Scott Lynda: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — Consideration of Report of Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Scott Lynda: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — Consideration of Report of Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9525] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I begin the debate on the Committee stage of the bill. Members will note that the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Hon Phil Goff omits from clause 1 the words “Criminal Justice Amendment Act (No 7)” and substitutes the words “Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act”. That means that this will not be an amendment bill; it will become a separate bill in its own right. 
This bill will be welcomed by judges who have been working under a difficult situation. It amends the principal Act to allow people who are mentally impaired by insanity—by a mental illness—or by intellectual disability the ability to have the defence of being unfit to stand trial on either of those grounds. If that is found and the court is satisfied that the defendant who has been involved in an offence either has a severe mental illness and is insane and therefore is unfit to stand trial or has an intellectual disability that makes that person unaware of the consequences of his or her actions then that person can be found not guilty on those grounds but be placed in an appropriate level of care to protect the community. 
I am very concerned that the proposed amendments to the Criminal Justice Act on the Supplementary Order Paper remove the requirement that persons found unfit to stand trial or acquitted on account of insanity must be remanded to a hospital or facility while inquiries are made to determine how they should be dealt with. That is the way the bill was but it is now to be changed to allow the courts to decide whether to grant bail and whether a person can then go back into community care. 
Understandably the need to protect the public is paramount. However I have immense concerns about this. We have just had the report on the case of Paul Ellis who was considered to have a mental illness. His family approached psychiatrists and doctors for care. He was committed to a hospital to be assessed under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act but he sought a judicial review. He managed to get that review after only a very few hours in hospital. The doctors had not had time to complete an appropriate assessment so when Mr Ellis came up before the judge he was discharged. The very sad and tragic consequences were that he then attacked and killed his father. 
The amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper allow a judge to discharge somebody or to grant bail and let him or her back into the community before inquiries can be made to determine how he or she should be dealt with. Sometimes that takes time. We know that our facilities are full. We know that we do not have enough resources. Therefore we may not have the beds. If we do not have the beds in say an intellectually disabled care facility that gives 24-hour locked care what will happen? Pressure will be on for those people to go back to their families. That is what we wish to avoid. We want to be able to put people in a situation where a care plan can be made. If someone has an intellectual disability and his or her behaviour deteriorates to the point where he or she ends up before a court due to having broken the law because of assault indecent exposure or other anti-social behaviour then in that situation it can take time to put together an appropriate care plan. Often the social situation can be very difficult with families struggling to cope. If time is given a care plan can be put together. If the situation is rushed that will not happen.