LAW7207 Law | The Case of J v Attorney General

1.J v Attorney

This case relates to judicial review done pursuant to the legislative provisions of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. In the case, J was an individual suffering from intellectual disability who was under the care of supervised as well as secure care and who was diagnosed to not stand trial due to his disabilities. Four separate proceedings were initiated by J’s mother who is his welfare guardian. In those four proceedings, the validity of the compulsory care orders. The proceedings were heard together and the judgment was passed on the four proceedings. The proceedings were as follows:

• An appeal was preferred under Ss 16 and 17 of the CPMIP Act and the findings of J’s involvement in the criminal offending was challenged along with his unfitness and disability. The order that was passed which held J as a care recipient under the IDCCR Act. The appeal that was preferred was termed as CPMIP appeal and it also included an application for leave.
• The family court had extended J’s care by a period of 18 months and therefore the appeal was preferred against the Family Court’s order.
• An inquiry was also demanded under S 102 of the IDCCR Act which shall question the legality of the detention of J as a care recipient.
• An application for judicial review was also initiated questioning the arbitrary detention of J.

Therefore, in the present case, the questions were mostly regarding the validity of the orders that were passed by the CPMIP Act and IDCCR Act. The order was a habeas corpus order and also a judicial review for the same. The facts of the case hover around J’s disabilities and also him having low IQ. J was diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder and his disability was also certified by a leading psychiatrist. As per the medical reports, it was also stated that J had behavioral issues wherein he started to act in a violent behavior and it was also capable of causing harm to others. The reports had also concurred with the behavioral issues that J faced and it was reported in the year 2000 that J had tried to harm a student. These culminated into a report which stated that J had mental health issues and that he could be falling into the ‘normalized’ framework. So, if his behavior can be traced from 2006 to 2017, it can be stated that he has been suffering and as a result of that he has been held to be a care recipient. This leads to a wider definition of the term “unfit to stand trial” which means that a defendant who is not in a position to conduct a defense or instruct a counsel to do the same.

Keeping in mind the health issues that can apply to J for showing a trait of behavior which might fall into the category of disability, it is essential to also analyse the legislations in New Zealand which are relevant to the four proceedings initiated by J. in understanding the legal implications of the detention and the compulsory that J was subject to, it is also important to study the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1985. As per the definition of “under disability” of the Criminal Justice Act, 1985, a person has to have a mental disorder and also should be barred from pleading, understanding the nature of the purpose of the proceedings to which he is subject. He should also be unable to communicate adequately with the counsel who is representing him to ensure that a proper defense is devised. The term disability was defined under the provisions of S. 108 of the Criminal Justice Act. The decision regarding the disability of a person had to be decided by a Judge under section 111 of the Act and there is also a need of two specialists who shall provide reports with respect to the same. Therefore, keeping in mind the disability of the person, it is essential to keep in mind that if a person has the ability to stand trial, he shall be subject to the Criminal Justice System. If a person is deemed to be unfit to stand trial, he shall be subject to the provisions of the IDCCR Act. Though the term mental impairment has not found a textbook definition or any legislative definition per se, it has faced judicial interpretation. Therefore, keeping the definition of “mental impairment” to mean and include in its ambit intellectual disability. In the case of S v Attorney-General, it was stated that mental impairment shall also include intellectual disability. The onus is on the court to balance the probabilities that the defendant was at fault and that the defendant had caused any act or omission that lead to the charges. The court before proceeding with the judgment has to take into consideration the reports of the certified medical practitioners who claim that the defendant was mentally unstable and also that the defendant cannot stand trial.

After the Court has taken into consideration the medical assessor’s statements, the parties shall be given enough time and chance to present their cases and after being satisfied with the two sides, the Court shall proceed with a judgment. If the defendant has been found that he cannot stand trial, he shall be acquitted on the grounds of his insanity and thereafter the court shall detain the person in a special care facility. The court shall look into the matter and if it opines that the person shall not be detained in a special care facility, in such cases, he has to give opinions regarding the same. The Court has to give the orders in the nature the patient has to be treated and detained. The patient might also be asked to be treated as a care recipient.

The facts of the case point towards the fact that J was mentally unstable and that he was charged with two minor offences along with a serious offence. The serious offence was regarding the possession of a deadly weapon, that is, an axe. J had used the axe to break into the neighbor’s doors and had also harmed a neighbor. Therefore, after analyzing the facts of the case, the Court was of the opinion that he was involved in a crime and that as per the medical certificates, it was also determined that he was unfit to stand trial and therefore was also bailed. J was ordered to be treated as a care recipient as per the provisions of s 25(1)(b) of the CPMIP Act. Following the decision of the Court, an appeal was preferred against the District Court’s findings on behalf of J. the main contention of the appeal was that J did not have any mental impairment and that he was not suffering from intellectual disability. No consideration was given with respect to temporary insanity and therefore, there was a miscarriage of justice. In the appeal, it was further stated that the reports of the doctors were inadmissible as they were in violation of the Evidence Amendment Act. Again, in the case of R v Gulliver, the court had held that the provisions of section 33 should not be given emphasis and that it shall not be read expansively.

