OVERVIEW

1.1 This Report is concerned with people who have an intellectual disability¹ and their contact with the criminal justice system. It deals with the position of suspects, offenders, victims and witnesses. The Report is the seventh and final paper released as part of the Commission’s five year inquiry into the treatment of people with an intellectual disability in the criminal justice system.

1.2 This chapter therefore provides an introduction to the background and conduct to date of the inquiry. It also considers the concerns which led to the referral of this area to the Commission and the principles which the Commission believes should guide our recommendations for reform. Accordingly, the principles and obligations (international, federal and New South Wales) which already exist in relation to people with an intellectual disability are briefly considered. Finally, the chapter outlines the areas to be covered in this Report.

BACKGROUND TO THE COMMISSION’S INQUIRY

1.3 This inquiry arose from concern that people with an intellectual disability were over-represented as offenders and victims in, and/or were being treated inappropriately by, the criminal justice system. Two hypothetical but typical examples demonstrate the types of difficulties faced by people with an intellectual disability in their contact with police, lawyers and courts:

Jane is a teenager with an intellectual disability. She is sexually assaulted by an adult friend of the family. Later, she tells her school teacher who calls the police. The police arrive and are dismayed to find that the school is a “special” school for children with an intellectual disability. Even though Jane can explain to her teacher what happened to her, the police find it hard to understand what Jane is saying and refuse to take the matter further, saying that there is insufficient evidence and that a defence barrister will be able to destroy the girl’s credibility in court, even if she were found competent to give evidence at all.

Jerry has an intellectual disability and lives in a hostel. After a fire destroyed part of the hostel, another resident of the hostel tells a staff member that he saw Jerry light the fire. The staff member rings the police who question Jerry alone at the police station. Jerry, who is afraid to appear “stupid” to the police, answers yes to every question the police ask and agrees that he lit the fire. He is given a copy of his statement to read and signs it. He is charged and refused bail because he was unable to understand the requirements for entering bail and the hostel refuses to take him back. In court experts testify that Jerry could not have understood the questions asked, nor could he read.

1.4 Chapter 2 discusses the statistics behind these anecdotes to consider the impact of crime on people with an intellectual disability and reveals significant levels of over-representation for both victims and offenders. Changing community attitudes and a policy of “independent living” programs mean that people with an intellectual disability are now more likely to live in the community and use mainstream community services. Similarly, there is greater community contact with, and input into, institutions and other forms of supported accommodation. It is therefore believed that contact of people with an intellectual disability with the criminal justice system (both as offenders and victims) will increase.² The significance of the high levels of over-representation is that the treatment of people with an intellectual disability is not a marginal issue in the criminal justice system. The numbers are high enough to suggest that every police officer, every criminal lawyer, every prison officer, and every magistrate or judge dealing with criminal matters is likely to encounter people with an intellectual disability in his or her daily work.

THE COMMISSION’S INQUIRY

1.5 It was within the context of these concerns about over-representation and unfair treatment that the then Attorney General, the Hon John Dowd QC MP, convened a Committee to conduct a preliminary review of the operation of the criminal justice system as it affects people with an intellectual disability. The Committee contained representatives from a number of agencies, including the Department of Corrective Services, the Criminal Law Review Division of the Attorney General’s Department, the Mental Health Review Tribunal, the Guardianship Board, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Magistracy, the Public Defenders and (what is now known as) the Department of Community Services. The Committee’s two meetings produced a brief Issues Paper which revealed the need for a more comprehensive review of the area.³ Accordingly, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission received a reference to inquire into and review the law and practice relating to the treatment of people with an intellectual disability in the criminal justice system.⁴ The full terms of reference for the Commission’s inquiry are set out on page xiii of this Report.⁵

THE CONDUCT OF THE INQUIRY TO DATE

The Issues Paper

1.6 Considering the breadth of the terms of reference and the variety of interest groups to be consulted, the Commission decided that it should seek a preliminary response to the terms of reference and release an Issues Paper before formulating specific proposals for reform. The terms of reference were widely distributed and the Commission incorporated the comments made in preliminary meetings, interviews, written submissions and telephone calls in an Issues Paper (“IP 8”) released in June 1992.⁶ The Issues Paper traced the criminal justice process, beginning with the commission of a crime and covering contact with the police, appearing before court, sentencing, custody and release; raising questions for discussion about the treatment of people with an intellectual disability at each stage. It was designed to promote discussion and to seek information and comment about the issues raised, rather than to provide solutions.

