Standards

The draft standards identified in the preceding post regarding the LACC accreditation are - 

2. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION 

2.1 Definitions 

In this document, unless the context requires otherwise –

active learning involves student engagement in critical analysis of the knowledge they acquire, application of that knowledge to factual situations or scenarios, producing solutions supported by legal arguments, and reflection on the process followed. 

Admission Rules means the LACC Model Admission Rules 2015. 

Admitting Authority means the body responsible for all or any of accrediting, monitoring, reviewing and re-accrediting a law course for the purpose of preparing students for admission to the legal profession. 

AQF means the Australian Qualifications Framework. 

assessment method is the manner by which a student’s learning may be tested and evaluated to be able to award a grade. Examples of different assessment methods include examinations, research essays, reflective notes and vivas, class participation, mooting and mock trials, oral examinations, problem solving exercises and practical tests, submissions and advice. 

CALD means the Council of Australian Law Deans. 

CALD Standards means the CALD Standards for Australian Law Schools. 

communication means the imparting or exchanging of information by oral, visual or verbal (including written) means. 

delivery mode means the manner by which the content of the law course is communicated for teaching, learning and assessment purposes. Delivery may be fully in-person, fully online, a blended combination including in-person and online, or by other modes to facilitate distance education. 

direct interaction occurs when two or more persons are communicating and engaging with one another in real time and can hear and, where available, see each other. 

EFTSL means Equivalent Full Time Student Load. 

element means – (a) in the case of a law school that follows the topics listed for a prescribed area of knowledge set out in Schedule 1 of the Admission Rules, one of those topics; or in the case of a law school that follows the topics set out in the guidelines provided for an prescribed area of knowledge set out in that Schedule, a topic included in the law school's curriculum for that area of knowledge. 

in-person means where two or more persons are face-to-face in the physical presence of the others whether on campus or at another location. 

invigilation means supervision whether in-person, online, by technological or other means, or a combination of means, to ensure the academic integrity of the grade  awarded to a student by the assessment method. For example, invigilation may be by using suitable automated supervision software or an examiner observing or supervising a student in the presence of the examiner (whether in-person or online). 

LACC means the Law Admissions Consultative Committee. 

law course means a tertiary academic course in law, whether or not it leads to a degree in law. 

law school includes – (a) an academic unit within a university responsible for conducting a law course  in Australia that leads to a degree or other qualification in law; or another institution conducting a law course  course that leads to a qualification in law, other than a university degree in law, 

online means participation in teaching and learning activities, or assessments, in a virtual or online environment that is connected to, served by, or available through the internet or other telecommunications network. An example is synchronous online learning. 

prescribed area of knowledge means an area of knowledge prescribed in Schedule 1 of the Admission Rules, the teaching of which may include statutory interpretation as set out in the LACC Statement on Statutory Interpretation. (Note:  Law Admissions Consultative Committee, Statement on Statutory Interpretation (2009).)

self-accrediting provider means a registered higher education provider that has been authorised under section 45 of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (Cth) to self-accredit courses of study that lead to a higher education award that the provider offers or confers. 

synchronous online learning means direct interaction between a student, teacher and/or other students in a virtual or online environment. Examples include attending live-stream lectures (but not listening to a pre-recorded lecture), videoconference calls and interactive online chatroom discussions. 

teaching method means the way in which the law school communicates and teaches the content of the law course to students, which may depend on the delivery mode. Examples include lectures, workshops, seminars, tutorials, flipped classrooms, group discussions, group work, problem solving, moots, role-play, programmed sessions and simulations (but not student preparation or self-directed study). 

unit means a subject or unit of study that may be undertaken as part of a law course. 

TEQSA means the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.

Interpretation 

Headings are for convenience only, and do not affect interpretation. 

The following rules also apply in interpreting this document, except where the context makes it clear that a rule is not intended to apply. 

(a) A reference to – 

(i) a legislative provision or legislation (including subordinate legislation) is to that provision or legislation as amended, re-enacted or replaced, and includes any subordinate legislation issued under it; (ii) a document (including this document) is to that document or provision as amended, supplemented or replaced; (iii) a person includes any type of entity or body of persons, whether or not it is incorporated or has a separate legal identity, and any executor, administrator or successor in law of that person; and (iv) anything (including a right, obligation or concept) includes each part of it. 

(b) A singular word includes the plural and vice versa. 

(c) If a word or phrase is defined, any other grammatical form of that word or phrase has a corresponding meaning. 

(d) If an example is given of anything (including a right, obligation or concept) such as by saying it includes something else, the example does not limit the scope of the thing. 

(e) In deciding whether a student will have acquired or demonstrated appropriate understanding and competence in relation to an element or area of knowledge, as the case requires, an Admitting Authority will have regard to –

(i) the Level 7 criteria specified in the AQF; (ii) the Threshold Learning Outcomes for the Bachelor of Laws/LLB or Juris Doctor/JD as the case requires; and (iii) any other matter that the Admitting Authority considers relevant. 

PURPOSES OF THE STANDARDS 

The purposes of these Standards are – 

(a) to assist an Admitting Authority, when accrediting, monitoring, reviewing or re- accrediting a law course, to determine whether that law course –

(i) will provide for a student to acquire and demonstrate appropriate understanding and competence in each element of a prescribed area of knowledge; and (ii) will provide a student with the knowledge and skills to meets the requirements of the LACC Statement on Statutory Interpretation; 

(b) to provide clear, tangible guidance about what evidence is required to satisfy each standard relating to – (i) the delivery of the law course; (ii) the nature of a law course; (iii) the duration of a law course; (iv) the content of a law course; (v) teaching a prescribed area of knowledge; and (vi) assessment of a student's understanding and competence; and 

(c) to provide greater certainty for law schools about the matters which an Admitting Authority will consider relevant when accrediting, monitoring or re-accrediting a law course. 

4. THE STANDARDS 

4.1 The delivery of the law course 

• The law course, or one or more of the units which comprise it, may be delivered fully or partially online. (a) Explanatory note The law school may select the appropriate delivery mode across teaching, learning and assessments, for one or more units or the whole law course. The Admitting Authority may seek information from the law school about the delivery mode offered. 

4.2 The nature of the law course 

• The law course is a tertiary academic course in law, whether or not it leads to a degree in law. 

(a) Explanatory note 

The law course must be "a coherent sequence of units of study leading to the award of a qualification" in law.  This applies when a law course is a single degree and when a law course is part of a combined or double degree, to the law component of that combined or double degree. The qualification must be a degree or another similar qualification in law,  awarded upon successful completion of a tertiary academic course. A law course may be considered for accreditation is “a tertiary academic course … accredited in Australia" for the purposes of these Standards if it is either one of the following - (i) provided by a self-accrediting provider on the National Register of Higher Education Providers; (ii) currently accredited by TEQSA as leading to a regulated higher education award; or (iii) conducted by or on behalf of the New South Wales Legal Profession Admission Board. 

(b) How can a law school show that it has met this standard? 

A law school needs to provide the Admitting Authority with evidence that - the law course leads to a degree or similar qualification in law; and is comprised of a coherent sequence of units of study which form a course designated as a law course; and the law course is – (A) provided by a self-accrediting provider on the National Register of Higher Education Providers; accredited by TEQSA as a course of study leading to a higher education award; or (C) conducted by or on behalf of the New South Wales Legal Profession Admission Board. 

4.3 The duration of the law course 

• The law course includes the equivalent of at least three years' full-time study of law. 

• Intensive or block delivery should only be used for a prescribed area of knowledge where the law school satisfies the Admitting Authority that it is appropriate in all the circumstances. 

(a) Explanatory note 

The total credit points for the  units in the law course must equal or exceed an EFTSL of 3.0. 

The course may be offered in a full-time, part-time or accelerated mode. 

An accelerated mode may include intensives, which are units taught during compressed timeframes outside the usual 12-week semester (i.e. two terms a year) or nine-week trimester (i.e. three terms a year) and might be taught over a winter or summer break, or through block learning models during shorter, but  more frequent, terms. The Admitting Authority may seek further information and data from the law school, for example, in relation to student attendance requirements and whether the intensive or block delivery would enable students to acquire the appropriate level of understanding and competence in the prescribed area/(s) of knowledge and statutory interpretation. 

The LACC Statement on Duration of Legal Studies, provides that the requirement for at least three years’ full-time study refers to three calendar years and that – A law course that can be completed in fewer than three years may be accredited … if the relevant law school satisfies the Admitting Authority that the course is, indeed, the equivalent of a three calendar year full- time course undertaken at the relevant law school, in terms of the breadth and depth of its content, the teaching methods to be employed and the assessment criteria and methodology. 

