poor, powerless and in trouble with the law · rich and poor are fined the same amount for the same...

Foreword 1Executive summary 2Recommendations 4Prologue 61 Purpose of this Fellowship 82 Poverty and powerlessness 103 The courts 12 3.1 Howtraditionalcourtswork 12 3.2 Problem-solvingcourts 14 3.3 Integratingproblem-solvingprinciples intoourjusticesystem 18

Recommendations 234 The infringements system 24 4.1 Infringementsandthejusticesystem 25 4.2 Thegrowthoftheinfringementssystem 25 4.3 Thespreadoftheinfringementssystem 26 4.4 Theimplicationsoftheexpansion oftheinfringementssystem 27

4.5 Howtheinfringementssystem canbeimproved 28

4.6 Collateralbenefitsofreformofthe infringementssystem 29

Recommendations 295 The role of lawyers and community

legal centres 306 Community legal centres 32 Recommendations 35Appendix: Problem-solving courts in North America 36References 49

Contents

1Victoria Law Foundation Poor,powerlessandintroublewiththelaw

Thosepeopleinthecommunitywhofindthemselves“poor,powerlessandintroublewiththelaw”arepartofGarySullivan’sDNA.Garyhasbeenmycolleagueandfriendforthirtyyears;Icouldthinkofnopersonmorequalifiedtobetheauthorofthisreport.ForthoseofuswhohavebeenprivilegedtoobserveandlearnfromGaryasheinteractswiththecommunityandthelegalsystem,heisbothchampion,andchallenger.Ibelievethatthejusticesystem,despiteitsenormouscapacitytosorttheproblemsofothers,findsgreatdifficultyinself-critique.Gary,whoisamostsolutionfocussedfellow,andapracticalone,givesusopportunitiestoconsiderhowthelawcanbemoreeffectiveinworkingwiththepoor.Manyoftherecommendationsofthereportaredeliveredonthepremisethatcourtsexistinordertosolveproblems.Garyishopefulthatthesystemthathehasspentmanyyearsnegotiatingisflexibleenoughtolisten.HishopesechotheexpectationsofAnatoleFrance,whosays“Thelaw,initsmajesticequality,forbidstherich,aswellasthepoortosleepunderthebridges,beginthestreets,andtostealbread.”Thegreatthinkingandeffortthathasfuelledthisreportinspiresmetoalsobehopeful.

BernieGearyOAMChild Safety Commissioner

Foreword

2 Victoria Law Foundation Poor,powerlessandintroublewiththelaw

Seriouscriminalactivitybyprofessionalcriminalsisanumericallysmallpartofcriminalbehaviour.Itisnotinconsequentialbutthecriminaljusticesystemisconstructedasifitiscentraltoitsoperation.Toputitanotherway,thejusticesystemisdistortedbyafocusinitssystemsandprocessesonexceptionalcrime.Thesystemacknowledgesthethreatofpunishment,andutilisesdueprocess,viatheadversarialsystem.Peoplechargedhaverights,buttheeliminationofseriouscrimeistheaim.Thisisanunderstandablefocusbutultimatelyunachievable.Seriousorganisedcrimewillneverbecompletelyeliminated,andthebulkofthecriminaljusticesystem’sworkwillbewithhighprevalence,unremarkablecrimecommittedbythepoorandpowerless.TheStateisincreasinglytransferringminormattersfromthetraditionalcriminalcourtsintotheinflexibleinfringementssystem.Itimposespenaltieswithouttakingaperson’scircumstancesintoaccount.Richandpoorarefinedthesameamountforthesameinfraction.Theinfringementssystemthereforeimpactsmoreheavilyonthepoor.Aftermorethan30yearsworkinginalegalserviceinapoorcommunity,Ihaveprovidedlegaladviceandrepresentationtocountlessindividualsandseveralgen-erationsoffamilies,andparticipatedinreformactivitiesintenancylaw,creditlaw,theChildren’sCourtofVictoria,theinfringementssystem,consumerprotectionandpolicebehaviour.Ihavealsoplayedaroleinmonitoringandimprovingthelegalprofessionalstandardsincommunitylegalservices.OverthisperiodtherehavebeensignificantchangesinthenatureofAustraliansociety,welfaresupportmechanismsandlegalsystems.Apartfromhelpingrelativelyfewindividualsamongthepoorandpowerless,thesechangeshavenothadamajorpositiveimpact,andinsomeareastheimpactisnegative.Disproportionatetotheirnumbersinthepopu-lation,thepoorandpowerlesscontinuetobegatheredupinthejusticesystem.Conditionsofpovertygenerateahighincidenceoflow-levelcrime.Thiscommonplacecriminalactivityisnotadequatelyaddressed.Therelationshipbetweenpovertyandcrimeisnotsomuchignoredbuttoleratedinthejusticesystem,reflectingaviewthatpovertyiseternalandunchanging.Addressingthisimbalanceintheimpactofthejusticesystemonthepoorandpowerlessrequiresamorecomprehensiveapproachtorehabilitationthataddressestherootcauseofthecriminality,whilecontinuingtoupholdacivilsociety.Suchanapproach,basedonproblem-solvingprinciples,addressesthequietdesperation,chaoticlifestylesandmultipledisadvantagesthatbringthepoorandpowerlessintoconflictwiththebroadercommunityandthejusticesystem.

Executive summary

Thejusticesystemcurrentlyemploysapoorly-structuredapproachformuchofthiswork.Idonotsaythatthejusticesystemcaneliminatepoverty,butithasanexplicitattributewhichotherstructures,suchastheeducationandhealthsystems,donothave.Itcanenforce.Defendantscanberedirectedtoeducationandhealthactivitiesrunbycounsellors,educationalistsandevenpoliceaspartoftheirsentencingandrehabilitation.Suchmeasurescollaborativelyconfrontthecycleofpovertyandcrime.Already,somecourtsarere-positioningthemselvesbyfollowingproblem-solvingprinciples.Thesecourtsareshowinggoodresultsintermsofreducedrecidivism.However,theyarefewinnumber,availabletoalimitednumberofdefendantsandhavebeenfashionedinawaythatrequiressignificantresourcestooperateeffectively.Theprinciplescanbeappliedmorebroadlythroughthejusticesystem,withthepotentialformoreeffectivelonger-termoutcomes.Problem-solvingprinciplesprovideaframework.Thepoorwillbeabletoaccessresourcescase-managedbycourts,whetherornottheyhavebeensentencedincourtorhadfinesimposedundertheinfringementssystem.Thisreportproposesanumberofsmall,butimportant,reformstotheoperationofthecourtsandtheinfringementssystem,theconductofpoliceandlawyersandtheroleofwelfareandsupportagencieswhichhavethepotentialtospreadthesuccessofproblem-solvingcourtsacrossthesystem.Theyaddressthewayinwhichthejusticesysteminteractswithindividualdefendants,placingahighpriorityontheirstatutoryresponsibilityofrehabilitation.Byembracingproblem-solvingprinciples,thejusticesystemcanalsoassistinachievingbroadsocialchange.Thisrequiresclosercollaborationwithwelfareandsupportagenciesandareframingoftheparadigmunderlyingtheretainerbetweenlawyerandclienttoallowthemtobetterworkinfavourofimprovingthesystemforthepoorandpowerless,whilestillrepresentingtheinterestsoftheirindividualclients.Asinthepast,communitylegalcentreshaveanimportantroletoplayasatestinggroundforsuchreformsandinadvocatingfortheirbroaderimplementation.

1.Acknowledgingthatmuchcourtactivityisnotadversarialinpractice,butaformofproblemsolving,thenotionofcourtas‘problem-solver’shouldbeencouragedandsupportedforappropriatematters.Thismayrequirethefollowingchanges.• AmendmenttotheSentencing Act 1991,particularlyforhighprevalencecrimeswhichmakeupmostoftheactivityinthecourts,togiverehabilitationitsappropriatepriorityandtoauthorisethecourtstomanagerehabilitativeresources.

• IncreasedresourcingofthecourtstoeffectivelycarryouttheirSentencing Act 1991obligationtorehabilitate,particularlyforhighprevalencecrimes.

2.Theoperationofthecourtsshouldsupporttheirroleasproblem-solversthroughconsiderationofandadherencetothefollowingpoints.• Honouringthe“principleofimmediacy”;justicedelayedisjusticedenied.TheMagistrates’Courtshouldlistmatterswithin72hoursofchargesbeinglaidandcourtdaysshouldbeestablishedaroundcommunitytimelines,notthosewhostaffthecourt.

• Provisionbythepoliceofdetailedsummariesofchargestodefendant/lawyerwithin24hoursofchargesbeinglaid.

• Arequirementforpoliceinformantstoprovideinformationtoenablecourtprosecutorsandstafftodeterminetheconductoftheproceedings.Thismeansthatprosecutors,notinformants,shouldsettlethechargestoproceedandthechargestobewithdrawn,andthecontentofpolicesummarieswithdefendantsandtheirclients.

• Availabilityofdefencelawyersatallcourts.• Bailconditionstobedecidedmostlybythecourts,andnotpolice.• Facilitatingaccessandcompliancethroughthecourts.• Imposingpenaltiestocommenceassoonaspossible,ideallyonthedayofcourt,andgovernmentandcommunityagenciesprovidingresourcesandprogramsatthecourt.

• Structuringthecourtdaysothat,earlyintheday,informationexchangebetweenthepolice,prosecutors,defencelawyers,andagenciescanoccurthroughadiscussionofcasesonthelist,andlaterinthemorning,programscanberunforpersonssentenced.

• Arrangingforthesamemagistratetomaintainthecarriageofindividualcasesuntilresolution,inordertomonitoradherencetotheprogramandtoimplementimmediatesanctionsfornon-adherence.

Recommendations

3.Specialistcourtsshouldsitawayfromcourthousesfromtimetotime,includingforinfringementmatters.Forexample,ahomelesssheltercouldhostacourtwhichadjudicatesonproceedingsbroughtagainstthehomeless.

4.A‘VictorianCentreforCourtInnovation’shouldbeestablishedinMelbourne.5.Toimproveequityintheimpactofinfringementsmatters:• courtregistrarsanddeputyregistrarsshouldbeempoweredtoadjusttheamountoffinesbytakingintoaccountaperson’scircumstances

• paymentsshouldbefinalisedinsixmonthsifaperson’sincomeisloworispredominantlyderivedfromCentrelinkbenefits

• peopleshouldbepermittedto‘workoff’finesbymeanswhichassistthemselves,theirfamilies,andtheircommunities,potentiallythroughprogramsrunundertheauspiceofproblem-solvingcourts.

6.Withincommunitylegalcentresthechangesbelowshouldbeemployed.• Theretainerbetweenlawyerandclientshouldbestructuredsothatworkdonehasthecapacitytoachievebroaderchangeandparticularlyforthepoorandpowerless;notjusttoassisttheindividualclient.

• Asapreventativemeasuretoencourageearlyengagementwithlegalassistanceandtoplacetheirlegalissuesintheirbroadercircumstancesandlifecourse,clientsshouldbeencouragedtoaccessregularlegalcheck-upswiththeircommunitylegalcentre.

