INTRODUCTION

6.1 This Chapter looks at the present sentencing options, custodial and non-custodial, for people with an intellectual disability convicted of an offence. It considers the alternatives of integration into the prison environment, special detention units, and community-based options. It also introduces the issue of the release into the community, at the end of their sentence, of people considered “dangerous”.

SENTENCING

6.2 It is not within the scope of this reference to consider in detail the general principles and objectives of sentencing. The justifications for punishment include: retribution, rehabilitation of the offender, particular or general deterrence, and protection of the community. Some of these justifications will have less relevance for the offender with an intellectual disability than for other offenders. As with the sentencing of any offender, the court has to weigh up a number of competing factors, including features peculiar to the offence and the offender, to decide the length and type of punishment. It is appropriate therefore for the Commission to consider the effect of intellectual disability on judicial sentencing decisions in New South Wales, whether as a mitigating factor or otherwise. Sentencing rationales in relation to “dangerous” offenders are also considered at paras 6.18 and following.

6.3 A recent New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal decision has recognised that:

whereas general deterrence is a relevant consideration in every sentencing exercise, it is a consideration to which less weight should be given in the case of an offender suffering from a mental disorder or severe intellectual handicap.¹

The court referred to a number of Victorian cases providing authority that general deterrence, as opposed to the deterrent effect on the individual offender, should be given less weight in such cases “because such an offender is not an appropriate medium for making an example to others.”² This case recognises that intellectual disability is a relevant sentencing factor.

6.4 The offender’s intellectual disability should be considered not only in relation to the length of the sentence, but as to the appropriate sentencing type, whether custodial or non-custodial. A key issue to be addressed throughout the consideration of sentencing alternatives is diversion, namely whether people with an intellectual disability should be diverted at this stage of the process from the criminal justice system altogether. The argument against such diversion is based on the principle of normalisation (that is, making available to people with an intellectual disability the patterns and values of life available to people in the mainstream of society). It is stated that, if a person with an intellectual disability is fit to plead and found guilty, then a prison sentence and other sentencing options should be available to the courts, as they would be for all other offenders. Such punishment, however, may be of little effect for many offenders with an intellectual disability if they have no recollection of the offence or understanding of the consequences of their actions in committing the crime. These considerations can affect not only whether a custodial or non-custodial sentence is awarded, but which is the most appropriate type of placement within these two categories.

CUSTODIAL OPTIONS

Segregation or Integration?

6.5 If a custodial sentence is awarded there are presently only two alternatives for an offender with an intellectual disability: being placed in the mainstream of the prison community or within a specialised or protection unit. In correctional institutions there is therefore a conflict between the principle of normalisation and the need to provide special services and, on occasion, to protect people with an intellectual disability. Segregation may be detrimental; not only in emphasising the “difference” of the offender with an intellectual disability but may also lead to the withdrawal of educational and other services available to the rest of the prison community. Other arguments against segregated units are, according to Professor Susan Hayes:

• The wide diversity of abilities and skills amongst intellectually disabled offenders means that a special facility is as likely as a typical prison to fail to meet their needs.
• The history of segregated non-custodial programs and facilities has been one of neglect and lack of funding, and there is no reason to suppose it would be different in corrective services.
• It is discriminatory to prevent intellectually disabled people from interacting with their peers; and has the consequence of depriving them of appropriate models.
• The history of segregated correctional services has been one of custodial, not treatment oriented, care.
• [The problem of deciding who] is going to be classified as intellectually disabled.³

New South Wales

6.6 Integration is difficult to achieve in reality. Prisoners with an intellectual disability are likely to be isolated from, or victimised by, their peers and are unlikely to be integrated in most work environments. The Department of Corrective Services has stated that it:

... supports the philosophy of integrating intellectually disabled inmates into the general gaol community to the greatest extent possible and encourages their participation in prison mainstream work, education and leisure programs. However it is an unfortunate fact that some inmates with an intellectual disability are vulnerable to intolerable physical and/or mental abuse from other prisoners. This may be because of personal or behavioural idiosyncrasies, youth, the nature of the offence or other ‘at risk’ factors.⁴

