6. Other than escapes or unauthorised absences have there been other securitylapses or breaches at the Centre?If yes what were they and when did they occur?

No and not applicable.

7. Why was the Community Reference/Liaison Committee not advised thatdetainees had escaped or gone missing without authorisation?

The Local Community Liaison Group was not established to receive reports onDisability Justice Centre operational matters.

8. What enhanced security or staffing arrangements have already beenimplemented at the Centre following the incident on NYE?

• Additional staffing resources, including specialised security staff, havebeen allocated to the Centre.

• A skilled security consultant has been engaged to advise on modificationsneeded to increase the integrity of the fencing at the Centre.

• Reviewing the Centre s Emergency Management Operational Procedures.• Undertaking additional staff training.

9. Who will undertake the review of security arrangements at the Centre and whenwill that review be completed? Will the community be informed of the outcome ofthe review?

A security consultancy company has been engaged to review and provide adviceto the Disability Services Commission on appropriate measures to enhance theintegrity of the internal and perimeter fences.

In addition, the Department of Corrective Services Security and ResponseService has commenced a security analysis at the Centre and will be makingrecommendations on increasing security measures commensurate with thepurpose of the Centre.

10. In relation to the incident on NYE, when did the two detainees escape, whenwere the Police notified of the escape, when did the police start searching forthe detainees and who made the decision not to notify the community of theescape?

The residents left the Centre at 7.41 pm on Thursday 31 December 2015.The Police were notified following a quick inspection of the perimeter areaand attended the Centre within minutes of being notified.

The Disability Services Commission made the decision not to notify thecommunity because these people were considered to be low risk.

Deeming them to be low risk is based on the expert assessment undertakenby the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board when considering people forthe Centre.

2

11. Under what circumstances would the community be notified of anescape/unauthorized absence from the Centre?

Given that all residents who will live in the Centre will be deemed low risk, it isunlikely that it will be necessary to advise the community. However I amcurrently considering point three of the short-term measures presented to me inthe meeting on 6 January 2016.

12. Have the two detainees who escaped from the Centre on NYE been returned tothe Centre or have they been moved to a different facility? And will the twodetainees face any sanction because of their escape?

The two residents who left the Centre without authorisation returned to theCentre. The Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board has considered/willconsider the implications of the recent incident in the next review of eachresident s case.

13. Does the current recruitment freeze in the public sector apply to the DisabilityJustice Centre? And what impact with (sic) this have on the employment ofadditional staff at the Centre?

The recruitment freeze will have no impact on staffing levels for the Centre.

14. Other than the issues raised in this letter do you have any proposals to improvethe relationship between the community and the State Government on this issue?

Now that the Disability Justice Centre has been operational for some months, theDisability Services Commission will establish a Community Reference Group toassist with engagement of the community, as previously planned.

As per my previous commitment, I am always willing to meet with small groups ofcommunity members to discuss issues related to the Centre.

I have enclosed responses to the short and long term measures documentpresented to me on 6 January 2016.

In keeping with my commitment to update the community on these issues I will makethis letter publicly available, to provide all nearby residents the opportunity to accessthis information.

Yours sincerely

Helen Morton MLCMINISTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH; DISABILITY SERVICES; CHILDPROTECTION1 9 JAN 2016

3

Short-term measures:

The State Government should:

1. Agree that the two detainees that escaped should be located elsewhere until thereis a full review of the Centre's security arrangements and their cases arereconsidered by the Mentally impaired Accused Review Board.

ResponseThe Disability Services Commission will discuss individual cases with the MentallyImpaired Accused Review Board and make recommendations as required, based onthe best interests of each resident. It would not be appropriate to automaticallyrelocate residents where there has been no change to the person s individual planand goals, their health and well-being or risk assessment and where there are clearbenefits in the individual s program at the Centre.

2. Agree there should be a full security review of the Centre's operation done bysomeone independent of the Disability Services Commission.

ResponseThe Disability Services Commission contracted external security consultants on thefirst working day after the absconding of two residents and will be considering theirrecommendations. In addition, the Department of Corrective Services Security andResponse Service has commenced a security analysis at the Centre and will bemaking recommendations on increasing security measures commensurate with thepurpose of the Centre.

3. Agree that if there is an escape or unauthorised absence from the Centre theCommunity will be notified.

ResponseI have sought further legal advice regarding the level of information that can beprovided to the community. This will include details of all the relevant legislation thatapplies in this situation. It is likely that any information provided will be releasedthrough the usual processes, for example, Police media.

4. Agree that the Government will amend the necessary legislation to allow for theidentity and offences of a detainees (sic) to be released in the event of an escapeor unauthorised absence.

ResponseAs in 3 above, all relevant legislation needs to be considered before a commitmentto amend or not is made.

4

5. Agree that in the event of an escape or unauthorized absence from the Centre thedetainee is relocated to another more secure facility until the Mentally ImpairedAccused Review Board reassesses their case and their suitability for placement inthe Centre.

ResponseThe placement of a person in the Centre is based on a detailed assessment of thatperson s risk to the safety of the community. The risk is not necessarily altered by abreach of Leave of Absence or absconding. The primary reason a person is in theDisability Justice Centre is because they are not sufficiently skilled in livingindependently with support in the community, not because of risk to the generalcommunity.

Persons assessed by the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board to be dangerousto the community will not come to the Centre.

6. Agree to meet again in 2 weeks to discuss the implementation of these measures.ResponseA meeting has been arranged for 10.30 am Wednesday 20 January 2016 with thesame people who met the Minister on 6 January.

Long-term measures:1. The Government is to agree to a review of the Centre's long term viability

including its location. That review to be done within 3 months by someoneindependent of the Disability Services Commission and Minister. And for thatreview to include community input and for the report to be made public.