• Consistentwiththeintentiontoreducetheadversarialnatureofthecriminaljusticesystem,communitylegalcentresshouldcontinuetoworkcloselywithcommunityorganisationsandthejusticesystem,includingpolice,withaviewtoundertakingjointpreventativeprograms.

DerekEdwards,inDiscourseandCognition,notesthat“accountsofactionsareinvariablyandatthesametime,accountsforactions.”(1997,p.8)Edwardsacknowledges:“howconvenientitmightbeiftherewasaone-to-onemappingbetweenlanguage,mind,andreality,orbetweenrulesandtheactionstheygovern.”(1997,p.18)Unhappily,thereisn’t.Ihaveworkedwithcommunitylegalservicessincethemid1970s,asalawstudentatSpringvaleLegalService,asavolunteerattheTenantsUnionofVictoria,andsince1982atWestHeidelbergCommunityLegalService.WestHeidelbergCommunityLegalServiceisbasedintheBanyuleCommunityHealthCentre,andenjoysacloserelationshipwithLaTrobeUniversity.Lawstudentsarebasedatourcentreaspartoftheircourses.Indescribingtheday-to-daywork,Icannotimproveonthewordsofitsfounder,PhilMolan:Allthecaringprofessionsworkedthere.Soforexampletherewassomeonewhoconsultedthedoctorbecauseofsleeplessnessandworryaboutherkidsatschool.Itturnedoutthattheywereplayingupbecausetheirdadhadlefthome.Sothattheninvolvedtheyouthworker.Thenitemergedthatshehadfinancialproblemsbecausedadhadlefthome.Thattheninvolvedthecreditcounsellor,anditinvolvedthelawyertogetthemaintenancepayments.Itturnedouttoothatthekidshadreallydeeppsychologicalproblemsbecauseoftheconflictbetweentheirparents.Sothenthepsychologistwasinvolved.Wewereablereallytolookatthetotalproblemsaffectingthatfamily.(Neal,1984,p.63)

Themodel—arelationshipbetweenhealthcentre,universityandlegalcentre—hasreceivedconsiderablepraiseandisvaluedinthelocalcommunity.However,itisunusualinAustralia,andhasrarelybeenreplicatedelsewhere.Partnershipssuchastheseareimperativeintacklingissuesthatarisefrompoverty.IhavenowworkedforseveraldecadesforthepoorandpowerlessinWestHeidelberg,includingrepresentingclientsincourt,andinitiatingprojectstobringaboutlegislativeandpracticechangeinfavourofthepoor.Whilewehaveachievedsomevictories,progresshasbeenslowandhalting.MartinLutherKingexposessubtletiesaboutthelawandhowitisadministered:“Sometimesalawisjustonitsfaceandunjustinitsapplication.”WestHeidelbergisapoorcommunityonalargepublichousingestateinMelbourne’snorth,wheregoodhealthcare,adecenteducationandgainfulemploymentaredifficulttoaccess.TheAustraliancensusdatarevealsthatlifeisnotimproving;thepoorstilldieyoung.Onehypothesis,oftenheardinmytravelsintheUSandCanada,isthatpoorcommunitiesarenowexperiencingthelong-termeffectsofdeinstitution-alisation,theclosingdownoflargepublicandreligiousestablishments.Peoplewhohistoricallywouldhavebeenaccommodatedinstateandprivateinstitutions,sometimesforverylongperiods,arestrugglingtomanagetheirlives.Therecanbe

Prologue

devastatingeffectsonfamilieswhenchildrenareinvolved.Governmentpromisestoprovideresourcesforthecommunityafterdeinstitutionalisationwerenotkept.Limitedresourcesareareality.Thenotionthat‘something’mustbedone,canleadtorespondingtothesameproblemsdayafterday,andneglectingsystemicsolutions.Bothmaynotbeachievableatthesametime,butthesecondwillbeunfruitfulwithoutthefirst.NicoleRich,inherreport‘ReclaimingCommunityLegalCentres’,states:Theethicalchoicethusbecomesclearer—alegalservicetryingtoachievepowerforitsconstituentsnowandintothefuturemust,asamoralimperative,balanceitscommitmenttothealleviationofpresentneedswithasimilarcommitmenttoalteringthepoliticallandscapeofthepovertycommunity.(2009,p.18)

Thechoiceseemstobebetweenrescuingthoseintroubleandbroadlyaddressingsystemicissues.Iremainoptimisticthatitdoesn’thavetobeeither-or.Thecriminaljusticesystemcanassistinimplementingsystemicchangebybetteraddressingindividualproblemsthroughagreaterfocusonrehabilitation.

Acknowledgements and thanksThankyoutotheVictorianLawFoundationforfundingmycommunitylegalcentre,andallowingmetotakeleavetoundertaketheresearchforthisreport.IthankLaTrobeUniversityformakinganofficeandassociatedresourcesavailabletome.ThankyoutoWestHeidelbergCommunityLegalCentreforfacilitatingmyreleaseinwhatbecameadifficultperiodduetostaffchanges.ManythankstomysteeringcommitteeofKerryWalker,MaryAnneNoone,GarryRothman,DenisNelthorpeandJacquiBell.ThankyoutoallthoseinVictoriaandNorthAmericawhogavetheirtimeandenergytotalkwithmeabouttheirworkandviewsofthepotentialforourlegalsystemtobetteraddresstheissuesofthepoorandpowerless.ThankyoutoFrancesEssaberforeditingsuggestions.Last,butbynomeansleast,IacknowledgePamelaWilliamsforhervaluabletravelassistanceandsupport.

MyapplicationforthisFellowshipstatedthatitspurposewastoundertakeresearchtoidentifysolutions,barriersandwaysformountingpovertyasadefence.Theresearchwastoencouragelawyerstomountpovertyasadefenceandsuggestlegislativeandadministrativechangesbasedontheresearch.Thereportwasalsointendedtodocumenttheprocessofexperientialexchangebetweenexperiencedandlessexperiencedlawyersonthepovertylawdefence,withaviewtoencouragesuchcollaborationswithinCLCs.Theaimwas:•toencouragecollaborationbetweenagenciesatcourtinsupportingimpecuniousdefendants

•toreflectonandsuggestimprovementstosentencingoptionsthatsuitthecircumstancesandrationalesofsentencingsothatthesystemappliesfairly

•toencouragenewapproachestolawyeringbylawyersinhowtheydefendmattersinvolvingthesocio-economicallydisadvantaged

•torefashionthewaydefencesaremountedtoimproveoutcomesfortheimpecuniousincourtbeyondimprisonmentbecausetheyaretoopoortopay

•toactivatethewelfareagencysector•toimprovesocialjusticeoutcomesforpeoplewhobyvirtueoftheirinabilitytopayareforcedintoprison.

Isoonrealisedthatthescopeoftheproposalwastooambitious.Theideathatpovertyitselfcouldbeusedasadefencewasunsustainable.However,thereismuchthatthejusticesystemcandotoachievefaireroutcomesforthepoorandpowerless.Thisinvolveschangestothewaycourtswork,provisionofresourcestocourtsandagencieswhoworkwiththecourts,andchangestothewayinwhichcourt‘players’dotheirjobs.ItalsoinvolvesthecontinuedandenhancedworkoflawyerswithinandoutsideCLCstoprogressbroadersocialreforms.Thisreportseekstoprovidepracticalsuggestionsforimplementingproblem-solvingprinciplesacrossourjusticesystemthatwillresultinfaireroutcomesforthepoorandpowerless.Indoingso,itseekstobuildonthesuccessofproblem-solvingcourtsinNorthAmericaandinVictoria.Assuch,thereporttouchesonallsixobjectivesoftheFellowship,addressingthemfromaslightlydifferentperspectivethanoriginallyenvisaged.Themethodologyunderlyingthisreportincluded:•aliteraturereview•investigatingtheapplicationofproblem-solvingprinciplesincourtsandlegalservicesinVictoriaandNorthAmerica

•developingpracticalsuggestionsforimplementingproblem-solvingprinciplesacrosstheVictorianjusticesystem.

1 Purpose of this Fellowship

InterviewsandresearchwereundertakeninMelbourneinlate2010.IvisitedtheUSandCanadaoverathreeweekperiodinJanuaryandFebruary2011.Thepurposeofthevisitwastoobserveanumberofspecialisedcourtsinactionandtointerviewprofessionalsincludingdistrictattorneys,defencelawyers,judges,police,probationstaff,counsellors,andcourtstaff.Thecourtsareknownvariouslyasproblem-solvingcourts,communitycourtsorspecialistcourts.VictoriahasembracedthetrendwithinnovationsliketheDrugCourt,aMentalHealthListandaSpecialCircumstancesListatMelbourneMagistrates’Court.InCollingwood(inner-Melbourne),thereistheNeighbourhoodJusticeCentre,basedonamodelpioneeredinRedHook,NewYork.Thesewerealsovisitedandmeetingswereheldwithstakeholders.

Considerabledisagreementexistsabouttheconditionofpoverty.OneofthefoundersoftheFitzroyLegalService,RemyvandeWielQC,hadthistosayinOnTap,NotonTop,apublicationproducedin1984forthe10thanniversaryoftheFitzroyLegalService:“Povertyisjustastateofmind.Youhavegottogivepeopletheopportunitytocontroltheirownlives.”AsapplicableforAustraliaasitisfortheUS,EdgarandJeanCahnintheirseminalarticle‘TheWaronPoverty:ACivilianPerspective’assertthat:“PovertyinAmericaisnotjustalackofmaterialgoods,educationandjobs;itisalsoasenseofhelpless-ness,adefeatism,alackofdignityandself-respect.”(1964,p.1321)LawrenceFriedmanassertsthatAmericans:Believethattheyliveinasocietywithopendoors,alandofendlessopportunity.Thosewhofaildeservetofail.Governmentisdemonised.Peopleareexpectedto‘makeit’ontheirownPeopledonotneed,ordeserve,governmenthelp.Criminalsarenothingbutscum.Poorpeoplearenotmuchbetter.(2004–2005,p.930)

Australia’slegislative,justiceandwelfareframeworkisinfluencedbyill-foundedperceptionsofpoverty,inpartbecausethevoicesofthepoorarerarelyheard.In‘BehaviouralPoverty’,LucySullivanattributedthewoesofpovertytothesocialsecuritysystem:PovertyinAustraliatodayisnotfinancial,butbehavioural…Itisnowclearthattheachievementofeverhigherwelfareincomescannotalonesolvetheproblemsofignorance,wasteandshiftlessnesswhichtodaydefinepovertyinAustralia(2000,p.46)

Theimplicationisthatpoorfamiliesarereceivingmorethanadequateincome.Thepaper’spositionseemstobethatinawealthycountrylikeAustraliatheresponsibilityforpovertyistobeapportionedbetweenthosewhoconstructedthesocialwelfaresystem,anditsrecipients.Myassessmentisthatthepoordomakebadfinancialdecisionsfromtimetotime—butwealldo.Whenpeopledon’thavemuchmoneytobeginwiththemarginforerrorisreduced.Thepoorinourcommunitiesarenotjustlackinginmaterialwealth,butalsohaveissues—suchasmentalhealthconditions,intellectualdisability,drugdependencyorhealthproblems.Thisispartlyduetothereductioninthesafetynetprovidedinthepastbyextendedfamiliesandtheclosureofinstitutionssuchasorphanages,reformatoryschoolsandmentalhealthasylums.Peoplewhoseneedsinthepastwereaddressed—forbetterorworse—withintheirownfamiliesorininstitutionsnowmostlyliveindependentlyinthecommunity,asdotheirchildren.

