Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

In re Boram Correctional Institution [2006] PGNC 177; N3796 (30 June 2006)

N3796

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

MP NO 621 0F 2006

IN THE MATTER OF
FOUR REMANDEES
ALLEGEDLY OF UNSOUND MIND
OF BORAM CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
EAST SEPIK PROVINCE:
CLEMENT TALIS, PAULIAS MATHIAS,
ROY MARU AND SAMSON YAULING

Wewak: Cannings J
2006: 31 May
Waigani/ 2006: 30 June

REASONS FOR DIRECTIONS AND ORDERS

HUMAN RIGHTS – right to the full protection of the law – Constitution, Section 37(1) – legal aid – functions of Public Solicitor – to provide legal assistance to a person in need of help who has been charged with an offence punishable by imprisonment for more than two years – to provide legal aid, advice and assistance to any person when directed to do so by the Supreme Court or the National Court, Constitution, Section 177(2) – circumstances in which the courts should direct the Public Solicitor to provide legal aid.

MENTAL HEALTH – need for the courts to be alert to the special needs and rights of persons charged with offences who have perceived psychological problems or mental illness of infirmity or are otherwise apparently of unsound mind – Public Health Act, Part VIII, Mental Disorders and Treatment.

CRIMINAL LAW – fitness to plead – Criminal Code, Section 569 (want of understanding of accused person) – duty of National Court to inquire into whether an accused person is capable of understanding the proceedings.

It was brought to the attention of a Judge that four remandees at a correctional institution may have mental illnesses affecting their fitness to plead to criminal charges. They had been detained without trial for lengthy periods. The Judge enquired into the matters and decided it was necessary to give directions to their legal representative, the Public Solicitor, to provide them with legal aid to expedite their cases.

Held:

(1) The National Court must be alert to the special needs and rights of persons charged with offences who have perceived psychological problems or mental illness of infirmity or are otherwise allegedly of unsound mind.

(2) The National Court has the power under the Constitution, Section 177(2)(b) to direct the Public Solicitor to provide legal aid, advice and assistance to any person.

(3) This was an appropriate case in which to give directions, so as to avoid the spectre of groups of remandees allegedly of unsound mind being detained for lengthy periods without trial.

(4) It was also appropriate to give orders to the Secretary, Department of Health, to arrange psychiatric assessment of each remandee.

Cases cited

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

Constitutional Reference No 1 of 1978 [1978] PNGLR 345
In the matter of an Application by Benetius Gehasa (2005) N2817
In the matter of Bail Applications by 61 Remandees of Boram Correctional Institution, East Sepik Province, MP No 574 of 2006, 31.05.06
Mathias Evertz v The State [1979] PNGLR 174
R v Koiyari-Iyeva [1965-1966] PNGLR 284
R v Smith [1965-1966] PNGLR 220
Simon Karl v Public Prosecutor (1982) N388(L)

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations appear in the judgment:

CJ – Chief Justice
eg – for example
ie – that is; by which is meant
J – Justice
MP – miscellaneous proceeding
N – National Court judgment
No – number
PNGLR – Papua New Guinea Law Reports
s – section
ss – sections
v – versus
VJ – Visiting Justice

Terminology

In this judgment:

- the terms "Correctional Institution", "Gaol", "Jail" and "Prison" are used interchangeably as they mean the same thing, even though "Correctional Institution" is strictly speaking the correct terminology as used in the Correctional Service Act;

- various terms are used interchangeably to describe individuals who are thought to have a mental illness, some being used in various statutes (eg persons of "unsound mind" or who are "not capable of understanding the proceedings"), others being in general use (eg persons suffering from a psychiatric condition or mental infirmity) or colloquialisms (long-long or haf sens).

DIRECTIONS AND ORDERS

This is a statement of reasons by the National Court for giving directions to the Public Solicitor and orders to other public officials.

Counsel

J Mesa, for the remandees
J Wala, for the State

30 June, 2006

1. CANNINGS J: INTRODUCTION: These are my reasons for deciding to direct the Public Solicitor to provide legal aid to four remandees who are allegedly of unsound mind, and to order other public officials to take responsibility for expediting resolution of their cases.

