Supreme Court declines family's bid for man's release after 20 years in secure care
The man was living with his mother when in June 2004 he carried an axe on to a neighbour's property. He said he was 'James Bond' and used the axe to break windows in the neighbour's garage and van.
A judge found at a later disposition hearing that the man had an intellectual disability. His risk to his health and safety of others was such that a secure care order for a term of two years was considered necessary.
The compulsory care order has been extended multiple times since 2006, most recently for a period of three years from April 2023, on the grounds of the risk posed to the community if he was released.
The judge noted the likelihood he would return to his mother's home, which evidence showed did not meet the required standards either in terms of security or staffing.
The man was transferred early on from a care facility to a secure hospital-level service, following reports of his absconding, hiding weapons and property damage.
In 2017, the Family Court extended the order by 18 months and varied it to a 'secure' order, under which he was transferred to a psychiatric hospital.
Appeals lodged on his behalf challenged the validity of the compulsory care order's renewal on multiple occasions.
The man, supported by his mother who acted as his welfare guardian, wanted his detention to end so he could live with her.
Appeals to the High Court and Court of Appeal failed after it was found the man posed a 'high or very high risk' of committing acts of violence if released from care.
His main argument in relation to the initial offending was that the period of detention must be proportionate to the original crime.
The Supreme Court acknowledged it was apparent that detention itself had impacted adversely on the man.
A doctor's view was that he appeared to have become 'increasingly less treatable over the years', as his behaviour created 'major impediments to fostering any level of therapeutic engagement'.
'Against this background, it can be seen, albeit with the benefit of hindsight, that there were opportunities to allow (him) to be cared for in a less restrictive environment at a much earlier point in time.
'Indeed, it can also be said that the failure to release (him) earlier goes some way to explaining why (his) case presents as an intractable problem for both courts and caregivers,' Justices Joe Williams, Forrest Miller, Dame Helen Winkelmann, Dame Ellen France said in a decision made public today.
In the High Court, the judge addressed several matters, including the man's appeal of the Family Court's decision in 2017 to extend the decision; an application for judicial review addressing his 'arbitrary detention', the 'discriminatory nature' of the Act and other breaches of the Bill of Rights.
The Court of Appeal heard a joint appeal against the High Court judgment, and an appeal against a subsequent decision of the Family Court in 2020 to extend the compulsory care order.
The appeal court dismissed both appeals in December 2023.
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, and asked that three matters be addressed, including the correctness of the approach to the decision to extend a compulsory care order.
It also asked whether there have been breaches of the man's rights, and the consequences of any breaches if found.
The appeal to the Supreme Court has partly succeeded, but the man will remain in care.
The Justices said it was a tragic case, but releasing the man into the community could only lead to further tragedy.
The higher court found by a majority that the Court of Appeal was incorrect in its approach to a section of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act.
'Given the conflict of rights in this case, the law's primary impulse must be to ensure that (he) continues to receive care in an environment in which he and others will be kept safe,' the Supreme Court said.
Final determination of the man's circumstances will require updating evidence to be considered by the Family Court.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ's regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
3 hours ago
- Scoop
IHC Welcomes Supreme Court Decision Confirming Unfair Detention For Intellectually Disabled Man
IHC welcomes today's Supreme Court decision that has confirmed the human rights of a man ('J') locked away for half of his life have been breached. J has an intellectual disability and autism, has been detained under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act since 2006. The Court of Appeal acknowledged J's original offending in 2004 as minor, but ruled his ongoing secure detention was justified because multiple experts said he posed a high risk to the public if released. The original charge carried a maximum penalty of three months in prison or a $2000 fine, but due to his intellectual disabilities and autism, he was found unfit to stand trial. IHC joined the case, along with the Human Rights Commission, as intervenor in 2024 to assist the Court in understanding the rights of people with intellectual disabilities. IHC Director of Advocacy Tania Thomas says people with intellectual disabilities deserve appropriate support and the rights they are entitled to under the law – in the same manner that all New Zealanders should be treated. 'This man has been treated unfairly under the law for too long,' says Tania. 'This decision will ensure that more balanced considerations occur in future, and people like J will receive more appropriate care and support to be able to work towards release.' The Court's new approach in determining how compulsory orders are considered prioritises the importance of each individual's human rights alongside the seriousness of the offence and the community's ongoing safety. IHC will continue to advocate for changes to the disability framework supporting people like J under this Act. About IHC New Zealand: IHC New Zealand advocates for the rights, inclusion and welfare of all people with intellectual disabilities and supports them to live satisfying lives in the community. IHC provides advocacy, volunteering, events, membership associations and fundraising. It is part of the IHC Group, which also includes IDEA Services, Choices NZ and Accessible Properties.
