Trio suing over their treatment in state custody

Three intellectually disabled men were forcibly medicated, locked up without a toilet and restrained for hours, their lawyer has told a judge.

The men are suing for more than $100,000 each for their treatment at the hands of the state after being in care in Auckland and Porirua for years. Each is also seeking $25,000 for each year they were detained.

All of the men involved have IQs under 70, and have health problems such as deep vein thrombosis, epilepsy and brain damage.

They have bipolar disorders, personality disorders and autism.

They had been made special patients after coming before the courts on violence charges.

One has been in care for 17 years, one for 14 and the third was released after 13 years.

Their names have been suppressed and they are being referred to as Patients X, Y and Z.

Justice Rebecca Ellis in the High Court at Wellington will watch recordings of them as evidence during the six-week hearing.

They are suing the Waitemata and Capital & Coast district health boards, the attorney-general, the Mental Health Review Tribunal and the district inspector, who deny the claims.

Human rights lawyer Tony Ellis said the treatment of all three had caused them to become institutionalised. Their ill treatment stemmed from the defendants failing to provide humane care, treatment and rehabilitation, failing to treat the men with dignity and respect, and failing to have a proper complaints procedure or a method by which they could seek release.

The totality of the treatment was a breach of their liberty under the Bill of Rights, Ellis said.

The Bill of Rights also said they had the right to refuse medical treatment and not to be subject to medical or scientific experimentation.

‘‘My clients have been medicated for agitation at times to control behaviour; this form of chemical restraint is at issue.’’

They were being discriminated against because of their mental illness and intellectual disabilities.

‘‘They are treated worse than prisoners. Mr Z, and Mr X [and Mr Y before he was released to live in the community] were being subjected to indefinite imprisonment. Basically they were being warehoused.’’

Their efforts to contact the outside world were ‘‘thwarted’’ when they tried to write to the media, MPs or the prime minister.

Private conversations were recorded and their rooms, shoes and pockets searched without authority. Ellis referred to the case of Ashley Peacock, who has been held in seclusion at a Porirua facility for years.

Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier referred to his case as ‘‘cruel, inhuman or degrading’’.

Ellis said the men were sometimes warned about touching staff.

‘‘The inability to touch another human being for as long as 18 years is seriously disturbing.’’

On occasions the use of manual restraints was painful and humiliating and was used unnecessarily for a prolonged period of time.

They could be put into solitary confinement for days on end where they did not have direct and immediate access to toilets or toilet paper and had to ask permission to go.

If they got permission, they were escorted and watched. On several occasions they urinated on the floor while in seclusion.

They were also not allowed books, radio, TV, computers, music, art, bathing facilities or cooking facilities.

Ellis said they were sometimes denied reading material and even pyjamas. They were sometimes given a mattress and blankets and were sometimes recorded.

He said notes from the care units show Patient Z suffered fractured ribs after being restrained. Patient Z had been experimented on by being given multiple medications, Ellis said.

At times he was punished by being put into seclusion when he was exhibiting a side-effect of the medication he did not consent to take. Their living conditions were minimal, sterile and bland, lacking mental stimulation, he said.

Their own belongings, including clothing, toiletries, photographs, artwork, letters, computers, TV, stereos and furniture, were removed. They were not allowed reading material, other than what was provided, or food and drinks of their own choosing.

The case is set to take six weeks.