BACKGROUND

2. On 27 April 2006 I made a Visiting Justice visit to Boram Correctional Institution near Wewak. A total of 280 detainees were in custody, 77 or 27.8% of whom were remandees. That seemed a very high number of remandees so I held a meeting with them. They complained about delays in getting their cases heard as there had not been a sitting of the National Court in Wewak for the last six months. They said that a few in their group were long-long or haf sens: individuals who appeared to be suffering from some form of mental illness. Some of them had been in custody a very long time.

3. I returned to Wewak in the last week of May 2006. I visited Boram Gaol on Monday 29 May then conducted a special hearing to deal with 61 bail applications on 30 and 31 May 2006. I granted bail to 50 remandees, having regard to the long time that many of them had spent in custody and the poor conditions of the remand compound (In the matter of Bail Applications by 61 Remandees of Boram Correctional Institution, East Sepik Province, MP No 574 of 2006, 31.05.06).

4. I also conducted a special hearing to deal with four remandees who I was told had mental problems. The purpose of the hearing was not to hear bail applications from them but to enquire generally about what was happening with each of their cases. I was not conducting a formal inquiry under the Criminal Code or the Public Health Act as to their fitness to plead to criminal charges or as to whether they were of unsound mind.

5. In the criminal justice system there are often very substantial delays in dealing with anybody who is regarded as long-long. Some of them seem to get lost in the system. There don’t appear to be any clearly understood procedures to deal with them.

THE FOUR REMANDEES

6. Mr Mesa of the Office of the Public Solicitor gave a brief background of each remandee and I asked them some questions about their cases.

1. Clement Talis is 24 years old and is charged with murder. He has been in custody for three years, one month, two weeks. He did not respond intelligibly to any questions I asked him.

2. Paulias Mathias is aged about 23 years old and is charged with murder. He has been in custody for three years, four months, one week. He did not respond intelligibly to any questions I asked him.

3. Roy Maru is 19 years old and is charged with wilful murder. He has been in custody for one year, ten months. He responded lucidly to the questions I asked him about his case and said that he was not guilty. Mr Mesa said, however, that the nature of the crime he is charged with is particularly gruesome. Mr Wala submitted that it would not be in this remandee’s interests or the interests of the community for him to be released before his trial.

4. Samson Yauling is about 25 years of age and is charged with wilful murder. He has been in custody for one year, three weeks. He responded fairly intelligibly to the questions I asked him.

NEED FOR CLEAR ORDERS AND PROCEDURES

7. Mr Mesa informed me that at the end of 2005 two circuit Judges (Kandakasi J and Davani J) had ordered that psychiatric assessments be made of these four remandees. However, it is not clear whether their Honours made the orders in writing or to whom the orders were addressed. Whatever the case the orders have not been complied with. No psychiatric assessments have been made. So, six months later, the four of them have again been left in limbo and their cases have not been progressed.

8. At the end of the hearing I issued oral directions to the Public Solicitor to grant legal aid and assistance to the four remandees. Since then I have reflected on the matter and decided that it would be better to put considerably more detail into the directions and to set out what procedures I think should be followed so that their cases can be expedited. I will consider the following issues before setting out the specific directions that are being issued:

- What does the Criminal Code say about accused persons who might have a mental illness?

- What does the Public Health Act say about caring for people with mental illnesses?

- Do the human rights provisions of the Constitution protect remandees with mental illnesses?

- How can the National Court give directions to the Public Solicitor?

9. Then I will consider what should happen to expedite the cases of the four remandees.

CRIMINAL CODE

10. Section 569 (want of understanding of accused person) is the provision that sets out the procedure to be followed at the start of a trial if it is thought that an accused might have a mental illness. It states:

(1) If, where the accused person is called on to plead to the indictment it appears to be uncertain whether he is capable of understanding the proceedings at the trial so as to be able to make a proper defence, then before a plea is entered to the indictment the court shall enquire into the matter in order to discover whether or not he is capable.

(2) If the court finds that the accused person is capable of understanding the proceedings, he shall then be called on to plead and the trial shall proceed as in other cases.

(3) If the court finds that the accused person is not capable of understanding the proceedings—

(a) the court shall say whether he is so found by it for the reason that he is of unsound mind or for some other specified reason; and

(b) the finding shall be recorded; and

(c) the court may order the accused person—

(i) to be discharged; or

(ii) be kept in custody in such place and in such manner as the court thinks proper until he can be dealt with according to law.