2 Poverty and powerlessness

Thedeinstitutionalisationofcommunitieshasbeensignificant,bothhereandoverseas.Peoplewhowouldpreviouslyhavelivedininstitutionshavealsobecomeover-representedinthejusticesystem.ThisexistsintheUSaswell.ThewebsiteoftheBronxDefenders,whoIwasdelightedtovisit,putsitthiswayinrelationtotheSouthBronxcommunity:Whatwehavefoundisthattherootcausesoftheirinvolvementinthejusticesystemarethesame:poverty,substanceandalcoholabuse,mentalillness,familyinstability,andlackofaccesstocriticalsupportsystems.Moreover,onceinthejusticesystem,theyallfacethesamedevastatingcollateralconsequences:childrenremovedfromthehome,eviction,terminationofpublicbenefits,deportation,andlossofemployment.

LiketheSouthBronx,theWestHeidelbergcommunityisalargepublichousingestateandapoorcommunity.Academicresearchintotheintegratedprogramsrunintheareaconfirmedhighlevelsofpoverty.Theresearchers,NooneandDigney,state:RecentresearchsuggeststheWestHeidelbergareacontinuestobeanareaofsignificantsocialdisadvantage.Areportin2004,measuringsocialdisadvantageinVictoriaandNewSouthWales(throughanumberofsocialindicators,includingunemployment,lowbirthweight,childmaltreatment,childhoodinjuries,education,psychiatricadmissions,crime,income,direshortageofincome,mortality,sicknessanddisabilitysupport,imprisonment,earlyschoolleavinganddisconnectingthedomesticelectricitysupply)rankedtheWestHeidelbergpostcodeareainthetop30disadvantagedcommunitiesinVictoria.(2010)

Povertyandasenseofpowerlessnesscontributetomuchcriminalbehaviour.Thisbehaviourismostlyatthelowerendofcriminality.However,thecriminaljusticesystemallocatesmuchofitsenergyandresourcestoasmallnumberofmajoroffences.

3.1 How traditional courts workVictoriansexpectthecriminaljusticesystemtopreventcrimeandpromoterespectforthelaw.TheseexpectationsarereflectedintheState’sSentencing Act 1991.Societyexpectsthecriminaljusticesystemtokeepmisbehaviourwithinboundaries,tostopitfromgettingoutofhandandtocontrolit.Becauseitcontinues,thesuperficialconclusionisthatthejusticesystemisfailing.Thissuppositionisflawed.Asmallproportionofyoungpeoplewillengageinhazardousandriskybehaviour.Mostofthesewillbecomelaw-abidingcitizens.Thejusticesystemcanhardlytakecreditbecausegrey-hairedretireesdonothoonaroundthestreetsofMelbournein‘hotted-up’cars.ThegoverningprinciplesoftheSentencing Act 1991aresetoutinSection5(1).Theintroductoryprovisionstatesthatthefollowingpurposesarethe“only”purposesforwhichsentencesmaybeimposed:(a) topunishtheoffendertoanextentandinamannerwhichisjustinallofthecircumstances;or

(b) todetertheoffenderorotherpersonsfromcommittingoffencesofthesameorasimilarcharacter;or

(c) toestablishconditionswithinwhichitisconsideredbythecourtthattherehabilitationoftheoffendermaybefacilitated;or

(d) tomanifestthedenunciationbythecourtofthetypeofconductinwhichtheoffenderengaged;or

(e) toprotectthecommunityfromtheoffender;or(f) acombinationoftwoormoreofthosepurposes.Whilethesetermsarecarefullyconstruedandinterpretedinthesuperiorcourts,theyareinfrequentlyreferredtointhebusymagistrates’courtsinwhichmyclientsusuallyappear.Extensivefundingforthepoliceandtheprisonsisafactofthesystem.Unfortunately,rehabilitationisrelativelyunderfundedand,asaresult,theoptionsofthecourtarelimited.Thismeansthattheaimsofthejusticesystemarenotalwaysallachieved.IsacourttogiveequalweighttoallmatterssetoutinSection5(1)?Punishmentleadsthelist.Doesthatmeanthatacourtmustinvariablypunish?Punishmentistobeimposedonlytotheextentthatitis“justinallofthecircumstances”.Problem-solvingcourtsoperateonthebasisthatpunishmentcanbeconfinedincertaincasestopubliclydenouncingbehaviourandcastigatingtheoffender,andthecourt’sorderscanbelimitedtorehabilitation.Sentencinganoffendertorehabilitationcanberegardedasthepunishment.

3 The courts

Parliament,anditsexecutive,theCabinet,authorisestheadministrativecomponentofgovernment,VictoriaPolice,toinvestigatecrimeandchargesuspects.Parliamentempowersthejudicialcomponentofgovernment,thecourts,todetermineguiltandimposepenalties.Courtshavearangeofoptionstoconsider,andmustconsiderthecrimeitselfandthedefendant’scircumstancesindeterminingtheappropriatepenalty.Thecourtsarelimitedintheircapacitytoimposepenaltiesinthenatureofrehabilitationbythelimitedresourcesavailabletothem.Therealpictureofcrimeemergesdailyinthecourts.Thosewhoinsistthatallthepeoplewhobreaktherulesare‘crooks’andproclaimthatourjusticesystemmustobliteratemisbehaviour,disregardthesituationsofthepoorandthepowerless.CherieRobertsonreferstothe“adoptedstanceofpassivity”oftheaveragepoorclient,andtheir“self-perceptionofsmallness.”(1997,p.642)Shearguesthatthelegalissue,the‘conflict’“actuallybecomescommodified,likeapieceofproperty...[andthat]itisthelawyerwhoultimatelyexercisesownershipoveritandmakesalivingfromnegotiatingit.”(p.644)Rehabilitativeresourcesarelimitedandinaccessibletothecourts.Conventionalcourtsdispensedetachedjustice.Thecourt‘players’delay.Traditionalcourtsarehideboundandsloweddownbylong-distancepolicing.Policeatthecourtsaremainlyprosecutors;theirknowledgeofthecasesdependsoninsufficientinfor-mationprovidedtothembyinformantswhoarehardlyeveratcourt.Prosecutorsdonothaveauthoritytofinaliseproceedingswithoutexplicitconsentofinformants,whoarehabituallyinaccessible.Sentencesareremoteintimefromthebehav-iour…whichbringsthepersonbeforethecourts.Courtsimposepenaltieswhicharedisconnectedfromthelivesofdefendants.Lawyersareoftenbriefedbyclientsatthelastminute—atcourt.Theyappearasdiffidentobserverslookingtoexploitsystemicdelayfortheirclients.AnAmericanauthor,MalcolmFeeleychallengestheorthodoxyofdueprocess:Intheory,thedueprocessmodelpreservestherightsofalldefendants.Itinsistsonastandardoflegalguiltasabasisofconviction,bothtoprotectindividualrightsandasameansofcontrollingofficials’behaviour.Foragreatmanycasesinlowercourt,thepre-trialprocessmodelchallengestheseassumptions,sincetheexerciseoftheserightsonlyincreasesnetcoststothedefendant.Thereislittleincentivetoinvokeformallytherightslooselyreferredtoasdueprocess,andthereisvirtuallynoincentiveoropportunitytotestthembyappeal…itisoftenmoreexpensivetoinvokerightsandremediesthantosufferinstancesinsilence.(1992,p.33)

Theinfringementssystemisanoffshootofcourtactivity.Finesareacommonpenaltyimposedincourts.Increasinglyfinesareimposed‘on-the-spot’.Thisprocessbypassesthecourts.Parliamenthasestablishedpreciseamountsforfinesthroughregulationsopenaltiesarecertain.Nolongerarefinesmerelyforparkingandspeeding.Authoritieshavetheoptioninmorecaseswhethertotakeamattertocourt,orhandoutafineonthespot.Theyusuallyissueaticket.Ithasbeenestimatedthat,asaresultoflegislationin2008,90%ofshopliftingcaseswillbetransferredoutofthecourts.Theinfringementssystemisslowlydisplacingthecourts.

ProfessorPatO’Malleynotesthatfinesarenottobeusedforcrimes“thatconcern‘theinnermostandmostbasicaspectsoftheperson’”(2009,p.11)Casessuchasmurderandrapecanberegardedascrimesthat“concerntheinnermostandmostbasicaspectsoftheperson”.Proofbeyondreasonabledoubtwillcontinuetobetheyardstickinthosekindsofcases.Thereisapatternemergingofminorcriminalmattersbeingeffectivelytransferredtotheinfringementssystem.Currentexamplesincludeminordishonestyandweaponsmatters.Ipredictthatlow-levelassaultsandcriminaldamagecaseswillbenext.Moreserioustheftswillfollow.Thesekindsofmattersconstitutealargeproportionoftheday-to-dayworkofmagistrates’courts.Theboundarybetweenmatterswhichmustbedealtwithincourtandthosewhichpolicecandirecttotheinfringementssystemisshifting.Theexpansionoftheinfringementssystemchangestherelationshipbetweentheadministrativeandjudicialarmsofgovernment.Themagistrates’courtswillbecomefocussedonthemorecomplexcaseswithintheirremit.Manyyearsagoparliamentdecidedtolimitthenumberofcriminalcasesheardbyjudgeandjury.Todayasinglemagistratesitsasjudgeandjury.Parliamentdidallowdefendantstoelecttotransferindictablechargesfrommagistratealonetojudgeandjury.Fewhaveelected.Similarly,infringementcasescanbetransferredintoopencourt.Therecipientofaninfringementnoticemayelecttodoso.Thishardlyoccurs.

3.2 Problem-solving courtsThepurposeofmyvisittoNorthAmericawastostudytherelationshipbetweenproblem-solvingcourtsandtheiruseofgovernmentandcommunityresources.Thosewhoinitiatedthesecourtshadabackgroundinpolicingandthecourts:Problem-solvingjusticecantraceitstheoreticalrootstoinnovationsinpolicing,particularlycommunityandproblem-orientedpolicing,whichattemptedtoreplacetraditionallawenforcementfocusonrespondingtoindividualoffenceswithafocusonidentifyingandaddressingpatternsofcrime,amelioratingtheunderlyingconditionsthatfuelcrime,andengagingthecommunityasanactivepartner...Thegoalistoprovidejudgeswhopresideoverconventionalcourt-roomswithaccesstothesamesanctions,linkstosocialservices,andrigorousmonitoringthataremorecommonlyofferedindrug,mentalhealth,orcommunitycourts.(Wolf,2007,p.1)

Wolfpointsoutthecomplexityofthesystem,withcourtsatthehub.Althoughthevariousplayershavearoleatcourt—policeandprosecutorstobringcases,defencelawyerstosiftthroughstatementsandprotectthedefendant’srights,correctionalstafftooverseetheoutcome:Courtstraditionallybehaveasiftheyaremoreorlessself-contained,focusingonthespecificsofcasesandlessonthecircumstancesthatbringdefendantsthroughthedoororwhathappensaftertheyleave.(p.6)

Wolfidentifiessixproblem-solvingprinciples:EnhancedInformation,CommunityEngagement,Collaboration,IndividualisedJustice,Accountability,andOutcomes.Theseprinciplescanbeappliedintheeverydayworkofthecourtinthesentencingofoffenders,withtheintentionofpayingmoreattentiontorehabilitationandreducingrecidivism.However,asIdescribelater,applicationoftheseprinciplesalsoplacesthecourtsinabetterpositiontosupportsocialchange,initiallythroughbetteraddressingtheproblemsoftheindividualsitdealswith,butalsothroughprovidinginformationandsupportformoreeffectiveresponsestocriminality.