The Research Reports

1.7 During the preliminary research for this inquiry, the Commission noted that there was a lack of recent statistics about the number of people with an intellectual disability in the New South Wales criminal justice system. It therefore sought funding to carry out some empirical research. The Commission also decided in the early stages of the inquiry that it should place a priority on seeking input from people with disabilities. This was not a simple matter. The Commission’s usual methods of seeking written or telephone submissions, based on written documents, are inappropriate for people with low literacy levels and communication difficulties. With the assistance of the Intellectual Disability Rights Service, discussion groups were organised using a specially prepared session outline and appropriate discussion leaders. The Commission received funding assistance from the Law Foundation of New South Wales for these projects, resulting in three Research Reports, the first two released in March 1993:

• Consultations (“RR 3”).⁷ This Research Report contains the comments and recommendations for reform made by people with an intellectual disability, who spoke to the Commission about their experiences in the criminal justice system and their ideas for change.
• Appearances Before Local Courts (“RR 4”).⁸ This study, undertaken by Associate Professor Susan Hayes of The University of Sydney, surveyed people appearing before four selected New South Wales Local Courts on criminal charges. Local Courts were selected because of the high numbers of court appearances, and the range and diversity of offences. Social and adaptive skills were not able to be assessed due to privacy considerations, therefore an operational definition of intellectual disability, based on a test of cognitive reasoning ability, was used. With this test, the study found that 14.2% of the sample of 120 people had an intellectual disability and a further 8.8% were in the borderline category. The Research Report suggests some solutions to the problem of over-representation of people with an intellectual disability in Local Courts and indicates where further research may be useful.

1.8 In March 1996, a follow up study to RR 4 was released:

• Two Rural Courts (“RR 5”).⁹ The Research Report, again prepared by Associate Professor Susan Hayes, addressed a limitation of the previous Report, namely the small number of Aboriginal people who participated. The results show that more than one third (36%) of the sample of 88 persons appearing before two rural courts had an intellectual disability, and a further 20.9% were of borderline intellectual ability. The study identified that the Aboriginal population appeared to be at a particular disadvantage in court proceedings.

The findings of, and difficulties for, people with an intellectual disability highlighted by these Research Reports have been taken into consideration in preparing the Commission’s final recommendations.

1.9 Apart from the Issues Paper and Research Reports, it was also decided to produce two discussion papers, the first dealing with issues relevant to the police, and the second with courts and sentencing issues. A discussion paper considers the issues raised in an issues paper in greater detail together with comments received in response and sets out specific, but provisional, proposals for reform. Such proposals do not represent the Commission’s final recommendations, but allow further detailed comment and consultation.

The first Discussion Paper: Policing Issues

1.10 People with an intellectual disability come into contact with the police as suspects, as victims and as witnesses to crimes. In each case, identification by the police of a person’s intellectual disability and the consequent use of appropriate questioning techniques is essential. In the Policing Issues Discussion Paper (“DP 29”),¹⁰ released in October 1993, the Commission considered such issues as:

• the adequacy of the existing police guidelines (the Police Commissioner’s Instructions);
• identification of a person’s disability by the police;
• police questioning of suspects, victims or witnesses with intellectual disabilities;
• the effectiveness of the police caution for people with an intellectual disability;
• the treatment of confessions made by people with an intellectual disability;
• standard police procedures such as bail; and
• education and training programs for police officers in all of these areas.

1.11 The Commission sought comments and submissions about the role of the police when dealing with people who have an intellectual disability and about the efficacy of the safeguards proposed in that Paper to ensure that people with an intellectual disability were treated appropriately. In particular, the Commission sought comments from the police about the practicality, within their normal work constraints, of such safeguards.