2.IDCCR Act: To acknowledge the health and disability framework the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 this came to make sure the care provided for the disabled is compulsory in nature. The term disability is a concise term that is meant for addressing intellectual disability that is, for a person who has been deemed unfit to stand trial. The Act shall also apply to an offence which is by nature imprisonable and following the conviction, the person has been ordered into a care within the framework of the Act. The aim of the Act is to provide care to people who have been convinced by a criminal court under the legislative provisions of the Criminal Procedure (mentally Impaired Persons Act) 2003. In cases of people who have been deemed to be suffering from intellectual disability, in such cases, they shall be formally detained and will also be treated as special patients. Though the term intellectual disability has been dealt with widely within the ambit of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003, the term is wide and is associated with many complex meanings. The nature of care that has to be met within the Act has to be compulsory in nature. This legislative has to be treated as the final piece of legislative that will deal with intellectual disability and therefore in New Zealand, this shall be treated as the concluding legislation. While the Parliament was reviewing the extent of this Act, it was noted that the Act shall not include in its ambit cultural or religious beliefs and also deal with issues arising out of delinquency, drug taking etc. Intellectual disability has to be seen as a mental health issue which stems out of actions that are against normal behavior and arises due to social exclusion. Therefore, even Intellectual Disability is treated as a mental health issue, it is pertinent to put it under the wider framework of mental health legislations. The MHA Act came up with the definition of ‘mental disorder’ and therefore any person who would fit that definition will be allowed to be detained within any psychiatric unit. In cases it was found that person was not fit to stand trial, in such cases, the person will be treated as a special patient and as a result they will be completing their offence tenure in half of the tariff of their offence.

The Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill (IDCC Bill) was introduced which awarded both civil as well as criminal liabilities and the compulsory care would be based on that route of care with a person suffering from intellectual disability. As per the provisions of the Act, there has to be a civil as well as criminal route of entry and there are many stringent as well as strict review processes which are followed by the Act. The people who are managed under this Act are called Care Recipients and they shall be detained and will get a similar status to a patient who has been detained under the MHA. There are again two bifurcations to the definition of Care Recipients depending on the way they shall be treated and detained. For patients who have been detained in facilities shall be kept in the Supervised Care Recipients whereas the Secure Care Recipients shall be detained in the secure facilities. The Compulsory Care Orders help in directing the detention of a person who is suffering from Intellectual Disability.

The method of detection of intellectual disability is the key. IQ test is conducted to ascertain the basic intelligence of a person and there is also a yardstick for assuming who falls within that zone and who shall be treated as below the normal IQ level. The issue of treating an adolescent with ID is important to ensure that he shall not face imprisonable offence. The cognitive development of an adolescent continues up to the age of 20.

3.Origin and Significance of CRPD:

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol (A/RES/61/106) (CRPD) came into force in the 13^th of December, 2006 at the United Nations Headquarters in New York. The nature of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional (CRPD) is such that it has been following decades of work assign to it by the United Nations for the purpose of changing the attitudes and approaches towards persons with disabilities. From the very beginning the (CRPD) has been analyzing the individuals with disabilities as objects of medical care and social protection and has been referring them as subjects having rights of their own. These individuals are capable of claiming rights of their own and making their own decisions which makes them active citizens of the society. It is worthwhile to refer here that, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol (A/RES/61/106) (CRPD), in modern context, is viewed as a human rights instrument which is inclined towards social development. The Convention has adopted broad categorization of individuals having disabilities and reaffirming these individuals to enjoy their right as human and fundamental freedoms. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol (CRPD) has been clarifying and qualifying the fact that how the existing categories of human rights are applied to individuals having disabilities. In this regard, various adaptations have been made for persons with disabilities for the purpose of exercising their rights and areas of violations effectively. It is worth mentioning that, the areas in which their rights has been violated; the Convention has efficiently reinforced protection of rights.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol (CRPD) has been identified as an international human rights convention that has been setting out the fundamentals of human rights in case of individuals with disability. The (CRPD) comprises of two main documents. The first one is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities containing the provisions of human rights that has been expressed as series of Articles. The second one is the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which is a document having limitations of its own as it has been setting up procedure regarding individual complaints. In this regard, it is noteworthy to mention here that, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol (CRPD) was signed by Australia however; the Optional Protocol has not been signed. Since time immemorial, the Convention through the Articles has formulated general and specific obligations for States in regard to specific human rights and fundamental freedoms. The objective of these obligations were to protect the existing human rights which are related to civil and political rights, social and economic rights, cultural and development rights. Various traditional human rights concepts are depicted in the Convention (CRPD) which has been generally protecting the other thematic human rights conventions. For instance, the Convention (CRPD) has been outlawing the discriminations in all spheres of life that involves employment, health services, education and access to justice. However, the Convention (CRPD) has successfully included, modified and transformed the concepts of traditional rights for the purpose of emphasizing on more specific disability focus. In such process, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has provided disability-specific interpretations in detail to the concepts of traditional human rights.