Inthecontextofdealingwithindividualcases,theproblem-solvingprinciplescanbeunderstoodasfollows.•Enhanced Informationcouldbedescribedascontext,orbackgroundinformation,thatimprovesthequalityofsentencing.Courtsmustlistentoexpertsaboutcomplexproblemssuchasdomesticviolenceandbeadvisedaboutthephysicalandmentalstateofthedefendantsthemselves.Courtscanalsolearnfromlocalcommunitiesastowhetherthebehaviourtheyhavedescribedtothemincourteachdayisisolatedorpartofapattern,andhowconcernedthecommunityisaboutthatbehaviour.Thisactiverelationshipbetweenthecourtsandtheircommunitiesleadstothenextprinciple.

•Community Engagementinvolvesengagementbetweenthecourtsandtheircommunities.Thisenablesthecourttoaccessricherinformationaboutthecontextinwhichthedefendantcommittedtheoffenceandhowsentencescanbemosteffective.

•Collaborationacknowledgestheuniquepositionofcourts:theirauthorityandreputationforneutrality.Programswhicharedevelopedforuseinthecourtenvironmenthavetheauthorityandcompulsionofthecourtbehindthem.Throughworkingwithcommunityagenciesthatprovideservices,thecourtscanimproveuponthesentencingoptions.

•Individualised Justiceacknowledgesthatwhilemattersbeforethecourtscanbestraightforwardinoutline,thosewhocommitoffencescanleadcomplexanddifficultlives,andthatcourtdispositionscanaffectsignificantpersonalissues.Throughusingindividualisedapproaches,thecourthastheopportunitytobemoreeffectiveinaddressingthedefendant’sissuesandreducingrecidivism.

•Accountabilityisbasedontheviewthatallcriminalbehaviour,nomatterhowseeminglyminor,hasimpactsonothersandonthewidercommunity,andthatthecriminaljusticeprocessandthepenaltiesimposedmustensuretheoffenderunderstandsthis.Itfollowsthatservicesofferedtoanoffendermustbereviewedbythecourttomakesurethatthatrehabilitationisoccurring.Thismeansfollowupbythecourtorcourtstaff.Failuretoattendwillhaveconsequenceslateratcourt.

•Outcomefocusesonmeasurementsofsuccesssuchasprogramcompletionandreducedrecidivism.Datamustbegatheredandtheimpactofprogramsontheindividualassessedandprogramsadjustedtomakesentencesmorerelevanttothelivesofoffenders.

Feeleyassertsthatamajorprincipleoftheproblem-solvingcourtshasbeentofocuson“dueprocessplusfairoutcome”.Thisapproachhasbeencriticisedastinkeringwiththeroleoflawyersandcourts.ForexampleIquotefromanarticleintheNationalBlackLawJournal:Clearly,somedefenceattorneysarenotpleasedwithproblem-solvingcourts.LawprofessorKimTaylor-Thompson,inaroundtablediscussionaboutthechangingrolesoflawyersinproblem-solvingcourts,rejectedthenotionthatdefenceattorneysshouldbemoreinterestedingettingdrug-addicteddefendantssoberthanlimitingtheirclient’scourtinvolvement.“Itakeissuewiththenotionthatdefencelawyersshouldhavea‘yearning’todomorethangettheirclientsoutofthesystem.WhenIgetmyclient’scasedismissed,chargesreduced,orsentenceshortened,myyearningissatisfied.Iftheclientneedsorwantstreatment,theyshouldbeabletogainaccesstoitoutsideofthecoerciveatmosphereofacriminalproceeding.(2009,p.42)

ThesentimentsexpressedbyProfessorTaylor-Thompsonmayfitthescenariowherethedefendantisoneofthesmallnumberofpeoplebeforethecourtswhoseecrimeastheiroccupation,andmakeclearchoicestocommitcrimes.ThedefendantswhoIhaverepresentedovertheyearsareusuallynotfunctioningwell.Manyfinditdifficulttounderstandhowtheyhaveendedupinthesituationtheyhave,don’twanttoremainastheyare,butcannotseehowtheycanchange.IobservedcourtsinVictoriaandNorthAmericathatareputtingproblem-solvingprinciplesintooperation.Thesecourtsareachievingsuccess.Someprogramsaresetupinageographicalareaforthepeoplewholivethere.Theyarethe‘largemodels’.DowntownCommunityCourtinVancouverandtheNeighbourhoodJusticeCentre(NJC)inMelbourneareexamplesofthisapproach.Someprogramsaresetuptodealwithaparticularproblemortheproblemsofaparticulargroup.Theyarethespecialistmodels.DrugcourtsandthecombatveteranscourtsareAmericanexamplesofthese.Otherscouldbedescribedasanamalgamoftheabove.Theamalgamsexistasasubsetoftraditionalgeneralistcourtactivityandhaveprogramswhicharemadeavailablebythecourtstothoseidentifiedwhomaybenefit.Problem-solvingapproacheshavebeenevaluatedashighlyeffective.Herearesomeinternationalexamples.In2009,Midtown[NewYork,US]heard18,668cases(whichconsistedof9,723misdemeanourcasesand8,745summonses).Themostfrequentmisdemeanourchargeswerestolenproperty,vendingviolations,trespassing,panhandling,andmarijuanadrugpossession...In2009,87%ofdefendantsatMidtowncompletedtheircommunityservicemandates,comparedtoapproximately50%ofthedefendantswhowereprocessedatthedowntowncriminalcourt.(CenterforCourtInnovation,2007)Eachyear,theJusticeCenter[RedHook,NewYork,US]handlesroughly3,000misdemeanourcriminalcases,11,000summonses,500housingcourtcases,and175juveniledelinquencycases.Amongcriminalcases,themostfrequentchargesaredrugpossession,trafficviolations,trespassing,publicdrinkingandminorassault...MorethanthreeoutoffourJusticeCenterdefendantscompletetheircommunityservicemandatescomparedtothe50%benchmarkatcomparableurbancourts.(CenterforCourtInnovation,2010)

“Mostevaluationsfoundthatdrugcourts[intheUS],whilenotacure-all,producemeaningfulreductionsinre-offendingcomparedwithconventionalprosecution”,(CissnerandRempel,2005).The[NewYork,US]youthcourt’scomplianceratewithsanctionssuchascommunityserviceandlettersofapologyisunusuallyhigh—70%.(Turgeon,2006)PoliceandCrowncounselactivitiesthattakeplacepriortoacourthearingarecompletedmoreefficientlyintheDCCthaninothercourts.(DowntownCommunityCourt,2010,p.50)Anexampleofpolicyimplementationbycollectiveaction,Proposition36demonstratesthatconsiderablecollaborationandresourcefulnessarerequiredtoblendcriminaljusticeprinciplesofaccountabilitywithasubstanceabuserehabilitativeculture.(EvansandDale,2011)HomelessOutreachCourt[OrangeCounty,California,US]isanunfundedcollaboration...In2010,273peoplecompletedtheprogram.Duringtheyear,participantscompleted2,808hoursofcommunityservice.Sinceitsinception,998peoplehavecompletedtheHomelessOutreachCourtprogram,andhavebeenhelpedtoaccessthetoolstheyneedtoregaintheirself-sufficiency.Ofthosewhocompletedtheprogramduring2008,only26.4%havebeenarrestedforotherthantrafficinfractionswithinthenexttwoyears.(CollaborativeCourts,2010,p.37)

In2011,theVictorianAuditor-Generalauditedtwoprograms[inVictoria,Australia]whicharebasedonproblem-solvingapproaches.OneistheNJC,the‘largemodel’.Theotherisanamalgam,knownastheCourtsIntegratedServicesProgram(CISP).TheAuditor-General’sreport,Problem-SolvingApproachestoJustice,concludedregardingtheprogramssurveyed:BoththeNeighbourhoodJusticeCentre(NJC)andtheCourtIntegratedServicesProgram(CISP)wereevaluatedoveranumberofyearstodeterminewhethertheyhaveachievedtheirintendedoutcomes...BothCISPandNJCshowedindicationsofhavingcontributedtoareductioninreoffending...Eachprogramhassupporteditsclientgroupandprovidedhigh-qualityreportstothemagistracytoassisttheirdecisionmaking.(p.29)NJChashadapositiveimpactonitsclientsandthecommunity.IthasmadeapositivecontributiontotheCityofYarrabyprovidingsupportandservicestoaddresstheunderlyingfactorsthatcausecrimeanddisadvantage.(p.35)

InsupportingthelocationoftheNJC,theAuditor-Generalconcludesthatthe:SiteselectionatCollingwoodwasalsoconsistentwithkeysuccessfactors—identifiedfromoverseasexperience—forestablishingacommunityjusticecentre,namely,locatingitinadenselypopulatedareathathashighlevelsofcrimeanddisadvantage.(p.ix)

Problem-solvingprinciplesworkwellinthe‘largemodel’approach.Theproblem-solvingcourtsIobservedrequiredlargebuildingsinwhichtooperate.Thisisbecauseprogramsandactivitiesarerunatthecourthouse,andstaffarebasedthere.TheRedHookCommunityJusticeCenter,theVictorianNeighbourhoodJusticeCentreandtheVancouvermodelcanbesuccessfullyreplicatedinareasofhigh-density,low-income,high-crimerate,withmarginalisedpopulations.ForVictoriatherearefewplaceswhichhavethese‘RedHookcharacteristics’,exceptareassuchasCollingwood.MuchofVictoriacouldbedescribedaslow-densityandlowcrime.Ideasfromboth‘large’and‘specialist’modelscanbeappliedinVictoria’straditionalcourts.Thereareproblemsinsettingup‘largemodel’problem-solvingcourtsinotherpartsofMelbourneandthroughoutVictoria.Significantresourceswouldberequiredanditwouldbenecessarytosignificantlymodifycurrentcourthousestoaccommodateproblem-solvingprogramsonsite.Melbourneisoneofthemostdecentralisedcitiesintheworld.Melbourne’spublictransportsystemisnotequaltothatofNewYork.However,problem-solvingprinciplescanbeappliedtoVictoria’scriminaljusticesystem.Acourtprogramruninasmallnumberofmagistrates’courtsinVictoria,theCISPhassomefeaturesofproblem-solvingcourtsandissuccessful.ThefeaturesofNorthAmericanandotherproblem-solvingjurisdictionswhichcanbedistilledandappliedinVictoria,include:•allissuesaredecidedwithinthecourt•peopleatthecourtinpositionsofresponsibility—physicallyatthecourt—aregivenresponsibilitytodetermineprogressandresolvematters

•resourcesareavailableatcourtforjudicialofficerstoengageforthebenefitofdefendants

•matterssettlepromptly.