The second Discussion Paper: Courts and Sentencing Issues

1.12 In the Courts and Sentencing Issues Discussion Paper (“DP 35”),¹¹ released in October 1994, the Commission considered such issues as:

• statutory definitions of intellectual disability;
• lawyers and other legal personnel and their dealings with people with an intellectual disability, including issues of legal education and problems associated with obtaining instructions;
• issues arising from the appearance in court of people with an intellectual disability, including fitness to be tried, competence, giving evidence and criminal defences;
• sentencing, custody and release, including consideration of the custodial and non-custodial alternatives available for offenders with an intellectual disability and their release from custody; and
• issues relevant to the whole criminal justice system such as the particular needs of juveniles with an intellectual disability, and the necessity for co-ordination and provision of services.

Again, submissions were sought on these and related issues.

Consultation

1.13 Consultation is always a significant part of the Commission’s methodology, but this inquiry has involved even more consultation than usual, with people with an intellectual disability, their carers and families, and with criminal justice personnel. Over the course of the project the Commission has:

• distributed (free of charge) over 1000 copies of each of the six consultation and research papers, both in Australia and overseas;
• received 199 written and oral submissions;¹²
• attended over 90 seminars and meetings with individuals and interest groups, including specialised consultation seminars, such as seminars with psychologists and psychiatrists about definitions of intellectual disability;
• organised six discussion groups with people with an intellectual disability to ensure that their input is received (see RR 3);
• spoken at nine public seminars to increase public knowledge about the inquiry, including organising a free seminar in Law Week 1994;
• prepared posters and flyers about the inquiry and the consultation papers for schools and other groups;
• undertaken prison tours and court observations;
• given radio and newspaper interviews and prepared articles about the inquiry for professional organisations and journals, including the Law Society Journal and Department of Community Services newsletters; and
• attended an Interdepartmental Committee set up following RR 4 to enable us to receive feedback on a regular basis from government departments.

The Commission is grateful to all the individuals and organisations who assisted us in these consultations. Though the consultations extended the time taken by the Commission to complete the reference, the Commission feels the effort was worthwhile.

1.14 The Commission was further assisted in the inquiry by the five week secondment to the Commission of Mr Mark Ierace in 1994. Mr Ierace is a barrister and the author of a textbook in the area. He has been an honorary consultant to the Commission throughout the inquiry. The Commission acknowledges the considerable assistance provided to the Commission over the five years of the inquiry by Mr Ierace and by the Commission’s other honorary consultant, Associate Professor Susan Hayes, Head of the Department of Behavioural Sciences in Medicine at The University of Sydney.

OVERLAP WITH OTHER COMMISSION INQUIRIES

1.15 The Commission has two other current projects relevant to the treatment of people with an intellectual disability in the criminal justice system: Partial Defences to Murder and Sentencing.

Partial defence to murder: Diminished responsibility

1.16 The Commission has a current reference into the partial defences to murder: provocation, infanticide and diminished responsibility. The defence of diminished responsibility provides that a person shall not be convicted of murder if he or she was suffering from:

such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his [or her] mental responsibility for the acts or omissions ...¹³ [emphasis added]

The Commission believes that “arrested or retarded development of mind” clearly encompasses an intellectual disability. Whether people with an intellectual disability will satisfy the test for diminished responsibility, however, will depend upon the nature or severity of their disability. A separate discussion paper has been released covering these issues,¹⁴ and a report is being prepared. Accordingly, this defence will not be discussed in this Report, but will be deferred to the Partial Defences Report.

Sentencing

1.17 The Commission also has a wide-ranging reference into sentencing laws in New South Wales. A general discussion paper was published in April 1996,¹⁵ and the first Report in December 1996. In 1997 the Commission will be specifically considering the sentencing of vulnerable groups, including people with an intellectual disability.¹⁶ Though the sentencing of people with an intellectual disability is discussed in this Report,¹⁷ a more detailed discussion of sentencing legislation will be found in the Sentencing reference papers.

OVERVIEW OF THIS REPORT

The Commission’s approach

Our obligations: international, federal and New South Wales

1.18 Before making recommendations for reform in this area, the Commission considered it important to identify the existing rights and obligations of people with an intellectual disability. The rights of people with an intellectual disability are affected by international instruments and by federal and State legislation.