(b) How can a law school show that it has met this standard? 

A law school needs to provide the Admitting Authority with evidence - (i) that the credit points allocated for the law course in total are equal to or exceed those required for an EFTSL of 3.0; and (ii) if the course can be completed in less than three calendar years, that the course is, indeed, the equivalent of a three calendar year full-time course undertaken at the relevant law school, in terms of the breadth and depth of its content, the teaching methods employed, and the applicable assessment criteria and methodology. 

A law school can give the Admitting Authority the same evidence about the duration of the course that it provided for the purpose of recently being reviewed externally or being accredited by either a self-accrediting provider or by TEQSA. If the law school chooses to do this, unless the Admitting Authority determines otherwise, it will need to – (i) show that the recent review or accreditation required the law school to satisfy a similar standard to that required by the Admitting Authority; and (ii) set out the relevant standard against which it was recently reviewed or accredited; (iii) set out when the review or accreditation occurred and by whom it was conducted, and (iv) give the Admitting Authority copies of the principal documentary evidence that it provided for the purpose of that review or accreditation. 

4.4 The learning outcomes for the law course

• The statement of learning outcomes for the law course is directed to enabling students to acquire and demonstrate appropriate understanding and competence in the prescribed areas of knowledge and statutory interpretation. 

(a) Explanatory note 

TEQSA requires the specified learning outcomes for each course of study to "encompass discipline-related and generic outcomes, including … knowledge and skills required for employment and further study related to the course of study, including those required to be eligible to seek registration to practise where applicable" (emphasis added). 

(b) How can a law school establish that it has met this standard? 

A law school needs to – (i) set out any relevant learning outcomes for the law course; and (ii) show how achieving each of these outcomes will demonstrate that a student has acquired and demonstrated appropriate understanding and competence in each of the prescribed areas of knowledge. 

4.5 Content of the law course 

• The law course includes teaching or other instruction in each of the specified elements in each of the prescribed areas of knowledge set out in Schedule 1 of the Admission Rules. 

• The law course also meets the requirements of the LACC Statement on Statutory Interpretation. 

(a) Explanatory note 

A prescribed area of knowledge need not be taught in a  unit bearing the same name as that used for the area in the Admission Rules. Similarly, the elements of an area of knowledge need not be taught in one or unit; they could be taught in several units. 

An Admitting Authority may consider that the number of hours allocated to teaching a prescribed area of knowledge is relevant when determining whether that area is adequately covered. 

(b) How can a law school show that it has met this standard? 

A law school needs to - (i) describe where each element of each prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation is taught in the law course. This might be done by way of a matrix or by mapping. Evidence could include the course syllabus, unit descriptions or, by way of examples, lecture outlines or reading guides; and (ii) estimate the total teaching hours allocated to the teaching of each prescribed area of knowledge, and describe the teaching methods having regard to the delivery modes for each prescribed area of knowledge indicating the predominant teaching method and delivery mode and the use of other teaching methods and delivery modes; and (iii) the total teaching hours provided should equate to at least 36 hours for each prescribed area of knowledge. If the estimated number of teaching hours for any prescribed area of knowledge is less than 36 hours because of the teaching method used or student research, demonstrate how the learning outcomes will be achieved in that area. 

4.6 Teaching the law course and active learning 

• Each prescribed area of knowledge and any unit subject relating to statutory interpretation is taught by people qualified to teach that area of knowledge. 

• The law school uses teaching methods which enable each student to acquire the appropriate understanding and competence in each element of every prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation. 

• An Admitting Authority will consider the number of hours provided for active learning and/or direct interaction in a prescribed area of knowledge when considering whether a law course will enable a student to acquire an adequate level of understanding and competence. 

• Each student in the law course has ready access to legal information resources that are sufficient in quantity and quality to enable the student to acquire the appropriate understanding and competence in each element of every prescribed area of knowledge. 

(a) Explanatory note The quality of teaching directly affects a student's acquisition of understanding and competence. Three dominant influences upon the quality of teaching are – (i) the qualifications and experience of the teachers; (ii) the teaching methods employed; and (iii) access to legal information resources, particularly library resources. A student needs to acquire both understanding and competence in each 11(b) element of each prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation. Admitting Authorities consider that this will not occur unless the teaching methods demonstrably require active learning. 

Admitting Authorities consider that direct interaction between students and teachers whether in-person or through synchronous online learning remains the primary reliable means of achieving these results. 

How can a law school show that it has met this standard? 

A law school needs to satisfy the Admitting Authority that - 

(i) teachers in the program – • meet the AQF requirement that a teacher should have a degree one level higher than that of the course in which the person teaches, or • have equivalent experience in practice or teaching (which may be demonstrated by reference, say, to a person's specialist practice, scholarship, or standing in the academic community or legal profession), or • if a teacher does not fully meet either of the preceding criteria, that person's teaching is guided and overseen by other staff who do meet one or more of those criteria. 

A law school should provide a complete list of teaching staff (continuing, fixed-term and any casual staff employed at the date upon which accreditation or re-accreditation is sought) and their relevant academic qualifications. The Admitting Authority may request further information about the relevant practice or teaching experience of staff who do not have the requisite higher degree.); 

(ii) the methods generally employed in teaching prescribed areas of knowledge across all delivery modes, enable students to acquire appropriate understanding and competence in each element of that area of knowledge and statutory interpretation. (A law school will need to identify and explain any departures from those generally employed methods, in teaching any particular area of knowledge.); and 

(iii) the design of the law course and its program of instruction primarily comprises provides for at least 18 hours of either or both of – face-to-face instruction and active learning; and (B) instruction and learning involving direct interaction between teacher and student, whether in-person or through synchronous online learning, (A) (iv) (v) and enables students to acquire and demonstrate appropriate understanding and competence in each element of each prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation. 

(A law school will need to provide evidence of the extent to which the design of the law course and its program of instruction provides for active learning and/or direct interaction in each prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation.); and the law school enables each student to have ready access to legal information resources, in paper or in electronic form; and those resources are sufficient in quantity and quality to enable each student to acquire appropriate understanding and competence in each element of each prescribed area of knowledge. xx It would be relevant for an Admitting Authority to know whether the law school’s library has been independently assessed by the CALD Standards Committee and has been independently determined to have met, in this respect, the CALD Standards. 

A law school can give an Admitting Authority the same evidence about teaching each of the prescribed areas of knowledge and statutory interpretation Statutory Interpretation and about its legal information resources that it provided for the purpose of recently being reviewed externally or accredited by either a self-accrediting provider or by TEQSA. Unless the Admitting Authority determines otherwise, the law school will need to – show that the recent review or accreditation required the law school to satisfy a similar standard to that required by these Standards; and set out the relevant standard against which it was reviewed or accredited; and set out when the review or accreditation occurred and by whom it was conducted; and (iv) give the Admitting Authority copies of the principal documentary evidence that it provided for the purpose of that review or accreditation. 

4.7 Assessing understanding and competence 

• Assessment requirements verify that a student has – (i) acquired appropriate understanding and competence in every prescribed area of knowledge; and acquired the relevant knowledge and skills set out in the LACC 

• The law course requires a student to achieve at least a pass grade before satisfactorily completing any subject or unit in which a prescribed area of knowledge or statutory interpretation  is taught or assessed.  

• An Admitting Authority may consider for each unit that covers a prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation, the allocation of assessments, the assessment methods and whether a sufficient proportion of assessments are conducted by invigilation to ensure the law course provides an appropriate level of quality assurance that a student has been awarded a grade that accurately reflects their level of acquired understanding and competence. 

(a) Explanatory note 

An Admitting Authority must be able to rely on a law school’s minimum requirement for completion - a pass grade - as the conclusive indicator that a student has, in fact, acquired an appropriate level of understanding and competence in every element of a prescribed area of knowledge and has acquired the relevant knowledge and skills set out in the LACC's Statement on Statutory Interpretation. 

Invigilation of assessments provides an extra level of quality assurance that the grades awarded to students accurately reflects their level of acquired understanding and competence, particularly in an online learning environment. 

(b)  How can a law school establish that it has met this standard? 

A law school needs to - (i) provide evidence that it requires, and that students are made aware, that all elements of each prescribed area of knowledge and all of the law school's teaching or other instruction in statutory interpretation are assessable; and (ii) provide evidence that its methods of assessment methods in each  unit in which a prescribed area of knowledge is taught confirm that a student has attained an appropriate understanding and competence in that area; and (iii) provide evidence that its methods of assessment methods confirm that a student has achieved all of the outcomes specified in the LACC's Statement on Statutory Interpretation; and (iv) provide evidence that at least 50% of assessments for each unit that covers a prescribed area of knowledge and statutory interpretation is conducted by invigilation; and (v) if grade descriptors apply to prescribed areas of knowledge, set out the descriptor for a pass grade; and (vi) explain the process it uses to satisfy itself that grades awarded accurately reflect the level of student attainment.

