Planned laws 'penalise' handicapped

WELLINGTON - Legislation allowing the compulsory detention of intellectually disabled people who are considered dangerous is out of place in a democratic society, the Council for Civil Liberties says.

The Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill would mean compulsory detention of as many as 200 people with intellectual disabilities, including about a dozen under 17, who pose a threat to either themselves or the community.

The council yesterday told a parliamentary committee hearing submissions on the bill that such legislation would place enormous control over a potentially large number of people in the hands of a few.

That would "grossly" diminish, if not extinguish, the civil liberties of intellectually disabled people considered to be dangerous.

"We strongly [oppose] the fact that intellectually disabled adults and children who have committed no crime can, under this proposed legislation, potentially be placed into institutions for up to three years and in some cases even longer," the council said.

It was abhorrent that people with intellectual disabilities were the only group in society to face compulsory detention on the basis of perceived dangerousness.

The Mental Health Commission told the committee that while it supported humane and rehabilitative alternatives to prison for convicted adults with intellectual disabilities, it opposed their being "exposed unnecessarily to indeterminate sentences."

"The commission supports the bill for people who have violently offended, but wishes to emphasise that the compulsory care powers available must be utilised only as a means of last resort," it said.

It rejected compulsory care for people with an intellectual disability who had not offended.

The parliamentary committee also heard submissions on the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7).

That bill affected the types of orders the courts could make for people when they were either unfit to stand trial, acquitted of an offence on the grounds of insanity, or when the court considered an offender convicted of an imprisonable offence would be better detained in a psychiatric hospital than a prison.

The Council for Civil Liberties also opposed that bill, saying it was an unnecessary piece of legislation in human rights terms.

- NZPA