According to the provisions of Article 21, there is a right to freedom of expression, opinion and access to information extending the protection against the intervention of the state along with personal opinion and expression into positive obligations of the states for the purpose of providing public information and recognizing sign languages. The second part of the Convention (CRPD) comprises of implementation and monitoring articles and policies including operational articles. These Articles have formulated plans regarding what is essential for implementation, monitoring and reporting of the Convention in regard to both national and international levels. However, it is worth noting that, the basic arrangements for administering the policies of the Convention are depicted within the United Nations system. Mention can be made regarding the fact that the nature of the Convention is such that it is considered to be final and binding. It is worthwhile to refer here that, no further negotiation has been made in this regard however; critics expressed their concerns regarding the existing issues of the wordings of the Convention. According to the critics certain aspects of the Convention may not be applicable in case of Australia due to the existence of protection and Commonwealth laws in various states. However, it is worth mentioning the fact that, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is an international instrument and its consequences for individuals with disability in the nation states are far reaching.

The significance of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) can be measured in regard to its ratification. However, question arises regarding the Fact that, whether the ratification of such international instrument can create favorable impact on the daily life if the individuals with disability in the state of Australia. In this regard, various law makers and legal professionals have come forward to pursue their rights of the individuals with disability for a long time and have made considerable progress in the absence of a disability convention. In this context, it can be significantly mentioned here that, ratification of the Convention is equally important as it would be wrong to underestimate the potentiality of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) as it provides significant value to the individuals with disability and the sector of human rights advocacy.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has proved to be of utmost significance in addressing the issues of the individuals with disability. It is evident that, since the advent of the Convention it has been promoting dignity and the pride for the individuals with disabilities. It is worthwhile to refer here that, as a result of ratification it will prove to be beneficial for the community by promoting the universal design. The Convention has provided the nation with an international benchmark. It has formulated framework for the purpose of supporting submissions, advocacy and discussion in regard to the issues involving individual and systemic disability. The Convention has been adding further legitimacy to the legislation of Australia. The Convention has proved to be beneficial in changing the cultural differences and putting human rights concern above all. Furthermore, it has promoted the foundation of legislative laws in regard to specific kinds of disability. The advocacy of re monitoring and implementation of tools has proved to be efficient in the context of international law.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has been assisting the activists and advocates associated with disability to formulate policy rights frameworks. The Convention has been binding Australia to the procedure of human rights. It is worthwhile to refer here that as a result of ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the human rights of the individuals having disabilities shall be put forward before any government and political agenda. Since the beginning, the Convention has acknowledged and respected the rights of the individuals with disabilities and in such process ensured a community approach to societal inclusion while complying with the global commitments on the part of Australia. The Convention has clearly defined standards of its own and has developed framework in order to analyze and respond to the existing issues.

Therefore, there are opportunities on the part of the individuals with disabilities to regain their value and recognition as effective contributors of the society in regard to their respective communities. The Convention has paved the way for creating new opportunities in the areas of education, politics and governments. Mention can be made regarding the fact that, with pace of time, an effective human rights framework shall raise awareness and provide appropriate knowledge regarding laws, regulations and policy developments. The Convention has provided the government authorities, disability sectors and the service providers with an appropriate framework in order to ensure individuals with disability are treated fairly, equitable and with justice in all sphere of life. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has been assisting the advocates in order to ender greater allocation of resources to individuals with disabilities. Lastly, it can be concluded that, the signing of the Convention on the part of the Australian government was a significant step for the purpose of ensuring disability rights in Australia. However, ratification of the Convention was another symbolic step towards the attainment of success as it involved legal formalities. As a result of this commitments shall be established with the international bureaucrats for the purpose of reinforcing national laws. 