Law Teaching Standards

The Admissions Committee of the Legal Services Council (Council) and the Law Admissions Consultative Committee (LACC) Consultation paper on proposed revisions to the Accreditation Standards for Australian Law Courses notes 

The Council is a statutory body that oversees the operation of the Legal Profession Uniform Law in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. 

The Council’s Admissions Committee develops the Legal Profession Uniform Admission Rules and provides advice to the Council about admissions matters. 

The LACC is a national group that reports to the Council of Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand. The LACC’s main role is to forge consensus on admission and admission-related matters nationally, between the bodies represented by its members. The Council provides the LACC with secretariat support. 

The Admissions Committee and the LACC work closely together to facilitate national consistency in admissions matters. 

About this consultation 

LACC first published the Accreditation Standards for Australian Law Courses (Standards) in July 2018. The Standards set important minimum standards for the accreditation of law courses. The Standards also seek to give law schools greater certainty about the matters which an admitting authority will consider relevant when accrediting, monitoring or re-accrediting a law course. In late 2023, the Committees became aware of some emerging issues in relation to the accreditation of law courses, partly arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Committees resolved to undertake an initial targeted consultation to explore how these issues might be addressed. Key issues under exploration included how the Standards might be enhanced to respond to the prevalence of virtual or online delivery and given the emergence of new digital technologies. The initial consultation also explored other matters, such as the use of intensives or block delivery models. 

Having considered the range of views expressed in initial consultation submissions in late 2024, the Committees have developed draft revised Standards (Draft Revised Standards) for public consultation. The Draft Revised Standards are attached (Attachment A). 

Relevant overarching policy considerations 

In developing the Draft Revised Standards, the Committees have given particular consideration to the desirability of minimum standards for the accreditation of law courses across Australia which are fit for purpose in the context of widespread online or blended delivery and other developments in contemporary Australian legal education, so as to further national consistency. 

Other policy considerations the Committees have taken into account include: • the legislative objective of regulation which is efficient, effective, targeted and proportionate and the development of accreditation policies and procedures which are consistent, uniform and transparent across Australia • recognition of the broader national higher education regulatory landscape and higher education policy settings, including the role of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) and its regulatory and enforcement powers • the importance of innovation in the design and delivery of law courses to achieve enhanced student learning outcomes • equity, accessibility, diversity and inclusion for students to be able to attain a legal qualification and enter the legal profession, and • potential implementation impacts on law course providers. 

Proposed revisions to the Standards 

The Committees propose revisions to update, clarify and streamline the Standards in relation to the delivery of law courses, and support effective online learning with respect to teaching hours and the introduction of new requirements for active learning and invigilated assessments. The proposed revisions would also introduce additional guidance for intensives and block learning models and make other minor changes. The Committees propose a transitional period, as set out below. 

Online delivery of law courses 

The Committees are aware of the growth in the number of law courses being delivered online and are concerned to ensure that the Standards support online delivery which is appropriate and effective in achieving student learning outcomes. 

The proposed revisions to the Standards reflect the existing position that law courses may be delivered fully in-person, fully online or via a blended delivery model. In this context, the Committees propose new requirements to support the effectiveness of online delivery, including by setting minimum standards for active learning and student engagement (set out in the next section).  

This approach aligns with the national regulation of tertiary education providers which, to promote innovation, flexibility and focus on learning design and delivery outcomes across providers, does not prescribe types of delivery modes. It also recognises that policy at the national level acknowledges online learning as a legitimate way to promote equity, access and inclusion in higher education. 

The Committees have heard initial consultation feedback about the importance of ensuring that certain cohorts of students, such as women, First Nations people, those living in regional, rural, remote and very remote (RRRR) areas and those from neurodiverse backgrounds or with a disability, have improved access to legal education by law courses being offered fully or partially online. This enhances diversity of representation across the legal profession and in RRRR areas seeking to attract lawyers. The Committees recognise the role of the Standards in supporting these objectives, while maintaining appropriate minimum standards in relation to law courses. 

The relevant changes in the Draft Revised Standards are as follows: • new clause 4.1 (The delivery of the law course) • adjusted and new definitions at clause 2.1 for “online”, “delivery mode”, “in-person” and “synchronous online learning”, as well as the deletion of the “face-to-face” definition, and • ancillary adjustments to clause 4.6 (Teaching of the law course and active learning) to extend current Standards to apply to the range of delivery modes possible for online learning. 

The revised definitions have been developed taking into account initial consultation feedback about the need for: • clearer definitions to respond to the widespread online delivery of law courses • clearer delineation between synchronous and other online learning, and having regard to consistency with the national regulation of tertiary education providers • a definition for “delivery mode” that does not limit the types of delivery modes permitted when tertiary education providers offer a course of study • updating the definition of “online” by removing references to technological hardware given the emergence of laptops, tablets, wearables and the possible development of other new types of hardware, and • removal of the “face-to-face” definition, as it was creating some confusion. Instead, the Committees propose that the definition of “in-person” will continue to apply with slight modification. 

Teaching hours, active learning and student engagement 

The Committees propose revisions in response to initial stakeholder feedback that the Standards: • be brought up-to-date by clarifying that teaching may be delivered not just in-person, but also through online or blended delivery modes, and • provide an indicative range of possible ways in which teaching may occur through the introduction of a definition for “teaching method”. 

Consistent with the clarifications for online learning, the Draft Revised Standards propose revisions at clause 4.5 (Content of the law course) and the introduction of new definitions at clause 2.1 for “delivery mode” and “teaching method” to provide clearer guidance as to what may count towards the 36 hours of teaching for each Priestley 11 subject. 

To support effective online delivery, the Committees also propose to make updates to the Standards in relation to active learning and student engagement. The Committees propose these revisions in response to initial stakeholder feedback that active learning and student engagement in an online learning environment is best supported by synchronous online learning, and that the Draft Revised Standards can best achieve consistency in accreditation by setting a threshold number of hours to promote active student learning and engagement that would apply across all delivery modes. 

The Draft Revised Standards propose revisions to clause 4.6 (Teaching the law course) by transferring commentary, with minor modification, about “active learning” to a new definition at clause 2.1 and by updating the definition of “direct interaction” to ensure it is appropriate for an online teaching and learning environment. 

The minor modifications to the definition of “active learning” remove the reference to “test” (so there is no confusion with assessments) and includes a reference to factual “scenarios”. The introduction of a new proposed requirement at clause 4.6 would allow an admitting authority to consider the number of hours provided by a law school for a student’s active learning and engagement in a Priestley 11 subject when considering whether a law course will enable a student to acquire an adequate level of understanding and competence. 

The Committees consider the provision of a minimum number of 18 hours for active learning and/or direct interaction, whether the student’s participation is in-person or through synchronous online learning, sets an appropriate balance between active and other learning. A minimum 18 hours is proposed as this would equate to 50% of the student experience with respect to the 36 hours of teaching for a Priestley 11 subject. 

Invigilated assessments 

In relation to assessments, the Committees received feedback in the initial stakeholder consultation that: • universities should continue to have flexibility to allow for best practice innovation in assessment design and to select the assessment method that best achieves the desired learning outcomes, and • it would be appropriate for a requirement to be imposed that at least 50% or half of all assessments for a Priestley 11 subject must be conducted by a form of invigilated assessment. 

This seeks to provide a sufficient level of assurance that a student has been appropriately awarded their grades and law degree. 

The Draft Revised Standards introduce a new requirement at clause 4.7 (Assessing understanding and competence) and new definitions for “assessment method” and “invigilation” at clause 2.1. 

The introduction of a new requirement at clause 4.7 would allow an admitting authority to consider for each unit of the law course that covers a Priestley 11 subject and statutory interpretation, the allocation of assessments, the assessment methods and whether a sufficient proportion of those assessments are conducted by invigilation (whether an online invigilated exam or another type of invigilated assessment). This will allow the admitting authority to ensure the law course provides an appropriate level of quality assurance that a student has been awarded a grade that accurately reflects their level of acquired understanding and competence. 

The Draft Revised Standards impose a new requirement at clause 4.7(b) that at least 50% of assessments for a unit covering a Priestley 11 subject and statutory interpretation be conducted by a form of invigilated assessment. The new requirement does not require any specific method of invigilated assessment to allow law schools flexibility to use a method of assessment that would best achieve the intended learning outcomes and suit the delivery mode. 

