Volume 1
2008
Number 2
Out
of Sight, Out of Mind: Mentally Ill
in
Queensland Correctional Centres
Dan Rogers*
Abstract
The
apparent surge of Australia’s mental health problem poses increasing
challenges to government and non-government
agencies. In the Queensland custodial environment this problem is most
notably espoused. Encouraged by strong evidence demonstrating an over-representation
of mentally ill in prison, this article critically examines the current
legislative framework and operational procedures
for the diversion and treatment of mentally ill defendants. Such analysis
reveals a necessity for major reform and
this article proposes seven key recommendations. Ultimately, reform
rests on greater recognition of the problems faced by mentally ill inmates.
However, as the problem often remains out of sight, the difficult task
is to effectively convey their difficult situation to the minds of government
and non-government agencies in the hope of urgent intervention.
*
BA (Psych, Crim), LLB candidate, The University of Queensland, Brisbane,
Australia. The writer can be contacted on (07) 32361311 – Office of
Robertson O’Gorman Solicitors or via e-mail at dan@robertsonogorman.com.au
Out of Sight, Out
of Mind: Mentally Ill
in
Queensland Correctional Centres
Dan Rogers
Contents
Introduction
Mental illnesses in
Queensland Correctional Centres are routinely ignored to the extent
that the prison environment has been described as the ‘mental health
institution of the 21st century.’1
Identifying and treating mentally ill inmates is a task which has received
a low to non-existent priority among the state’s Department of Corrective
Services; the body responsible for mental health in prison. This is
true both in terms of the existing legislation and in terms of the operational
procedures in place. Additionally, the Queensland Department of Health,
through their inaction, has effectively dismissed the idea that this
problem falls within their jurisdiction. The result is that there is
a desperate need for reform in order to meet the needs of a growing
population of mentally ill inmates. This article begins by considering
the over-representation of the mentally ill in Queensland prisons. It
then reviews the current legislative framework for dealing with mentally
ill inmates. With these analyses complete, the importance of reform
is clear. The article concludes by making recommendations for how the
law and operational procedures ought to be changed.
The Over-Representation
of the Mentally Ill in Queensland Prisons
The number of mentally
ill inmates in Queensland Correctional Centres is considerable. Studies
vary as to the number of mentally ill inmates currently in custody but
at a conservative level, it is estimated that the level of mental health
problems and disorders is 3 to 4 times higher among inmates than that
of the general Australian population.2 In another study, it was estimated that the
prevalence rate for psychotic illnesses such as schizophrenia ranges
from 5.1% to 9.6% in prison compared to 0.3% to 0.5% in the general
population.3 Whatever measure or study design employed,
there is general agreement that the number of mentally ill inmates in
prison is grossly over-represented.
Similar to most jurisdictions
around the globe, deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, coupled
with a lack of support services, has greatly contributed to the over-representation
of mentally ill inmates. Australia’s population doubled in the past
50 years.4 However, the number of public and private
psychiatric hospital beds fell from 30,000 in the early 1960’s to
8,000 in 2006.5 The increase in the number of mentally ill
people in the community was not met with a sufficient increase in mental
health services.6 The consequence is that many people with a
mental illness have been criminalized and their illnesses are not receiving
the appropriate treatment while in prison. Fifteen years ago, Herrman
et al pointed out that, ‘whatever the cause, services for people with
mental illness in Australian prisons are inadequate and in need of urgent
reform.’7 A consideration of the current law reveals
that the urgent reform that Herrman and his co-authors proposed fifteen
years ago has not been successful.
The Current
Legislative Framework
Two key pieces of legislation
dictate mental health in Queensland correctional centres namely, the
Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) and the Mental Health Act
2000 (Qld). This legislation is analysed below. The analysis reveals
that the legislation is inadequate in dealing with a growing problem
among mentally ill inmates.