6.7 The Department therefore has specialised facilities for prisoners with an intellectual disability at two of its centres. The Goulburn Development Unit caters for 12 prisoners with an intellectual disability in a maximum security environment. The Department has advised the Commission that a medium security unit will be opened in May 1992 at Windsor to house both remand and sentenced inmates. A unit for 22 inmates has also recently been opened in the minimum security section of Goulburn Gaol to provide work and living skills development programs.⁵ It is proposed that up to 10 places in this new unit will be reserved for inmates who have completed programs in the development units at Goulburn and Windsor.⁶ Inmates may be referred to these units directly by the courts at the time of sentencing or are later identified as being suitable for placement by custodial staff. The Department’s latest Annual Report commented that the purpose of these specialist units for prisoners with an intellectual disability “is to provide appropriate services which will improve their ability to cope in gaol and to live in the general community as self-reliant, law abiding citizens”.⁷

6.8 The Department has also prepared a detailed Statement of Purpose and Objectives for the Goulburn Development Unit which deals with the following areas:

• the philosophy of the program;
• the definition of intellectual disability and criteria for classification to the unit;
• the purpose of the unit;
• the custodial and unit objectives; and
• the duties of the custodial officers, the nurse and the psychologist.

The philosophy of the program supports the principles of normalisation and therefore states that:

... intellectually disabled prisoners who cope appropriately in the prison mainstream are NOT to be admitted to the Unit on the sole grounds of intellectual disability, as this would go against the principle of integration into the general gaol community for those who are capable of it.⁸

Similarly, to overcome the damaging effects of segregation:

... the daily management of the Unit is designed to enable intellectually disabled prisoners to participate in general industries and recreational activities to the maximum extent possible. This facilitates re-integration into the general gaol community for those intellectually disabled prisoners for whom it is feasible, as well as moving towards the goal of re-integration into the community after release from prison.⁹

6.9 Despite the merits of this program, it caters for only a small number of people and many others will not qualify for places. There is no such unit in existence for female prisoners. The unit for six female prisoners in operation at Mulawa Training and Detention Centre was closed in October 1991, after about 18 months operation, apparently because there was insufficient need to justify a separate unit. Women with special protection or other needs are housed in a special protection or observation unit at Mulawa. The establishment of such units may not be sufficient to increase the identification of intellectual disability in the general prison community. A recent study, The Prevalence of Intellectual Disability in the New South Wales Prison Population, recommended a number of other measures within the prison system, including:

• giving all prisoners a screening test on reception to prison followed by, for those inmates below the cut-off point, a full psychological and/or medical (including psychiatric) assessment of the prisoner’s mental, emotional, physical, and educational condition, adaptive behaviour and social skills, and of the habilitative services required by the prisoner;
• appointing a case coordinator for each inmate with an intellectual disability to ensure reception of appropriate services;
• training all correctional staff, including health professionals, in identification and management of inmates with an intellectual disability;
• ensuring continuity of habilitative services when the inmate is transferred or released; and
• making available appropriate programs, resources and units across the spectrum of security classifications.¹⁰

Other Australian Jurisdictions

Victoria

6.10 Victoria, like New South Wales, uses specialised units. The Office of Corrections has established a special purpose unit at the Metropolitan Reception Prison at Coburg. This unit has been established for people with an intellectual disability, and Community Services Victoria provides programs and training for the inmates in life skills. The unit has places for 22 inmates of which some are non-disabled inmates who volunteer to assist within the unit. Community Services Victoria also operates a secure facility at Kingsbury which contains a small number of places (approximately 4-6) for inmates with an intellectual disability who have been found unfit to plead and have been transferred out of the control of the Office of Corrections. It has been stated that:

... a secure residence administered and operated by professional habilitation staff along the lines of the Victorian model provides the most favourable environment in which to meet the special management and habilitation needs of offenders with intellectual disabilities, in particular those whose needs cannot be met adequately in the prison system.¹¹

The Office of Corrections also encourages the use of community based orders as an alternative to custodial sentences.