4.IDCCR- for and against arguments:

The purpose, goals and objectives of the IDCCR Act are mentioned in the S 3 of the Act is to provide compulsory protection to the people who are suffering from mental impairment. Therefore, the Act aimed to provide permanent rehabilitation as well as care centers. People with intellectual disability had to be kept in rehabilitation centers and more care and emphasis had to be given to people who were accused of serious offences and were simultaneously suffering from intellectual disability. The Act also aimed at protecting the special needs and status of the people who had mental impairment and therefore the primary goal of the Act is to safeguard the interests of the people for whom special rights are needed. The rights of the care recipients as well as their safety is of primary concern of the Act and with the help of the intervention of the judges, it is mandatory that the rights are preserved.

The purpose, goals and objectives of the IDCCR Act are mentioned in the S 3 of the Act is to provide compulsory protection to the people who are suffering from mental impairment. Therefore, the Act aimed to provide permanent rehabilitation as well as care centers. People with intellectual disability had to be kept in rehabilitation centers and more care and emphasis had to be given to people who were accused of serious offences and were simultaneously suffering from intellectual disability. The Act also aimed at protecting the special needs and status of the people who had mental impairment and therefore the primary goal of the Act is to safeguard the interests of the people for whom special rights are needed. The rights of the care recipients as well as their safety is of primary concern of the Act and with the help of the intervention of the judges, it is mandatory that the rights are preserved.

In recent era arguments has been raised by modern scholars regarding the fact that the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 is discriminatory. Modern scholars were of the opinion that, from the very beginning, the act has been providing compulsory care and rehabilitation of individuals with intellectual disabilities. These individuals were either mentally disable, convicted or has committed as imprison able offence. It is can observed that most of the orders governing these cases are made by a criminal trial court under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CPMIP) Act. Additionally, the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act has provided necessary amendments for the purpose of transferring the sentenced convicts with an ID. This is due to the reason that in cases where the prisoners has been detained with an ID they were detained as special patients in accordance to the provisions of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 however; presently are cared under the provisions of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003.

The Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 has been considered to be discriminatory by modern autocrats because of various reasons. Firstly, the individuals having an ID of their own are subjected to different orders under the provisions of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. These individuals are usually referred to as care patients. In such process if these care patients are found to be unfit for trial then serious consequences are faced by them. Thereafter, these care patients are referred to as special care recipients and placed under compulsory care for a considerable period of ten years or more.  However, there is an authority on their part to make compulsory care order during the initial period of three years. The Family Courts can extend compulsory care orders. Additionally, these individuals are subjected to compulsory care orders in which they are serving their sentence in a designated facility. Furthermore, the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 has been providing care in two distinct levels i.e. Secured Care and Supervised Care within the community. It is worthwhile to refer here that, the nature of the care is such that it is delivered in a way of designated secure or supervised facilities. The care recipient remains in the designated facility for a considerable period.

Some arguments were raised against the discriminatory nature of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. The Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 contains statutory powers and the care patients are required to comply with the care orders for the purpose of restraining, secluding and medicating under certain limitations and circumstances. These statutory powers have been safeguarded by certain safeguards and rights. In this regard, mention can be made regarding the new statutory roles that have been established by the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. These can be categorized as- Care Managers (who are responsible for oversight of the care and rehabilitation plan), Medical Consultants (who provide a second opinion on medication required to manage a care recipient’s condition), Specialist Assessors (who are responsible for assessments to determine eligibility and care and rehabilitation needs) and Care Coordinators (who are responsible for the operational administration of the Act).

In addition to this, the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 has provided necessary steps for the designation of District Inspectors who are in fact legal professionals appointed as District Inspectors under the provisions of Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act. The purpose of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act is to safeguard the rights of the individuals in regard to the specific order. It is noteworthy to mention here that, the Disability Support Services has been a significant part of the National Health Board that have been funding the High and Complex Framework of a number of services that has been supporting the operational activities of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 for a long time thereby providing services for people subjecting to compulsory care orders.

It is worth mentioning that, the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 (IDCCR Act) has entrusted power and authority on the part of New Zealand Courts to impose compulsory care and rehabilitation facilities to individuals under certain circumstances. In this regard, the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 (IDCCR Act) has recognized a number of individuals who poses as a serious threat or danger to the society as a result of their offensive acts. According to the provisions of the (IDCCR Act), the prison is not an appropriate place for these prisoners. As a result of this, new processes and obligations were introduced by the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 (IDCCR Act) which is community based. It is worth noting that, the major function of the (IDCCR Act) is to protect the individuals with disability subjected under the provisions of the Act by imposing significant constants on the personal rights and freedom of the person, for the purpose of ensuring proper care to such individual.