1.19 No specific international Convention on the rights of disabled persons exists, as in the case of other vulnerable or disadvantaged groups such as children. However, the rights of all people in general and of people with a disability, in particular, have been considered in the international arena by a number of international instruments, including:

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948);
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966, in force 1976);
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966, in force 1976);
• United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons (1971);
• United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons (1975);
• Body of Principles for the Protection of all Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (1988); and
• Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (1993).

1.20 Relevant principles recognised by these international instruments include:

• people with an intellectual disability have the same fundamental rights as all other people;
• people with an intellectual disability have the right to protection from exploitation, abuse and degrading treatment;
• all people are entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination, but measures designed to protect the rights of people with an intellectual disability are not deemed to be discriminatory (but should be subject to review by a judicial or other authority);
• all people are entitled to a fair trial and people with an intellectual disability have the right to have their disability taken into account in legal procedures, including the determination of criminal responsibility;
• whenever people with an intellectual disability are unable, because of the severity of their disability, to exercise all their rights in a meaningful way, or if it should become necessary to restrict or deny some or all of their rights, the procedure used must contain proper legal safeguards against every form of abuse; and
• governments should ensure the development of legislation, policy-making, personnel training and support services to assist people with an intellectual disability to exercise their rights.

1.21 Australia has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, together with the Declarations on the Rights of Mentally Retarded and Disabled Persons, are also found in Schedules to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth). While neither ratification nor the attachment of these documents to the Commonwealth Act automatically incorporates these instruments into Australian law,¹⁸ the Commission believes that its recommendations should, as far as possible, be consistent with those international standards recognised by the Australian government. A number of practices in the criminal justice system which may affect people with an intellectual disability have been criticised for not complying with our international human rights obligations. These include, for example, the indeterminate detention, in some States, of people found unfit to be tried.

1.22 At the federal and New South Wales level, the rights of people with an intellectual disability are affected by disability services, mental health and anti-discrimination legislation. Relevant legislation includes:

• Disability Services Act 1986 (Cth);
• Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth);
• Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth);
• Disability Services Act 1993 (NSW);
• Community Services (Complaints, Appeals and Monitoring) Act 1993 (NSW);
• Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW); and
• Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).

1.23 Though directed at civil issues such as the provision of services, this legislation also has consequences for the criminal justice system. For example, discrimination legislation applies to government departments,¹⁹ and discrimination cases have been brought involving the police and the Department of Corrective Services. Mental health legislation affects persons detained after being found unfit to be tried or not guilty on the ground of mental illness. In New South Wales, disability services legislation requires a “public authority”, which would include most criminal justice agencies, to plan for the provision of appropriate services for people with disabilities.²⁰

Rights and responsibilities

1.24 The New South Wales disability services legislation also contains a set of principles and applications of principles, based upon the premise that people with disabilities have the same basic human rights as other members of Australian society.²¹ As discussed in previous papers for this inquiry, the Commission recognises that each person with an intellectual disability has the same rights as all other members of the community. Because of the disadvantages and vulnerability to exploitation experienced by people with an intellectual disability, however, the community (and principles of justice) may require that extra procedures are followed in the criminal justice system to ensure that legal principles in practice apply to them equally and uniformly, and to allow them to exercise fully their rights. Similarly, lawyers, police and other personnel involved in the criminal justice system may need special training and techniques in order better to fulfil their legal, official and ethical responsibilities and to ensure that people with an intellectual disability are treated fairly. Submissions have made similar comments; for example, the New South Wales Council for Intellectual Disability commented that proposals for reform in this area:

... do not represent (and should not be seen to represent) a set of separate laws or standards for people with an intellectual disability. Society has a responsibility to ensure that all its citizens receive equal justice under the law, and must also acknowledge that currently this may not occur where people have difficulty in negotiating with the criminal justice system by virtue of their age, gender, ethnic background, communication difficulties or lack of understanding.²²

