OVERVIEW

1.1 This Discussion Paper is concerned with people with an intellectual disability in their contact with the police: as suspects, victims or witnesses. It is the fourth paper released as part of the Commission’s general reference on people with an intellectual disability and the criminal justice system. This chapter provides an introduction to intellectual disability and to the rationale, scope and progress to date of the reference. It also sets out the areas to be covered within this Discussion Paper and outlines the proposed future conduct of the reference.

BACKGROUND TO THE COMMISSION’S REFERENCE

What is intellectual disability?

1.2 People with an intellectual disability have significantly lower than average intellectual ability and deficits in social and adaptive functioning.¹ In simpler terms, they have been described as finding it “harder to learn than others”.² The intellectual disability:

usually manifests during the person’s developmental period (that is, before adulthood). Accordingly it is often referred to as a ‘developmental’ disability. In the great majority of cases it is not capable of being overcome by any medical, psychological or psychiatric treatment. It is therefore a permanent condition.

From this reduced intellectual capacity flows certain behavioural distinctions. A person with an intellectual disability may have difficulty in grasping abstract concepts, handling complex tasks, and absorbing and assessing information at a ‘normal’ rate.³

1.3 The cause of a person’s intellectual disability is not known in many cases. However, common causes include: hereditary defects in the genes or chromosome abnormalities, such as in Down Syndrome; brain damage before or at birth; brain damage after birth due to illness or accident; or an “acquired” disability due to malnutrition or deprivation in early childhood.⁴

1.4 A person’s intellectual disability is usually classified as “mild”, “moderate”, “severe” or “profound”, based upon certain IQ (intelligence quotient) ranges. A further category, “borderline”, is also used to indicate people just above the mild range in terms of intellectual functioning.⁵ A person with a “severe” or “profound” disability may be unable to learn basic social skills such as speech, walking and personal care, and is likely to reside in an institution. The majority of people with an intellectual disability, however, have a “mild” level of intellectual disability and “can learn skills of reading, writing, numeracy, and daily living sufficient to enable them to live independently in the community.”⁶ However, these classifications can be misleading, encouraging people without a full understanding of the disability involved to believe that a “mild” intellectual disability is inconsequential. Mark Ierace, a barrister with considerable experience in this area, has commented:

Often I have heard lawyers speak of their clients’ intellectual disability as not being a problem because psychological tests have revealed that it is only “mild”. Little do they realise what this really means. Judges frequently make similar comments.⁷

1.5 In fact, where the average IQ is defined as 100, the World Health Organisation defines a mild intellectual disability as an IQ between 52 and 67 and, statistically, “a person functioning towards the bottom of the mildly intellectually disabled category [IQ of 55] is functioning less well than 99.9 per cent of the population”.⁸ In practical terms:

[a] person with a mild intellectual disability may not be able to use a telephone book, or street directory. They may not be able to read more than the most basic of words. Conceptual thought may be only understood at its most basic. A word such as “intent” may be beyond their understanding.⁹

1.6 There are many myths and misunderstandings about intellectual disability. These myths (for example “most people with an intellectual disability live in institutions” and “intellectual disability is the same as mental illness”) are accepted by many people and may influence government policy and community attitudes about how such people should be treated. It is important to recognise that an intellectual disability is not a mental illness or a physical sickness which can be “cured”.¹⁰ Nor is an intellectual disability necessarily obvious from the person’s appearance. An intellectual disability, especially a mild intellectual disability, is often a hidden disability:

[m]any people, especially those with a mild intellectual disability, are ashamed of their disability and afraid of ridicule. People with a mild intellectual disability form one of the largest hidden disability groups. Often these people will try to cover up their disability rather than seek support needed to do the activities they want to do such as learn literacy and numeracy skills.¹¹

1.7 Most clinical definitions of intellectual disability only include people who have a “developmental” disability, not people who receive an injury to the brain (usually as the result of a car accident) after the age of 18 years. Many issues raised and strategies discussed in this Paper, however, are likely to be relevant for both people with a “developmental” intellectual disability and people with an “after acquired” brain injury. There may be distinct issues which arise only for the latter group of people, however, and where the tentative proposals for reform raised in this Paper will be inappropriate. The Commission seeks submissions in this regard.