The introduction of a new definition for “assessment method” seeks to respond to initial stakeholder feedback that it would be helpful to include examples of the types of assessments that law schools may use in addition to examinations. 

The introduction of a new definition for “invigilation” seeks to confirm that supervision of an assessment applies to all types of delivery modes, including when an assessment is conducted in-person or online. 

Intensives and block learning models 

The Committees received initial stakeholder feedback that it would enhance national consistency of accreditation if there was additional guidance in the Standards about the use of intensives and block delivery and what is needed for a law course to be considered “intensive”. 

While the Committees are aware of two law schools that have already introduced block delivery of a whole law course, other stakeholders have expressed reservations about the appropriateness of intensive or block delivery models for Priestley 11 subjects. 

To respond to the initial stakeholder feedback, the Committees propose to update the Standards to include additional guidance that intensive or block delivery should only be used for Priestley 11 subjects where the law school satisfies the admitting authority that it is appropriate in all the circumstances. To support this, it is proposed that the Standards also provide commentary that an admitting authority may seek further information and data from a law school, and that the Standards include more information about the nature of accelerated modes of delivery, of which intensive or block learning models are a type. 

The proposed additional guidance acknowledges the practices of the Victorian and New South Wales admitting authorities which have already considered or are in the process of considering the offerings of the two law schools that have already introduced block delivery models for a whole law course. 

By making these amendments to the Standards, it is intended that law schools may make a case for delivery in accelerated mode (intensive or block delivery) by satisfying the admitting authority that it is appropriate in all the circumstances for Priestley 11 subjects to be delivered in the proposed way. It is also intended that law schools that adopt intensive or block delivery of Priestley 11 subjects would still need to meet the at least three-year (or equivalent) requirement for the duration of the law course and the proposed new minimum requirement for active learning and student engagement discussed above. It may be open to the admitting authority to consider whether a reduced number of teaching hours would be permissible for a Priestley 11 subject. The Draft Revised Standards propose amendments at clause 4.3 (The duration of the law course) in response to the initial stakeholder feedback. 

Other minor revisions 

The Draft Revised Standards propose other minor revisions to update, clarify and streamline in response to initial stakeholder feedback. These include: • a new definition of “law course” at clause 2.1 that draws from the drafting in the Uniform Law Admission Rules12 and further commentary in the explanatory note at clause 4.2(a) to clarify the requirement for a coherent sequence of units applies to a law course that is a single degree and, for a combined or double degree, to the law component of the combined or double degree • a new definition of “unit” at clause 2.1 that is consistent with the TEQSA definition13 and accompanying revisions throughout the Draft Revised Standards, for example at clauses 4.2, 4.3 and 4.5, and • updates to the definition of “prescribed areas of knowledge” at clause 2.1 and elsewhere to include statutory interpretation. 

Regulatory landscape 

The LACC Standards operate alongside the Australian Law School Standards,14 developed by the Council of Australian Law Deans (CALD), as well as the broader national regulation of the higher education sector by TEQSA. 

When developing the Draft Revised Standards, the Committees have been mindful of TEQSA’s resourcing,  role and regulatory powers in maintaining academic integrity in the tertiary education sector, and TEQSA having particular focus on responding to commercial contract cheating services and the emergence of generative AI. The Committees have also considered what universities and law schools are required to do to meet the TEQSA academic integrity requirements. Each university is required to have an up-to-date academic integrity policy and procedures that respond to contract cheating and generative AI, and to comply with the TEQSA re-accreditation process, regular TEQSA audits, and respond to enquiries or participate in other initiatives. 

To support universities adapt and respond to contract cheating and generative AI, TEQSA has published extensive resources, guidance and best practice materials about how universities can maintain academic integrity with respect to these technological developments. Anyone, including universities, students and members of the public, can report an alleged contract cheating service to TEQSA. Regarding generative AI, TEQSA encourages universities to take the approach that “assessment and learning experiences equip students to participate ethically and actively in a society where AI is ubiquitous”. 

The Committees are mindful not to include requirements in the Standards that would replicate these aspects of TEQSA’s work. This aligns with the intended application of the Standards, that they complement and not duplicate the standards of CALD and TEQSA. 

Proposed implementation timing 

The Committees anticipate working towards a publication date in the second half of 2025, although this may depend on the nature of the feedback received through the consultation process. 

The Committees propose there be a staggered two-year implementation period to facilitate transition. 

During this period: 

• The final revised Standards will be published one year before the date of commencement. 

• In the year following commencement, the final revised Standards will apply to: o all applications for accreditation and re-accreditation, and o all other accredited law courses. It is anticipated that each admitting authority will communicate with law schools which are in this category. 

NZ Preventive Detention regime

The Here ora: Public safety and serious offenders: A review of preventive detention and post-sentence orders report by the NZ Law Commission features the following recommendations -

Preventive measures, community safety and human rights (Chapter 3) 

R1 The law should continue to provide for preventive measures to protect the community from serious sexual or violent reoffending by those who would otherwise be released into the community after completing a determinate sentence of imprisonment. 

R2 The preventive measures the law should provide for are: a. community preventive supervision; b. residential preventive supervision; and c. secure preventive detention 

A single, post-sentence regime (Chapter 4) 

R3 A new statute should be enacted to govern all preventive measures (the new Act). 

R4 Sections 87–90 of the Sentencing Act 2002, providing for preventive detention, should be repealed. Part 1A of the Parole Act 2002, providing for ESOs, should be repealed. The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014, providing for PPOs, should be repealed. 

R5 All preventive measures should be imposed as post-sentence orders. For preventive measures sought against an eligible person subject to a prison sentence in Aotearoa New Zealand for a qualifying offence, the new Act should require applications to be made prior to the person’s sentence expiry date or the date when the individual ceases to be subject to any release conditions, whichever is later. 

R6 A court sentencing an eligible person to imprisonment following conviction for a qualifying offence should give written notice to the person to inform them of their eligibility to have a preventive measure sought against them. 

Reorienting preventive measures (Chapter 5) 

R7 The purposes of the new Act should be to: a. protect the community by preventing serious sexual and violent reoffending; b. support a person considered at high risk of serious sexual and/or violent reoffending to be restored to safe and unrestricted life in the community; and c. ensure that limits on a person’s freedoms to address the high risk they will sexually and/or violently reoffend are proportionate to the risks and are the least restrictive necessary. 

R8 In proceedings under the new Act, if it appears to the court that a person against whom a preventive measure is sought or a person already subject to a preventive measure may be “mentally disordered” or “intellectually disabled”, the court should have power to direct the chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections to: a. consider an application in respect of the person under section 45 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 or under section 29 of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003; and b. if the chief executive decides not to make an application, to inform the court of their decision and provide reasons for why the preventive measure is appropriate. 

R9 If at any time it appears to the chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections that a person subject to a preventive measure is mentally disordered or intellectually disabled, the chief executive should have power to make an application in respect of the person under section 45 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 or under section 29 of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. 

R10 For the purposes of any application under section 45 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 or under section 29 of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 made in relation to a person against whom a preventive measure is sought or who is already subject to a preventive measure, the person should be regarded as being detained in a prison under an order of committal.   

R11 If a compulsory treatment order under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 or a compulsory care order under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 is imposed on a person subject to a preventive measure, the preventive measure should be suspended. While suspended, a probation officer should be able to reactivate any conditions of the preventive measure to ensure that the person does not pose a high risk to the community or any class of people. The Review Authority (see R131–R141) should annually review any reactivated conditions. 

Te ao Māori and the preventive regimes (Chapter 6) 

R12 When imposing a preventive measure, the new Act should require the court to consider whether the preventive measure should be administered by placing the person within the care of a Māori group or a member of a Māori group such as: a. an iwi, hapū or whānau; b. a marae; or c. a group with rangatiratanga responsibilities in relation to the person. 

PART 3: ELIGIBILITY 

Age of eligibility (Chapter 7) 

R13 To be eligible for a preventive measure, the new Act should require that a person is aged 18 years or older at the time of an application. 

Qualifying offences (Chapter 8) 

R14 To be eligible for a preventive measure, the new Act should require that a person has been subject to a sentence of imprisonment for a conviction of a qualifying offence. 

R15 Qualifying offences should be the same for all preventive measures. 

R16 Qualifying offences should continue to focus on sexual and violent offending. 

R17 Qualifying offences should be those offences set out in Appendix 1 of this Report.   

R18 Imprisonable offences under the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 that are currently qualifying offences for an extended supervision order should be qualifying offences for all preventive measures. 