1.25 The need for recognition of the equal rights of people with an intellectual disability does not ignore their consequent responsibilities, such as to obey the law. The Commission suggests that some alternatives, for example, automatic diversion from the criminal justice system, do not recognise these responsibilities. On the other hand, it must be queried whether equal responsibilities are really appropriate for some people with an intellectual disability, particularly those with more severe disabilities. There is a danger of taking the principle of treating all people, whether with or without a disability, the same way too far; for example by requiring police intervention or imposing punishment which is meaningless to the person.²³

1.26 By contrast the principle of equality before the law does not mean that people with an intellectual disability necessarily have the same level of criminal responsibility. This may occur because they fall within the defences of mental illness or diminished responsibility or because they may not have the requisite mens rea (or mental state) to be convicted of an offence. For example, in relation to the offence of larceny (theft) the accused must have intended to deprive the owner of the relevant object permanently. A person with an intellectual disability may not have had such an intention. Alternatively, some people with an intellectual disability, because of their low level of understanding, may not be found fit to stand trial for an offence. These issues will be discussed further in this Report.

Principles guiding the Commission’s recommendations

1.27 In light of the above discussion, the Commission has endeavoured to set out its underlying principles for this inquiry to provide a coherent basis for our recommendations. Our principles are a mixture of general human rights principles, disability/service provision principles and criminal justice system principles.²⁴ Recommendations affecting people with an intellectual disability involved in the criminal justice system should have the following characteristics:

• consistency with international human rights principles, including respect for individual civil liberties;
• consistency with standard criminal justice system principles and “rights” - in particular, the right to equality before the law; the right to due process and a fair trial; retention of the distinction between sentenced and non-sentenced people within the criminal justice system; and the recognition of the need to provide information about these principles and rights in terms people, including people with an intellectual disability, can understand;
• consistency with the New South Wales Charter of Victims’ Rights;²⁵
• consistency with accepted principles of service provision as outlined in Schedule 1 of the Disability Services Act 1993 (NSW), including recognition of the need for involvement of people with an intellectual disability in the formulation and implementation of procedures which affect them;
• avoidance of discrimination on the grounds of intellectual disability but recognition of the disadvantages of people with an intellectual disability - including their vulnerability to exploitation; their likely difficulty in understanding the criminal justice process; their likely lack of financial or other support - while allowing for special measures or different treatment on the ground of these disadvantages; and
• efficient use of resources.

1.28 In relation to the avoidance of discrimination, it must be recognised that the identical treatment of all people, disabled or otherwise, will not overcome the disadvantages faced by people with an intellectual disability in the criminal justice system. The Commission believes that intellectual disability does lead to a difference which must be acknowledged and that society has an obligation to address this disadvantage to attempt to create an “equal playing field”. Accordingly, recommendations should aim for equal justice rather than identical treatment.

Outline of issues covered

1.29 Despite the enormous number of issues in the area of people with an intellectual disability and the criminal justice system, the Commission has tried to keep this Report as brief as possible through extensive cross-referencing to the previous consultation papers released. Not all of the proposals in those earlier papers have been adopted in this final Report. Some have been rejected or amended following further research. Some proposals have been overtaken by events, or have already been implemented, for example, through the passing of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). However, this Report generally follows on from the proposals contained in the two Discussion Papers. This Report makes recommendations in the following areas:

• definitions of intellectual disability (Chapter 3);
• contact with the police (Chapter 4);
• fitness to be tried (Chapter 5);
• the defence of mental illness (Chapter 6);
• giving evidence (Chapter 7);
• sexual offences, victims compensation, Apprehended Violence Orders and sentencing (Chapter 8);
• information, education and training for people with an intellectual disability, their carers and criminal justice personnel (Chapter 9);
• a co-ordinated strategy for people with an intellectual disability in the criminal justice system (Chapter 10); and
• special services for offenders with an intellectual disability (Chapter 11).

CONCLUSIONS

1.30 It is difficult to distil the results of five years of research and consultation into one report. The Commission considers, however, that the recommendations contained in this Report do not comprise the sole achievement of its work. It is also of the view that the inquiry, including the previously released consultation papers and research reports, has led to an increasing community awareness, especially amongst those involved in the criminal justice system, of the particular needs of people with an intellectual disability. Through the consultation process much useful information has been gathered and exchanged, and formal and informal networks established. Many changes have already occurred, in both legislation and administrative practices and procedures.