Western Australia

6.11 In Western Australia prisoners with an intellectual disability are managed:

... within the prison mainstream except in those cases where placement in a general purpose protection unit is necessary as a result of the prisoner’s behaviour or assessed level of risk per se. In this way the principle of normalisation is applied to the management of these prisoners in the prison environment in a way which reflects the application of that principle to people with intellectual deficits in the general community.¹²

For example, New Division at Fremantle Prison is used for prisoners, including those with an intellectual disability, for whom segregation is deemed essential. This Division provides a safe environment for “vulnerable and disturbed” prisoners and some special education and other programs, but does not offer the full range of programs, services and accommodation options offered throughout the prison system.¹³

The Commission seeks further information as to the range and effectiveness of special custodial programs available for inmates with an intellectual disability in Australia, and elsewhere.

NON-CUSTODIAL OPTIONS

Advantages for people with an intellectual disability

6.12 Even where specialist units are available, it has been stated that prison may be inappropriate for most people with an intellectual disability. The Missing Services Report commented that prisoners with an intellectual disability:

are subject to abuse and exploitation and are seen as being more susceptible to the negative influences of the prison environment, thus having any criminal behaviours reinforced rather than reduced by their period of incarceration.¹⁴

Therefore, it is suggested, non-custodial options should be considered for people with an intellectual disability. There are often difficulties, however, in finding appropriate services and facilities. None of the existing services are specifically designed for offenders with an intellectual disability. In practice the lack of services means a judge may have no alternative other than to award a custodial sentence. The Intellectual Disability Rights Service commented:

[f]ew magistrates and judges are willing to release a person into the community if there are doubts as to the success of the placement in protecting the community and also supporting the individual. The Department of Community Services to date does not provide such facilities. People with intellectual disabilities are ending up before the courts because support services are either unable or unwilling to address their high support needs.¹⁵

Options available in New South Wales

6.13 In New South Wales there are a number of alternatives to imprisonment apart from fines. Periodic detention, as its name suggests, requires the offender to spend time in prison, but that time is broken up, such as in weekend detention, to allow the offender to continue living within the community. Another alternative is the Community Service Order, where the offender performs a number of hours of unpaid community service work. There are also a number of types of bonds or “recognizances”, requiring the offender to be of “good behaviour” for a period of time and, usually, fixing an amount the offender will be liable to pay if the bond is breached. Such bonds may impose other conditions on the offender, such as reporting to the Community Corrections Service or spending a nominated number of hours at an Attendance Centre. Other alternatives include a type of bond known as a “deferred sentence” where breach of the conditions of the bond also results in imprisonment: see the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 558. Under s 556A of the Crimes Act, a court may, “having regard to the character, antecedents, age, health or mental condition of the person charged, or to the trivial nature of the offence, or to the extenuating circumstances”, dismiss the charge or discharge the person on a recognizance without recording a conviction.

Disadvantages for people with an intellectual disability

6.14 Many non-custodial alternatives, such as community service orders, periodic detention and good behaviour bonds are of limited use for people with an intellectual disability “who may not understand them and lack the resources and capacity to comply with them.”¹⁶ The fines imposed for many offences also may be beyond the means of people with an intellectual disability, as with other low income earners. The factors which may lessen their chances for bail and parole, such as poverty, lack of employment options or family and community support, and unstable living conditions, will also decrease the likelihood of receiving such sentences, with a corresponding increase in custodial sentences. Such sentences may be inappropriate for other reasons, as illustrated by an example given by the West Australian Authority for Intellectually Handicapped Persons:

... one person known to the Authority was so delighted to be given a Community Service Order that he blatantly re-offended so that “he could see that nice man (The Magistrate) for another job”. He had construed his Community Service Order work as infinitely more interesting than his regular work and not in the least bit punishing. It served neither to deter, to prevent, to reform nor to exact retribution. In fact his friends were rather envious of his much more interesting lifestyle.¹⁷

6.15 One alternative suggested by the West Australian Authority for Intellectually Handicapped Persons is “home based detention”, as it “does not expose the person with intellectual disability to the abuses that frequently occur in prison and it ensures that any effort at habilitation occurs in the place where the person lives and works”.¹⁸ The procedures involved in home based detention, such as answering a telephone check call and use of monitoring devices, may be beyond the abilities of some people with an intellectual disability, who would therefore require constant support. Such an alternative, however, may impose a large and unfair burden on the offender’s family and may present problems of supervision. Similarly many residential services would not accept such people, which would make it difficult to find them placements in the community. There is also the concern that such procedures can be used to pass the cost of detention onto families and disability services.

