“The tip of the iceberg”? Autism and Police in NZ, questions raised by Arie’s case.

Photomontage showing what a complete iceberg m...

Image via Wikipedia

The man with Aspergers syndrome, who was charged with looting after the Christchurch Earthquake six months ago, has finally had the charges against him dropped by the police. I would like to say this was a reflection of an improved attitude and understanding on behalf of the police, who up to this point had persisted with what many have seen as an injustice. But it appears that such an optimistic view about a change in attitudes or increased understanding, may be premature.

First, a recap of the incident. Arie Smith-Voorkamp was charged with looting, in the emotionally charged aftermath of the Christchurch Earthquake. He had entered a badly damaged building, and attempted to steal two light-bulbs. He was driven towards this behaviour by obsessions related to his Aspergers. He was made the “face of looting,” and thereby an object of public hatred, before it was known that he had a relevant mental condition (though it has been suggested that the police knew there was something “wrong” with him at the time of arrest). He spent 11 days in custody after his arrest.

Despite judges suggesting three times that Arie be granted diversion, the police refused, claiming it went against their policies to do so. Six months later they dropped the charges. The crown prosecutor stating: “The police, having reviewed the matter, and the nature of the alleged offence, being at the lower end of the scale, and the potential penalty, and the fact that he has no previous convictions, seek leave to withdraw the charges against him.”

The police argument that it went against policy to grant Arie diversion, and that they had to wait this long before they had a psychological report to back dropping the charges, has been openly rubbished by Arie’s lawyer: Arie had originally plead guilty, as the police claim is required for diversion, back in March. An official psychological assessment was also made available back in May.

Now that the charges have been dropped, the police have introduced the claim that Arie and his friend were “affected by alcohol and potentially drugs at the time of the arrest.” Arie’s lawyer says his client has never taken drugs, and had only two glasses of wine on the night; he was not intoxicated. The stuttering and problems with communication that may have led the police to think he was, were results of extreme stress as documented in psychiatric reports. Why the police have found it necessary to introduce this unproven claim about drugs and alcohol, after the charges have been dropped, is unclear, and adds to a picture of something rather rotten about police attitudes throughout this ordeal.

In July, while waiting for Arie’s case to go before the court, “Sunday” ran a current affairs  which openly discussed details of the case, and included interviews with Arie and the “victims” (who did not see themselves as victims and accepted Arie’s apology). After the documentary aired, the police launched an investigation into the current affairs show, leading to even more public outrage at the police’s conduct throughout this situation. A month later, the decision was reached not to charge the current affairs show.

The details and legal arguments surrounding the charges and the case against Arie, haven’t had the full airing they might have had they gone to court, and details continue to emerge even now that the charges have been dropped. But one thing appears clear; that from the time of arrest, to his custody and through-out this whole process, there appears to have been a lack of appreciation on behalf of the police, as to how autism can impact on a person in ways that are directly relevant to criminal activity and responsiblity.

Alison Molloy from Autism NZ says that Arie’s case is just “the tip of the iceberg“; that she has since received many reports about negative experiences had by autistic individuals with the New Zealand police. It must be pointed out that police are trained at the beginning and through-out their career, to identify and handle people with intellectual impairment, and that they are made familiar with relevant legislation such as the Mental Health Act. Also, the police insist that they followed procedure through-out Arie’s case. If this is the case though, clearly the problem is systemic, because what Arie was put through was un-necessary and remarkably cruel considering his mental condition. So what is going wrong here, does more need to be done than is currently done, and will things change?

Reading this report from the 5th of August, you’d be led to think the police were willing to up their awareness of autism in ways relevant to their policing tasks. (If you are interested in more detail on how autism is relevant to interactions with the police, and consequences of bad interactions, I have written previous posts on such issues: “Autism in Prisons” and “Autism and the Law.”) But this report out today gives a different impression: That the New Zealand police attitude is that more training and awareness about autism is not necessary. That expecting such a thing of police lifts them more into the role of judge and jury; it is up to the court to make determinations about responsibility and mental assessments.

Considering the current problems around police dealing with autistic individuals, and that higher awareness can impact on police duties in a wide variety of ways (including deciding whether to press charges, allow diversion, and other tasks such as taking statements, dealing with witnesses and understanding questionable behaviours at the scene of a crime), it seems to me a bad call to shift all responsibility to the courts. Furthermore, police are expected to use judgment; not every situation belongs before the courts. Surely – considering the high levels of psychological damage that can result from not responding to a situation involving an autistic person appropriately – the police should be keen to investigate their current practices, particularly in light of Arie’s case.

What goes wrong when autism is not taken into account, are the sorts of stories that scare parents like myself, and make us fearful for the future of our children (as if we didn’t have enough to worry about with our special needs children). A local well-known example is that of the autistic man accused of rape, where it appears that the police were absolutely determined to hold the wrong man to account, resulting is some highly questionable practices that had consequences for the police involved. There are a number of even scarier high-profile international stories too, such as the autistic man un-necessarily shot by police, and autistic children taken from their parents, based on misunderstandings of autism by those with the power to act under the law.