(4) A person found under this section to be incapable of understanding the proceedings at the trial may be again indicted and tried for the offence.

11. Thus if a Judge thinks that an accused person might have a mental illness the Judge should conduct an inquiry under Section 569(1), to discover whether the person is capable of understanding the proceedings, such that he or she is able to make a proper defence. In a decision of the pre-Independence Supreme Court, R v Smith [1965-1966] PNGLR 220, Mann CJ held that a trial Judge has a duty to conduct such an inquiry, irrespective of whether an application is made by the prosecution or the defence counsel. The Criminal Code does not prescribe what procedures are to be followed in such an inquiry or what evidence should be used or how it should be received. In R v Smith Mann CJ indicated that neither the prosecution nor the defence has any onus of proof in such an inquiry. I agree with his Honour. It seems that the National Court could devise its own procedures and give directions to the parties under Section 185 (lack of procedural provision) of the Constitution, which states:

If in the circumstances of a particular case before a court no provision, or no adequate provision, is made in respect of a matter of practice or procedure, the court shall give ad hoc directions to remedy the lack or inadequacy.

12. If the court finds that the accused is capable of understanding the proceedings, he or she will be arraigned (ie a plea taken) and the case will proceed as a normal case, in accordance with Section 569(2) of the Criminal Code. The fact that a court makes a finding under Section 569(2) does not prevent the accused being able to use insanity as a defence and being acquitted on that basis (R v Koiyari-Iyeva [1965-1966] PNGLR 284).

13. If the court makes a finding that the person is not capable of understanding the proceedings, that finding and the reason for it (eg that the person is of unsound mind) must be recorded under Section 569(3). The making of such a finding triggers a discretion for the court to exercise. It can order that the person be:

- discharged; or

- kept in custody in such place and in such manner as the court thinks proper until he or she can be dealt with according to law.

14. If the person is discharged from custody, he or she can still be later indicted and tried for the same offence (Section 569(4)).

15. Section 590 (accused person insane during trial) deals with the situation in which an accused person becomes insane or mentally impaired during the course of a trial. It states:

(1) If on the trial of a person charged with an indictable offence it is alleged or appears that he is not of sound mind, the court shall consider the matter, and if it finds that the accused person is not of sound mind it shall—

(a) record the finding; and

(b) order the accused person to be kept in strict custody in such place and in such manner as the court thinks proper until he is dealt with under the laws relating to persons of unsound mind.

(2) A person found under Subsection (1) to be not of sound mind may be again indicted and tried for the offence.

16. Section 592 outlines what happens if an accused person faces trial and is acquitted on the ground of insanity under Sections 27 and 28.

17. Section 27 (presumption of sanity) states:

Until the contrary is proved every person is presumed to be of sound mind and to have been of sound mind at any time that comes in question.

18. Section 28 (insanity) states:

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission if at the time of doing the act or making the omission he is in such a state of mental disease or natural mental infirmity as to deprive him of capacity—

(a) to understand what he is doing; or

(b) to control his actions; or

(c) to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.

(2) A person—

(a) whose mind, at the time of his doing or omitting to do an act is affected by delusions on some specific matter or matters; and

(b) who is not otherwise entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Subsection (1),

is criminally responsible for the act or omission to the same extent as if the real state of things had been such as he was induced by the delusions to believe to exist.

19. Section 592 (acquittal on grounds of insanity) states:

(1) If on the trial of a person charged with an indictable offence it is alleged or appears that he was not of sound mind at the time when the act or omission alleged to constitute the offence occurred, the court shall—

(a) if it finds him not guilty, find specifically whether or not he was of unsound mind at the time when the act or omission took place; and

(b) whether he is acquitted on account of such unsoundness of mind.

(2) If in a case to which Subsection (1) applies the court—

(a) finds that the accused person was of unsound mind at the time when the act or omission took place; and

(b) says that he is acquitted on account of that unsoundness of mind,

it shall order him to be kept in strict custody in such place and in such manner as the court thinks proper pending a decision by the Head of State, acting on advice.