The Commission seeks further information about non-custodial alternatives for people with an intellectual disability.

RELEASE FROM CUSTODY

Parole

6.16 Most people are not released from prison unconditionally but are released on parole either by an order of the Offenders Review Board or, if sentenced for three years or less, automatically at the expiry of their minimum term. In making such an order the Board has to take into account such matters as public interest, comments made by the court when sentencing, the antecedents of the prisoner and any special circumstances of the case, and determine that “it has sufficient reason to believe that the prisoner, if released from custody, would be able to adapt to normal lawful community life”.¹⁹ It has been suggested that prisoners with an intellectual disability are less likely than other prisoners to receive parole.

The Commission seeks further information as to the operation of parole in relation to people with an intellectual disability.

Post-release services

6.17 It was suggested by the Attorney General’s Committee that the over-representation of people with an intellectual disability in the prison system may be due to the lack of post-custodial services available.²⁰ Recidivism appears to be a greater problem for people with an intellectual disability than other former inmates, and the lack of post-release accommodation and support services has been cited as a contributory factor. Even where such accommodation exists people with a criminal record or a history of violence may, in practice, be refused places. Such services may feel they do not have the appropriate supervision for such people, and there is already heavy competition for these scarce resources.

The Commission seeks further information as to existing services for people with an intellectual disability upon release from prison and their limitations.

RELEASE FROM CUSTODY OF PERSONS CONSIDERED DANGEROUS

Background

6.18 The Commission has been asked to consider the issue of the release, upon completion of a term of imprisonment, into the community of people with an intellectual disability considered dangerous. This issue arose and caused considerable controversy in Victoria, but in relation to mental illness and psychopathy, not intellectual disability. Debate arose as a result of the anticipated release, at the end of his prison term, of one person, Garry David, who was believed to represent a potential danger to the community. The problem arose in Victoria because though he was identified as a “psychopath”, he was not “mentally ill” and therefore could not be detained under the relevant mental health legislation. Public concern lead to the passing of the Community Protection Act 1990 (Vic). This Act allows a court to order the continued detention of Garry David once his sentence has expired. This detention must be reviewed at regular intervals by the court. The passing of this Act has raised considerable controversy and human rights concerns. Accordingly this issue was raised by the Attorney General’s Committee as a matter requiring further consideration within the New South Wales context.

6.19 Although often treated as a synonym for “violent”, “dangerous” is an ambiguous term. Whether a person is dangerous is not an objectively identifiable fact but a matter of conjecture. It is important to recognise that there is no necessary correlation between intellectual disability and “dangerousness” and that the procedures discussed below may affect all types of prisoners, not just those with an intellectual disability. “Dangerous” prisoners who suffer from a mental illness, whether concurrently having an intellectual disability or not, are the responsibility of the mental health system, not the criminal justice system. Provisions of the Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW) allow persons who are mentally ill and are a danger to themselves and/or other people to be detained in custody. People who are held not to be “fit to be tried” become the responsibility of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, as discussed in Chapter 5, but only until the end of their “limiting term”. There is no provision for indefinite detention. The position of people who are both sane and fit to be tried must also be considered. The question to be answered is whether it is appropriate for society to take steps to protect itself from dangerous people who are legally sane and have not warranted detention under the usual principles of criminal law?

6.20 The criminal justice system imposes punishment primarily as retribution for acts already committed. The sentence imposed must be proportional: the punishment must be commensurate with the offence.²¹ Other aims of punishment are deterrence, reformation of the offender and the protection of society, but in Australia these are normally subsidiary goals. The Veen²² decisions confirm that, under common law sentencing principles, protection of the public is a relevant consideration but can only influence the sentence given within the limits imposed by the principle of proportionality. The legislature still retains a right to legislate to detain persons who are a risk to the community’s safety. Indeed, Deane J identified the need for such legislation in Veen (No 2):

...the protection of the community obviously warrants the introduction of some acceptable statutory system of preventive restraint to deal with the case of a person who has been convicted of violent crime and who, while not legally insane, might represent a grave threat to the safety of other people by reason of mental abnormality if he were to be released as a matter of course at the end of what represents a proper punitive sentence.²³

The use of detention to protect the community is an abandonment of the retribution rationale, being punishment for what a person is expected to do. Detention which is justified as rehabilitation for the detainee is also a rejection of retribution principles. Such forms of detention are contrary to the usual rule that after an individual has undergone the punishment imposed on them in consequence of their crime they regain all the privileges accorded to citizens.