Raising awareness and changing police behaviour to better match the population they are working with, is surely not asking too much (here’s a great piece written by and for emergency personnel overseas, which attempts to do so and does it well). At the very least, there needs to be the impression that the police are interested in understanding such relevant circumstances, but that impression is not forth-coming. I don’t expect police to know every single mental condition they might interact with, but I expect them to care, and not to appear to be acting on some sort of vendetta when autistic people are involved. (It is not at all hard to see why police might form excessively negative views towards autistic people, because they rub police instincts the wrong way by behaviours such as avoiding eye contact and serious communication problems which get in the way of police investigations; those are just two of many examples showing why animosity may arise.) Autistic people are particularly vulnerable, and their disabilities particularly invisible, in ways that lead people to think they’re just misbehaving, or affected by drugs, or guilty, when really they are law-abiding citizens doing their best to fit in with society.

Autistic people can and do commit crimes; I’m not saying they don’t. But even when they have done so, their autism must be taken into account to make sure their rights are protected and properly exercised, and that the punishment they suffer as a consequence of their crimes, is not hugely disproportionate considering their mental state.

Those with developmental disabilities are seven times more likely to have confrontations with law enforcement” according to overseas statistics, so issues like these can’t be swept under the rug. They will keep coming up.

I am glad Arie’s case brought these issues to light, though he shouldn’t have had to pay that price. I am sad that the light thus shined hasn’t led to an improvement in police attitudes towards autistic individuals. And I am hopeful that will change; that police will come to appreciate that better understanding autism will make their jobs easier and avoid a lot of un-necessary suffering by an already vulnerable population. A population that needs their protection too.

This entry was posted in Attitudes to Autism, Autism and Law, Opinion on News stories on autism and the law and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to “The tip of the iceberg”? Autism and Police in NZ, questions raised by Arie’s case.

  1. Karen says:

    Fantastic piece. Sums up my thoughts exactly. Thanks you for this.

  2. Frederico says:

    Gay discrimination has issue here too. Aries partner was banned from seeing him and got six weeks imprisonment. Christchurch is a very discriminatory city. Even the Dalai Lama was very poorly received in Christchurch, and stated there are angry spirits there. In business, I hate having to deal with Canterbury folk. Many prostitutes have been killed in Christchurch, and Christchurch is known for racism. Aaron Farmer was wrongly convicted of murder in Christchurch. Rather than the tip of the iceberg, I believe this to be more of an indictment on discrimination in Canterbury. I’m autistic and am glad I live in Auckland, and I dont believe this could have happened in AK. However, attitudes and understanding of autism by authorities around NZ is well below what will be in 10years time, this medieval attitude will be rooted out in time

    • Interesting comment Frederico. I must say, I hadn’t quite made the wider Christchurch discrimination connection that you have pointed out, but I can see what you’re driving at. I was aware that the false rape (not murder) charge lain at the feet of Aaron Farmer, was also from the same region, but I had hoped that was an unfortunate coincidence. I grew up hearing that Christchurch was quite a racist place, but I heard a lot of things growing up and I aways try to approach such issues with an open mind until there’s real and meaningful evidence to back up the impression. I don’t want to demonise Cantabrians, I don’t even want to demonise the police, but if these issues are reflective of broader (and serious) issues, then those issues and what can be done about them do need an airing. I do appreciate you adding your insights and perspective.

      • Frederico says:

        If it walks like duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, its a duck.

        I understand your need here for written discretion, but softening and toning down the reality of discrimination in CHCH will serve no one! Including those caught up in group speak who bully and discriminate unfairly those that are different.

        Aaron Farmers rape case may have been the imputes for police to demonise Ari, sort of sour grapes and trying to salvage dignity after being shown to have been exceedingly backward and medieval. FAIL Ooops!

        Its a duck!

      • Frederico, with real respect, you’ve over-simplified the problem.

        A few police – even those in positions of power – do not represent the actions of all police. Nor do some of the worst elements in Christchurch represent all of Christchurch. To present the police or Christchurch in that light, will just make those of them who want to see change, become understandably defensive instead of motivated to help along the change.

        What needs to be done is – as much as possible – identification of whether the problem with the police comes from the top down, or is systemic, or is due to a lack of understanding and awareness, or has some other source. Because the solution to each of those problems is different. A personel change will not fix a systemic problem, for example.

        In my post I tried to raise such issues. Raising the issues and bringing them to light is only a first step. Finding soltuions (I try to suggest some in my post too) is the next. Getting angry at the situation – whilst fully justified and understandable – in and of itself won’t cause change. It needs to be properly directed / channeled anger.

        So whilst I am indeed sympathetic with what you’re saying, I am not in whole-hearted agreement. This does not mean I am “softening and toning down the reality of discrimination”. I am seeking better understanding of the issues and trying to find answers.

Share your thoughts:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s