3.3 Integrating problem-solving principles into our justice system

Generally,problem-solvingcourtsdon’tdealwiththemostseriouscrimes,orwithpleasofnotguilty.Unliketheconventional,butoverstated,viewoftraditionalcourtswiththeiradversarialapproachinfullflight,problem-solvingcourtsdonotproceedintheadversarialway.Victoria’smagistrates’courtsrarelydosoeither.Nearlyallcasesarefinalisedasguiltypleas.Inmagistratescourts,contestsareunpopularwithclients,VictoriaLegalAid,andthelegalprofession.Clientswanttheircasesoveranddonewith.VictoriaLegalAiddoesnotextendsignificantextrapaymenttothelegalprofessiontoconductcontests.Theprofessionlookstosettle.Littleactivityintheproblem-solvingcourtsisundertakenuntilsettlementofpleaisfinalised,usuallywithaguiltyplea.Ifadefendantexerciseshisorherrighttopleadnotguilty,orevennottoenteraplea,theresourcesoftheproblem-solvingcourtaregenerallynotmadeavailable,andthecaseisreferredouttothetraditionalcourts.Thisaspectofproblem-solvingcourtshascausedsomeangstamongtraditionaldefencelawyers.Theyobjectthatmostclientshavetopleadguiltytoaccesssuchcourts.Ithasbeenprosecutors,judgesandstafffromgovernmentagencies,ratherthandefencelawyers,whohavechampionedproblem-solvingcourts.Detractorsmaintainthatitisunfairtoofferresourcestosomeonewhoneedsthem,butonlyaftertheypleadguilty,asthisputspressureonthepersontopleadguilty.Butmostdefendantsalreadypleadguiltyinmostmagistrates’courtmatters.

Someproblem-solvingcourtsinNorthAmericaofferprogrammaticresourcesinadvanceofapleabeingentered,whichreducestheimportanceoftheentryoftheplea.However,conceptuallythisisconfusing,astheprogramscouldberegardedasbothaninducementtoasignificantlyreducedpenalty,andasthe‘penalty’.Isawnoevidenceofpeopleinproblem-solvingcourtspleadingguiltywhentheybelievedtheywerenotguilty.Americanproblem-solvingcourtsmakeavirtueofmovingcasesonquickly.Forexample,anevaluationofNewYork’sdrugcourtsfoundthat:Drugcourtcasesreachinitialdispositionmorequicklythanconventionalcourts.Participantsinallsixdrugcourtsspentsignificantlylesstimefromarresttoinitialdisposition/entrythancomparisondefendants.(CentreforCourtInnovation,2003,p.10)

Proceduresfollowingtheinitiationofchargesvary.IncourtsIobservedintheUSandCanada,detailedmaterialiscompiledquicklyandroutinelybythepolice,andismadeavailablevirtuallyimmediatelytothedefencelawyer,whocanthenobtaininstructionsfromtheclient.Clientsweremoreaccessibletotheirlawyers;theywereoftendetainedincustodyovernight.InVictoriaadefendantfacingsimilarchargeswillusuallybebailedbythepolicetoacourtdateaboutamonthlater.Whywouldadefendantchooseatraditionalcourtoveraproblem-solvingcourt?Problem-solvingcourtshaveextensive,innovativeandaccessibleresources.Whowouldwanttogointothetraditionalcourtstream?Thisprovidesafertilediscussion.ACanadiandefencelawyerhadaneffortlessandprovocativeexplanation,concept-ualisinghisjobincourtas:“Keepmyclientontheescalator;andwaitforagoodplacetogetoff.”ThisiswhattheAmericansdescribedasthe‘time-served’scenario.Anumberofadjournmentsoccurwhilethedefendantisincustody.Eventuallythedefencelawyerwillaskthatthemattersbefinalisedthatdayonthebasisthatthepersonhasbeenincustodyforquitealongtime,andthatthedefendantineffectbesentencedtotheperiodoftimetheyhadalreadyservedincustody.AjudgethatIinterviewedobservedthatthisplanprecludesclientsfromreceivinglonger-termbenefitsfromattendingoneoftheprograms.Italsodefersdecision-makingandkeepsclientsincustody.Inproblem-solvingcourtsIvisited,programsaresetuponthebasisthattherewillbeanongoingneedforthem.Courtstaffdon’twaitforthenumberstobuildandthenorganiseactivities.Fromthedefendant’spointofview,theprogramreferralmaywellbemadeonthedayheorsheattendscourt.Theprogramsaresetupintheenvironsofthecourt,usuallywithinthecourthouseitself.AtDowntownCommunityCourtinVancouverforexample,betweentwoandsixprogramswereplannedforanyonedayoftheweek.Theseincludedprogramssuchas“CrimeAddictsAnonymous”,“HealthyEating”,“MoneySkills”and“ABCsofLeavingtheStreets”.Theprogrampartofthecourtworkisnotengageduntilapleaofguiltyisenteredbythedefendant.Thiscannotoccurwithoutaccesstoalawyer,adiscussionbetweenlawyerandclientaboutthecase(whichmeansthatcomprehensibleprosecutionmaterialmustbeavailableshortlyafterthepoliceprocessingoftheclient’scaseisfinalised),andagreementbytheclient.Someprogramsrunforuptotwoyears.Theseareassessedcasebycase.

Decisionsaboutappropriatenessforreferral,thatis,fromtraditionalcourttoproblem-solvingcourt,orrefusaltotransfer,arenotmadebythepoliceofficerwhochargedtheperson,nordoesthatpoliceofficerhaveanypowerofveto.InVictoriancourts,theevaluationastowhetherandhowcaseswillproceedisoftenmadebypeopleabsentfromthecourt,suchasinformantpoliceortheirsergeants.Settlingwhichchargeswillproceed,andwhichwillbewithdrawn,andtheformoftheevidenceitself,isregardedastheroleoftheDistrictAttorney.TheDistrictAttorneyisatthecourt,accessibletoothersatthecourt.Giventhatitwascommontoobservepeoplewhosemattershadoccurredovernightbeingdealtwithatcourt,itwasputtomethatusuallythechargingpoliceofficerwouldhavefinishedtheirshiftanyway.Makingdecisionsisthebusinessofcourts.Decision-makersrelyoninformationfromothers.Delaymeansthatcourtsarenotadequatelyundertakingtheirconstitutionalfunction.Section1(d)oftheMagistrates Court Act 1989requirestheCourt:“toabolishinefficientandunnecessarycourtprocessandprocedures.”Section1(e)(ii)statesthatthecourtistobemanagedinawaythatwillensure“thepromptresolutionofcourtproceedings.”Thetraditionalcourtmodelpronouncesguiltandusuallyimposesaminorpenalty.Offendersareprocessedwithlittleimpactonthem.Theproblem-solvingcourtmodelinVancouverprovidesqualitycareforlow-leveloffenders.Problem-solvingcourtsstartfromthepremisethatthedefendantisunlikelytobeevil.Heorshemaybeapersonwhohasstruggledtomanagehisorherlife,andhasfallenintobadhabits.Heorshemayhaveadisability.Heorshemayhaveamentalhealthcondition,orbewithoutwork.Thismodelrepairsthetraditionalcourtsystem.Itlooksbehindtheoffending,provideslinks,andimposesactivitiesonthepersonfortheirbenefit.Themodelimplicitlyacknowledgesthattheindividualisunableratherthanunwillingtoorganisetheseserviceshimself.TherearesuccessfulexamplesinVictoria.PaulO’SullivanwasemployedbytheProstitutesCollectiveofVictoria(PCV).Paulhadbecomedisillusionedwiththewaymatterswerebeingdealtwithbythecourts.Theoffencesweremainlyloiteringandminordrugscharges.HeaskedtheMelbourneMagistrates’Courttosetupaspeciallistforsexworkers.Pauldiscoveredthatcourtstaffandmagistratesweremorethanwillingtointroducethelist.Thecourtgainedresourcesforthelist.Abuswasorganisedsothatthewomencouldeasilygettocourt.Theywantedmatterstorunintheearlyafternoonandhavemattersfinishedbythetimetheschooldaywasending.Thiswasaccommodatedbythecourt.Thenamesofthoseonthecourt’slistwereprovidedtothePCVinadvance,whichmadesurethatthewomenremembered.Butiftherewasaproblem,sayaclashingmedicalappointment,thecourtwouldhearaboutthatfromthestaffdirectly,andIamadvisedthatthemagistrateinvariablygrantedashortadjournment.Thisatleastisadjourningforapurpose.Otheragenciesbecameinvolved,sootherproblems—healthandfinancial—werealsoaddressed.Theprojectwasreviewedwithawrittenreport.Thewomeninterviewedtalkedofhowashamedtheyhadbeenandthattheirdiscomforthadoftenbeenpartofthereasontheyhadnotattendedcourt.Theyrecountedthatthecourtdealtwiththeminarespectfulmanner.TheMagistrates’ Court Amendment (Assessment and Referral Court List) Act 2010establishesforatrialperiodtheAssessmentandReferralCourtList,or“ARClist”.Contestedmattersarenottobedealtwithinthislist;Section4X(2)Magistrates’ Court Act 1989.Seriouscriminalmattersarenottobedealtwith;Section4S(3).Apersoniseligibleforthelistifsheorhemeetsdiagnostic,functionalandneeds

criteria;Section4T.Individualsupportplansaretobeestablished,andwillrunforupto12months;Section4V(4).Ifthecourtissatisfiedwiththeperson’sparticipationintheindividualsupportplan,itmaydischargethepersonwithoutanyfindingofguilt;Section4Y(2).TheSecondReadingSpeechon10December2009describedthelistasthe“MentalHealthlist”,butthetitleofthelistwasamendedbytheLegislativeAssemblyon23March2010.ThethenShadowAttorney-General,RobertClark,wastroubledbythethengovernment’sassertionsabouttheoperationoftheBill.Hesaid:Theriskandconcernisthat,despitealltheseblandwordsofcomfortthatwearebeinggiven,whatwillhappeninpracticeisthepersonsreferredtothelistwillbeseenbyahardworkingbutseverelyoverburdenedgeneralcaseworkerfromCISP,whowilldohisorherbesttoputinplaceaplanfortheaccused,butwillhaveneithertheexpertisethemselvesnortheresourcestocallinthenecessaryexternalexpertisetoproperlyassessthenatureoftheperson’simpairment,andthereforetoknowwhatthatperson’ssituationisandhowbesttorespond.(Hansard,p.931)