Over-representation in the criminal justice system

1.8 This reference arose from concern that people with an intellectual disability were over-represented in, or were being treated inappropriately by, the criminal justice system. It has been estimated that approximately 2-3% of the population have an intellectual disability.¹² Until recently, many people with an intellectual disability were institutionalised or separated from society. Now, with changing community attitudes and support for “independent living” programs, people with an intellectual disability are playing an increasing role in the community. Similarly, there is greater community contact with, and input into, institutions and other forms of supported accommodation. Consequently, people with an intellectual disability are likely to have increased contact with the criminal justice system and its components, including the police, lawyers and courts. It is generally accepted that people with an intellectual disability are already over-represented within the criminal justice system, both as offenders and as victims, though further research is needed in this area.

1.9 In relation to offenders, the majority of research has occurred in prisons. The most recent New South Wales prisons study estimated that people with an intellectual disability comprise 12-13% of the New South Wales prison population, using a definition of intellectual disability which included both the results of intelligence tests and social and adaptive skills.¹³ It also has been suggested that offenders with an intellectual disability are over-represented in other parts of the criminal justice system. The Commission’s own research in this area,¹⁴ again undertaken by Associate Professor Susan Hayes, found significant over-representation of people with an intellectual disability as defendants in Local Courts (see para 1.23 below). This research used an operational definition of intellectual disability based on a test of cognitive reasoning ability. Social and adaptive skills were not able to be assessed due to privacy considerations. The study found that 14.2% of the sample had an intellectual disability and a further 8.8% were in the borderline category. Put differently, nearly one in four of the persons appearing before Local Courts on criminal charges may have a significant intellectual deficit. Other studies, both in Australia and overseas, consistently point to the over-representation of people with an intellectual disability as offenders.¹⁵

1.10 The vulnerability of people with an intellectual disability as victims of crime has often been commented upon, particularly in relation to sexual assault. Though there is little data available, recent studies in New South Wales,¹⁶ Victoria¹⁷ and South Australia,¹⁸ for example, have found a higher than average incidence of sexual assault and, in the South Australian study, of other crimes. The actual incidence may be even higher as the Victorian Report also suggested that victims with an intellectual disability did not report crimes for a variety of reasons, including their lack of understanding that a crime had been committed and ignorance of where to go to seek help. The Report also commented on the small number of cases which actually reach the courts, and the difficulty that people with an intellectual disability have in understanding the formalities and processes of the courts.

1.11 The significance of this level 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 persons with intellectual disabilities in their daily work.

THE COMMISSION’S REFERENCE

1.12 It was within the context of concerns about over-representation and unfair treatment that the former Attorney General, the Hon John Dowd QC MP, requested that a Committee be convened 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’ Office and (what is now known as) the Department of Community Services. (The New South Wales Law Reform Commission did not participate in this stage of the review.) The Committee’s two meetings produced a brief Issues Paper which revealed the need for a more comprehensive review of the area.¹⁹

1.13 Accordingly, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission received a reference²⁰ to inquire into and review the law and practice relating to the treatment of people with an intellectual disability in the criminal justice system. The full terms of reference are set out on page iv of this Paper.²¹

The Commission’s previous work on criminal procedure and police powers

1.14 Since 1982 the Commission has released a number of publications in the area of the criminal process as a result of its reference to review criminal procedure, the conduct of criminal proceedings and other incidental matters. These publications are listed in Appendix A of this Paper. The most recent Report released as part of that reference was Police Powers of Detention and Investigation After Arrest²² (the “Police Powers Report”), which was tabled in Parliament in February 1991. That Report made substantial recommendations for reform in relation to the conduct of police investigations. The Report’s major recommendations are also summarised in Appendix A of this Discussion Paper. Generally these recommendations have not been implemented in New South Wales and some are discussed further in this Paper.

1.15 On 7 August 1993, however, the Attorney General, the Hon John Hannaford MLC, announced that legislation clarifying the powers of police to detain persons following their arrest will be introduced in the next session of Parliament. The press release stated that the proposed amendments to the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) would include a provision that police can only detain suspects for a “reasonable time”. The press release also stated that there would be guidelines for the determination of reasonable time and safeguards for suspects, such as access to a lawyer and an interpreter where necessary during police detention, although no further detail about these amendments is available yet. The use of a “reasonable time” test was not recommended by the Commission in the Police Powers Report. The Commission notes that the viability of the proposals in this Discussion Paper is not necessarily contingent upon the adoption of our recommendations in the Police Powers Report, or upon the establishment of any other particular regime. We still believe, however, that the integrated package of reform that the Commission recommended in the Police Powers Report would provide the best general basis for special protections for such vulnerable persons as people with an intellectual disability.