Sentencing and release options for “dangerous” persons

Habitual Criminals Act 1957 (NSW)

6.21 The Habitual Criminals Act 1957 (NSW), s 4, allows a judge, at the time of sentencing, to declare a convicted offender a “habitual criminal”, if the offender is of or above the age of twenty-five and has served, on at least two previous occasions, separate terms of imprisonment for indictable offences. The sentence which may be imposed on a habitual criminal is a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 14 years.²⁴ There is provision for early release at the direction of the Governor²⁵ but no formal review process. The judge makes the decision to impose the additional sentence at the time of conviction, therefore, if the criminal at the end of the sentence is a danger to the community there is no power by which he or she can be further detained. Nor is there any indication that the additional sentence imposed under the Act will decrease the tendency of the person to re-offend. The Act is effectively in disuse, as are similar habitual criminal provisions in other jurisdictions.²⁶

Guardianship Orders

6.22 Guardianship Orders may be a means of ensuring a person who may endanger others receives supervision. Potential dangerousness will not justify the granting of an order over an individual. The person must meet the criteria for Guardianship Orders provided for in the Disability Services and Guardianship Act 1987 (NSW). The Act applies only to a person who has certain disabilities (including an intellectual disability) and who is, by virtue of his or her disability:

restricted in one or more major life activities to such an extent that he or she requires supervision or social habilitation.²⁷

Parole

6.23 The concept of dangerousness finds its way informally into parole decisions. The Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW) states that a parole order may not be made by the Offenders Review Board unless the Board has, amongst other things:

determined that the release of the prisoner is appropriate, having regard to the principle that the public interest is of primary importance.²⁸

The protection of the community from a risk of serious harm is a relevant consideration in assessing the public interest. Other jurisdictions similarly consider the dangerousness of a prisoner before deciding whether to release on bail or parole. It is unlikely a dangerous offender will receive parole under the present system due to the factors involved in making parole decisions.²⁹ Changes to the parole law would be necessary to allow for extensively supervised parole.

Preventive detention legislation

6.24 A number of jurisdictions have preventive detention legislation.³⁰ The position in Victoria has been referred to in para 6.18 above. The phrase “preventive detention” is used broadly to refer to any restriction of a person’s liberty imposed primarily to protect the community which is not part of a sentence for a crime. It may take the form of imprisonment, compulsory treatment or limiting conditions attached to the way an individual lives in the community, such as parole. Current preventive detention legislation is generally directed at habitual offenders or those who have been held to be incapable of controlling their sexual impulses. A few legislative provisions are specifically aimed at “dangerous” offenders. Legislation for persons found unfit to be tried also contains provisions for preventive detention.

6.25 There is some support for the view that continued detention is an inappropriate way of decreasing the dangerousness of prisoners. It has been stated that:

[w]e know that the most difficult part of serving a sentence for many, if not most, prisoners is returning to the community ... Failure to successfully reintegrate into the community almost inevitably means a return to re-offending. The corrections system is poorly placed to help prisoners return to the community. We have limited expertise and are required by our legislated mission to focus on custodial and supervisory goals.³¹

Detention may be useful if designed to assist re-integration into the community, for example, programs which feature detention in small units which resemble group living rather than in highly controlled institutional environments. Treatment or pre-release programs may be of value in reducing the person’s tendency to re-offend. The major limitation of relying only on pre-release programs and community support stems from an inability to act if these alternatives fail, until the person re-offends.

