CRPD/C/16/D/7/2012 annually.20 When reporting to the Attorney General, the Review Board must recommend whether an accused should be released.21 4.10 Statutory reviews and reports into the author’s case were undertaken on eight occasions during his detention.22 Interim reviews were conducted, relying on expert medical reports that all outline reasons to recommend against the author’s release, including his vulnerability, the risk to the community and the lack of available support services. The reports recommended a gradual release programme for the author. 4.11 The medical reports state that the author resided in Greenough Regional Prison largely without incident and engaged in a variety of education and training programmes. However, several clinical psychologists’ reports expressed ongoing concern about the author’s “eagerness to please” leaving him “potentially vulnerable to coercion in the presence of negative peer influences” 23 and “to manipulation and exploitation”. 24 That conclusion prompted concern among medical experts that “the author’s intellectual disability is such that he will need continual 24-hour care and support while in the community.” 25 The reports also expressed concern about the author’s “impulsive and opportunistic”26 behaviour and his “aggressive, unpredictable outbursts”.27 4.12 Several medical experts concluded that, if released, the author would be at a high risk of committing an offence. 28 The Review Board suggested that “the gradual extension of the author’s home leave is also considered an essential aspect of his rehabilitation as it avoids placing him under too much stress”. 29 However, the Board considered that it could not recommend his immediate conditional release because of the limited availability of trained supervisors and carers to support him.30 4.13 The author was released on 10 January 2012, subject to 10 conditions. Since the formal submission of the communication in July 2012, the author’s case has been reviewed three times. On 11 January 2013, the Review Board conducted a progress review. It recommended that there be a relaxation of the author’s conditions to allow him to visit cafes and restaurants, which was accepted by the Governor in Executive Council. An overnight absence from his primary residence was also approved. On 23 April 2013, the author’s annual statutory review took place. The Review Board recommended that the condition requiring the author to attend all programmes mandated by his supervising officer be removed, and that he be permitted overnight stays away from his primary residence if supported by a carer, without the need for the Review Board’s pre-approval. The Governor endorsed the recommendations in July 2013. On 14 January 2014, another statutory review took place. No changes were made. 4.14 As regards the author’s allegations under article 14 (2) of the Convention, the State party considers that since his release into the community, he is no longer in detention. To 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 See Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act 1996 (Western Australia), sect. 33 (2). The decision is taken in consideration of the factors set out in sect. 33 (3) of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act 1996 (Western Australia). Reports on the author’s case were provided on 22 May 2003, 20 August 2004, 19 August 2005, 16 January 2007, 16 April 2008, 15 March 2010, 12 May 2011 and in December 2011. See Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board Western Australia, Report to the Attorney General: Marlon James Noble, December 2011, p. 9. Ibid., p. 10. Ibid., May 2011. Ibid., Sixth Statutory Report, 15 March 2010, p. 7. Sixth Statutory Report, p. 6 (quoting a 2003 report). See Mentally Impaired Defendants Review Board Western Australia, First Statutory Report: Marlon James Noble, 22 May 2003, p. 2. Sixth Statutory Report, p. 6. Ibid., December 2011, p. 23; ibid., May 2011, p. 11. 7