Individuals brought under the purview of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 (IDCCR Act) must necessarily assess their care and rehabilitation as a whole. This signifies the fact that, development of care and rehabilitation plans for each individual under the provisions of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 (IDCCR Act). It is worthwhile to mention here that under the provisions of the (IDCCR Act), the care recipients are subjected to the decision of the court order. There is an existence of identified Care Manager appointed under the tutelage of the Regional Intellectual Disability Care Agency (RIDCA) Care Coordinator. Certain care and rehabilitation plan must be developed by the care manager by outlining the progress of the care recipients to greater independence with the developments of skills and knowledge according to the concerned rehabilitation plan. The nature of the care and rehabilitation plans is such that, it shall be regularly analyzed and set out in the provisions of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 (IDCCR Act). However, any necessary changes to the care and rehabilitation plan can only me made by complying with the order of the Court. In this process, the care recipients shall be encouraged to participate in various household tasks like meal preparation and cleaning. There shall take responsibility of household management and decisions regarding the same. They shall involve in social and community activities. In such process they will be able to make use of the existing community amenities. In accordance to the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 (IDCCR Act), the services must necessarily include support, training and educational programs for the purpose of promoting independence, development of individuals with the maintenance of safety through repeated intervention.

5.The term CRPD refers to the Convention on the Rights of Persons and Disabilities. It is considered to be a legally binding international document, which was ratified in the year of 2008. The purpose of this convention is to protect and identify the human rights of those individuals who are born with disabilities. The case of Noble v Australia Committee focuses states that the law can be reformed of New Zealand in light of the CRPD. Individuals with psychological disabilities tend to face problems that help in assessing health care and social services all across the globe (Carroll 2015). Its potential impact is focused on the mental health system, which generally present a legal and public policy and analysis of its process of implementation.

According to article 12 of the convention on the rights of persons and disabilities, it focuses on the legal capacity for persons with such psychosocial disabilities. It however permits the process of support of decision-making. The case of noble versus Australia highlighted and stated that the Australian government presents its complements to all the existing members of the committee based on the rights of persons with disabilities (Butler 2016). It had there after acknowledged the present obligations under the convention on the right of persons with disabilities by taking its obligation under the international human rights law. The Australian government there after Advisors that Australia disagrees with the number of the views of the committee that it has violated the rights of the author. As per the committees, there has been a violation, which is to be interpreted as an affirmation after the entry was made into the force of the optional protocol by a clear implication. The case further state that Australia did not agree with the finding of the Committee that the claims of the author were categorized under Articles 12 and 13. However, these articles were admissible since the author did not exhaust any of the domestic remedies. Some kind of serious allegations were made under Article 15 since incidents of abuse, violence had taken place, and the frequency was quite high (Bloch, Kenn and Smith 2018). Thus, the incidents placed him in a very vulnerable position and his disability had prohibited him protecting himself. The authorities of the prison therefore had no evidence of these records. In general, Australia is known to ensure the fact that any sort of deprivation of liberty of individuals with disabilities is considered as non-arbitrary, lawful and are hence on an equal range with others as well. Australia is treated to be as that country, which provides sufficient support and necessary accommodations to individuals with facing disabilities (Martin et al. 2018). If they are unable to execute their legal capacity before the Courts in such a way that prohibits abuse and is considered to be consistent along with all these rights of an accused according to the international human right law. Such a scenario also includes the Western Australian Government.

It can be said that the Convention acts as the most significant step between the experiences and goals of those individuals with disabilities. Disability also refers to the mental health challenges that are generally continued to be denied as the legal capacity for making the necessary decisions linked with the healthcare, finances and housing. Policymakers look on the decisions as well. However, when there is a lack of explicit implementation, the Convention on the Rights of Persons and Disabilities has put in effort to facilitate larger shift cultural and social paradigms of the level of physical and mental disability (Bell, McGregor and Wilson 2015). Thereafter, there have been proper implementations that are not considered enough. Serious efforts should be implemented so that the provisions of CRPD are promoted. This will help in promoting proper and equal enjoyment of all the existing human rights by all the citizens. The New Zealand Public Health and Disability Amendment Act, 2013 had properly abolished all the available legal remedies for all the unlawful discrimination that are related to the care policy of the Government. There was an Assembly of Disabled Persons set up and a petition was filed to repeal the act. Further, it has been observed that this particular Convention did not form any kind of new right for individuals who are dealing with disabilities. Hence, the disabled persons will have the right to obtain education, human rights and fundamental rights. It can be stated that New Zealand has traditionally enjoyed a high regard for the right to justice that is related to the popular imagination (Leah and McIntosh 2017). The rule of law in this scenario is an essential principle for an entire functioning system of democracy to protect the human rights. This Act was needed as it helps in arising out of an action, which is longstanding by a group of families that consists of both children and adults with disabilities. On the other hand, the Government did not entertain any kind of legal action on any of these issues by stating that no complaints can be made while making any kind of payment.

