147 While acknowledging that it is uncommon for Police to prosecute a young person under section 134 as it is not considered to be in the public interest to do so, the IPCA found that there were a number of aggravating factors in these cases that should have prompted prosecution. In particular, the young women were between two and three years younger than the men; they were vulnerable; the extent to which they were willing parties was at best equivocal; and they were subject to sexual acts by more than one man. Furthermore the behaviour of the young men was considered serious and required a response. 148 The IPCA concluded that the Police Child Protection Team did not properly evaluate all available offences due to a misunderstanding of the interplay between sections 128 and 134 of the Crimes Act. 149 The Commission notes that the Roastbusters case is not an isolated incident and believes that more needs to be done to protect young people from the kind of abuse highlighted in the Roastbusters case. 150 Drawing on the IPCA report the Commission recommends that the Committee urges the Government to commit to:  reviewing Police practice and policy to ensure that appropriate emphasis is placed on prevention;  ensuring that adequate instruction and guidance about the application of section 128 and 134 of the Crimes Act 1961 is provided to the Police Child Protection Team; and  addressing the 34 IPCA recommendations within a specific timeframe and report back to the Committee within 18 months on progress. B Disabled people 151 A recent study86 focusing on violence against disabled people highlighted the hidden nature of much abuse directed against disabled people living in care situations akin to a family relationship within the community. In addition to the physical, emotional and sexual violence experienced by non-disabled people, “locked in” and “silencing” violence is often specifically directed at disabled people. 152 The report noted that it was reasonable to interpret the Domestic Violence Act 1995 as generally excluding people in employer/employee relationships, such as care workers, from the definition of a domestic relationship. The author continued:87 86 Roguski, M, The Hidden Abuse of Disabled People Residing in the Community: An Exploratory Study, (18 June 2013) http://www.communityresearch.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/formidable/Final-Tairawhiti-Voice-report-18-June-2013.pdf. 87 Ibid. Page 41 of 93 Human Rights Commission submission to the Human Rights Committee in relation to New Zealand’s 6th periodic review under the ICCPR