Thereissomedebateastowhetherapproachesreflectingproblem-solvingprinciplesareeffective.RobertVWolfquotesaDenverdistrictjudge,MorrisBHoffman:InDenver,thenumberofdrugcasesnearlytripledtwoyearsaftertheimplementationofdrugcourtandprisonsentencesmorethandoubled.Itisclearthattheverypresenceofdrugcourtsiscausingpolicetomakearrestsin,andprosecutorstofile,thekindsoften-andtwenty-dollarhand-to-handdrugcasesthatthesystemsimplywouldnothavebotheredwithbefore.WilliamsCollegeProfessorJamesLNolansaysdrugcourtsalsoexpandjudicialauthority“intothelivesofdrugcourtclientsinunprecedentedways.”(2009,p.40)

Thesearematterscomprehendedintheproblem-solvingprinciplesthemselves.Thesearethesortsofissuesthatcanusefullybediscussedbetweencourtstaffandthecommunity.BoththestateLiberalandLaborPartiesusedtheexpression“It’stime”intheirlawandorderpoliciesforthe2011Victorianelection.Oneassertedthatitwastimeforthecommunityto“getseriousaboutinterveninginthelivesofoffendersbeforetheygraduatetomoreseriouscrime.”Theothersaidthatitwastimetosaythatenoughwasenough.Bothpartiespromisedmorepolice.Theeffectofincreasingpolicenumberswillindeedmeanmorepeoplebeingcharged.Problem-solvingprincipleswillhelptomanagethesedevelopments.Problem-solvingprinciplescanandshouldbeintroducedintoallourcourts.Rehabilitationiscourtbusiness.Section5(1)(c)oftheSentencing Act 1991requirescourtsto“establishconditions”withinwhichrehabilitationmustbefacilitated.Thecourtsmustmanagerehabilitativeresources.Problem-solvingprincipleswillimprovesentencingforoffenders,speedupthebusinessofcourtandreducereoffending.InVictoria,thecommunicationbetweentheinformantandtheprosecutorhasbeenincreasinglyconductedatarms-length.Sincetheintroductionofthementionsystem,prosecutorshandleallappearanceswithouttheinformantpoliceofficer,includingtheplea,exceptintheveryfewcasesinvolvingbailcontestsandtrial.Fewerandfewerpoliceattendforinterlocutorymatterssuchascontestmentionhearings.

Withtheintroductionofproblem-solvingprinciples,policeinformantsmustbringmoredetailedinformationaboutcasesintothecourtsysteminatimelyfashionandmustdelegatemakingdecisionsaboutcasestoprosecutorsatcourt.Prosecutorsmustassumeresponsibilityfortheconductofcases,andmustacquaintthemselvespromptlywithdetailsofcases.Policemustreturntothecourtsthedecisiontobailpersonscharged.Thiswillmeanincidentallythatpersonsinitiallychargedwilllikelybeheldovernightafterbeingchargedandthatasclients,theywillbephysicallyaccessibletolawyersatcourttointerviewandobtaininstructions.Lawyersmustbeavailableatcourttobeinformedofthedetailoftheirclients’cases,promptlyobtaininstructionsastohowtoproceed,andengagewithofficialsandagenciesatthecourt.Agencies,especiallygovernment-fundedagencies,mustorganiseresourcesatthecourtfordefendants,oratleastaccessibletodefendants.Theseprogramsmustcommencepromptlyandsomeshouldbelistedforeachdayofcourt.Courtsmustadjusttheirtimelinestofacilitateexchangeofinformationearlyinthemorningbeforecourtsformallysit,meetingsknownastriagemeetings,andcompleteformalsittingsinthemid-afternoonsothatatleastsomeprograms,forpredictablematters,orderedbythecourtonthedaycanrunthesameday.Magistratesandjudgesmustmaintainawatchingbriefoncasesbeforethem.Theymustmonitoradefendant’sprogressandadjustprogramsasnecessary,reservingshortperiodsofincarcerationasnecessaryforbreaches.Courtsdon’talwayshavetositincourthouses.Fromtimetotimetheycouldsitatplacesconvenienttodefendants.TheprincipleofCommunityEngagementdescribesactionssuchassettingupquestionnaires,communitygatheringsandmarketresearch.Collaborationallowsagenciesassociatedwiththecourttotestnewapproachesandfindnewwaystoharnessexistingresources.Outcomepositsthatthisknowledgewillbepassedontothecommunity.Communityresponsewillallowthecourttoassessthebenefittothecommunity,andprovidesupporttothemorecomprehensiveimplementationofthoseprogramswhichareprovedtobeeffective.Inacceptingandimplementingproblem-solvingprinciples,thejusticesystemwillcontributetosocialchangebecauseitwillhaveinformationaboutandexperiencewithwhatworkstoreducecriminality.Asignificantgroupofpeople—whoarebeingchurnedthroughthejusticesystem,whoseneedsarecurrentlypoorlymet—willbeabletoavoidharsherpenalties.Welfareagenciesarewillingtoparticipateinaproblem-solvingmodel.IaskedthevariousagenciesinVictoriathathadregularcontactwithsuchpeoplewhethertherewereactivitiesattheircentreorschoolorhospitalwhichwouldbenefittheindividualandtheanswerwasalwaysyes.ExamplesarethelocalCatholicprimaryschoolinWestHeidelberg,St.Vincent’sHospital,theExoduscommunityinWestHeidelbergandtheBrotherhoodofSt.Laurence.Therewasanin-principlecommitmenttosupervision.Thissurprisedmealittle,asthiswouldrequirequiteacommitment.Theviewwasthat,giventhatthepersonalreadyhadarelationshipwiththeagencyanditsstaffandthatsuchactivitieswouldbeofbenefit,offeringprogramsandactivitieswouldcertainlybeconsidered.TheproposalsthatIhaveoutlinedmaybeexpensivetoimplement.Therewillbethosewhomayarguethatjudgesandmagistratesarenottherightpeopletodeterminethepriorityforservices.AnumberoftheNorthAmericanmodelsdevelopedinavacuumofservices.Byworkingwithgovernmentandnon-governmentagencies,problem-solvingcourtssupportrehabilitationsothatpeopleareassistedintheirlives.Whatmanypeopleneedintheirlivesisnotchaos,butcoordination.

Theseproblem-solvingapproachesareawork-in-progress,particularlyifimplementedacrossthewholecourtsystem,andnotjustwithinaparticularcentreorcourt.TheyneedtobetestedanddevelopedinthecontextoftheVictorianjusticesystemanddevelopmentselsewhere.Thiscanbeachievedthroughparticipatingintheinternationalnetworkofinnovativecourts,connectedthroughtheCenterforCourtInnovationinNewYork.Establishingthe‘VictorianCentreforCourtInnovation’inMelbournewouldprovideafocusfortheimplementationandcontinuousimprovementoftheseapproaches.

Recommendations1.Acknowledgingthatmuchcourtactivityisnotadversarialinpractice,butaformofproblemsolving,thenotionofcourtas‘problem-solver’shouldbeencouragedandsupportedforappropriatematters.Thismayrequirethefollowingchanges.• AmendmenttotheSentencing Act 1991,particularlyforhighprevalencecrimeswhichmakeupmostoftheactivityinthecourts,togiverehabilitationitsappropriatepriorityandtoauthorisethecourtstomanagerehabilitativeresources.

• IncreasedresourcingofthecourtstoeffectivelycarryouttheirSentencing Act 1991obligationtorehabilitate,particularlyforhighprevalencecrimes.

2.Thecourtsshouldoperateasproblem-solversthroughthefollowing.• Honouringthe“principleofimmediacy”.Justicedelayedisjusticedenied.TheMagistrates’Courtshouldlistmatterswithin72hoursofchargesbeinglaidandcourtdaysshouldbeestablishedaroundcommunitytimelines,notthosewhostaffthecourt.

• Provisionbythepoliceofdetailedsummariesofchargestodefendant/lawyerwithin24hoursofchargesbeinglaid.

• Arequirementforpoliceinformantstoprovideinformationtoenablecourtprosecutorsandstafftodeterminetheconductoftheproceedings.Thismeansthatprosecutors,notinformants,shouldsettlethechargestoproceedandthechargestobewithdrawn,andthecontentofpolicesummarieswithdefendantsandtheirclients.

• Availabilityofdefencelawyersatallcourts.• Bailconditionstobedecidedmostlybythecourts,andnotpolice.• Facilitatingaccessandcompliancethroughthecourts.• Imposingpenaltiestocommenceassoonaspossible,ideallyonthedayofcourt,andgovernmentandcommunityagenciesprovidingresourcesandprogramsatthecourt.

• Structuringthecourtdaysothat,earlyintheday,informationexchangebetweenthepolice,prosecutors,defencelawyers,andagenciescanoccurthroughadiscussionofcasesonthelist,andlaterinthemorning,programscanberunforpersonssentenced.

• Arrangingforthesamemagistratetomaintainthecarriageofindividualcasesuntilresolution,inordertomonitoradherencetotheprogramandtoimplementimmediatesanctionsfornon-adherence.

3.Specialistcourtsshouldsitawayfromcourthousesfromtimetotime,includingforinfringementmatters.Forexample,ahomelesssheltercouldhostacourtwhichadjudicatesonproceedingsbroughtagainstthehomeless.

4.A‘VictorianCentreforCourtInnovation’shouldbeestablishedinMelbourne.

The‘InfringementsCourt’isan‘e-Court’—aproductofthemodernage.Itdoesnotsitandhearcases.Consideringthecolossalamountofticketsprocessedelectron-ically,itreceiveslittleattentionandfewcomplaints,becauseinthemajorityofcasesitworkseffectively.However,thereareasmallminorityofpoorandpowerlesspeopleforwhomtheinfringementssystemisineffectiveandunfair.Thissectionsetsouttheparticularfeaturesoftheinfringementssystem.Iconsidertheimplicationsoftheexpansionoftheinfringementssystem.FinallyIconsiderhowtheinfringementssystemmaybeimproved.Halsbury’sLawsofAustraliaexplains:Regulatorylegislation,whereoffencesarecreatedtoregulatesocialorindustrialconditions,publicsafetyorprotectrevenue,ismoreeasilyregardedasimposingstrictorabsoluteliability.[2005,p.130]

Prosecutingissimplified.InmymeetingsinhospitalsandschoolsaroundMelbournein2010,andwithfinancialcounsellorsandcommunitylegalcentrelawyers,everyprofessionalIinterviewedknewofpatients,parents,orclientswhohadunpaidfinesandoutstandingwarrants.Aminorityofcasesseemedtobearesultofcourtcasesinwhichanindividualhadbeenfined.Isay“seemed”becauseitwaspossiblethatindividualsmayhavehadoutstandingwarrantsasaresultofacourtfiningthemintheirabsence.Peopleareunderstandablyconfusedastohowwarrantshavecomeintoexistence.Thisburgeoningsystemofjusticeislikelong-rangebombing.Insteadofbombs,lettersbristlingwithlegalmumbo-jumbomysteriouslylandintheletterbox.Lettersmakereferencetothetransgression,andthedateitallegedlyoccurred.(Theeventwillhaveoccurredweeksifnotmonthsearlier.)Personstargetedwhocrackthecodelearnthattheyhaveanobligationtopaythereckoning.Thepersonidentifiedinthecorrespondenceisadvisedthatheorshecanreturnthepaperworkandaskacourttodeterminethematter.Hardlyanyonedoesthat.Skirmishesfollow.Morelettersarrive.Somemayrefertoafreshmatter.Somemayrevealoldermatters.Combatensues.Correspondenceisfiredoffannouncingthatmattershavemutatedtothewarrantstage.Heavyartilleryisheardonthewind.Thereisveryoccasionallyawhisperofimprisonment.Thisdevelopingsystemofjusticeisnotinconvenientforthosewhounderstandwhatisgoingon,havethecapacitytopay,andtakeactionasanalternativetoattendingcourt.Withasigh,theyentertheirbankdetailsintotheircomputer,andthelowrumblingsceaseforthem.