Because of the fact
that the Department of Corrective Services is responsible for mental
health in prisons, the Corrective Services Act 2006
(Qld) is instrumental in the rights of prisoners including the mentally
ill. The preamble to the Act states:
This Act
recognises that every member of society has certain basic human entitlements
and that for this reason, an offender’s entitlements, other than those
that are necessarily diminished because of the imprisonment or court
sentence, should be safeguarded.8
Based on this preamble,
one would assume that the legislation is designed to protect mentally
ill inmates by providing the appropriate care and management for their
disability. The unfortunate reality is that the 279-page long Act has
no reference to the mentally ill.9 In light of this fact, it appears that the
new Act is dominated by law-and-order politics where the rights of the
mentally ill have been overshadowed by a political campaign which focuses
on ‘getting tough on crime’. When introducing the Corrective
Services Bill, Queensland Police Minister Ms Judy Spence MP stated
at the very outset, ‘This Bill gets tough on crime.’10
Disappointing is the fact that the Minister’s speech also makes no
reference to the mentally ill despite strong evidence of a large number
of mentally ill inmates.11
In the absence of any
reference to the mentally ill in the Corrective Services Act 2006
(Qld), one must turn to the Mental Health Act 2000
(Qld) (hereinafter the Act) to find safeguards for the mentally ill.
This Act contains a number of provisions that prevent mentally ill persons
from being unnecessarily detained in prison. However, a critical evaluation
of this Act reveals a number of loopholes which result in the mentally
ill being detained in correctional centres as opposed to a mental health
service.
The scope of the present
article precludes a comprehensive outline of all the provisions of the
Act. Only those sections specifically relating to mental health in prison
are discussed here. The Act defines a mental illness as ‘a condition
characterised by a clinically significant disturbance of thought, mood,
perception or memory.’12 The scope of this definition is limited by
various qualifications. For instance, a person is not considered to
be mentally ill merely because of racial, economic or social status
or because of their decision to engage in antisocial, immoral or illegal
behaviour or because they are affected by drugs or alcohol.13
The definition is adapted from the national model mental health legislation
and the United Nations Principles for the Protection of Persons with
Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care.
The Act makes provision
for both involuntary and voluntary assessments as well as subsequent
treatment orders where someone meets the relevant treatment criteria.14
For a mentally ill person who is charged with a criminal offence, a
key distinction is whether or not they are currently on a so-called
treatment order, as specified under the Act.
If a mentally ill person
is already on a treatment order and they are charged with a criminal
offence, they are far more likely to get the treatment they require
because the illness has already been formally recognised. The inmates’
treatment order is automatically brought to the attention of police
if he/she is arrested. This effectively ensures that the police recognise
the mental illness and respond according to the provisions of the Act.
There are a range of options available for a mentally ill person in
this position. An application for a court assessment order is made if
a defendant is already on a treatment order.15 If this is granted, an examination and report
by a qualified psychiatrist dictates the inmate’s next move.16
The options include admission to a mental health service (deemed a classified
patient)17, discontinuance of less serious charges (Attorney
General Pardon)18 or referral to the Mental Health Court where
the court decides whether the inmate is of unsound mind, of diminished
responsibility or whether they are fit for trial.19
Additionally, a mentally ill detainee may simply be granted bail and
continue their involuntary treatment plan in the community, while their
charge is finalised.20 Finally, in some circumstances the person
may be remanded in custody if the psychiatrist believes they are no
longer required to remain on a treatment plan.21
The rights of the patient
under all of the above scenarios are legislated in the Act. Some of
the fundamental rights include patient involvement in the assessments22,
regular reviews by both a psychiatrist or the Mental Health Review Tribunal
which has appellate avenues to the Mental Health Court23,
access to assessment documents24 and access to treatment plans and reasoning.25
These rights conform to the United Nations Principles for the Protection
of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health
Care. Fortunately, for someone already on a treatment order, there
is a reasonably good chance that they will be diverted away from the
formal criminal justice process and instead, receive adequate mental
health treatment. This diversion is, of course, dependant on the severity
of the crime which they have committed. However, even if incarceration
is required because of the seriousness of their crime, the awareness
of a pre-existing treatment order encourages appropriate treatment while
in custody.
The target of criticism
in Queensland is the situation where someone who has never been subjected
to a treatment assessment is apprehended by police. In this case, authorities
are unaware of a pre-existing mental illness and this is where the mentally
ill arrestee can ‘fall through the cracks’ and remain untreated
in correctional centres. There are a number of reasons why this problem
is occurring; each of which will be dealt with separately. Some of the
problems are a result of inadequate provisions under the Mental Health
Act 2000 (Qld) whereas others are a result of poor operational procedures
within the Queensland Police Service (QPS) and other Government bodies.