R19 The offence of strangulation or suffocation (section 189A of the Crimes Act 1961) should be a qualifying offence. 

R20 The following offences should not be qualifying offences: a. Incest (section 130 of the Crimes Act 1961). b. Bestiality (section 143 of the Crimes Act 1961). c. Accessory after the fact to murder (section 176 of the Crimes Act 1961). 

R21 All qualifying offences should be further qualifying offences for the purpose of the application of the legislative tests in R25 except: a. imprisonable Films, Videos, and Publications Classifications Act 1993 offences; b. attempts and conspiracies to commit qualifying offences; and c. Prostitution Reform Act 2003 offences. 

Overseas offending (Chapter 9) 

R22 A person convicted of an offence overseas should be eligible for a preventive measure if the offence would come within the meaning of a qualifying offence as defined under the new Act had it been committed in Aotearoa New Zealand and the person: a. has arrived in Aotearoa New Zealand within six months of ceasing to be subject to any sentence, supervision conditions or order imposed on the person for that offence by an overseas court; and i. since that arrival, has been in Aotearoa New Zealand for less than six months; and ii. resides or intends to reside in Aotearoa New Zealand; or b. has been determined to be a returning prisoner and is subject to release conditions under the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015; or c. is a returning offender to whom Subpart 3 of Part 2 of the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015 applies and who is subject to release conditions under that Act.   

PART 4: IMPOSING PREVENTIVE MEASURES 

Legislative tests for imposing preventive measures (Chapter 10) 

R23 All proceedings for the imposition of a preventive measure should commence by application to the court from the chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections for an order for a specific preventive measure. 

R24 Jurisdiction to hear and determine applications for preventive measures should be as follows: a. Te Kōti-ā-Rōhe | District Court should have first instance jurisdiction to determine applications for community preventive supervision. b. Te Kōti Matua | High Court should have first instance jurisdiction to determine applications for residential preventive supervision and secure preventive detention. c. Where the chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections applies for preventive measures in the alternative, they should apply to te Kōti Matua | High Court. 

R25 The new Act should provide that the court may impose a preventive measure on an eligible person if it is satisfied that: a. the person is at high risk of committing a further qualifying offence in the next three years if the preventive measure is not imposed on them; b. having regard to the nature and extent of that risk, the preventive measure is the least restrictive measure adequate to address that risk; and c. the nature and extent of any limits the preventive measure would place on the person’s rights and freedoms affirmed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 are justified by the nature and extent of the risk the person poses to the community. 

R26 In deciding whether the tests in R25 are met, the court should take into account: a. any health assessor reports before the court; b. whether the person has, or has had, a pattern of serious offending; c. any efforts made by the person to address the cause or causes of all or any of those offences; d. whether and, if so, how a preventive measure imposed can be administered by Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections (or on its behalf); e. any other possible preventive measure that the court could impose that would comply with those tests; and f. any other information relevant to whether the tests in R25 are met. 

R27 Special conditions of community preventive supervision or residential preventive supervision should be set in the following way: a. An application for either measure should include any special condition sought. b. The court determining the application should apply the tests in R25 to the whole application, including the special conditions sought. c. An order imposing community preventive supervision or residential preventive supervision should include any special conditions of the measure. 

R28 If the court is not satisfied the tests in R25 are met in respect of the measure sought in the application, the new Act should confer on the court the power in the same proceedings to impose a less restrictive preventive measure if satisfied the tests are met in respect of that measure. 

R29 Before an application for a preventive measure is finally determined, the court should have power to impose any preventive measure on an interim basis in the following circumstances: a. An eligible person is, or is about to be, released from detention. b. An eligible person who is a returning offender arrives, or is about to arrive, in Aotearoa New Zealand. c. The court directs the chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections (chief executive) to consider an application in respect of a person under section 45 of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 or under section 29 of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. d. The chief executive makes an application to escalate a person to a more restrictive measure. 

R30 To impose an interim preventive measure, the court should be satisfied the primary legislative tests in R25 are made out on the available evidence in support of the application for the interim measure. 

R31 If the court imposes community preventive supervision or residential preventive supervision as an interim preventive measure, the standard conditions of that measure should apply. The court should also have the power to impose any special conditions that may be imposed under that measure.   

Evidence of reoffending risk (Chapter 11) 

R32 The chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections should file with the court: a. two health assessor reports to accompany an application to impose residential preventive supervision or secure preventive detention on an eligible person; and b. one health assessor report to accompany an application to impose community preventive supervision on an eligible person. 

R33 The health assessor reports should address whether: a. the person is at high risk of committing a further qualifying offence in the next three years if the preventive measure is not imposed on them; and b. having regard to the nature and extent of that risk, the preventive measure is the least restrictive measure adequate to address that risk. 

R34 The new Act should define a health assessor as a health practitioner who: a. is, or is deemed to be, registered with Te Kaunihera Rata o Aotearoa | Medical Council of New Zealand specified by section 114(1)(a) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 as a practitioner of the profession of medicine and who is a practising psychiatrist; or b. is, or is deemed to be, registered with Te Poari Kaimātai Hinengaro o Aotearoa | New Zealand Psychologists Board specified by section 114(1)(a) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 as a practitioner of the profession of psychology. 

R35 The court should be able to direct, on its own initiative, that a report or reports prepared by health assessors be provided. R36 A person against whom an application for a preventive measure is made should be able to file a report or reports prepared by health assessors they have engaged. 

R37 A person against whom a preventive measure is sought should have public funding available to them to obtain: a. two health assessor reports if the application against them is to impose residential preventive supervision or secure preventive detention; and b. one health assessor report if the application against them is to impose community preventive supervision. 

R38 The new Act should provide that the court may receive and consider any evidence or information it thinks fit in proceedings under the new Act, whether or not it would otherwise be admissible. The rules applying to privilege and confidentiality under Subpart 8 of Part 2 of the Evidence Act 2006 and rules applying to legal professional privilege should continue to apply. 

Proceedings under the new Act (Chapter 12) 

R39 Te Kōti Matua | High Court and te Kōti-ā-Rohe | District Court should hear and determine applications for preventive measures under their criminal jurisdiction. 

R40 The new Act should provide for a right of appeal to te Kōti Pīra | Court of Appeal against decisions by te Kōti Matua | High Court or te Kōti-ā-Rohe | District Court determining an application to: a. impose a preventive measure; b. impose a preventive measure on an interim basis; c. review a preventive measure; d. terminate a preventive measure; or e. escalate a person to a more restrictive measure (including to a prison detention order). 

R41 Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 should, with the necessary modifications, apply to the appeal as if it were an appeal against sentence. 

R42 The lodging of an appeal should not prevent the decision appealed against taking effect according to its terms. 

R43 When a court hears and determines applications for the imposition or review of a preventive measure in respect of a person, the new Act should require the court to consider any views expressed by the person’s family, whānau, hapū, marae or iwi or anyone holding a shared sense of whānau identity with the person. 

R44 The government should continue to develop and support ways to facilitate the court to hear views from family, whānau, hapū, marae, iwi and other people holding a shared sense of whānau identity.   

R45 The chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections should, as soon as practicable, notify each victim of a person who is considered for or subject to a preventive measure: a. that an application for a preventive measure has been made; b. of the outcome of an application when the application is determined or abandoned; c. of any special conditions that are imposed on a person subject to community preventive supervision or residential preventive supervision and when these are varied or terminated; d. that an application to the court for review or termination of a preventive measure has been made; e. of the outcome of any review conducted by the court; f. that the person subject to a preventive measure has died; g. that the person subject to a preventive measure has escaped from a secure facility; or h. that the person subject to community preventive supervision or residential preventive supervision has been convicted of a breach of their conditions. 

R46 The new Act should provide that notification to victims regarding special conditions may be withheld if disclosure would unduly interfere with the privacy of any other person. 

R47 The new Act should: a. entitle victims to make written submissions and, with the leave of the court, oral submissions when the court is determining an application to impose or review a preventive measure; and b. provide that victims may be represented by counsel and/or a support person or people if making an oral submission to the court. 

R48 For the purposes of the new Act, a victim should be defined as a person who: a. is a victim of a qualifying offence committed by a person: i. against whom an application for a preventive measure has been made; or ii. who is subject to a preventive measure imposed under the Act; and b. who has asked for notice or advice of matters or decisions or directions and copies of orders and conditions and has given their current address under section 32B of the Victims’ Rights Act 2002.   

