Goff Phil: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — Consideration of Report of Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Goff Phil: Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) — Consideration of Report of Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9511] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Health Committee on the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7). 
 The bill reforms Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act which deals with mentally impaired persons who come before the courts charged with criminal offences. The provisions of Part 7 have remained largely unchanged since the 1950s despite the significant changes that have occurred in the treatment of people with mental illness over that period. Part 7 covers three situations. Firstly when a trial cannot proceed because the defendant is unfit to stand trial due to his or her mental condition; secondly when a defendant is acquitted of an offence on the grounds of insanity; and thirdly when the court considers that an offender convicted of an imprisonable offence would be better detained in a psychiatric hospital or a care facility than in a prison.  
The most important changes made by the bill relate to those who are intellectually disabled. The Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act generally excludes from its ambit those whose mental impairment is solely due to an intellectual disability. This recognises that the intellectually disabled need different types of care than the mentally disordered. The exclusion of the intellectually disabled from the 1992 Act however was not followed with legislation that specifically provided for offenders with intellectual disabilities. Limited options have therefore been available to the courts in dealing with these offenders. As a result they have often been inappropriately sent to prisons or to psychiatric hospitals. The bill along with the related provisions in the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill makes specific orders available to the courts for the intellectually disabled who are charged with criminal offences. 
The bill also contains a significant new safeguard for defendants who are unfit to stand trial. Current legislation allows the detention of people found unfit to stand trial without any inquiry into their actual responsibility for the offence. This creates a risk that people may be detained in circumstances where they did not commit the offence with which they are charged. The bill includes a new provision so that people cannot be detained following a finding of unfitness to stand trial unless there is sufficient evidence on the balance of probabilities that they are responsible for the offence. 
The new Part 7 also contains a number of other important changes. Firstly there is a new procedure for entering a verdict of not guilty on the grounds of insanity where both the prosecution and the defence agree on the basis of expert evidence that it is the only reasonable verdict. This removes the need for a jury trial in situations where the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offence is not in doubt. It will alleviate unnecessary stress and trauma for mentally impaired defendants as well as victims and witnesses. 
Secondly courts are specifically empowered to hear evidence from a wide range of health professionals in determining the appropriate disposition of a mentally impaired offender. As recommended by the select committee health professionals preparing assessment reports must also consult where practicable with the person’s family or whanau and as appropriate with parents guardians or caregivers. 
Thirdly courts will have the ability to order that a convicted offender receive treatment or care in a psychiatric hospital or secure facility while also being subject to a prison sentence. As the select committee pointed out this will allow the court to ensure the offender does receive treatment or care rather than joining the backlog of people in penal institutions awaiting transfer for treatment. 
I commend the select committee for the detailed attention it has paid to the bill. The committee has recommended amendments that improve the workability of the bill and ensure that the rights of the mentally impaired are protected. 
Since the committee considered the bill there have been changes in the criminal justice law including the passage of the Sentencing Act the Parole Act and the Victims’ Rights Act. The passage of these Acts means that some amendments are now required to the bill which I propose to do by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. 
Firstly I propose that an amendment be made to turn the bill into a stand-alone Act and that the title of this Act be the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act. Apart from Part 7 most of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act have either been repealed by the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act or will be repealed by the Corrections Bill. It is now appropriate to remove Part 7 from an Act with criminal justice in its title to avoid the misleading impression that those whose mental state make them non-culpable are subject to criminal sanctions. Amendments required to take account of the Sentencing Act the Parole Act and the Victims’ Rights Act include the removal of amendments that were to be made by the bill which have since been made or superseded by the Sentencing Act or the Parole Act. Amendments must also be made so that the three Acts apply to the intellectually disabled in the same way that they apply to the mentally disordered. 
I also intend to propose three other amendments to address issues that have been identified since the bill was reported back. Firstly an example in clause 4 of the proposed Supplementary Order Paper of when a person will be found unfit to stand trial will be removed because it does not assist in clarifying what the law sets out. This example relates to a defendant’s ability to make an informed decision about giving evidence. 
Secondly an amendment will be made to clause 23 to provide the court with discretion to remand a person who has been found unfit to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity in a hospital secure facility or on bail while inquiries are made about the most suitable method for dealing with him or her. In deciding whether to grant bail clause 23 will specify that the need to protect the public is the paramount consideration. 
Thirdly an amendment will be made to allow access to assessment reports for providers who have offenders subsequently transferred into their care from the facility to which they were first sent under an order of the court. 
This bill along with the proposed Supplementary Order Paper updates and modernises the law. It provides a regime to ensure the appropriate care of the mentally impaired while at the same time providing safeguards for the protection of the public. I commend this bill to the House.