Further, the time restraints imposed on all lawyers, particularly those
who are acting under a legal aid grant to assist the arrestee, may cause
them to overlook or neglect mental illnesses and, in doing so, fail
to consider the options available to their clients under the Act.
Major
Problems
As the first point
of contact in the criminal justice system, the police have an important
role in safeguarding the rights of the mentally ill. Proper police diversion
is therefore crucial. Queensland Health has formalised a ‘Memorandum
of Understanding’ for the Queensland Police Service.26
Effectively, this is an agreement between the Department of Health and
the QPS involving a number of initiatives for better police diversion
of the mentally ill. They include education and training of police by
mental health services, the development of protocols and district operational
forums in which operational issues between these two departments can
be raised.27 Despite these genuine initiatives, the practical
reality is that the vast majority of QPS officers are not able to identify
someone who is suffering from a mental illness.28
The Mental Health Court,
a key feature of the Mental Health Act 2000
(Qld), is unique to Queensland in that no other Australian State or
Territory has developed a similar institution. The court diversion,
as a result of the Mental Health Court, is strongly supported by mental
health groups.29 However, there exist a number of operational
difficulties which inhibit equitable access to the court. For instance,
research has shown that many legal and health professionals are not
sufficiently aware of the mental health court and how to access it.30
This can result in lawyers pleading clients as opposed to arguing for
a treatment order under the Act.
There is also a significant
resource problem whereby prisoners on remand can spend more time in
prison awaiting a determination of the mental health court than if they
had of plead guilty to their offence and served their sentence.31
At present, only a single Supreme Court judge is responsible for the
court. Experience has shown that current listings for a Mental Health
determination take approximately 8-12 months. More judges are needed
to tackle this resource problem.
Prison diversion is
a key problem for the mentally ill and the Mental Health Act 2000
(Qld) does not address the issue in an appropriate way. This is particularly
true for those people not already on a treatment order under the Act.
The Act, it has been said, sets a threshold too high for prison diversion.32
A public fear about criminally accused, mentally ill being released
into the community has fuelled this high threshold. This is unfortunate
because ‘most people with mental illness in prison are not a danger
to other individuals or the community at large – they have mainly
committed minor offences, and not crimes against the person.’33
Changing societal perceptions towards the mentally ill is an important
step in securing greater prison diversion.
Once a person suffering
a mental illness has been sentenced to serve a period of imprisonment
in the mainstream way, there is little chance that the mental illness
will be acknowledged in prison. A lack of provision in the Act for regular
screening of inmates is a major problem. As a result, prison officers
are under no obligation to regularly screen inmates and in the absence
of legislative provisions requiring them to do so, they most often will
not do so. Given the lack of mental health service professionals in
the prison environment, there is a growing need to provide information,
training and support in mental health to prison officers.
The problem of poor
police and prison diversion is most notably espoused by the well publicised
case of Cornelia Rau. Ms Rau was unlawfully detained for six months
in a Queensland prison and then for a further four months in an immigration
detention centre, before she was diagnosed with a mental illness.34
The release of Ms Rau and her subsequent quest for compensation resulted
in an independent inquiry coined the ‘Palmer Inquiry’. The Palmer
report highlighted that ‘it is clear that the case is not an isolated
instance of errors that might occur in any large bureaucracy: it is
symptomatic of a department that is terminally dysfunctional.’35
Supporting
Research
On the basis of the
foregoing analysis, the inevitable conclusion is that the current Queensland
legislation is failing to meet the basic needs of mentally ill inmates
and there is a wealth of research to support this claim. The clearest
evidence is the over-representation of untreated inmates in correctional
centres.