1.16 The Police Powers Report recommended that special rules be developed for the treatment of children, Aboriginal persons and other vulnerable persons in police custody. The recommendation read as follows:

The Commission recognises that there are certain groups in the community which are especially vulnerable and may be at particular risk when involved in the process of police investigation. The Commission identifies the following as groups which require special protection in police custody: (a) children; (b) Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders; (c) mentally ill or mentally disordered persons, and persons with developmental disabilities; (d) persons from non-English speaking backgrounds; and (e) other persons who, by reason of some disability, are unable to communicate properly with the police (such as the seriously visually or aurally impaired, persons who cannot speak, and so on). As a general matter, the Commission recommends that special rules be developed to regulate the custodial investigation of persons in these categories, and that no questioning or investigation take place in respect of such persons unless an appropriate independent person is present. However, detailed consideration of this issue will be the subject of a further Report by the Commission.²³

1.17 The Commission has not yet released its Report on vulnerable persons in police custody, but the needs of people with an intellectual disability in police custody have now been contained within this current reference to review the treatment of people with an intellectual disability throughout the whole criminal justice system.

THE CONDUCT OF THE REFERENCE TO DATE

The Commission’s approach

1.18 Some interest groups have expressed concern that the Commission’s reference may contribute to the perception that people with an intellectual disability should be treated differently, paternalistically, and separated from other members of the community. It is worth quoting one submission in detail:

People with intellectual disability have been treated as separate and distinguished from the general community for many years. This has led to perceptions that people with intellectual disability are somehow innately different, and that they do not have the same rights as others. ... It is still the case that today many people fail to recognise that people with intellectual disability have the same rights and freedoms as others in society. It is often the case that when a person becomes aware that someone has the label of having intellectual disability, the person becomes unsure of how to treat the individual, as if the disability substantially alters common social interactions. Even lawyers will often consider that the “usual” laws may somehow not apply to people with intellectual disability. ... Council is concerned that some may perceive this inquiry as once more distinguishing and hence separating people with intellectual disability from the mainstream. It is clear that this inquiry is very much needed, but it must also be made abundantly clear that its impact is not to create separate laws for people with intellectual disability, but rather is designed to ensure the general law applies fairly to all people. The aim then of the inquiry is to examine where the current system is failing to accommodate the special needs which people with intellectual disability may have which prevent them from accessing the rights, protections, and supports which are meant to be available to all persons under the law.²⁴

1.19 The Commission recognises that people with an intellectual disability have the same rights and responsibilities as all other members of the community. However, because of the disadvantages and vulnerability to exploitation experienced by people with an intellectual disability, the community may require that extra procedures are followed in the criminal justice system to ensure that legal principles apply to them equally and uniformly, and to allow them to fully exercise their rights and responsibilities. Similarly, lawyers, police and other actors in the legal system may need special training and techniques in order to fulfil their legal, official and ethical responsibilities and to ensure that people with an intellectual disability are treated appropriately.

1.20 It must be borne in mind, by contrast, that criminal responsibility, in our system of justice, is usually constructed around the concept of subjective intention or awareness. In relation to criminal responsibility, some people with an intellectual disability may not have the same level of responsibility as other members of the community. 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 permanently deprive the owner of the relevant object. 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. The determination of fitness to plead and criminal responsibility are, however, decisions for the courts and therefore will be considered in a further Discussion Paper.

The Issues Paper

1.21 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 the reference and release an Issues Paper before preparing a Discussion Paper and 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,²⁵ released in June 1992.

1.22 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 in relation to people with an intellectual disability at each stage. It was designed to promote discussion and seek information and views about the issues raised, rather than to provide the solutions. Over 1,000 copies of the Issues Paper were distributed. There has been considerable media coverage of, and public interest in, this reference and the Commission has received a large number of written and oral submissions.

The Research Reports

1.23 During the preliminary research for this reference the Commission noted the lack of recent New South Wales statistics about the numbers of people with an intellectual disability in the criminal justice system, other than the prison statistics referred to above. The Commission therefore decided to seek funding to carry out empirical research. The Commission also decided in the early stages of the reference that it should place a priority on seeking input from people with disabilities themselves. This is not a simple matter, however. The Commission’s usual methods of seeking written or telephone submissions, based on written documents, would be inappropriate for people with low literacy levels. Discussion groups were therefore proposed 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 two Research Reports:

• Research Report 3, People with an Intellectual Disability and the Criminal Justice System: Consultations. 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; and
• Research Report 4, People with an Intellectual Disability and the Criminal Justice System: Appearances Before Local Courts. This study was undertaken for the Commission by Associate Professor Susan Hayes of the University of Sydney, who surveyed people appearing before four selected New South Wales Local Courts on criminal charges. Local courts were selected because of the high flow-through rate of court appearances, and the range and diversity of offences. The Research Report also suggests some solutions to the problem of over-representation of people with an intellectual disability in Local Courts and suggests where further research may be useful.