This Convention is thus significant to all the individuals who are suffering from mental illness as well. It helps in fostering a new comprehension of the process of disability. To secure the physical and mental disability, New Zealand must take all the significant administrative, legislative and judicial measures to make sure that no individual is remained detained even if it’s against their all kinds of will in any of the medical facility. However, CRPD exists to take care of those disabled individuals who need help. The General Assembly had adopted this Convention for the betterment of the situation as it has been observed in the case of Noble v Australia.

Conclusion

There is a relation between human rights law and mental health and the laws have developed over time to ensure that law reforms have managed to ensure that legislation takes into consideration the factors that affect welfare. Rights and welfare are treated as two sides of the same coin and they are treated as mutually exclusive to each other. There are many aspects of human rights law that combined with mental health. The process to understand the relation between the two and also look at the Welfare measures that I needed to understand the legalism surrounding we found of Mental Health law. The concerned has always been to bring him the concept of mental illness into the Ambit of health and also to provide services that will help in unleashing the stigma that is attached with mental health. The society perceives mental illness as a dangerous threat. Larry Gostin believed that it is important to uphold the mental integrity and that people should be brought together so that the marginalised people do not feel sidetracked. with the passage of time lost started to bring in together all the issues that we revolving around mental health and through the intention of finding out the rights of these people the legislation and the statute were built. To ensure the people received proper treatment and their rights where preserved many theories around the treatment of Mental Health started to grow. The government started to impose community service and also helped to manage the crisis. Many hospitals were built and nursing support as well as housing and training was strengthened along with it. The right to treatment was another theory that was built around this time and it grew on the principle of rights to mental health. Along with right to health also give the concept of right to refuse treatment in cases when the patient did not consent to a particular kind of treatment. Psychiatric treatment was based on various hazardous treatment methods and if the patient did not want to be governed by it the government could not have imposed any restrictions on them. Therefore the entire premise was built on the concept of ensuring that a person received proper mental health treatment. The whole concept was to ensure that people were brought back to the society and that their reputation as well as there will be could be restored. If any treatment did not align with the already accepted method of treatment that could be treated as a violation of the persons basic fundamental rights. Along with providing mental and legal help it was also important to make sure that these people received fair hearing and that there were too many other issues that could be dealt with at the same time.

The entire mental health treatment is based on the concept of rights-based legalism and that it was read sure at the fundamental Framework would not be. Right to treatment is a basic fundamental human right and if it is known that a person is suffering from intellectual disability it is also important to make sure that he gets proper treatment and he has the power to reduce treatment or confinement if it is against his wishes. The government should initiate a proper treatment method if you’re suffering from mental health issues. Winter-werp v Netherlands is another important case which talks about the procedure established by law and it does not directly deal about the frameworks but the features that she taken into consideration to ensure a property form of the rights based model that the government should follow. The rights based legalism model should only apply to people who have been diagnosed with a mental health and also the patient has to show that he suffices all the criteria that I required for a person to be socially accepted to be suffering from a mental health disorder. The person does not have the particular threshold so that he gets confinement to be a restriction when it cannot be held to be an exclusion of the social laws that govern him.

The entire process at a very practical level should only apply to people who have a certified mental health issue and since the present case is concerned with intellectual disability it is pertinent to mention here that the rights based legalism also consider any person who is suffering from a disability of that kind. Intellectual disability includes in exam with a person who is unable to stand trial and who has been certified by a medical practitioner to be suffering from a disability that impairs him to have the cognition to Think Straight. The person who is being committed two any restriction should have the right to Revolt against it and it will be considered a violation of this fundamental rights if he is kept in any detention which is arbitrary in nature. J v Attorney dealt with the promise of unlawful detention in a way that the patient did not want to be confined in a special care and he believed it to be a violation of his freedom and therefore he believed that he had a right to Revolt against that confinement. No PC should be allowed to undergo any medical treatment against his consent and the Human Rights activist believe that every person should have a right to be part of the decision making process that involves his right to be detained in a particular place due to his disabilities. The right to choose and the freedom a part of the Human Rights based model that state the there shall be no arbitrary method of decision making and there shall also be no exclusion of participation. the whole concept of the rights based model is to help people who have been subject to any wrong be held notion about his mental health and also against people who do not become part of the decision making that involve voluntarily his health.