(3) In a case referred to in Subsection (1), the Head of State, acting on advice, may give such order for the safe custody of the person pending a decision by the Head of State, acting on advice, in such place or confinement and in such manner as the Head of State, acting on advice, thinks proper.

(4) Where a person is confined under this section, the Head of State, acting on advice, may at any time order that he be released from custody either unconditionally or on such conditions as are laid down by the National Executive Council.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT

20. Part VIII (mental disorders and treatment) of the Public Health Act allows the National Court to order that inquiries be conducted into whether certain persons are of unsound mind and incapable of managing themselves or their affairs. That power is given by Section 86 (order for inquiry by court), which states:

(1) On application in accordance with Subsection (3), the Court may make an order directing an inquiry, whether a person who is alleged to be of unsound mind is or is not of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself or his affairs.

(2) An order under Subsection (1) may contain directions for inquiries concerning—

(a) the nature of the property belonging to the person alleged to be of unsound mind; and

(b) the persons who are his relatives or next of kin; and

(c) the time during which he has been of unsound mind; and

(d) such other matters as to the Court seem proper.

(3) An application for an order under Subsection (1) may be made by—

(a) a person related by blood or marriage to the person alleged to be of unsound mind; or

(b) an officer authorized for the purpose by the Minister.

21. The Act contains detailed procedures in Sections 87 to 92 about how such inquiries are conducted. If the National Court makes a finding that persons are of unsound mind and incapable of managing themselves or their affairs, Section 108 (reception on order of court) provides:

Where, on an inquiry under this Part, a person has been found by the Court to be of unsound mind and incapable of managing himself or his affairs, the Court—

(a) shall—

(i) make an order for him to be received into a mental hospital; and

(ii) send him in suitable custody, together with the order for his reception, to the mental hospital named in the order; or

(b) if a friend or relative of the person undertakes in writing, to the satisfaction of the Court, that he will be properly taken care of and will be prevented from doing injury to himself or others—may make him over to the care of the friend or relative.
22. Thus the National Court can order that the person be put into a mental hospital (established under Section 82(a)) or into the care of a friend or relative.

HUMAN RIGHTS PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

23. Two of the exceptions to the right to personal liberty in Section 42 of the Constitution deal with persons with mental illnesses. Sections 42(1)(a) and (h) state:

No person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except—

(a) in consequence of his unfitness to plead to a criminal charge; or ...

(h) in the case of a person who is, or is reasonably suspected of being of unsound mind, or addicted to drugs or alcohol, or a vagrant, for the purposes of—

(i) his care or treatment or the protection of the community, under an order of a court; or

(ii) taking prompt legal proceedings to obtain an order of a court ... (emphasis added)

24. Apart from those provisions, there are none that confer special rights on persons with mental illnesses. If such a person is charged with an offence and remanded in custody he or she will, of course, have the same human rights as any other remandee. For example, the right to:

- be informed promptly, in a language that he understands, of the reasons for his arrest or detention and of any charge against him (s 42(2)(a)); and

- communicate without delay and in private with a member of his family or a personal friend, and with a lawyer of his choice (s 42(2)(b)); and

- give instructions to a lawyer of his choice (s 42(2)(c)); and

- be informed immediately on his arrest or detention of his rights (s 42(2)); and

- be brought without delay before a court or a judicial officer if being brought before a court in the execution of an order of a court or upon reasonable suspicion of his having committed, or being about to commit, an offence and, in the latter case, the person shall not be further held in custody in connexion with the offence except by order of a court or judicial officer (s 42(3)); and

- complain to a Judge that he or she is unlawfully or unreasonably detained, in which case the Judge shall inquire into the complaint, order the person to be brought before the court and order the person’s release unless satisfied of the prescribed matters (s 42(5)); and

- bail at all times from arrest or detention to acquittal or conviction unless the interests of justice otherwise require and, if refused bail, must be given reasons and has a right to review of the refusal (ss 42(6) and (7)).

25. As I remarked earlier it often happens that once a remandee is regarded as long-long, the justice system seems to have great difficulty dealing with him or her. That seems to have happened in the present case, where two of the four remandees have been in custody for more than three years waiting for somebody to determine their fate. I came across a similar situation when I was on circuit in Buka last year. A young man, thought to have a psychiatric problem, was in custody for almost four years without any tangible progress made on his case. I heard a complaint into the circumstances of his detention under Section 42(5), determined that he was being unreasonably detained and ordered his immediate release from custody, subject to conditions (In the matter of an Application by Benetius Gehasa (2005) N2817).