The Queensland Women’s
Prisoners Health Survey 2002 found that 57% of female prisoners reported
having been diagnosed with a specific mental illness; the most common
are depression, anxiety, and substance dependence.36
The comparative general population is said to have a prevalence rate
of mental illness in the vicinity of 5.8%.37 This gross over-representation is made even
more complex when the additional difficulties often faced by those with
a mental illness are taken into account. For example, Queensland Women’s
Prisoners Health Survey 2002 also found that among the prison population
38% reported childhood physical or emotional abuse.38
Even higher rates have been reported in other studies.39
A prison environment is not the appropriate place to deal with the combined
effect of a mental illness and childhood abuse. However, for women convicted
of serious offences and facing the inevitability of a period of incarceration,
custodial officers need to be more aware of this complex and difficult
dynamic faced by many women.
The lack of mental
health services in prison is evident in the rates of suicide and self-harm.
Liebling conducted a study in 1992 where she compared women prisoners
who had self harmed to a control group of women prisoners who had not
self harmed. She found that the self harming group were far more likely
to have received psychiatric or other medical attention in the past.40
What this suggests is that the mentally ill in prison are not receiving
the treatment they need to cope with their suicidal or self-harming
tendencies.
The response by prison
staff to mentally ill inmates who self harm further demonstrates the
lack of appropriate mental health services within prison. Suicide observation
cells or segregation has been utilised in most Australian states. These
methods of suicide prevention are the opposite of therapeutic. In fact,
Keating remarks that ‘researchers… have universally condemned the
use of isolation cells for suicidal prisoners.’41
Schrader shares Keating’s complete disapproval of this inhumane form
of treatment stating, ‘it amounts to sensory deprivation and cruel
treatment. It is not the recognised treatment for those in the community.
This is punishment, not therapy – and there are alternatives.’42
The mere existence of these practices is evidence of poor mental health
services in Queensland correctional centres.
Another method of determining
the extent of the problem of mental health in Queensland prisons is
through personal accounts of inmates and workers within the prison.
Schrader points out that ‘working in a prison makes one acutely aware
of the failure of the system – for instance, the lack of social supports,
education, health and mental health services.’43
Queensland-based barrister, Debbie Kilroy served a period of actual
imprisonment for trafficking in a dangerous drug in the early 1990’s.
Her articulate personal account still provides a very good insight into
the mental health problems faced by Queensland inmates; ‘I look at
things both from the outside and the inside out. I hear the pleas of
women inside, the rhetoric of governments outside, and all around me
the echo of stereotypes.’44 Kilroy summarises the current state of affairs
by claiming, ‘I would say prisons have become defacto psychiatric
centres – with no mental health professionals inside the walls.’45
Recommendations
Based on the problems
identified within the current legislation, the writer proposes seven
key recommendations to assist the mentally ill both prior to incarceration
and while in prison. It is crucial to note that mental health in prison
is a complex issue and the following recommendations do not in any way
provide an exhaustive list of what reforms are needed. Instead, they
represent the writer’s key concerns. They include:
Early
Intervention
Keeping individuals
with a mental illness away from and out of the criminal justice system
requires proactive work on the part of various government and other
organisations. A greater amount of mental health service facilities
can assist in providing individual support in the form of personal development
opportunities, life skill practices, job placements and general support
in times of need. A community group called Queensland Alliance believe
that the main contributor for the over-representation of mentally ill
persons in prison is ‘the inadequacy of community-based and non-government
health and human services in Queensland.’46 Such facilities need to be accessible and
well resourced. They have the strong potential to minimise the amount
of mentally ill people coming before the courts.
Better
Police Training
Police represent the
first point of contact with the criminal justice system. Therefore,
training of police in how to deal with the mentally ill should be at
the forefront of any reform. The ability to screen and identify a person
with a mental illness is crucial. Apart from the Police Powers and
Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld), the QPS Operational Procedures
Manual is the most authoritative guideline for police conduct.47
The manual provides
directions for police contact with special needs groups including the
mentally ill.48 However, in the author’s view, the manual
fails to emphasise the cautionary and sensitive approach required for
dealings with the mentally ill. Further, the manual is purely a guideline
and it is difficult to gauge how well police are versed in its provisions
and further, their rate of compliance. The manual needs to be updated
with the assistance of a team of suitable psychologists. Furthermore,
better awareness of the Manual should be an integral part of police
training, both at the time of recruitment and on an ongoing basis. Given
the number of mentally ill persons who come into contact with police,
the importance of this training cannot be overstated.