R49 The new Act should protect information related to victims by: a. requiring that a person subject to a preventive measure or against whom an application for a preventive measure has been made: i. does not receive any information that discloses the address or contact details of any victim; and ii. does not retain any written submissions made by a victim; b. providing that the court may, on its own initiative or in response to an application, give directions or impose conditions on the disclosure or distribution of a victim’s submission if, in its opinion, it is necessary to protect the physical safety or security, emotional welfare or privacy of the victim concerned; and c. making it an offence for any person to publish information provided to the court for the purpose of making a victim submission that identifies, or enables the identification of, a victim of a person subject to an application or a preventive measure. 

R50 Court proceedings concerning preventive measures should generally be open to the public. 

R51 The court should have the power to make an order forbidding publication of: a. the name or any other identifying details of a person who is the subject of an application for, or subject to, a preventive measure; b. the whole or any part of the evidence given or submissions made in the proceedings; and/or c. any details of the measure imposed. 

R52 The court should have the power to make an order forbidding publication of a matter listed under R51 only if satisfied that publication would be likely to: a. cause undue hardship to the person who is the subject of an application for, or subject to, a preventive measure (the person); b. unduly impede the person’s ability to engage in rehabilitation and reintegration; c. create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial; d. cause undue hardship to any victim of the person’s previous offending; e. endanger the safety of any person; f. lead to the identification of another person whose name is suppressed by order of law; or g. prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation and detection of offences.   

R53 The court should have the power to make an order to clear the court if satisfied that: a. the order is necessary to avoid: i. undue disruption to the conduct of proceedings; ii. a real risk of prejudice to a fair hearing; iii. endangering the safety of any person; iv. undue hardship to the person who is the subject of an application for, or subject to, a preventive measure; or v. prejudicing the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation and detection of offences; and b. a suppression order is not sufficient to avoid that risk. 

PART 5: ADMINISTRATION OF PREVENTIVE MEASURES 

Overarching operational matters (Chapter 13) 

R54 Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections should be responsible for the operation of preventive measures under the new Act. 

R55 The chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections should appoint facility managers. 

R56 For facilities operated under a facility management contract, the contractor should appoint facility managers, subject to approval by the chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections. 

R57 The chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections should have the power to issue guidelines and instructions with which all facility managers should be required to comply. 

R58 The chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections should have the power to enter into a contract with an appropriate external entity for the management of a residential facility (under residential preventive supervision) or a secure facility (under secure preventive detention).   

R59 Every facility management contract should: a. provide for objectives and performance standards no lower than those that apply to Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections; b. provide for the appointment of a suitable person as facility manager; and c. impose on the contracted entity a duty to comply with the new Act (including instructions and guidelines issued by the chief executive of Ara Poutama), the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Public Records Act 2005, sections 73 and 74(2) of the Public Service Act 2020 and all relevant international obligations and standards as if the facility were run by Ara Poutama. 

R60 The chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections should have the power to take control of externally administered facilities in emergencies (as defined in section 134 of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014). 

R61 The chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections should appoint suitably qualified people to be independent inspectors. The chief executive should ensure that the number of inspectors appointed is sufficient for the operation of the new Act. 

R62 Anyone should be able to complain to an inspector about a breach of the rights of a person subject to a preventive measure. 

R63 An inspector may, on their own initiative or on receipt of a complaint against a probation officer, facility manager or facility staff, commence an investigation into an alleged breach of the new Act or any conditions imposed, or guidelines or directions issued under it. An inspector may decide not to investigate a complaint if satisfied that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious. 

R64 If, after investigating a complaint, the inspector is satisfied that the complaint has substance, the inspector should, as soon as is reasonable in the circumstances, either: a. conduct an inquiry (in accordance with the Inquiries Act 2013); or b. report the matter, together with any recommendations, to the relevant probation officer or facility manager. R65 An inspector should have to power to commence an inquiry into an alleged breach of the new Act or any conditions imposed, or guidelines or directions issued under it, on their own initiative. An inspector should commence an inquiry if directed to do so by the chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections.   

R66 An inquiry should result in an inquiry report being prepared, which the inspector should send to: a. the relevant probation officer or facility manager; b. the chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections; c. the person subject to the preventive measure concerned; and d. if applicable, any person who complained on behalf of the person subject to the preventive measure concerned. 

R67 Residential facilities and secure facilities should be subject to: a. examination by a National Preventive Mechanism under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989; and b. inspections every six months by inspectors appointed under the new Act to address the facilities’ compliance with all requirements under the new Act. 

R68 An inspection by an inspector appointed under the new Act should result in an inspection report being prepared, which the inspector should send to the relevant facility manager and the chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections. 

R69 Probation officers, as well as facility managers and their staff, should have regard to the following guiding principles when exercising their powers: a. People subject to community preventive supervision must not be subject to any more restrictions of their rights and freedoms than are necessary to ensure the safety of the community. b. People subject to residential preventive supervision or secure preventive detention must have as much autonomy and quality of life as is consistent with the safety of the community and the orderly functioning and safety of the facility. c. People subject to any preventive measure must, to the extent compatible with the safety of the community, be given appropriate opportunities to demonstrate rehabilitative progress and prepared for moving to a less restrictive preventive measure or unrestricted life in the community. 

R70 The new Act should provide that people subject to a preventive measure are entitled to receive rehabilitative treatment and reintegration support. 

R71 Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections should ensure sufficient rehabilitative treatment and reintegration support is available to people subject to a preventive measure so that the duration of the preventive measure is limited to the shortest period necessary to protect the community from the high risk the person will commit a further qualifying offence. 

R72 The new Act should provide that each person subject to a preventive measure must have their needs assessed as soon as practicable after the measure is imposed. The assessment should identify any: a. medical requirements; b. mental health needs; c. needs related to any disability; d. needs related to education; e. needs related to therapeutic, recreational, cultural and religious activities; f. needs related to building relationships with the person’s family, whānau, hapū, iwi or other people with whom the person has a shared sense of whānau identity; g. steps to be taken to facilitate the person’s rehabilitation and reintegration into the community; and h. other matters relating to the person’s wellbeing and humane treatment. 

R73 The new Act should provide that each person subject to a preventive measure must have a treatment and supervision plan developed with them as soon as practicable after the completion of the initial needs assessment. The treatment and supervision plan should set out: a. the reasonable needs of the person based on the completed needs assessment; b. the steps to be taken to work towards the person’s restoration to safe and unrestricted life in the community; c. if applicable, the steps to be taken to work towards the person’s transfer to a less restrictive measure; d. the rehabilitative treatment and reintegration support a person is to receive; e. opportunities to participate in life in the community for people subject to residential preventive supervision or secure preventive detention; f. any matters relating to the nature and extent of the person’s supervision required to ensure the safety of the person, other residents of a facility, staff of the facility and the community; and g. any other relevant matters. 

R74 The person responsible for assessing the person’s needs and developing and administering the treatment and supervision plan should be: a. the probation officer responsible for supervising the person in the case of community preventive supervision; or b. the facility manager into whose care the person is placed in the cases of residential preventive supervision and secure preventive detention.   

R75 When undertaking a needs assessment or developing a treatment and supervision plan, the responsible person should be required to make reasonable efforts to consult with the person subject to the preventive measure. 

Community preventive supervision (Chapter 14) 

R76 Community preventive supervision should comprise standard conditions and any additional special conditions imposed by te Kōti-ā-Rohe | District Court. 

R77 When te Kōti-ā-Rohe | District Court imposes community preventive supervision, the following standard conditions should automatically apply. The person subject to community preventive supervision (the person) must: a. report in person to a probation officer in the probation area in which the person resides as soon as practicable, and not later than 72 hours, after commencement of the community preventive supervision measure; b. report to a probation officer as and when required to do so by a probation officer and notify the probation officer of their residential address and the nature and place of their employment when asked to do so; c. obtain the prior written consent of a probation officer before moving to a new residential address; d. report in person to a probation officer in the new probation area in which the person is to reside as soon as practicable, and not later than 72 hours, after the person’s arrival in the new area if the person is moving to a new probation area; e. not reside at any address at which a probation officer has, in writing, directed the person not to reside; f. not leave or attempt to leave Aotearoa New Zealand without the prior written consent of a probation officer; g. if a probation officer directs in writing, allow the collection of biometric information; h. obtain the prior written consent of a probation officer before changing their employment; i. not engage, or continue to engage, in any employment or occupation in which the probation officer has, in writing, directed the person not to engage or continue to engage; j. not associate with, or contact, a victim of their offending without the prior written approval of a probation officer; and k. not associate with, or contact, any specified person, or with people of any specified class, whom the probation officer has, in writing, directed the person not to associate with or contact unless the probation officer has defined conditions under which association or contact is permissible. 