DIRECTIONS TO THE PUBLIC SOLICITOR

26. The Public Solicitor is the central provider of legal aid in Papua New Guinea. The office is established by Section 176(1) of the Constitution. The Public Solicitor’s primary functions are prescribed by Section 177(2)(a):

The functions of the Public Solicitor are to provide legal aid, advice and assistance for persons in need of help by him, and in particular ... to provide legal assistance to a person in need of help by him who has been charged with an offence punishable by imprisonment for more than two years.

27. The Public Solicitor is appointed by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission and is a constitutional office-holder as defined by Section 221 (definitions) of the Constitution. The holder of the office consequently has considerable security of tenure by virtue of the various protections and guarantees conferred by Part IX (constitutional office-holders and constitutional institutions). (See Constitutional Reference No 1 of 1978 [1978] PNGLR 345, Supreme Court, Prentice CJ, Pritchard J, Wilson J). The Public Solicitor is under Section 176(5) not generally subject to direction or control by any person or authority. However, there is a handful of exceptions contained in Section 177(2). For example, Section 177(2)(b) states:

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 176(5) (establishment of offices) he shall provide legal aid, advice and assistance to any person when directed to do so by the Supreme Court or the National Court.

28. Thus the National Court can direct the Public Solicitor to provide legal aid, advice and assistance to a person. This can be done on the own initiative of the National Court or on application by a person aggrieved by a refusal to grant legal aid under Section 177(3), which states:

A person aggrieved by a refusal of the Public Solicitor to provide legal aid may apply to the Supreme Court or the National Court for a direction under Subsection (2)(b).

29. There are two National Court cases dealing with applications for directions under Section 177(2)(b) by persons aggrieved by a refusal to grant legal aid: Mathias Evertz v The State [1979] PNGLR 174, Wilson J; and Simon Karl v Public Prosecutor (1982) N388(L), Pratt J. Both applications were made by prisoners who sought the assistance of the Public Solicitor in mounting an appeal to the Supreme Court. Both applications were refused after the court looked at each case and applied the following general principles:

- the Constitution does not guarantee legal assistance to any person who wants to appeal against their conviction and/or sentence;

- the court should be slow to intervene in the area of legal aid, advice and assistance, which is the primary function of the Public Solicitor, and should therefore be slow to interfere with the Public Solicitor’s discretion;

- the Office of the Public Solicitor has limited resources with which to discharge its functions and is entitled to determine an order of priorities for the expenditure of such resources.

30. I agree generally with those principles. The National Court should not willy-nilly direct the Public Solicitor to provide legal aid, without considering what effect it will have on how the Public Solicitor is able to organise his office. By the same token, the National Court should not be reluctant to give such directions. If a Judge identifies a clear case of need, particularly on the part of a person who has been on remand in poor conditions for a lengthy period, it can be a good wake-up call for everybody involved to direct the Public Solicitor to do something about it. Wilson J made a profound statement in Evertz’s case, which is relevant when considering giving a direction to the Public Solicitor. His Honour stated:

The extent to which a nation provides legal aid to its needy citizens is a measure of its true attitude to the preservation of basic human rights and is therefore a measure of its integrity as a nation.

31. I agree with that statement and modify it for the present case. The extent to which a nation takes special measures to protect and enforce the rights of its citizens who have a mental illness – particularly those charged with criminal offences and in remand awaiting trial – is a measure of its true attitude to the preservation of human rights and its integrity as a nation. The case of these four remandees is very important. The way in which the judicial system deals with them in the coming months will say a lot about the humanity of our society.

WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN IN THE PRESENT CASE?

32. In my view the first thing to do is for the National Court to conduct a formal inquiry under Section 569(1) of the Criminal Code in relation to each of the four remandees, Clement Talis, Paulias Mathias, Roy Maru and Samson Yauling. The purpose of the inquiry will be to discover whether each remandee is capable of understanding the proceedings, such that he is able to make a proper defence. If he is capable, the trial will be held in the normal way. If he is not capable, the Judge conducting the inquiry will decide whether the person should be discharged from, or kept in, custody. The provisions of Part VIII of the Public Health Act might be invoked, ie the court could conduct a further inquiry to determine whether the person is capable of managing his affairs.