1.24 The findings of, and difficulties for people with an intellectual disability highlighted by these Research Reports will be considered in more detail in this and forthcoming Commission Papers.

THE NEXT STEP - THE DISCUSSION PAPERS

1.25 The next step after the Issues Paper and the Research Reports was to be the release of a comprehensive Discussion Paper, incorporating submissions received through the Issues Paper and concerns raised by the Research Reports. A Discussion Paper considers the issues raised in the Issues Paper in greater detail and sets out specific, but tentative, proposals for reform. Such proposals do not represent the Commission’s decided opinion, but rather are produced for comment. In the course of preparing the Commission’s Discussion Paper for this reference, it was decided to divide the Discussion Paper into two Papers, the first dealing with issues relevant to the police, and the second containing considerations relevant to the courts and sentencing options. This decision was made primarily for reasons of length and readability, and recognises that there are many groups and individuals with concerns which only relate to a particular part of the Commission’s reference. The Commission was also influenced by the fact that the NSW Police Service is currently considering the issues involving people with an intellectual disability coming into contact with the police, and it was felt that the Commission’s work in this area should be released as soon as possible to provide additional input into this review.

The organisation of this Discussion Paper

1.26 People with an intellectual disability come into contact with the police as suspects, as victims and as witnesses to crimes. In each of these roles, identification by the police of the person’s intellectual disability and the consequent use of appropriate questioning techniques is essential. In the Issues Paper, the Commission identified the areas needing particular consideration in relation to the police 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.

1.27 In the Issues Paper the Commission also listed safeguards which had been suggested to ensure that people with an intellectual disability were treated appropriately in their contact with the police. The Commission sought comments and submissions about the role of the police when dealing with people with an intellectual disability and the efficacy and practical application of these proposed safeguards. In particular, we sought comments from the police as to the practicality, within their normal working constraints, of such safeguards. This Discussion Paper continues to discuss the difficulties faced by people with an intellectual disability when coming into contact with the police and the existing mechanisms to overcome them. The areas covered by this Police Discussion Paper are as follows:

Part II:	general police procedures, including police guidelines, identification and training and co-ordination with other agencies;
Part III:	the apprehension, detention and investigation of suspects; and
Part IV:	the treatment of victims and witnesses.

1.28 Specific proposals for reform are formulated, incorporating submissions made to the Commission. As stated above, these proposals do not represent the final views of the Commission. The Commission therefore seeks further submissions and comments about the effectiveness of these proposals and invites suggestions for alternative or additional proposals.

1.29 It must be noted, however, that most of this Discussion Paper considers the position of a person with an intellectual disability coming into contact with the police who is not also a juvenile and is without some additional vulnerability in police custody such as Aboriginality. The special concerns which arise when the person with an intellectual disability also, for example, is Aboriginal, or is a juvenile, or has a mental illness, will be discussed in the next Discussion Paper. The Commission, however, welcomes comments and submissions in relation to the particular issues which may arise at the police level.

THE FUTURE CONDUCT OF THE REFERENCE

1.30 It is anticipated that the second Discussion Paper for this reference will cover the following areas:

• statutory definitions of intellectual disability;
• lawyers and their dealings with their clients with intellectual disabilities, including obtaining instructions and issues of legal education;
• issues affecting people with an intellectual disability in courts, including fitness to be tried, findings of competence, giving evidence, criminal defences and the role of court personnel;
• sentencing, custody and release, including consideration of the custodial and non-custodial alternatives available for the offender with an intellectual disability and the release of people considered “dangerous”;
• alternatives to the criminal justice system such as diversion and mediation and their advantages and disadvantages for people with an intellectual disability; and
• other issues relevant to the whole criminal justice system such as specialist units, and the particular needs of juveniles and Aborigines with intellectual disabilities.

1.31 After a further process of consultation and submissions following the release of both Discussion Papers the Commission will prepare its final Report to the Attorney General, annexing, if appropriate, draft legislation. This Report will then be tabled in Parliament and made public.

1. There are a number of commonly used clinical definitions of intellectual disability: see, for example the World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9, 1977), now (ICD-10, 1992); the American Association on Mental Retardation’s (AAMR) Mental Retardation: Definition, Classification, and Systems of Supports (9th ed, 1992); and the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual III-R (DSM III-R, 1987). The AAMR definition, for example, states that “Mental Retardation refers to substantial limitations in present functioning. It is characterised by significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with related limitations in two or more of the following applicable adaptive skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure, and work. Mental retardation manifests before age 18.” DSM IV is due to be released shortly.