Better
Screening Processes in Prisons
Academic research clearly
shows that many mentally ill persons ‘fall through the cracks’ and
end up in correctional centres without any treatment. As a result of
this undisputed reality, screening processes in prison, both upon admission
and at regular intervals, is very important. A detailed screening process
on admission will help to reduce the number of mentally ill inmates
or at least, ensures those inmates receive the appropriate treatment
and medication while in custody.
Additionally, it has
been noted that people with an acute form of mental illness often have
their condition exacerbated by the experience of incarceration. The
screening process must be able to identify such people whose condition
deteriorates to a point where imprisonment is no longer appropriate.
To ensure strict compliance with screening processes, the Mental
Health Act 2000 (Qld) and the Corrective Services Act 2006
(Qld) should be amended accordingly.
The type of intake
screening process which is implemented is of fundamental importance.
The author supports the suggestion by Ogloff that the screening process
currently operating in the Surrey Pre-trial Services Centre (SPSC) is
a good model.49 This model has been rigorously tested and
found to be effective at identifying the mentally ill.50
The scope of the current article precludes a detailed description of
the intake screening process. However, the key feature which ensures
a high success rate is the fact that interviewers are trained and closely
supervised by registered psychologists with experience in corrections.51
Criminal defence lawyers
also have a role to play in the screening process. It is common practice
for pre-sentence reports to be obtained for criminal defendants. Such
reports usually provide an insightful description of a client’s mental
health. For those defendants with mental health problems, it is simply
inexcusable that a defence lawyer does not bring a pre-sentence report
to the attention of the prison authorities.
Better
Support Services upon Release
Simply waving a mentally
ill inmate ‘goodbye’ from the prison gate is a recipe for disaster.
Better support services would involve a co-ordinated effort between
correctional centres and community groups. A plain recognition that
the experience of incarceration drastically affects anyone’s life
skills is the simple starting point. The negative life experience of
incarceration for someone with a mental illness would be even worse.
Assistance in finding a safe place to live, possible work or other personal
development would greatly support the mentally ill. Such support would
be helpful to reduce rates of recidivism. Ogloff argues that such post-release
care and support is ‘critical for increasing the probability of the
inmate succeeding in the community.’52 The current post-release services are wholly
inadequate. In fact, ‘not only are people released without transport,
housing, food, income support, etc but also without medication or referral
to mental health services.’53
Lower
Thresholds for Meeting the Legal Criteria of a Forensic Patient
The standard employed
for the determination of criminal responsibility is crucial to the number
of mentally ill inmates in Queensland goals. At present, it is recognised
that few mentally ill inmates ‘meet the legal criteria to be considered
formal ‘forensic patients’ (ie found unfit to stand trial or not
criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, etc)’.54
In light of the disproportionate number of mentally ill inmates, a consideration
of a lower threshold should be the focus of academic and public debate
and consideration among key stakeholders. It is acknowledged that such
a reform is of great significance and there are many competing arguments
for a lower threshold.
For instance, mentally
ill defendants convicted of less serious offences would probably rather
serve a short period of imprisonment than be subject to a lengthy treatment
order which restricts their freedom for long periods of time. Furthermore,
many defendants would not want the stigma associated with a treatment
order. However, there is the risk that without treatment, the mental
condition of these defendants may deteriorate to the point where their
lives are drastically disabled. Their period of imprisonment, during
which they are unlikely to get appropriate treatment, could very possibly
fuel this deterioration.
It is also important
to consider the type of mental illness that the defendant suffers and
the likelihood that this illness will fit the criteria for classification
as a forensic patient. It is acknowledged that all mental illnesses
have varying degrees of disability and dysfunction. However, if the
disorder is something of a more serious nature, such as schizophrenia
or bipolar disorder with psychotic episodes, there is a strong argument
for a more accessible threshold. On the other hand, a lower threshold
carries the risk that those suffering anxiety or depression will escape
imprisonment despite being criminally responsible. In this latter scenario,
the focus should be on the accessibility of treatment while in prison
rather than improper pursuits in the Mental Health Court. The above
example demonstrates the desirability for a cautious approach to reform
on this point.