1.31 The recommendations contained in this Report are largely a “package”. Each recommendation, while not necessarily dependent on the implementation of other recommendations, complements and facilitates the others. They are designed to ensure that the principles outlined above are followed consistently at every stage of the criminal justice system. Piecemeal adoption will do little to mitigate the difficulties the recommendations are designed to overcome. In particular, legislative amendments without the provision of necessary training, information and services outlined in Chapters 9-11 will not overcome the difficulties faced by people with an intellectual disability in the criminal justice system. Accordingly, the success of these recommendations will depend upon a decision by the Government to provide the resources necessary for their implementation.

FOOTNOTES

1. See Chapter 3 for an explanation of this term.

2. M Ierace Intellectual Disability: A Manual for Criminal Lawyers (Redfern Legal Centre Publishing, Sydney, 1989) at 2.

3. New South Wales - Attorney General’s Department The Intellectually Disabled in the Criminal Justice System (Criminal Law Review Division, Issues Paper, 1991).

4. The reference, dated 27 September 1991, was received from the then Attorney General, the Hon P E J Collins QC MP. By a separate letter, dated 19 November 1991, the Attorney General also asked the Commission to examine amendments to the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) in relation to alternate arrangements for the taking of assault victims’ evidence, which currently only apply to children under the age of 16 years: see Chapter 7.

5. Many submissions have commented on the language used in the terms of reference, and expressed a preference for “people with an intellectual disability” rather than “the intellectually disabled”. The Commission has used the phrase “people with an intellectual disability” wherever possible throughout this reference.

6. New South Wales Law Reform Commission People with an Intellectual Disability and the Criminal Justice System (Issues Paper 8, 1992).

7. New South Wales Law Reform Commission People with an Intellectual Disability and the Criminal Justice System: Consultations (Research Report 3, 1993).

8. New South Wales Law Reform Commission People with an Intellectual Disability and the Criminal Justice System: Appearances Before Local Courts (Research Report 4, 1993).

9. New South Wales Law Reform Commission People with an Intellectual Disability and the Criminal Justice System: Two Rural Courts (Research Report 5, 1996).

10. New South Wales Law Reform Commission People with an Intellectual Disability and the Criminal Justice System: Policing Issues (Discussion Paper 29, 1993).

11. New South Wales Law Reform Commission People with an Intellectual Disability and the Criminal Justice System: Courts and Sentencing Issues (Discussion Paper 35, 1994).

12. For a list of written submissions received see Appendix A.

13. Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 23A(1).

14. New South Wales Law Reform Commission Provocation, Diminished Responsibility and Infanticide (Discussion Paper 31, 1993).

15. New South Wales Law Reform Commission Sentencing (Discussion Paper 33, 1996).

16. See DP 33 at 1.13-1.17.

17. See Chapter 8.

18. Except to the extent that there may be a legitimate expectation that officers of the executive government will act in conformity with them pending implementation: see Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273.

19. Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) s 5.

20. Disability Services Act 1993 (NSW) s 9.

21. Disability Services Act 1993 (NSW) Schedule 1.

22. New South Wales Council for Intellectual Disability Submission (16 December 1993) at 1.

23. See, for example, A Tang Police Intervention and People with Intellectual Disability: Normalisation or Further Wounding? (Foundations Forum Inc, Sydney, 1995).

24. A number of other people and interest groups, both in the course of this inquiry and otherwise, have prepared lists of principles which they believe should apply in this area. There is obviously a considerable amount of overlap between these principles and the Commission’s. The Commission particularly acknowledges: T Carney “The Mental Health, Intellectual Disability Services and Guardianship Acts: How do they rate?” (1986) 11 Legal Service Bulletin 128; Intellectual Disability Rights Service Submission (28 January 1994) at 5-6; New South Wales Council for Intellectual Disability Policy Statement “A Decent Life” (June 1988); and New South Wales Sexual Assault Committee Submission (6 March 1995) at 1.

25. The Victims Rights Act 1996 (NSW), Part 2, gives this Charter a legislative basis.