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Supreme Court declines family's bid for man's release after 20 years in secure care
Efforts to free the man from compulsory care have been heard in multiple courts, including the Supreme Court. Photo / 123RF The man was living with his mother when in June 2004 he carried an axe on to a neighbour's property. He said he was 'James Bond' and used the axe to break windows in the neighbour's garage and van. A judge found at a later disposition hearing that the man had an intellectual disability. His risk to his health and safety of others was such that a secure care order for a term of two years was considered necessary. The compulsory care order has been extended multiple times since 2006, most recently for a period of three years from April 2023, on the grounds of the risk posed to the community if he was released. The judge noted the likelihood he would return to his mother's home, which evidence showed did not meet the required standards either in terms of security or staffing. The man was transferred early on from a care facility to a secure hospital-level service, following reports of his absconding, hiding weapons and property damage. In 2017, the Family Court extended the order by 18 months and varied it to a 'secure' order, under which he was transferred to a psychiatric hospital. Appeals lodged on his behalf challenged the validity of the compulsory care order's renewal on multiple occasions. The man, supported by his mother who acted as his welfare guardian, wanted his detention to end so he could live with her. Appeals to the High Court and Court of Appeal failed after it was found the man posed a 'high or very high risk' of committing acts of violence if released from care. His main argument in relation to the initial offending was that the period of detention must be proportionate to the original crime. The Supreme Court acknowledged it was apparent that detention itself had impacted adversely on the man. A doctor's view was that he appeared to have become 'increasingly less treatable over the years', as his behaviour created 'major impediments to fostering any level of therapeutic engagement'. 'Against this background, it can be seen, albeit with the benefit of hindsight, that there were opportunities to allow (him) to be cared for in a less restrictive environment at a much earlier point in time. 'Indeed, it can also be said that the failure to release (him) earlier goes some way to explaining why (his) case presents as an intractable problem for both courts and caregivers,' Justices Joe Williams, Forrest Miller, Dame Helen Winkelmann, Dame Ellen France said in a decision made public today. In the High Court, the judge addressed several matters, including the man's appeal of the Family Court's decision in 2017 to extend the decision; an application for judicial review addressing his 'arbitrary detention', the 'discriminatory nature' of the Act and other breaches of the Bill of Rights. The Court of Appeal heard a joint appeal against the High Court judgment, and an appeal against a subsequent decision of the Family Court in 2020 to extend the compulsory care order. The appeal court dismissed both appeals in December 2023. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, and asked that three matters be addressed, including the correctness of the approach to the decision to extend a compulsory care order. It also asked whether there have been breaches of the man's rights, and the consequences of any breaches if found. The appeal to the Supreme Court has partly succeeded, but the man will remain in care. The Justices said it was a tragic case, but releasing the man into the community could only lead to further tragedy. The higher court found by a majority that the Court of Appeal was incorrect in its approach to a section of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act. 'Given the conflict of rights in this case, the law's primary impulse must be to ensure that (he) continues to receive care in an environment in which he and others will be kept safe,' the Supreme Court said. Final determination of the man's circumstances will require updating evidence to be considered by the Family Court. Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ's regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Supreme Court finds wrong test used to lock up autistic man
By Anusha Bradley of RNZ The Supreme Court has found the wrong legal test has been used to lock up an autistic man for nearly 20 years, but he will not walk free just yet. It has ordered the Family Court to urgently re-examine whether the man, only known as Jay, should remain detained, according to a just-released decision issued a year after the Supreme Court heard his case. Four of the five Supreme Court Justices said the Family Court must relook at Jay's right to liberty, weighing the seriousness of his original offence, his rehabilitation prospects and current risk. The majority found he could have been moved into the community earlier, and a failure to do so had negatively affected him, but he cannot be released immediately without proper support. The Family Court must now decide Jay's future using the Supreme Court's new guidance. Human rights lawyer Tony Ellis, who represented Jay's mother, described the ruling as a "significant win" and a "major step forward for disability rights". How Jay ended up in secure care Jay, now in his 40s, has been detained in a secure facility under the Intellectual Disability Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation Act since 2006 after he broke four of his neighbours' windows in 2004. He has since been assessed by multiple experts as being too dangerous to release and his care order has been extended 11 times. Jay has spent the past five years almost entirely in seclusion at the Mason Clinic in Auckland. A Family Court judge last year described his current living situation "untenable" after he became so distressed by construction noise next door he stuffed paper into his ears, requiring doctors to remove it. The man's mother brought his case to the Supreme Court in August last year in a bid to get his compulsory care order quashed, claiming he is being arbitrarily detained and his human rights breached. What the Supreme Court found Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann and Justices Ellen France, Joe Williams and Forrest Miller found the Family Court's approach to detaining Jay was incorrect, and concluded that a decision to detain someone under the Act be consistent with Bill of Rights Act and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Justice Stephen Kós disagreed, ruling he would have dismissed the appeal as Jay's continued detention was justified in order to protect public safety under existing law. "This is a tragic case. But granting the relief sought - J's immediate release into the community - can only lead to further tragedy," he wrote in the 131-page decision that outlines each judge's conclusions. Justices France and Miller said the court must set a new proportionality test weighting liberty against safety. "Eventually the risk of harm will be outweighed where the initial offending is comparatively minor; the person has been a care recipient for an extended period; and/or where the prospects of progress in the immediate future are minimal." They said there was evidence there had been opportunities for Jay to be cared for in the community at an earlier point in time and that failure to release him from care has adversely affected him and contributed to the complexity of his current position. However, they concluded it wasn't for the Supreme Court to direct Jay to be released immediately, and further care orders may be required to allow the necessary steps to be taken before he could be released into the community. Chief Justice Winkelmann said the nature and seriousness of Jay's original offending ought to be a significant factor when assessing whether to detain him, saying previous tests applied by lower courts were discriminatory. Justice Williams favoured a care-centred test focusing on dignity and quality of life and while he agreed the Family Court should look at Jay's case again with fresh consideration, it was not guaranteed he would be released. 'Significant win' Lawyer Tony Ellis says the ruling is "very much a win". "It's a significant win emphasising the rights of the disabled. "This is a complex judgment that's difficult even for lawyers to understand but it essentially says the Court of Appeal got it wrong and the Family Court has to urgently have a fresh look at Jay's case. "After eight years of trying to get him released, in my view, he's now going to have to be released because four out of five judges take the view that his continued detention would be unlawful. "Previously, the decision was you could lock somebody up for repeated periods. That was the law and now it's no longer the law, that was the wrong approach. "So anyone locked up on extended compulsory care orders will be entitled to have their decision revisited as a result of this case. That's a major step forward and a really important decision under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities." Jay's mother was "pleased" with the outcome but still digesting the decision and its implications for her son, he said.
