Noble v Australia (2016)137 Nystrom v Australia (2011)139 A court decided that a teen with intellectual disability facing criminal charges was unfit to plead. He was imprisoned indefinitely without trial. A psychologist determined that, with appropriate assistance, the teen was capable of standing trial, but the charges were dropped owing to insufficient evidence. After 10 years in prison, the man was released on restrictive conditions of unlimited duration and with no avenue of appeal to have them lifted. Stefan Nystrom was born in Sweden and entered Australia when only 27 days old. His family assumed he was a naturalised Australian. Mr Nystrom began hearing voices in childhood and had suffered psychiatric symptoms throughout his life. From the age of ten, he began offending, usually under the influence of alcohol. At the age of 30, seven years after his last offence, during which time he had been law-abiding, steadily employed and recovering from his alcoholism, Mr Nystrom’s permanent visa was cancelled on character grounds. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities considered that Mr Noble was denied a fair trial, equal protection under the law, and the support he required to exercise his legal capacity. The Committee found his disability was the ‘core cause’ of his deprivation of liberty, which it concluded was ‘arbitrary’ and a form of ‘inhuman and degrading treatment’. In response, Australia admitted failures, but denied violating Mr Noble’s rights and declined to comply with any of the Committee’s recommendations. Extracted from Remedy Australia.138 An appeal to the Federal Court found him to be ‘an absorbed member of the Australian community with no relevant ties elsewhere’. The Immigration Minister appealed successfully to the High Court. Mr Nystrom was deported to Sweden in 2009 and has since been living at different points in homeless shelters, in prison and in psychiatric care. The Human Rights Committee found Mr Nystrom’s deportation constituted arbitrary interference with his right to family and his ‘right to enter his own country’, which is Australia. Further, his expulsion was arbitrary – occurring so long after his offending. He should be permitted and materially assisted to return to Australia. Australia has refused to allow Mr Nystrom back into Australia, but said it has made policy reforms to guard against repetition. Extracted from Remedy Australia140 3.6 Effective A Human Rights Act could reduce social and other costs, providing economic benefits for Australians. Social policies that are compliant with human rights can improve equality of access and quality of service, for example to health services and social security, in turn reducing longer92 term costs. Improved access to education and employment can aid workforce participation and economic growth.141 By considering the human rights impacts of a proposed law or policy upfront, there is also a reduced likelihood that decisions will breach human rights and therefore the risk and costs of court action are avoided. There may be initial upfront costs, but long-term savings to individuals, to government and to the court system.142