CRPD/C/16/D/7/2012 the evidence disclosed a prima facie case. 12 The judge observed that all the alleged offences involved young children and were serious. He regarded the author’s case as a matter of concern, given the expert psychiatric evidence reflecting the fact that the author lacked the ability to control his impulses.13 The judge noted that the author had a record of numerous criminal convictions for offences that had become gradually more serious. 14 He described the author’s situation in his home town as “chaotic” and highlighted the fact that the previous attempts by government agencies to provide management and care for the author had failed.15 4.5 In that context, the judge acknowledged that an assessment of the public interest was a difficult task, especially since in the absence of “declared places”16 under the Mentally Impaired Defendants Act, the only options were to release the author or imprison him. The judge considered that the public interest had to be determined by the seriousness of the alleged offences and the level of risk that the type of alleged behaviour would reoccur. 17 The judge concluded that public safety must be put first, notwithstanding his “deep concern” that prison was not the appropriate environment for the author. 18 He made a custody order, following which the indictment was quashed, meaning that the charges against the author were dismissed. 4.6 The author was initially remanded in custody at Hakea Prison on 18 February 2003. He was transferred to Greenough Regional Prison on 26 May 2003, “closer to his support networks and to enhance his relationship and cultural links with the Aboriginal community in the region”. He remained there until his release on 10 January 2012, with the exception of two short placements at Casuarina Prison to facilitate his participation in prison programmes. 4.7 The State party recalls that in 2010, the author unsuccessfully sought orders from the District Court that he was fit to plead. After an initial directions hearing on 20 September 2010, the author’s application was examined on 4 November 2010. 4.8 The orders sought by the author turned on the question of how the Court’s powers under the Mentally Impaired Defendants Act should be construed once a defendant was made subject to a custody order. The argumentation presented required the Court to find that the author was still “committed” to the Court despite the indictments against him being quashed.19 In a written decision dated 5 November 2010, the judge concluded that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to make the orders because the author was not a person committed to the Court on a charge. 4.9 The State party reports that the Review Board has a statutory obligation to report to the Western Australian Attorney General about an accused in custody pursuant to the Mentally Impaired Defendants Act within eight weeks of the establishment of a custody order. It must also do so on written request from the Attorney General and, in any case, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 6 See The Queen v. Marlon James Noble (1261 of 2002), transcript of proceedings before District Court Judge Nisbet at the District Court of Western Australia, 7 March 2003, pp. 37-38. Ibid., p. 38. Ibid., pp. 32 and 38. Ibid., p. 39. A “declared place” is a dedicated facility for the detention of persons under the Mentally Impaired Defendants Act in a manner appropriate to their needs and circumstances. See The Queen v. Marlon James Noble (1261 of 2002), pp. 39-40. Ibid., p. 40. An accused is “committed” to a court following a hearing at which a judge determines that there is sufficient evidence for the person to proceed to trial.