R78 The new Act should provide that the kinds of special conditions that te Kōti-ā-Rohe | District Court may impose under R76 include, without limitation, conditions: a. to reside at a particular place; b. to be at the place of residence for up to eight hours in a 24-hour period; c. not to use a controlled drug or a psychoactive substance and/or consume alcohol; d. not to associate with any person, persons or class of persons; e. to take prescription medication; f. not to enter, or remain in, specified places or areas at specified times or at all times; g. not to associate with, or contact, a person under the age of 16 except with the prior written approval of a probation officer and in the presence and under the supervision of an adult who has been informed about the relevant offending and has been approved in writing by a probation officer as suitable to undertake the role of supervision; h. to submit to the electronic monitoring of compliance with any conditions that relate to the whereabouts of the person; and i. not to use any electronic device capable of accessing the internet without supervision. 

R79 The new Act should provide that a person subject to community preventive supervision must not be made subject to a special condition that requires them to take prescription medication unless the person: a. has been fully advised, by a person who is qualified to prescribe that medication, about the nature and likely or intended effect of the medication and any known risks; and b. consents to taking the prescription medication. 

R80 The new Act should provide that a person subject to community preventive supervision does not breach their conditions if they withdraw consent to taking prescription medication. 

R81 The new Act should provide that the following conditions must not be imposed as part of community preventive supervision: a. Any kind of detention. b. An intensive monitoring condition (in-person, line-of-sight monitoring). 

R82 Special conditions should, by default, be imposed for as long as the preventive measure is in place. Te Kōti-ā-Rohe | District Court, should, however, have the power to specify a shorter period for individual special conditions where it would otherwise not be the least restrictive measure. 

R83 Probation officers should be responsible for monitoring people’s compliance with conditions of community preventive supervision. 

R84 The new Act should state that the rights of people subject to community preventive supervision are only limited by standard and special conditions imposed on them in accordance with the new Act. 

R85 The new Act should clarify that the following rights (minimum entitlements) of a person subject to community preventive supervision may not be limited by a probation officer: a. Every person subject to community preventive supervision is entitled to be informed about conditions, instructions, entitlements, obligations and decisions that affect them. The information must be provided in a way that ensures that the person understands its nature and effect. b. Every person subject to community preventive supervision is entitled to be dealt with in a respectful manner, having regard to the person’s cultural and ethnic identity, language, and religious or ethical beliefs. c. Every person subject to community preventive supervision is entitled to make complaints about the probation officer responsible for managing their conditions to an inspector appointed in accordance with the new Act. 

Residential preventive supervision (Chapter 15) 

R86 Residential preventive supervision should comprise standard conditions and any additional special conditions imposed by te Kōti Matua | High Court. 

R87 When te Kōti Matua | High Court imposes residential preventive supervision, the following standard conditions should automatically apply. The person subject to residential preventive supervision (the resident) must: a. reside at the residential facility specified by the court; b. stay at that facility at all times unless leave is permitted by the facility manager; c. be subject to electronic monitoring for ensuring compliance with other standard or special conditions unless the facility manager directs otherwise in writing; d. be subject to in-person, line-of-sight monitoring during outings unless the facility manager directs otherwise in writing; e. not have in their possession any prohibited items (as currently defined in section 3 of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014; f. submit to rub-down searches or searches of their room (in accordance with sections 89 and 93–96 of the Corrections Act 2004) for the purpose of detecting a prohibited item if the facility manager has reasonable grounds to believe that the resident has in their possession a prohibited item; g. hand over any prohibited items discovered in their possession; h. not associate with, or contact, a victim of the resident’s offending without the prior written approval of the facility manager; and i. not associate with, or contact, any specified person, or people of any specified class, whom the facility manager has, in writing, directed the resident not to associate with or contact unless the facility manager has defined conditions under which association or contact is permissible.  

R88 The new Act should provide that the kinds of special conditions that te Kōti Matua | High Court may impose under R86 include, without limitation, conditions: a. not to use a controlled drug or a psychoactive substance and/or consume alcohol; b. not to associate with any person, persons or class of persons; c. to take prescription medication; d. not to enter, or remain in, specified places or areas at specified times or at all times; e. not to associate with, or contact, a person under the age of 16 except with the prior written approval of a facility manager and in the presence and under the supervision of an adult who has been informed about the relevant offending and has been approved in writing by a facility manager as suitable to undertake the role of supervision; and f. not to use any electronic device capable of accessing the internet without supervision. 

R89 The new Act should provide that the resident may not be made subject to a special condition that requires them to take prescription medication unless the resident: a. has been fully advised, by a person who is qualified to prescribe that medication, about the nature and likely or intended effect of the medication and any known risks; and b. consents to taking the prescription medication. 

R90 The new Act should provide that the resident does not breach their conditions if they withdraw consent to taking prescription medication. 

R91 The new Act should set out a procedure for the responsible Minister to designate a residential facility by New Zealand Gazette notice. 

R92 The new Act should provide that rooms or units at a residential facility should be materially different from prison cells and provide each resident with privacy and a reasonable level of comfort.  

R93 The chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections should have legal custody of the residents. 

R94 The facility manager should be entrusted with the residents’ care and be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the facility. 

R95 The manager of a residential facility should be able to delegate any of their powers under standard or special conditions to suitably qualified staff. 

R96 The new Act should state that residents’ rights are only limited by standard and special conditions imposed on them in accordance with the new Act. The new Act should provide for a non-exhaustive list of residents’ rights as set out in Appendix 2 of this Report. 

R97 The new Act should clarify that certain rights of residents (minimum entitlements) set out in Appendix 2 of this Report may not be limited by standard and special conditions imposed on them unless the security of the facility or the health or safety of a person is threatened. 

Secure preventive detention (Chapter 16) 

R98 The new Act should require that people subject to secure preventive detention (detainees) are detained in a secure facility and must not leave the facility without the permission of the facility manager. 

R99 Detainees should be in the custody of the chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections. 

R100 The new Act should provide that secure facilities must conform to the following design features: a. Secure facilities must be separate from prison. b. Secure facilities must have rooms or separate, self-contained units where people subject to secure preventive detention reside. The rooms or units should be materially different from prison cells and provide the detainee with privacy and a reasonable level of comfort. 

R101 The new Act should set out a procedure for the responsible Minister to designate a secure facility by New Zealand Gazette notice. 

R102 To ensure the safety of the community or the orderly functioning and safety of a secure facility, the manager of the facility should have powers to: a. check and withhold certain written communications; b. inspect delivered items; c. monitor and restrict mail, phone calls and internet use; d. restrict contact with certain people outside a facility; e. conduct searches in accordance with Subpart 4 of Part 2 of the Corrections Act 2004 for the purpose of detecting a prohibited item (as currently defined in section 3 of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014); f. inspect and take prohibited items; g. carry out drug or alcohol tests; h. seclude detainees; i. restrain detainees; j. take all reasonable steps to return an escaped detainee to custody, including calling for assistance from Ngā Pirihimana Aotearoa | New Zealand Police; and k. call on corrections officers to use physical force in a security emergency. 

R103 The manager of a secure facility should have the power to make appropriate rules for the management of the facility and for the conduct and safe custody of the detainees if authorised to do so by the chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections. 

R104 The manager of a secure facility may delegate any of their powers, except the powers to make rules and to delegate, to suitably qualified staff. 

R105 The new Act should provide for a procedure for obtaining a warrant from a judge or, if unavailable, a registrar, and an empowering provision for Ngā Pirihimana Aotearoa | New Zealand Police to arrest an escapee without warrant where it is not reasonably practical to obtain one. 

R106 The new Act should state that detainees’ rights are only limited by provisions of the new Act. The new Act should provide for a non-exhaustive list of rights of detainees as set out in Appendix 2 of this Report. 

R107 The new Act should clarify that certain rights of detainees (minimum entitlements) set out in Appendix 2 of this Report may not be limited unless the security of the facility, or the health or safety of a person, is threatened.   

Non-compliance and escalation (Chapter 17) 

R108 The new Act should provide that a person subject to a preventive measure who breaches any conditions of that measure without reasonable excuse commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or to a fine not exceeding $2,000. 

R109 For a person subject to community preventive supervision or residential preventive supervision, te Kōti Matua | High Court should have power to order that the preventive measure to which they are subject be terminated and a more restrictive type of preventive measure be imposed if: a. the person would, if they were to remain subject to the current preventive measure, pose such an unacceptably high risk to the community, themselves or others that they cannot be safely managed under that preventive measure; and b. less restrictive options for managing the behaviour of the person have been considered to a reasonable extent and any appropriate options have been tried. 