ResponseI have commissioned an independent analysis of the individual plans, programmesand services for residents of the Centre, which is being carried out by the Hon. PeterBlaxell, retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Australia and ProfessorColleen Hayward AM of Edith Cowan University. In addition, I have asked that thereport includes whether due consideration was given by the Minister for DisabilityServices in determining resident suitability for the Bennett Brook Disability JusticeCentre.’ I have attached the Terms of Reference for the analysis.

As indicated at the meeting on 6 January 2016, it would be premature to review thelong term viability of a service that has been operating for only 4 or 5 months.

The location is not a subject of review. As stated previously, the opposition of somelocal community members is based on the inaccurate belief that the residents of theCentre pose a serious risk to the safety of the community.

There seems to be a perception that people with intellectual and cognitive disability,who have not been convicted of an offence, pose a greater risk to the safety of thecommunity than sentenced prisoners who have been released from prison after thecompletion of their sentence.

People without disability, who have been convicted of offences, participate in pre¬release programs throughout the year and their personal details and whereaboutsare not provided to the general public. People with disability deserve the same levelof confidentiality.

5

INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL PLANS,PROGRAMMES AND SERVICES FOR RESIDENTS OF THEBENNETT BROOK DISABILITY JUSTICE CENTRE

BACKGROUND

The Bennett Brook Disability Justice Centre (Centre) is the State s first Declared Place; analternative to prison for people with intellectual disability or cognitive impairment1 who arefound unfit to plead to criminal charges.

The Centre accommodates and supports some of the most vulnerable members of ourcommunity. It accommodates no more than 10 people who have been deemed to be mentallyimpaired accused' because of their disability. The Centre accommodates people who do notbelong in prison, but need to develop skills and behaviours that align with communitystandards. Currently there are three residents in the Centre.

Spending time in the secure but home-like environment of the Centre assists residents to gainthe necessary skills and socially appropriate behaviours to help them when they eventuallyreturn to community living. People receive supports and services that are tailored to meettheir needs and achieve their goals.

The Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board (MIARB), established under section 41 of theCriminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996, has responsibility for makingrecommendations and placement decisions in relation to people deemed to be mentallyimpaired accused. The MIARB makes recommendations to the Minister for Disability Servicesregarding prospective residents for the Disability Justice Centre. In deciding whether someoneis suitable to live at the Disability Justice Centre, the Board will consider a range of factors,including whether that person is deemed as safe to live in a community setting. People deemedas dangerous or posing a threat to the community will remain in prison.

The Board regularly engages in discussions with the Disability Services Commission to facilitatethe placement of accused with intellectual or cognitive disability in the Centre and to monitorthe appropriateness of Leave of Absence Orders which may be granted to facilitate communityaccess programmes and the reintegration of residents back to community.

The Disability Services Commission has responsibility for managing the Centre. The DirectorGeneral of the Disability Services Commission has a range of powers to control and manage theCentre (see Relevant Legislation section below).

PURPOSE OF THE DISABILITY JUSTICE CENTRE

The Centre has a dual purpose:

• To provide a secure environment as a place of detention for mentally impaired accusedpersons people with intellectual disability or cognitive impairment.

1 A mentally impaired accused person is not to be detailed in the Justice Centre if their primary condition is amental illness

To provide the programmes, services and community reintegration opportunitiesdesigned to build skills and prepare residents to resume their lives in the community.

REINTEGRATION OF RESIDENTS INTO THE COMMUNITY

Part 2 of the Declared Places (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 2015 requires that paramountconsideration be given to the protection and safety of the community and the protection andsafety of residents.

Part 2 (Section 6) of the Declared Places (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 2015 requires thatresidents in the Disability Justice Centre have access to programmes and services.

The Act requires that programmes and services for residents are to be designed andadministered so as to assist residents to be trained, developed and cared for in a manner that isthe least restrictive option in the circumstances taking into account the need for the protectionand safety of residents and the community.

Part 4 of the Declared Places (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 2015 requires that an individualdevelopment plan is prepared for each resident. A resident s plan must include an outline ofthe proposed arrangements for the provision of programmes and services for supporting theresident's reintegration into the community (Part 4, Section 13, (a) (iv)).

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS

The analysis of individu l plans, rogrammes and services for residents of the CavershamDisability Justice Services to determine the extent to which:

(1) individual development plans, programmes and services (as specified in the Declared Places(Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 2015:

a. assist residents to develop skills required to live, and participate appropriately inthe community and be as independent as possible;

b. promote and assist the appropriate reintegration of residents into the community;

c. are applied in a way that promotes the protection and safety of the community;

d. develop skills that assist in reducing the risk of residents offending or re-offending.

(2) Leave of Absences from the Centre are managed appropriately to meet the care anddevelopment needs of residents and to minimise the risk to the community.

RELE ANT LEGISLATION

Legislation relevant to this independent analysis:

• The Declared Places (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 2015

• Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996

RELEVANT SECTIO S OF THE DECLARED PLACES (MENTALLY IMPAIRED ACCUSED) ACT 2015

Part 2 (5) Principles applicable to residents

Part 2 (6) Objectives for programmes and services

Part 4 (11) Residents to have individual plans

Part 4 (13) Content of individual development plans

Part 4 (14) Review of individual development plans

DELI ERABLES

A report on the independent analysis with findings and recommendations pertaining to theterms of reference listed above.

TIMELINE FOR THE INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS

The independent analysis will be completed within one week and a report provided to theMinister for Disability Services by Monday 18 January, 2016.

Following consideration of its findings the Minister will publicly release the independentanalysis taking into account the need to de-identify personal information.