4 The infringements system

4.1 Infringements and the justice systemTwomonetarypenaltysystemssitalongsideeachotherinthejusticesystem.Finesareoneofthesentencesthatacourtmayimpose.Thecourtmustbesatisfiedbeyondreasonabledoubtthattheactoccurredandthatthepersonintendedtodotheact.Casesinopencourtaregovernedbysentencinglegislation.Courtsarerequiredtotakethedefendant’scircumstancesintoaccountindeterminingtheappropriatepenalty.Section50(1)oftheSentencing Act 1991states:Ifacourtdecidestofineanoffenderitmustindeterminingtheamountandmethodofpaymentofthefinetakeintoaccount,asfaraspracticable,thefinancialcircumstancesoftheoffenderandthenatureoftheburdenthatitspaymentwillimpose.

Intheeventofnon-payment,thepersonmayapproachthecourtandseektimetopay,oraskthatthefinebeconvertedtounpaidcommunitywork.Penaltiesareleviedadministrativelythroughtheinfringementssystem.Casesintheinfringementssystemareestablishedontheirfactsalone.Mens rea,criminalintent,isirrelevant.TheStatehastoprovethattheactoccurred.Anoffencewhichdoesnothavea‘fault’elementisdescribedasastrictliabilityoffence.Intheinfringementssystem,theregulationsimposemonetarypenalties.Penaltiesaresetatalevelwhichwillinducetheordinarypersontoavoidcourtandpay.Theamountsdonotvaryanddonottakeaccountofpersonalcircumstances.Ifmattersarenotresolved,aticketcanultimatelyresultindetention.

4.2 The growth of the infringements systemOn-the-spotfinesarepopularwiththosechargedwithenforcingthelaw.Police,parkingofficers,governmentadministrators,Citylinkofficials,draftaticketandhanditover,orsenditout.Theirjobisdoneandthecourtsarerelievedfromwastingtimeonpeskyminormatters.Generally,thepublicwouldratherpaythanwastetimeincourt.Noconvictionisrecordedandtheactofpaymentisnotanadmissionofguilt.Inmosttrafficcases—parkingandspeedinginfringements—theStatedirectsthepaperworktotheregisteredownerofthemotorvehicle.AccordingtotheVictorianAttorney-General’sAnnualReportontheInfringementsSystem2009–10,over120governmentagenciesissued4.65millioninfringementnoticesduringthatperiod.VictoriaPoliceissuedthemajority;alittlelessthan60%.Localgovernmentwasnextwithover35%.Whilethereisarighttoelecttohavematterstakentocourt,lessthan1%doesso.In2009–10itwas0.7%.About5%ofenforcementorderswererevoked,thebulkbytheInfringementsCourt.Internalreviewsonthebasisofspecialcircumstancesconstitutedonly0.16%in2009–10.Approximately40%oftheseinternallyreviewedmatterswerewithdrawn,andwrite-offsbythestategovernmentwerenotincluded.Thefigureislikelytobehigh.Itoughttobefactoredintoconsiderationabouttheefficacyoftheinfringementssystem.Iwouldforeshadowthatthisfigurewouldreduceifproblem-solvingprincipleswereintroduced.

4.3 The spread of the infringements systemTheinfringementssysteminVictoriahasrecentlyhaditsscopebroadenedtoincludesomeindictablematters.Thisdevelopmenthasimplicationsforthebusinessofmagistrates’courts.Muchofitsday-to-dayworkisinsentencinginnon-seriousmatters.ThewriterforeseesthatmattershistoricallydealtwithinthejurisdictionoftheMagistrates’CourtwillincreasinglybetransferredbyParliamenttotheinfringementssystem.Examplesalreadyexist.TheInfringements and other Acts Amendment Act 2008empoweredpolicetoissueon-the-spotfinesformattersincludingshopliftingcaseswherethemaximumamountstolenislessthan$600;Section74ACrimes Act 1958.Othermatterssuchaswilfuldamage,offensivebehaviourandindecentorobscenelanguagewerealsoincluded.Therewasbipartisansupportforthelegislation.InhisresponsetotheSecondReadingspeechon6February2008thethenShadowAttorney-GeneralRobertClarkstated:Fromtheopposition’spointofview,westronglysupportasensible,measuredandfairapplicationofaninfringementsystemwherethatsystemisgenuinelyandeffectivelydirectedtowardscrackingdownoncrimeandisnotmotivatedbyrevenueraising...thereisthepotentialforthesemeasurestohelpinlawenforcementbysavingpolicetimeinprosecutingoffencesbymeansofofferingalowerpenaltyandthenon-recordingofaconvictionforoffenderswhodonotdisputethecase.

Someactsofdishonestyareregardedbyparliamentassuitabletobedealtwithintheinfringementssystem.Theconsequenceisthatpolicewon’thavetowastetimeincourt.Theftistodayamatterwhich,toquoteO’Malleyagain,doesnotconcern“theinnermostandmostbasicaspectsoftheperson”.Efficiencytrumpsethics.AsaresultofthesuccessfulpassageoftheControl of Weapons Amendment Act 2010,weaponspossessioncannowbehandledbytheinfringementssystem.Apoliceofficermayissueanon-the-spotfinefor$1000,ormore,dependingonthecircumstances.Suchaninfringementnoticemaybeservedonapersonabovetheageof16(Section11B(2)Control of Weapons Act 1990),inanotherwords,achildaswellasanadult.SuchapenaltycannotbehandeddownintheChildren’sCourt.Parliamentrequiresthepoliceto‘sendamessage’.Thejudiciary,thethirdarmofgovernment,issnubbed.Thisisnottosaythatapersonfinedforshopliftingorcarryingapocketknife,forinstance,willnothavetheirdayincourt.Butthepenaltywillalreadyhavebeenset.Ifpaymentisnotmade,thesheriffwillappear.Section160(1)oftheInfringements Act 2006states:TheCourtmayorderthattheinfringementoffenderbeimprisonedforaperiodofonedayinrespectofeachpenaltyunit,orpartofapenaltyunit,towhichtheamountoftheoutstandingfinesundertheinfringementwarrantorwarrantsisanequivalentamount.

TheActdoesgivediscretiontothecourttodischargefinesinfulloradjournforsixmonthsifitfindsthattheinfringementoffenderhasspecialcircumstances.

4.4 The implications of the expansion of the infringements system

Thepoorandthedisadvantagedhavemosttolosewiththeexpansionoftheinfringementssystem.Ina2008paperpublishedbytheLawandJusticeFoundationofNewSouthWales,Finebutnotfair:finesanddisadvantage,theauthorsClarke,ForellandMcCarronconclude:‘Fines’andpenaltynoticescanhaveasignificantanddisproportionateimpactonthelivesofdisadvantagedpeople.Weparticularlynotedtheimpactonthosewhoarehomeless,young,onlowincomes,whoexperiencementalillnessand/orhaveunstableorchaoticlives,includingperiodsofimprisonment.Somedisadvantagedpeoplearemorevulnerabletoreceivingfines,aremorelikelytoaccruemultiplefines,havelesscapacitytopayfinesandcanaccumulatesignificantdebtforunpaidfines.

MyinterviewswithpeoplewhoworkwiththepoorinMelbournerevealedfrustrationwiththeinfringementssystem.Thesystemisregardedasinflexible:thepenaltieswereregardedastoohigh,particularlywhentherewasmorethanoneticket,andfurthercostsandchargeshadbeenadded.InMelbourneIinterviewedpeoplewhoworkedinschoolsandhospitals,andvariouswelfareagencies.Theysaidthatthepeopletheydealtwithalwayshadinfringementnoticesandwarrants.ItwasunderstoodthatCivicCompliancecangrantarrangementssuchasinstal-mentorders,andadditionaltimetopay.Theseusuallymeanthopingfinancialcircumstanceswouldimprove,butfindingthatcircumstancesdidnotimprove.Therewaslittleconfidencethatthepersonorfamilywouldbeabletomaintainpayments,particularlyforlongerthansixmonths.Whilepeoplegenerallywantedtodosomethingabouttheirfines,therealwaysseemedtobereasonswhyundertakingunpaidcommunityworkwouldbeproblematic.Othermattersintheperson’slifetookpriority.Ibelievethatpeoplewouldbefarmorelikelytomakeacommitmenttoactivities,suchasprogramsandcourses,iftheopportunityweregiventothemshortlyafterthecommissionoftheoffence.ThisisbasedonwhatIwitnessedinmyobservationsattheproblem-solvingcourtsoverseas.

4.5 How the infringements system can be improvedParliamentmustdecidewhattheproperfunctionofthecourtsisinrelationtotheinfringementssystem,particularlyincasesofnon-compliance.IndebateontheestablishmentoftheARCliston23March2010,Mr.Clarkcautionedagainstindiscriminateuseofon-the-spotfines:Itisnotanappropriateandeffectiveresponse...toautomaticallyhitpeoplewithfinestimeandagainwhentheyarementallyill,homeless,cannotcopeandcannotpay.(Hansard,p.931)