R110 The chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections should be responsible for applying to the court for an order for a more restrictive type of preventive measure. The chief executive should file two health assessor reports to accompany the application. 

R111 Te Kōti Matua | High Court should have power to order that a person subject to secure preventive detention be detained in prison (a prison detention order) if: a. the person would, if they were to remain subject to secure preventive detention, pose such an unacceptably high risk to the community, themselves or others that they cannot be safely managed on secure preventive detention; and b. less restrictive options for managing the behaviour of the person have been considered to a reasonable extent and any appropriate options have been tried. 

R112 The chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections should be responsible for applying to the Court for a prison detention order. The chief executive should file two health assessor reports to accompany the application. 

R113 The new Act should provide that people imprisoned subject to prison detention orders, to the extent possible, have the same rights as they would enjoy if detained in a secure facility.   

R114 Prison detention orders should remain in force until terminated by te Kōti Matua | High Court.  

R115 The new Act should provide for the following review procedure for prison detention orders: a. The same legislative test for imposing a prison detention order should apply for reviews of the order. b. Te Kōti Matua | High Court should review a prison detention order annually upon application by the chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections (chief executive). c. A prison detention order should be reviewed by the Review Authority every six months or, if there is an application for a court review pending, within six months after te Kōti Matua | High Court has determined the last application for review. d. The chief executive and, with leave of the court, a person subject to a prison detention order should be able to apply to te Kōti Matua | High Court for the termination of a prison detention order. 

Duration and review of preventive measures (Chapter 18) 

R116 A preventive measure should be imposed indeterminately and remain in force until terminated by a court. 

R117 A preventive measure to which a person is subject should be suspended while that person is either subject to a determinate sentence of imprisonment or on remand in custody. 

R118 In the case of a prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment, a preventive measure should reactivate at the person’s sentence expiry date or the date when the individual ceases to be subject to any release conditions, whichever is later. In the case of a prisoner on remand, the preventive measure should reactivate when the individual is released from custody. 

R119 If the person subject to a suspended preventive measure has been released on parole at the time of reactivation of the preventive measure, the Review Authority (R131–R141) should review the preventive measure as soon as is reasonably practical. The Review Authority should determine whether it should make the measure less restrictive or whether the relevant court should consider terminating the measure (R136). 

R120 A preventive measure to which a person is subject should terminate if a sentence of life imprisonment is imposed on that person. R121 A preventive measure to which a person is subject should continue in force while that person is serving a community-based sentence or a sentence of home detention. 

R122 A preventive measure to which a person is subject should be suspended while an interim preventive measure is in force in relation to that person. If the court declines the application for the new preventive measure to which the interim measure relates, the suspended preventive measure should reactivate. If the court grants the application for the new substantive preventive measure, the suspended preventive measure should terminate. 

R123 The chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections should apply to the court for a review of a preventive measure no later than three years after it was imposed. For subsequent reviews, the chief executive should apply for a review of the preventive measure no later than three years after the court has finally determined the previous application for review (including any appeals). Any time spent while the preventive measure is suspended should not be included in the calculation of the three-year period. 

R124 Applications for a review of community preventive supervision should be made to te Kōti-ā-Rohe | District Court. Applications for the review of residential preventive supervision or secure preventive detention should be made to te Kōti Matua | High Court. 

R125 To accompany an application, the chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections should submit at least: a. one health assessor report for the review of community preventive supervision or two health assessor reports for the review of residential preventive supervision and secure preventive detention; b. the person’s current treatment and supervision plan and a progress report from the facility manager (in the case of residential preventive supervision or secure preventive detention) or the probation officer (in the case of community preventive supervision); and c. the decisions of the Review Authority since the last court review. 

R126 The court should have the power to direct, on its own initiative, that additional health assessor reports be provided. The person subject to the preventive measure under review should be able to submit additional health assessor reports prepared by health assessors they have engaged. 

R127 The health assessor reports should address whether: a. the eligible person is at high risk of committing a further qualifying offence in the next three years if the person does not remain subject to the preventive measure; and b. having regard to the nature and extent of that risk, the preventive measure is the least restrictive measure adequate to address that risk. 

R128 When determining an application for review of a preventive measure, the court should review the ongoing justification for the measure by applying the same legislative tests that are used for imposing preventive measures (R25). 

R129 The court should determine an application for the review of a preventive measure by: a. confirming the preventive measure and, if applicable, its conditions; b. confirming the preventive measure but varying the special conditions of the preventive measure (in the case of community preventive supervision or residential preventive supervision) to make them less restrictive; c. terminating the preventive measure and imposing a less restrictive measure; or d. terminating the preventive measure without replacement. 

R130 If the court confirms the preventive measure, it should review the person’s treatment and supervision plan. It should have the power (but not be required) to do so if it orders the imposition of a less restrictive measure. The court should have the power to make recommendations to the person responsible for developing and administering the plan. 

R131 To provide additional reviews of preventive measures alongside court reviews, the new Act should provide for the establishment of a Review Authority as an independent statutory entity. 

R132 The Review Authority should operate in panels of three to four members, one of whom must be a panel convenor or the chairperson. A decision by a panel acting within its jurisdiction should be a decision of the Review Authority.   

R133 The Review Authority should have the following membership. It should: a. be chaired by a judge or former judge; b. include other judges or former judges or experienced barristers and solicitors as members and panel convenors; c. include psychiatrists and clinical psychologists as members; d. include members with Parole Board experience and have at least one member who is also a current member of the Parole Board; and e. include members with expertise in mātauranga Māori (including tikanga Māori). 

R134 The Review Authority should review a preventive measure annually except in the years during which an application for a court review of a preventive measure is pending. 

R135 The Review Authority should review the ongoing justification for a preventive measure by applying the same legislative tests that are used for imposing preventive measures (R25). 

R136 The Review Authority should conclude a review of a preventive measure by issuing a decision: a. confirming the ongoing justification for the preventive measure and, if applicable, its conditions; b. in the case of community preventive supervision or residential preventive supervision, confirming the ongoing justification for the preventive measure but varying the special conditions to make them less restrictive; or c. if it considers the preventive measure may no longer be justified, directing the chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections to apply to the relevant court for a court review of the preventive measure. 

R137 If the Review Authority confirms a preventive measure, it should be required to review the person’s treatment and supervision plan. The Review Authority should have the power to make recommendations to the person responsible for developing and administering the plan. 

R138 The Review Authority should be able to regulate its own procedure. Review Authority hearings should be run in the manner of an inquiry and in an atmosphere that encourages people appearing before it to speak for themselves and as freely and frankly as possible. R139 The Review Authority should have the power to decide whether a hearing held by the Review Authority should be open or closed to the public. 

R140 The Review Authority should have the power to request information relevant to the review from the people responsible for the administration of a preventive measure. 

R141 The person subject to a preventive measure under review should be able to appear and make oral submissions to the Review Authority. They should be able to be represented by a lawyer. 

R142 The chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections and the person subject to a preventive measure should be able to apply to the court to terminate the measure without replacement or to terminate the measure and replace it with a less restrictive measure. An application concerning community preventive supervision should be submitted to te Kōti-ā-Rohe | District Court. An application concerning residential preventive supervision or secure preventive detention should be submitted to te Kōti Matua | High Court. 

R143 When determining an application to terminate a preventive measure, the court should review the ongoing justification for the measure by applying the same legislative tests that are used for imposing preventive measures (R25). 

R144 If, following an application to terminate a measure without replacement, te Kōti Matua | High Court is not satisfied the measure should be terminated without replacement but is satisfied the measure should be terminated and replaced with a less restrictive measure instead, it should have the power to do so in the same proceedings. 

R145 If the court declines to order the termination of a measure following an application to terminate by the person subject to the measure, the court should be able at the same time, and on its own initiative or on application by the chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections, to order that the person subject to the measure not be permitted to apply for termination of the measure for a specified period of not more than two years. 

R146 The chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections and the person subject to community preventive supervision or residential preventive supervision should be able to apply to the Review Authority to vary the special conditions of community preventive supervision or residential preventive supervision. 

R147 The chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections and the person subject to residential preventive supervision should be able to apply to the Review Authority to change the specific residential facility where the person subject to residential preventive supervision must stay.   

R148 The chief executive of Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections and the person subject to a preventive measure should have a right to appeal to the relevant court (te Kōti-ā-Rohe | District Court for community preventive supervision or te Kōti Matua | High Court for residential preventive supervision) against a decision by the Review Authority to vary special conditions. 

Transitional provisions (Chapter 19) 

R149 Ara Poutama Aotearoa | Department of Corrections should consider the appropriate transitional arrangements to bring the new Act into effect.