Soon with time disability was treated as a human rights issue and all the developing countries came together to protect promote and make aware the people with disabilities. The Unite Nations Human Rights Convention was with the aim of promoting the rights of persons with disabilities and it also began as a new era where humans with disabilities also treated to be individuals with rights. Is believed that people were born with disabilities also had inherent right and to promote and protect that inherent dignity if we can important for others to also recognize and protect these rights. Disability is always treated as a personal handicap and it is a personal condition for which they should be welfare measures but these people should not be victimized. Do initially disability was treated as a social condition when the rights of these people when not promoted but with the passage of time and over the past few decades it has been seen that there is a sea change in the way these people are perceived. Disability is no more treated as an impediment to a person’s freedom and the government has started to bring in and promoted more ways so that the environment tries to accommodate these persons and their differences. The society is becoming very wide and its approach and it is becoming accepting of all the changes and the challenges that he the human face on a daily basis. The Human Rights Commission of the disabled people are of primary concern.

it is the duty of the government to identify and recognised economic and political as well as environmental conditions that I have been the growth of these people also acting as barriers to their Full exercise of. It is pertinent to recognise that these people also have a right to be in the society and also left a privileged and a happy life and therefore the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities have tried to build a model people with disabilities are recognised and then they are protected and preserved so that they do not face any issues in the outside world. These people also have a right to be employed and they also have a right to be involved in the thinking process that are essential for the evolution of mankind. That should be do alignment of Charity with these people and it should be believed that disabled people also have a right to live with dignity and they are the holders at the brothers of life and that they should also have the right to voice their opinion and make their presence felt in the society. These people should not face any stigma and they should also not be marginalised and many new different method should be adopted so that these people can communicate and Express their opinions freely. The whole concept of Human Rights along with disabilities is important in this context because the cases studied above all point towards this fact that disabled people do not face the similar status that all the others face in the society and therefore they are discarded for the differences they have which is an integral part of their existence. If it is very important to raise concern and also bring in more participation with in the society so that people with mental or intellectual disabilities make the best use of the policies that can be implemented by the government. A person should have a say in the decision making when comes to his health and therefore if any person is cheated poly based on his disabilities it is a shame on the government policy making powers. There shall be no discrimination based on his disabilities when it comes to immigration laws matrimonial laws or workplace.

With the coming on the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities it is a big leave for the persons who are born with disabilities to have the rights felt in the society and also have their expressions and freedom. Initially the people who were born with disabilities bit mental or intellectual were not treated to at par with others in the society we also have to face Human Rights issues. The current status has completely changed and the convention along with commissions on human rights that came out in the year 1998, 2000 and 2002 http wing the way to make sure that human rights was an important legislative as well as a statutory provision. There is one problem with the convention when it comes to its implementation because the convention does not clearly define what disability means or who are the persons who could come under the bracket of disability under the meaning of the convention. Convention on the other hand except what is normal and what is special and who should be given normal treatment and who are the people we should be given a special treatment and therefore from the influence of that it can be stated that disability is an evolving concept and it is also a process of getting disability as a benchmark for ensuring what is an impediment to his normal growth and freedom and therefore who should be treated as an individual who has many barriers to his thinking. There are many values and impairments to human being and it comes in various phases like his incapability to communicate or his in capability to visit a doctor or to stand trial. There are many laws which are not at par with issues of mental as well as physical handicap and there also many sensory as well as intellectual impairment studies that point that humans cannot be treated equally based on their skills and therefore this they should be treated as per the requirements and the policies and legislations. One step ahead is that the convention believes that there are people who are born with disabilities and therefore they might have some problems in interaction as well in combination and therefore they should be special National as well as International legislations that help in removing these barriers and bring equality and stability in the society. Also concept of individual autonomy with states that every person should take a child of his own life and he has a right over the decisions that govern him and that he there shall be non discrimination based on choices he makes and the decision she has to undergo.

Bibliography

Bell, S., McGregor, J. and Wilson, M., 2015. Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons: A Remaining Dilemma for New Zealand, The. NZJPIL, 13, p.277

Brookbanks, Warren. "NVR [2017] NZCA 170." Te Wharenga-New Zealand Criminal Law Review (2017): 248-255.

Butler, W., 2016. Conclusion. In The Irish amateur military tradition in the British Army, 1854–1992. Manchester University Press.

Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation Act, 2003)

CA145/2016; [2017] NZCA 351

Health and Disability Services (Core) Standards NZS 8134.1:2008, Standard 3.10   Criminal Justice Act, 1985

Taylor v Attorney-General [2016] NZHC 355, [2016] 3 NZLR 111 [High Court judgment].

McArthur, John, and Stephen V. Marks. "Constituent interest vs. legislator ideology: The role of political opportunity cost." Economic Inquiry 26.3 (1988): 461-470.

Prebble, Kate, and Russell Vickery. "Legislating for Care." (2009).