6.26 The Intellectual Disability Rights Service has suggested that:

... a system similar to the Mental Health Review Board ... be established for such persons, with some way of referring to the Board those prisoners to be released and considered dangerous. The Board may then have the legal power to determine if it is necessary for the safety of the community that they should be placed in a secure environment. The placement is not for punishment. It should also be a requirement that the person be given support services with the long term aim being the replacement of dangerous behaviours so that the person can live in the community. The law must state what must be found to justify such an order, the purpose of the detention, and what is to be provided for the person while detained. It must also provide a process of regular review and appeal.³²

The Commission seeks view about whether there is a need, in theory or in practice, in New South Wales for preventive legislation or other measures for persons considered dangerous.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

6.27 The Commission seeks answers to the following questions in relation to the appropriate sentencing, detention and release of offenders with an intellectual disability:

• How should people with an intellectual disability be treated in prisons? What special, if any, measures and programs should be developed for their protection and well being?
• How effective are the existing alternatives to detention for offenders with an intellectual disability?
• Should there be other alternatives to detention for people with an intellectual disability (whether “dangerous” or not)?
• Does New South Wales need some form of “preventative detention” or other measures to allow people considered “dangerous” to be detained at the completion of their sentence? If so what form should it take?

FOOTNOTES

1. R v Letteri (unreported) Supreme Court, NSW, Court of Criminal Appeal, 18 March 1992, CCA 60407/91, per Badgery-Parker J, at 14.

2. Per Badgery-Parker J, at 12.

3. S C Hayes “What Corrections Should Offer the Intellectually Disabled Offender - An Idealistic View” in D Challinger (ed) Intellectually Disabled Offenders - Proceedings of a Seminar held 22-24 April 1987 (Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, 1987) at 88.

4. New South Wales. Department of Corrective Services Submission (14 November 1991) at 1.

5. The Commission visited the Development and Education Units at Goulburn Gaol on 28 April 1992.

6. New South Wales. Department of Corrective Services Submission (14 November 1991) at 2.

7. New South Wales. Department of Corrective Services Annual Report 1990/1991 at 76.

8. New South Wales. Department of Corrective Services Statement of Purpose and Objectives: Goulburn Development Unit, at 2.

9. New South Wales. Department of Corrective Services Statement of Purpose and Objectives: Goulburn Development Unit, at 2.

10. S C Hayes and D McIlwain The Prevalence of Intellectual Disability in the New South Wales Prison Population: An Empirical Study (November 1988) at 49-52.

11. Western Australia. Department of Corrective Services Submission (19 November 1991) at 3.

12. Western Australia. Department of Corrective Services Submission (19 November 1991) at 3.

13. G P Jones and K Coombes The Prevalence of Intellectual Deficit Among the West Australian Prisoner Population (Western Australia, Department of Corrective Services, October 1990) at 38.

14. Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Intellectually Handicapped Adult Offenders in New South Wales The Missing Services (Sydney, 1985) at 3.

15. Intellectual Disability Rights Service Submission (6 January 1992) at 2.

16. Intellectual Disability Rights Service Submission (6 January 1992) at 3.

17. M McCoy and H Lowe “Criminal Law and People with Intellectual Disabilities: Alternative Options to Custody”, paper presented at Questions of Balance: Criminal Law and People with Intellectual Disabilities (Perth, July 1990) at 42.

18. McCoy and Lowe at 42.

19. Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW), s 17.

20. New South Wales. Attorney General’s Department The Intellectually Disabled in the Criminal Justice System (Issues Paper, 1991) at 11.

21. R v Veen (No 1) (1978) 143 CLR 458; R v Veen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465.

22. R v Veen (No 1) (1978) 143 CLR 458; R v Veen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465.

23. (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 495.

24. Section 6.

25. Section 7.

26. P Svensson “The Case for Due Process in Reviewable Sentences”, paper presented at Australian Institute of Criminology conference Serious Violent Offenders: Sentencing, Psychiatry, and Law Reform (Melbourne, 29-31 October 1991).

27. Section 3(2).

28. Section 17.

29. Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW), s 17.

30. See, for example, Habitual Criminals Act 1957 (NSW); Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 659A; Criminal Code Compilation Act 1913 (WA), s 661-662; Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA), s 22-23; Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT), s 397;Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas), s 392; and the controversial Community Protection Act 1990 (Vic).

31. P Harmsworth “Managing violent offenders in the correctional setting - a co-ordinated approach”, paper presented at Australian Institute of Criminology conference Serious Violent Offenders: Sentencing, Psychiatry, and Law Reform, (Melbourne, 29-31 October 1991.)

32. Intellectual Disability Rights Service Submission (6 January 1992) at 4.