Greater
involvement by the Queensland Department of Health
The Queensland Department
of Corrective Services is either unwilling or unable to deal with the
issue of mental health in prisons. On the surface, the Department appears
to be consumed by considerations of punishment and criminalisation,
rather than concepts of rehabilitation and community safety.55
It is also unsatisfactory to expect prison staff to deal with this complex
issue. Unfortunately, this is what is occurring in many jurisdictions,
not just in Queensland.56 For example, in relation to the situation
in British Columbia, Canada, James Ogloff has proposed the implementation
of a ‘Director of Mental Health Services’ in correctional centres.57
For this writer, this proposal seems desirable in the Australian context
and may be effective at ensuring the Department of Health assumes greater
responsibility in the prison environment. The Director should be able
to provide professional guidance and support to mental health staff
in Queensland’s correctional centres. Additionally, the Director must
oversee correctional staff’s adherence to minimum standards of care
and proper screening processes.
Better
Training for Criminal Defence Lawyers
As the legal representative
of the mentally ill, criminal defence lawyers must be able to identify
a mentally ill client. This is not an easy task. The Queensland Law
Society should offer more seminars focussing on mental health issues.
To be effective, such seminars must include speakers from the mental
health profession and lawyers also need to be receptive to their advice.
Moreover, lawyers need to ensure that they are familiar with the provisions
of the Mental Health Act; the main legislative instrument for the mentally
ill. Queensland Law Society seminars are again an effective forum for
this training. For all seminars, the availability of Compulsory Professional
Development (CPD) points is essential to encourage participation.
Concluding
Remarks
As far as is reasonably
practical, the above recommendations should be legislated. It is not
enough to leave it up to the good will of government bodies to implement
operational procedures or training courses. This is especially true
in correctional centres where security and violence control too often
dominate staff training focussed on rehabilitation of inmates and identification
of the mentally ill.
A consideration of
the current law and research show that mental health in Queensland prisons
is in need of major reform. The difficult task is convincing government
bodies of the need to implement changes. The Australian Government is
finally appearing to be heading down this road. On 5 April 2006, the
Council of Australian Governments (COAG) announced its intention to
commit 1.8 billion dollars over five years to mental health services
across the country.58
The Australian Government
is to be praised for this commitment. However, the key question which
remains unanswered is what amount of this money will be committed to
mentally ill persons in prison. The recommendations proposed in this
paper are a starting point for improving the rights of the mentally
ill in prison. Concern remains that mentally ill inmates, who remain
out of our sight in correctional centres, will also continue to remain
out of the minds of those responsible for spending the government’s
money. It has been said by various scholars that humanity should be
measured by the way in which we treat our most vulnerable citizens.59
The mentally ill, locked up in correctional centres, are probably the
most vulnerable citizens in our society. The humanity shown to mentally
ill inmates must improve if Australia is to be considered a reputable
first world nation.
1 P White
& H Whiteford, ‘Prisons: mental health institutions of the 21st
century’ (2006) Medical Journal of Australia, 185 (6), 302,
302.
2 Author
unknown, ‘Mental Health and the Criminal Justice System’ (2003)
Beyond Bars: Alternatives to Custody (Fact Sheet 9
– Australian Institute of Criminology), 1, 1.
3 T Butler,
G Andrews and S Allnutt, ‘Mental disorder in Australian prisoners:
a comparison with a community sample.’ (2006) Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 40, 272, 273.
4
Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘Population Clock’, Australian
Bureau of Statistics <http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/1647509ef7e25faaca2568a900154b63?OpenDocument> (as
at 10 February 2007)
5 White and
Whiteford, above n1, 302.
6 V Poelgeest,
‘Lack of Mental Health Resources A Safety Risk’ (2008) Australian
Medical Association Queensland, www.amaq.com.au/index.php?action=view&view=20280&pid
(as at 6 August 2008)
7 H Herrman,
P Mc Gorry, J Mills, B Singh, ‘Hidden severe psychiatric morbidity
in sentenced prisoners: An Australian study.’ (1991) American Journal
of Psychiatry, 148, 236, 236.
8 Queensland
Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 4.