2. L Gething, T Poynter and F Reynolds Disability Awareness Package - Manual (Community Disability and Ageing Program, University of Sydney, 1991) at 47.

3. M Ierace Intellectual Disability: A Manual for Criminal Lawyers (Redfern Legal Centre Publishing, Sydney, 1989) at 1.

4. Gething, Poynter and Reynolds at 48.

5. The World Health Organisation uses the following IQ ranges for these classifications: borderline (IQ 68-85); mild (IQ 52-67); moderate (IQ 36-51); severe (IQ 20-35); and profound (IQ less than 20). Other categorisation systems vary slightly in IQ range.

6. S C Hayes and G Craddock Simply Criminal (2nd ed, Federation Press, Sydney 1992) at 25.

7. M Ierace “Intellectually Disabled People and the Law” (Department of the Attorney General, Criminal Law Seminar, 7 July 1993) at 2.

8. S C Hayes “The Accused with an Intellectual Disability: Fitness and Sentencing” (Public Defender’s Seminar, 14 May 1992) at 3.

9. Ierace (1993) at 2.

10. A useful list of these and other myths about intellectual disability is provided in Hayes and Craddock at 24-26.

11. Gething, Poynter and Reynolds at 53.

12. The New South Wales Council for Intellectual Disability, for example, estimated in 1992 that in New South Wales, with a population of 5.6 million, there are about 27,500 persons with a substantial disability and 140,000 persons with a mild to moderate intellectual disability.

13. S C Hayes and D McIlwain The Prevalence of Intellectual Disability in the New South Wales Prison Population: An Empirical Study (November 1988) at 47. This study assessed the prevalence of intellectual disability in five NSW prisons: Mulawa Training and Detention Centre for Women, Central Industrial Prison, Parramatta Gaol, Metropolitan Remand Centre and Broken Hill Gaol. The five gaols held a population of 1,318 prisoners of which 675 were screened.

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

15. There is not the need or the space to summarise all the relevant research undertaken in this Paper. This issue will be considered in more detail in the final Report. A useful summary in relation to offenders is found in Hayes and Craddock, ch 2.

16. NSW Women’s Co-ordination Unit Sexual Assault of People with an Intellectual Disability (Final Report, 1990). This Report found that people with an intellectual disability report a higher than average proportion of sexual assault cases. In this study the Department of Health noted disability as a specific data collection item. In the first six months of collection, 55 out of 855 (6.4%) adults referred to the Sexual Assault Service had an intellectual disability. The Report also refers, at 11, to overseas research which also revealed a high prevalence of sexual assault against people with an intellectual disability.

17. K Johnson, R Andrew and V Topp Silent Victims: A Study of People with Intellectual Disabilities as Victims of Crime (Office of the Public Advocate, Victoria, 1988) at Appendix 4. In Victoria, 19 agencies agreed to monitor their cases of alleged crime against people with an intellectual disability during the last quarter of 1987. The agencies included government and non-government organisations. Though the Report stated that the data should be treated as tentative for a number of reasons, the survey revealed that the overwhelming majority of alleged crimes reported to agencies during the study period involved sexual offences.

18. C Wilson The Incidence of Crime Victimisation among Intellectually Disabled Adults (Final Report, National Police Research Unit, 1990). This South Australian study found that people with an intellectual disability were twice as likely as people without this disability to be the victim of a personal crime (eg assault). They were also one and a half times more likely to be the victim of a property offence (eg theft).

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

20. The reference was received on 30 September 1991 from the then Attorney General, the Hon Peter Collins QC MP, pursuant to s 10 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1967 (NSW). By a separate letter, dated 19 November 1991, the Attorney General also asked the Commission to examine the recent amendments to the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) in relation to alternate arrangements for the taking of assault victim’s evidence, which currently only apply to children under the age of 16 years. The Commission was asked to consider whether the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) should be amended so that alternate arrangements can be made for all witnesses requiring this protection, irrespective of age. This issue is not, however, relevant for this Discussion Paper.

21. 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 acknowledges this comment and has used the phrase “people with an intellectual disability” in preference throughout this reference.

22. New South Wales. Law Reform Commission Police Powers of Detention and Investigation After Arrest (Report 66, 1990).

23. NSWLRC Report 66, Recommendation 6 and commentary in paras 5.47-5.52.

24. New South Wales Council for Intellectual Disability Submission (September 1992) at 1.

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