, on mental impairment and unfitness to be tried.
2.3
On 21 May 2009, with the consent of both counsel for the Director of Public
Prosecution and the author, a judge of the Northern Territory Supreme Court determined
that the author was unfit to stand trial on the basis of his mental impairment. 3 The Court
also determined that there was no reasonable prospect of the author becoming fit to be tried
for these offences within 12 months. 4 These determinations required the Court to conduct,
on 31 March 2008, a special hearing before a jury. The jury found the author not guilty of
the offences with which he had been charged by reason of his mental impairment. As a
consequence of the verdict, the Court had to determine if the author ought to be released
unconditionally or if he ought to be liable to supervision. The Court declared that the author
was liable to supervision and, as a result, he was remanded in custody until a further
determination of the Court, and was returned to the high-security section of Alice Springs
Correctional Centre.
2.4
On 29 October 2009, the Northern Territory Supreme Court placed the author under
a custodial supervision order and committed him to custody in prison. 5 The Court was
required to fix a term appropriate for the offence concerned and to specify that term in the
order.6 The Court would have imposed a sentence of 9 months of imprisonment for the
offence of assault and 6 months of imprisonment for the offence of unlawfully damaging
property had the author been held guilty for the offences, to be served cumulatively for a
total period in custody of 12 months. The author returned to the high-security unit at Alice
1
2
3
4
5
6
2
The offence carries a maximum penalty of five years of imprisonment.
The offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years of imprisonment.
Section 43T of the Criminal Code.
Section 43R (3) of the Criminal Code.
A supervision order may be either of a custodial or a non-custodial nature (section 43ZA (1) of the
Northern Territory Criminal Code). If a custodial supervision order is issued, the Court must commit
the affected person to custody in prison or another appropriate place. Although the statutory scheme
does not exactly define or designate what constitutes “another appropriate place”, the chief executive
officer (health) may provide the Court with a certificate stating that facilities or services are available
in an appropriate place for the custody, care and treatment of the person.
In general, that term will be equivalent to the period of imprisonment and/or supervision that would
have corresponded to the sentence imposed if the person had been found guilty (section 43ZG (2)).