9 Honourable
W.J. Carter QC, ‘Lock them up conference’ Presentation at Brisbane
City Hall, 17 May 2006
10 Ms J Spence
MP, Minister for Police and Corrective Services, ‘Hansard Transcription
29 March 2006’ Queensland Parliament, 915, 940, <http://parlinfo.parliament.qld.gov.au/isysnative/XFxXRUJTRVJWRVJcSEFOX0lTWVM2REJcMjAwNi5wZGZcMjAwNl8wM18yOV9XRUVLTFkucGRm/2006_03_29_WEEKLY.pdf#xml=http://parlinfo.parliament.qld.gov.au:80/isysquery/irl4795/2/hilite.>
(as at 13 December 2007)
11 Author
unknown, above n 2, 2
12
Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), s 12(1).
13 Ibid,
s 12(2).
14 Ibid,
s 14.
15 Ibid,
s 58.
16 Ibid,
s 46.
17 Ibid,
Chapter 3, Part 3, Division 2.
18 Ibid,
Chapter 7, Division 3, Part 3.
19 Ibid,
Chapter 7, Division 3, Part 4.
20 Ibid,
s 244.
21 Ibid,
s 245.
22 Ibid,
s 45.
23 Ibid,
Chapter 6.
24 Ibid,
s 16.
25 Ibid,
s 307.
26 D Kilroy,
‘Criminalising Illness? Strategies to Reduce the Over-representation
of People with Mental Illness in Criminal Justice System’ (2005)
Queensland Alliance <http://www.qldalliance.org.au/resources/items/2005/04/06768-upload-00001.pdf> (as at 13 January 2007)
27 Ibid,
3.
28 Ibid,
5.
29 Ibid,
6.
30 Ibid,
6.
31 Ibid,
6.
32 K Cocks,
‘Lock ‘them’ up, disability and mental health is not a crime conference’
Queensland Advocacy Incorporated Conference, 17 May 2006, <http://www.sistersinside.com.au/conference2006.htm> (as at 15 January 2007)
33 Kilroy,
above n26, 6.
34 Rebecca
Keating, ‘Mental illnesses overwhelm prison systems’, ABC Online,
11 February 2005, 1
35 Julian
Burnside QC, ‘The abuse of one exposes what we are doing to them’
The Age, 7 July 2005.
36 Tracey
Schrader, ‘Close Your Eyes and Throw Away the Key: Mental Health of
Female Prisoners’ (2005) New Doctor, 83, 4, 5.
37 Ibid,
5.
38 Ibid,
5.
39 Ibid,
5.
40 A Liebling
Suicides in Prison (Routledge, London, 1992), 45
41 Keating,
above n34, 6.
42 Schrader,
above n36, 7.
43 Schrader,
above n36, 4.
44 Debbie
Kilroy, ‘Qld Alliance – Criminalising Illness? Mental Illness
and the Prison System’ Queensland Alliance
(2005) http://www.sistersinside.com.au/media/MentalHealthLunchAugust2005.pdf (as at 24 April 2007)
45 ibid,
4.
46 Kilroy,
above n26, 3.
47 Queensland
Police Service, ‘Queensland Police Service Operational Procedures
Manual (Issue 33)’ Queensland Police Service (current as at 2
May 2008).
48 Ibid,
section 6.6
49 J Ogloff,
‘Identifying and Accommodating the Needs of Mentally Ill People in
Gaols and Prisons’ (2002) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 9(1),
1, 14
50 R Roesch
Mental Health Intervention in Jails (1995) In G Davies, S Lloyd-Bostock,
M McMurran, & C Wilson, Psychology, law, and criminal justice
(Walter de Gruyter, New York, 2003) 520-531
51 Ogloff,
above n49, 15
52 Ogloff,
above n49, 28
53 Kilroy,
above n26, 8
54 Ogloff,
above n49, 1
55 Kilroy,
above n26, 3
56 Ogloff,
above n49, 10
57 Ogloff,
above n49, 10
58 Fran Kelly,
‘Mental Health Crisis’ ABC Radio National Breakfast 7 June
2006, 2
59 J Rawls
A Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts,
1970)
Vol 1(2)Queensland Law Student
Review