Lessons to learn from Teina Pora

Young man’s tragedy highlights justice system flaws that must be addressed.

In 1992 a woman was raped and killed in her Auckland home. A 17-year-old was convicted of her murder. He was later diagnosed with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), a form of brain damage affecting his ability to understand questions and comprehend the consequences of his actions. He served more than 20 years in prison before his convictions were quashed by the Privy Council.

There are so many tragedies embedded in that one paragraph that it’s hard to know where to start. But we don’t get the luxury of moving on just yet – not when there are still lessons to be learned.

Pora’s first appeal was 16 years ago. It took more than two decades of imprisonment before justice was served. The minister of justice declared this outcome proof that our justice system worked. Bollocks.

A well-functioning justice system must be timely. The only thing this case proved is that our system has flaws, and that we need a safety valve.

We have long advocated for the introduction of an independent criminal case review commission – a place where cases like this can be reviewed independently and sent back to the Appeal Court. A similar commission operates in England and Wales and, in the last 15 years, 320 of the 480 convictions they referred to the Appeal Court were overturned. We need the same here. But all of that still means picking up the pieces once we get things wrong. If we want true preventative change, we have to ask how a young man was able to be questioned, charged, and convicted of a murder he did not commit. There are many factors, but one is FASD.

We’re still learning about neurodisabilities (the umbrella term for neurodevelopmental disorders including autism, brain injury and intellectual disabilities just to name a few). Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Beecroft has labelled them ‘‘largely invisible’’ but conceded that all of ‘‘these disorders has sky high disproportionate prevalence’’ in our system. And we’re not alone. Research conducted in the United Kingdom shows that 30 per cent of juvenile offenders have a brain injury and, of those in custody, more than 10 per cent have FASD, and 15 per cent have autistic spectrum disorder.

Does it matter? If we want a justice system that gets it right, it does.

Anyone who has experienced or observed our justice system will know that it requires some basic comprehension. Everything you say and do matters, and has a lasting impact. Contrast that with young people with neurodisabilities, who (as a recent conference on the subject discussed) generally possess ‘‘behaviours that might be perceived as hostility, acting out or evidence of guilt’’. The conference report goes on to describe the propensity for exaggerated confessions, or just saying ‘‘yes’’ to bring an uncomfortable situation to an end.

If you don’t believe that is possible, I challenge you to watch the police interviews with Teina Pora.

I am not arguing that everyone with a neurodisability in our justice system is innocent.

I am arguing that we should give them a fair go.

We need to get a handle on the prevalence of these cases before our courts, we need to properly train our police force on how to manage them, and we need a court that – if found guilty, focuses on interventions that are going to work.

Perhaps then we will have learnt the lessons that Teina has to teach us.

Anyone who has experienced or observed our justice system will know that it requires some basic comprehension.