33. To conduct a proper inquiry under Section 569(1) the National Court will need good information on each remandee. Most importantly a psychiatric assessment will need to be available. PNG is notoriously short of qualified psychiatrists. There is no public official expressly identified by the Public Health Act as having general responsibility for the welfare of people with mental illnesses. However, there is a public official with overall responsibility for administering that Act: the Departmental Head of the Department of Health, ie the Secretary for Health. I think he should assist. I will make an order that assistance be provided, under Section 155(4) of the Constitution, which states:

Both the Supreme Court and the National Court have an inherent power to make, in such circumstances as seem to them proper, orders in the nature of prerogative writs and such other orders as are necessary to do justice in the circumstances of a particular case.

34. If the court decides that a remandee is not fit to plead, it would be necessary to have evidence of the family and community background and circumstances of each remandee. This information is vital if consideration is to be given to discharging such a person from custody. Should he be committed to a mental hospital? Or would it be better to order that he be kept in the care and control of his family in the village? Is he likely to be a danger to the community? Will the community be willing to have him back? These are the sorts of issues that the National Court will need to grapple with. I think the body best equipped to collate that sort of information is the Community Based Corrections Service, which is part of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General. The provincial welfare or community development office should also have a role to play in cases such as these. A number of people would need to be consulted and their views obtained. For example: the remandee’s relatives and friends, the relatives and friends of the victim, the village councillor or local-level government representative, village clan leaders or urban community leaders, local church representatives and the District Administrator. It might be appropriate for the court to give orders to the Secretary of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General (as the administrative head of the Community Based Corrections Service) and the Provincial Administrator (as administrative head of the provincial welfare office) to ensure that a comprehensive report and set of recommendations is obtained.

35. As for the task of marshalling this information, and assisting the court as it goes through the process of deciding whether the person is fit to plead and, if he is not fit to plead, what should happen to him, I think the Public Solicitor should take primary and continuing responsibility. As Mr Wala pointed out at the hearing of this matter, these four remandees are the Public Solicitor’s clients so it is the Public Solicitor who should take the lead role in getting their cases expedited and resolved.

DIRECTIONS AND ORDERS

36. After taking account of all the above considerations I have decided to give the following directions and orders to the Public Solicitor and the Secretary of the National Department of Health in relation to remandees Clement Talis, Paulias Mathias, Roy Maru and Samson Yauling ("the remandees") currently in custody at Boram Correctional Institution:

1. The Public Solicitor is directed to provide legal aid, advice and assistance to the remandees including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing:

(a) liaising with the Secretary for Health to organise, file and serve a psychiatric assessment of each remandee, within four weeks after the making of this order;

(b) liaising with the relatives and friends of each remandee and taking instructions from each remandee;

(c) bringing the cases of each remandee to the immediate attention of the next circuit Judge in Wewak for the purposes of assisting the Judge to conduct inquiries under Section 569(1) of the Criminal Code for the purpose of determining the fitness to plead of each remandee;

(d) in the event that the Judge determines that one or more of the remandees is fit to plead – representing the remandee in his criminal trial; and

(e) in the event that the Judge determines that one or more of the remandees is not fit to plead – assisting the Judge in conducting further inquiries under the Criminal Code and/or the Public Health Act to determine what should happen to the remandee.

2. The Secretary of the National Department of Health shall organise and authorise expenditure of public funds necessary to obtain psychiatric assessments of each of the remandees, within four weeks after the making of this order; and shall serve copies of each assessment on the offices of the Public Solicitor, the Public Prosecutor and the National Court Registry at Madang (that being the Registry with carriage of the files of each of the remandees).

CONCLUSION

37. The National Court must be alert to the special needs and rights of persons charged with offences who have perceived psychiatric problems or mental illnesses. Directions and orders have been made in this case to address this problem, to ensure that the four remandees are given the full protection of the law and not treated as second-class citizens.

Directed and ordered accordingly.

____________________________

Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the remandees
Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State