1 / 38

Criminal Law Conference 2013

Public Defenders. Criminal Law Conference 2013. What happens to Forensic Patients?. Olav Nielssen. Presentation plan. Background and recent history Outline of forensic mental health services Results of forensic patient study Conditional release and court directives MHRT decisions

camden-davenport
Download Presentation

Criminal Law Conference 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Public Defenders Criminal Law Conference 2013

  2. What happens to Forensic Patients? Olav Nielssen

  3. Presentation plan • Background and recent history • Outline of forensic mental health services • Results of forensic patient study • Conditional release and court directives • MHRT decisions • Conclusions

  4. Introduction • McNaughten Rules, Porter test and Gomaa • Deinstitutionalisation • 1990 Mental Health Act • Construction of new hospitals for growing number of patients • Types of Forensic Patients

  5. Forensic mental health system • Mental Health Screening Unit at AgH2O • LBPH – “gazetted” for involuntary treatment – 40 beds • LBH – 135 beds • Medium secure beds at Cumberland, Morisset, Bloomfield - @ 30 each • Low security longer term beds at Macquarie, Concord and Cumberland

  6. NGMI • How long do you serve? • Does it have to be in strict custody? • What happens if you get bail before the verdict? • How do you get conditional release? • Are services obliged to meet conditions set by courts?

  7. Do people malinger NGMI? • If any, not many • More accused conceal mental illness • NGMI usually requires unanimous opinion • High level of agreement on NGMI (lower agreement on fitness for trial)

  8. Forensic Patient Study • No data to guide lawyers regarding outcome after NGMI verdict • MHRT created in 1990 MHA to monitor and advise regarding release • Changed from advisory to decision making role in 2009

  9. Study team • Heather Hayes (UNSW) • Richard Kemp (UNSW) • Matthew Large (UNSW & POWH) • John Feneley (MHRT & MHC) • Sarah Hanson (MHRT & MHC) • Thanks to Greg James, MHRT and BoCSaR

  10. Methods • All people found NGMI from 1.1.90 to 31.12.10 and released in that time • Data taken from MHRT management system and files • Demographic, clinical, offence, transfer and release data collected • Reoffending data from BoCSaR reoffending data base (ROD) • Census – where were they on 31.7.11

  11. Results • 364 given NGMI verdict in 21 years (<1% of indictable offences) • 197 (54%) of those granted conditional or unconditional release by 2010 • Note: observational study, no controls, figures for groups might not apply to individuals, comparisons unreliable

  12. Forensic patients 1990-2010 Total NGMI (n=364) Detained Unconditional Release Status (n=85) Direct to UCR (n=9) Pathway to UCR unknown (n=2) CR to UCR (n=74) Conditionally Released (n=185) Conditional Release Status (n=112)

  13. Offences of released patients

  14. Bail prior to NGMI verdict

  15. Bail and disposal from court • After receiving bail, 81% detained and 18% given Conditional Release (Significantly more than if not granted bail; X2 = 26.1, p<001) • Higher for women than men

  16. Sig levels * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001 Comparison of estimated sentence lengths for most serious offence in year of verdict, with actual time from apprehension until UCR for forensic patients with an NGMI verdict.

  17. Time spent in each phase: UCR patients who proceeded through all stages

  18. Charge and time in high security

  19. NGMI homicide offenders: Time to unconditional release Post NGMI verdict: 5 years 90% still FPs 7 years > 80% 10 years > 70%

  20. Leave and community access • No leave from maximum security • Graded leave privileges in medium security • Escorted, supervised, unsupervised • Ground, specific areas and then overnight leave

  21. MHRT considerations – S74 • S74 (d) “In the case of a proposed release, a report by a forensic psychiatrist or other person of a class prescribed by the regulations, who is not currently involved in treating the person, as to the condition of the person and whether the safety of the person or any member of the public will be seriously endangered by the person’s release” • Balance of probabilities

  22. Conditional release conditions • 20 standard conditions • Require a service, psychiatrist and case manager • Responsible for drug tests, checking adherence, reporting breaches and six monthly reports to MHRT

  23. Can a judge direct where a Forensic Patient should be held? • TD v NSW [2010] NSWSC 368 Hall J • TD unfit, special hearing, limiting term • Order made by DC under S27 of MH(CP)A that TD be detained in a hospital • Spent 16 days in a non-gazetted cell • CA: “The purpose of the power conferred by s 27 is to allow the court to determine the place in which the person is to be detained”.

  24. Bed flow committee • Previously unit director decided who should be admitted • Now system centralised, monthly bed flow meeting • No fixed rules, but an expectation that Forensic Patients go through the system from max to medium secure

  25. CFMHS • Independent report writing body • Risk assessment for MHRT, health services • Do notprovide any treatment • Now delaying release and adding to backlog?

  26. Re-hospitalisation and revocation of conditional release • About half returned to hospital, mostly once or twice • A quarter had their conditional release revoked

  27. Revocation of conditional release

  28. Revocation of conditional release Number of revocations 1x: 18% 2x: 6% 3x: 2% 4x: 1 patient

  29. Re-offending by forensic patients • Good news story • Negligible rate, considering original offences • Reasons appear to be close supervision of treatment and other conditions • Readmission and revocation of conditional release

  30. Offending after conditional release % with no charges: 97% @ 6m 94% @ 1year 91% @ 2years 84% @ 5years

  31. Violent offending post conditional release 9% charged with a violent offence 4% convicted

  32. Location of conditionally released patients at census (31.7.11)

  33. Offending after unconditional release Reoffending data available for 69 UCR forensic patients, (NGMI post 1994, 6 repatriated to another jurisdiction) Average follow-up 91 months 8/63 (12.7%) charged with an offence, 3 minor, 1 drug charge, 4 assaults 3/63 convicted of a violent offence No prison sentences Most severe penalty- community service order No further NGMI verdicts

  34. Substantial impairment and limiting terms • Poor outcomes for people with schizophrenia who get substantial impairment verdicts • S74 (e) “in the case of the proposed release of a forensic patient subject to a limiting term, whether or not the patient has spent sufficient time in custody” • Discriminates against dementia

  35. Conclusions • Retrospective data – might not apply prospectively, especially after change in role of MHRT • Good news story – very low rate of reoffending – are we too cautious? • Under control for longer, but similar time in actual detention • Treatment beneficial for the patient

  36. Public Defenders Criminal Law Conference 2013

More Related