Derrick

For the past 20 years Derrick has lived in a block of units managed by a disability service provider – most of the time sharing a unit with one other resident.

A few years ago he was given the opportunity to move to a unit at the back of the property and live by himself. He was able to listen to music and collect record players which he serviced and repaired. He took pride in his unit and loved living on his own.

Everything changed when Cath moved in.

Derrick has an intellectual disability. In a submission made on his behalf, Derrick’s advocate told the Royal Commission the provider didn’t give Derrick any choice about living with Cath.

From the outset Cath verbally abused Derrick. He tried to ignore her and retreated to his room. Cath also physically assaulted him, but the provider refused to intervene. Staff did their best to manage the situation but they often discussed their concern that Derrick, who is tall and well-built, may only be able to tolerate so much abuse before he retaliated.

Eighteen months after Cath arrived, the provider moved a third person, Abe, into the unit. Abe is very reserved and had experienced violence in two previous homes.

With three people in the small unit Cath’s behaviour deteriorated. She regularly attacked Abe and Derrick and damaged the property. Derrick’s advocate later learnt Cath repeatedly communicated to her family and the provider that she did not want to live with the men, but nothing was done.

The situation was further complicated because Derrick, Cath and Abe worked together at an Australian Disability Enterprise (ADE). Staff at the ADE reported conflict and incidents between the three workers.

One day Derrick did retaliate and pushed Cath to the ground. Derrick lost his job but Cath continued to work at the ADE, which increased tensions between them.

Soon after this Cath became unwell and her behaviours escalated drastically. She would ‘explode’ and the men were forced to leave their home for their own safety. For several weeks the men were forced to flee for periods of time each day. Despite requests from staff, the provider did nothing.

Then Cath assaulted staff. When ambulance and police arrived Cath ran off. Several hours later Cath returned and continued to assault staff and damage property, but this time police and ambulance were able to assist and took her to hospital.

The next day Derrick’s advocate supported him to make a statement to police. Police said they were unable to do anything because Cath ‘was deemed as having no capacity’.

Derrick was terrified Cath would return. He required increased medication and support from his psychiatrist to manage his fear and anxiety. His advocate repeatedly argued the living arrangement was untenable. But the provider ignored her and after several months told Derrick that Cath was returning to the unit. Derrick was shattered and said, ‘no, no, no’.

Derrick sought legal support and after sustained pressure the provider agreed to independent mediation.

Mediation raised questions the provider couldn’t answer and Cath’s return was put on hold. An independent consultant was engaged. After three months of phone calls and meetings, they determined the house was not suitable for Cath.

Finally Derrick did not have to live in constant fear and could relax.

Derrick’s advocate is frustrated it took so much advocacy and legal support for him to be able to live without fear of violence. She believes the provider should be held accountable for the years of abuse and violence he experienced.

In the future Derrick says he wants ‘people living in housing where they have choices with whom they live with, in a safe friendly home environment free from abuse’ .