Commerce Commission v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd [2007] NZSC 36, [2007] 3 NZLR 767 at [22]

Waitangi Tribunal He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti: The Declaration and the Treaty (Wai 1040, 2014).

Barton-Prescott v Director General of Social Welfare, above n 41, at 184.

New Zealand Ma?ori Council v Attorney-General [2013] NZSC 6, [2013] 3 NZLR 31 at [59].

MSR Palmer The Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand’s Law and Constitution (Victoria

University Press, Wellington, 2008) at 94.

Ministry of Health v Atkinson [2012] NZCA 184, [2012] 3 NZLR 456 at [55].

Howlett, S., Florio, T., Xu, H. and Trollor, J., 2015. Ambulatory mental health data demonstrates the high needs of people with an intellectual disability: results from the New South Wales intellectual disability and mental health data linkage project. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 49(2), pp.137-144

Leah, A. and McIntosh, J., 2017. Projecting Disability in New Zealand. New Zealand Population Review, 43, pp.135-153.

25(1)(b) of the CPMIP Act

 Martin, R., Taylor, W., Graham, F., Surgenor, L. and Levack, W., 2018. What works for which riders, and to what extent? Evaluating the effectiveness of a New Zealand therapeutic riding intervention using a single-case experimental design. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 61, pp.e522-e523.

Stein, Michael Ashley. "Disability human rights." Nussbaum and Law. Routledge, 2017. 3-49

Sutherland, D., van der Meer, L., Sigafoos, J., Mirfin-Veitch, B., Milner, P., O’Reilly, M.F., Lancioni, G.E. and Marschik, P.B., 2014. Survey of AAC needs for adults with intellectual disability in New Zealand. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 26(1), pp.115-122.

Northern Regional Health Authority v Human Rights Commission [1998] 2 NZLR 218 (HC).

Air New Zealand v McAlister, above n 46, at [51].

The Queen v. Marlon James Noble (1261 of 2002)

Northern Regional Health Authority v Human Rights Commission [1998] 2 NZLR 218 (HC).

Multani v Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys 2006 SCC 6, [2006] 1 SCR 256

Mist v R [2005] NZSC 77, [2006] 3 NZLR 145 at [45]

Grant Huscroft “Freedom from Discrimination” in Paul Rishworth and others The New Zealand Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 2003) 366 at 380 and Andrew Butler and Petra Butler The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: a Commentary

(LexisNexis NZ Ltd, Wellington, 2005) at [17.9.8]

RIDCA Central (Regional Intellectual Disability Care Agency) v VM [2011] NZCA 659, [2012] 1 NZLR 641 at [66(a)].  

McLachlin JA’s view in the lower court: Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia (1986) 27 DLR (4th) 600 at 605–607.

T v Police HC Wellington CRI-2007-485-37, 17 March 2009 at [268].  

Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, ss 24 and 25.  

Pepperell v Police [2016] NZHC 2654.  

R v Lee [2006] 3 NZLR 42 (CA) at [115].  

Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 16(2).  

Cleggs Ltd v Department of Internal Affairs HC Auckland M1032/84, 5 September 1984 at 2.  

Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, ss 3(b) and 9.  

Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003, ss 29–46.  

Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 4(1).  

Terranova Homes & Care Ltd v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc

[2014] NZCA 516, [2015] 2 NZLR 437.

Prebble, Kate, and Russell Vickery. "Need for research Six years since implementation of IDCCR Act." (2009).

CIV-2017-485-25 [2018] NZHC 1209

Barton-Prescott v Director-General of Social Welfare [1997] 3 NZLR 179 (HC).

Ludbrook, Robert. "Children and the Law Update: How Old Is Old Enough?; A Survey of Recent Laws Setting Ages at Which Children Can or Cannot Engage in Certain Activities." Childrenz Issues: Journal of the Children's Issues Centre 13.1 (2009): 59.

Sakdalan, Joseph Allan, and Vicki Collier. "Piloting an evidence-based group treatment programme for high risk sex offenders with intellectual disability in the New Zealand setting." New Zealand Journal of Psychology (Online) 41.3 (2012): 6.

Prebble, Kate, and Russell Vickery. "Need for research Six years since implementation of IDCCR Act." (2009).

Brookbanks, Warren. "NVR [2017] NZCA 170." Te Wharenga-New Zealand Criminal Law Review (2017): 248-255.

McLean, Margaret, and Frances Hartnett. "Challenging hegemonic understandings in compulsory risk management and rehabilitation of intellectually disabled offenders through curriculum design." CURRICULUM MATTERS 9 (2013): 156-174.

Prebble, Kate, and Russell Vickery. "Need for research Six years since implementation of IDCCR Act." (2009).