Thesesortsofsituationsconstituteatinyproportionofthetotalnumberofon-the-spotfineseachyear.Ultimately,somepeopledofacejailalongtimeafterticketshavebeenissued.Localcourtstaffmustbegivenclearguidelinestoimplementappropriateactivitiesandprogramsinsteadoffines,andnotbeboundbytheoriginalamountofthefineoranyadditionalfee.Seniorcourtstaffmusthavethepowertomakeadjustments.Instalmentplansmustbeforamaximumofsixmonthsforthepoor.Ihaveconsideredextendingthatperiodtotwoyearsforfinesinexcessof$20,000,buthavesincerejecteditonthebasisthatifpunishmentsarenottimelythentheylosetheirworth.Thesystemitselfispartlyresponsibleforfinesbecomingsolargebytheimpositionofadditionalfeesfornon-paymentandthismustbetakenintoconsideration.Expertssuchasfinancialcounsellorsmustbeavailableatthelocalcourt.Theperson’splanmaybereviewediftheirfinancialsituationimproves,butitmustbeunderstoodthatpeopleinpovertymaynotbeabletopay,especiallyiftheironlymeansoffinancialsupportisaCentrelinkpayment.ThesepaymentsaremadebytheCommonwealthGovernmentonthebasisthattheyareforthe‘basics’.Currently,asinglepersonwithoutchildrenreceivesamaximumof$469.70perfortnight.Thatpersonwillgenerallyhavenosavingsavailable.Courtadministratorsshouldhaveprogramsreadyforpeoplewhowishtoregister.Courtstaffwouldbeabletoconvertfinesandwarrantsundertheinfringementssystemtoattendanceatappropriateprogramslinkedtothecourt,andthecourtitselfcouldmonitorcompliancewiththeseactivities.Ifthereareproblems,thepersonwouldberequiredtofaceacourt,whichhaspowertoimplementwhateversanctionitbelievesappropriate.Ifareasonablesystemissetuptoallowthepoortoconverttheirfinestoareasonableamount,andamaximumperiodofsixmonthsisimposed,thereshouldbefarfeweroutstandingmatters.Non-compliancewithoutexcuseinaprogramtailoredtotheindividualcouldresultinthecourtconsideringimposingashortperiodofincarceration,orotherformsofpunishment.TheimprisonmentprovisionsoftheInfringements Act 2006comeintooperationwhentheoptionsofferedbyCommunityCorrections,bywayofunpaidcommunitywork,arenottakenup.Theseprovisionsdonotincludepovertyasaspecialcircumstance.Workandsafetyissuescanpreventapersonfrombeingfoundsuitable.Apersonmustbereasonablywelltoundertakeunpaidcommunitywork.However,theseconcernsdonotpreventthepersonfrombeingjailedfornon-paymentoffines.Insteadofbeingreferredtocourtforapossiblejailtermlateintheproceedings,peopleshouldbepermittedtopromptlytakematterstocourtandasktoparticipateincourt-structuredprograms,asanalternativetopayingmoneytheydon’thave.Letthecourtdecideinthesecases,takingadvicefromtheexpertsatcourt,whowillhaveinterviewedsuchapplicants.Thecourtswillalwaysplaysomerole.Ifthecourtisindoubtaboutaperson’scircumstances,itshouldgenerateaninquirybeforeitincarceratesthatindividual.

4.6 Collateral benefits of reform of the infringements system

Thegovernmentquietlywritesoffmillionsofdollarsinunpaidfineswhichhaveremainedoutstandingforalongperiod.Butsomeofthismoneywouldbepaidunderabettersystem.Theinfringementssystemworksforthosewhocanpay,eveniftheydosighalittle.Changesmakingthesystembetterforthepoorwillindirectlybenefitthewell-off.Therewillbebenefitsforall.Therewillbebetterbehaviouronthepartofthepublicastheyseethequickgovernmentresponsetomisbehaviour.Therewillbegreaterrevenue,mainlyfromthosewhocanpay,whopaymorepromptly,butalsofromthepoorwhodopaytheirdebtswhentheycan.

RecommendationsToimproveequityintheimpactofinfringementsmatters:• courtregistrarsanddeputyregistrarsshouldbeempoweredtoadjusttheamountoffinesbytakingintoaccountaperson’scircumstances

• paymentsmustbefinalisedinsixmonthsifaperson’sincomeisloworispredominantlyderivedfromCentrelinkbenefits

• peopleshouldbepermittedto‘workoff’finesbymeanswhichassistthemselves,theirfamilies,andtheircommunities,potentiallythroughprogramsrunundertheauspiceofproblem-solvingcourts.

Lawyersconductcasesforindividuals.Thetraditionalroleoflawyersistoseekthebestresultfortheirclientwhileacknowledgingthatthelegalprofessionmustfunctionwithintherules.Thejusticesystemaspirestosophisticatedethicalconventions,suchasthepreceptthatthelawyer’sdutytothecourtishigherthanthedutytotheclient.Thesekindsofethicalconventionsfortifythelawyertotheviewthatthejusticesystemisfundamentallyfair.Theargumentisthattheadversarialsystemsievesthestoriesandthetruthfiltersthrough—thatitguaranteesareasonableoutcome.However,thefactsofacaseareusuallynotincontentionandtheadversarialsystemisusedinasmallproportionofcasesinthecourts—mostcasessettle.Agoodresultforalawyerisassessedcasebycase.Lawyersarenotinclinedtospeculateaboutwhethertheirclientmayreturntotheminthefuturewithasimilarsetofcharges.Thecriminallawyeristoachievethebestresultpossiblefortheclientfortheircurrentcharges.Individualcourtcasesaretreatedinavacuumonthebasisthatnoclientwantstohaveanygreaterinvolvementinthecriminaljusticesystemthantheyhavetoanditisthebusinessoftheclienttosortouthisorherlifeasheorsheseesfit.Manypeopledonotfullyunderstandthetruesourceoftheirlegalproblemsbecausetheycannotaffordlawyersandtheydonothaveagoodunderstandingofthelaw.OnthelargepublichousingestateIworkin,NooneandDigneydiscoveredthatpublichousingtenantsdidnotassociatetheirlegaldifficultieswiththeirpoorqualityhousing.Theystate:Noneoftheaboveparticipantspresentedto[theLegalService]abouttheirhousingeventhoughtheirhousingproblemscontributedtotheirlegalproblem.Theparticipantsdidnotexplicitlyask[theLegalService]toassistwiththeirinappropriatetransitionalorpublichousingandtheirhousingwasonlydiscussed(ifatall)inrelationtotheirpresentinglegalproblem.Itislikelythataresolutionoftheclient’shousingproblemwouldassist,ifnotsolve,mostoftheparticipants’presentingproblems.(p.90)

SaulAlinskyputsitthisway:Ifpeoplefeeltheydon’thavethepowertochangeabadsituation,thentheydon’tthinkaboutit...whystartfiguringouthowtospendamilliondollarsifyoudon’thaveit?(1971,p.105)

Thepoorandthepowerlesstypicallyhavemultiplelegalproblems.Proscribedbehaviourbythepoorcanoccurbecauseofneed.Itisamistaketoconcludethatthoseapprehendedforfighting,stealingandprostitutionwanttofight,steal,andprostitutethemselves.Poorlyeducated,unwell,unemployedpeoplecanmakepoorchoices.ReflectingtheHighCourtmajorityjudgmentinD’Orta-Ekeineke v Victoria

5 The role of lawyers and community legal centres

Legal Aid;courtswillonly“quellcontroversy”forthepoorwhentheyresourcethemsothatthelikelihoodoffuturecontroversyisreduced.Thisrequiresachangeofapproachfromcourts,butalsofromthepoor.Thepoorhavenostakeinthelegalsystemandprefertoavoidcourtsandlawyerssothelegalprofessionandthecourtsmustchangeiftheyaretoforgeeffectivelegalsolutionsfortheseindividuals.Thispresentstheopportunityforthelegalprofessionandthecourtstoachievebroadsocialchange.Theretaineristherelationshipbetweenlawyerandclient.Havingcommittedattheoutsettolisteningtoandunderstandingaclient,thelawyerisentitledtoaskforsomethinginreturn.Theretaineroughttoincludeaproposedplanorstrategyandbesignedoffonceitissettledbylawyerandclient.Marshallputsitthisway:Theretainershouldreflecttheproject’sgoalsasagreedbythecommunityandthelawyer.Itshouldalsooutlinetheplanofaction,[thatis],themeansforreachingthosegoals.Thegoalsandmeansforachievingthosegoalsshouldreflectthecommunity’svalues.Theretainershouldbespecific,itshouldprioritisegoals,anditshoulddelineatewhatstrategies,ifany,aresorepugnantastobeofflimits.Itshouldclarifytherolethatthelawyerisplaying.(2000,p.222)

Theretainercanalsobestructuredtopromotetheinterestsoftheclient,whilealsoenablingthelawyertopartnerwiththeclientandothersinasimilarsituationtopursuebroaderlegalreforms.Thischangetotheretainerchallengestheusualone-offcaseworkapproachoflawyers,andithasthepotentialtobetestedwithinthepracticeofcommunitylegalcentres.

Communitylegalcentreshaveregardedthemselvesasprovidingadifferentformoflegalservicetotheirpoorandpowerlesscommunities.Thisischaracterisedinthefollowingways.•Providingaserviceforclientswhowouldhavenootherfeasibleoptionofreceivinglegaladviceduetotheirlackofabilitytopay.Theincreasingavailabilityoflegalaidthroughprivatesolicitorsandthegovernmentlegalaidbodieshaschallengedthisspecificpurposeoflegalcentres,andthereisdebateabouttheimpactofprovidingsuchservicesforfree.

•Providinglegaladviceinamoreaccessibleandempatheticformatthatcanreflectuponthebroadercircumstancesandlifecourseoftheclient.Inessence,thisreflectsafocusonproblem-solvingprinciples.Theeffectivenessofcommunitylegalcentresinthisrespectisaffectedbytheirlocation(bothgeographicallyandinrelationtootherservices);theiraccesscriteria(thatis,generalistversusspecialist);thequality,experienceandtrainingoftheirstaff;andtheirabilitytoinfluencethosebroadercircumstancesincollaborationwithotherservices.Thewillingnessoftheclienttoseethelegalcentreasapartner,ratherthansomethingtodependon,intheirdealingswiththejusticesystemisveryimportant.

•Usingtheinformationandexperiencesgainedthroughthisworktoidentifyandpublicisetheissuesaffectingtheirclients,asameansofprogressinglawreformstobenefitthepoorandpowerless.Legalcentresareproudoftheirrecordinlawreform,oftenthroughcapturingthosefewmomentswhenpoliticalandsocialforcesarealigned.

Whileundertakingtheseroles,communitylegalcentreshavestruggledtorelatetothejusticesystem.SimonRice,todayanacademic,butwithalong-standingpassionaboutcommunitylegalcentres,stated:“CLCshaveformanyyears—longerthanyoumaythink—beeneitherunconcerned,orconcernedbutconfused,abouttheiridentity.”Inthe1960sMartinLutherKingwarnedthecivilrightsmovementagainst“thetranquillizingdrugofgradualism.”Arecommunitylegalcentresenthusiasticsupportersofanunjustsystem?Hasgovernmentfundingcowedthecentres?JeffGiddingscautionsthatcommunitylegalcentresnotassist“anunjustsystemtoprocessthecaseswhichareputbeforeit.”(1992)SimonRicewarnsthecommunitylegalcentremovementofthedangersofbecoming“partofthesystem”.In2010heprofferedaprovocativeandchallenginganalysisinhisaddresstotheNationalConferenceofCommunityLegalCentres:

6 Community legal centres

TheStateeitherabsorbsrevolutionaryproposalsforchange—andtheiradvocates—intoitsownsystemofitsdecision-making,oritstigmatisestheproposalsandtheiradvocatesasextremistandsectarian.Eitherway,therevolutionaryvoiceis‘finished’asavoiceforchange…Thesolutionistoavoidbeingdefinedinorout,andtherebytoremainunfinished,tobeneitherbroughtintoaccordnorrenderedirrelevant,buttoremaininastateofcompetingcontradiction.

Hearguesthatifthemovementissatisfiedtobe“merelyreformist”,thistensionwillnotexistinthefirstplace.Heaversthatcommunitylegalcentres:Havebeenalmostenthusiastictobedefinedintothestate’ssystems…Thereisnoradicalgoal,noaspirationtochallenge,fundamentally,theprinciples,presumptionsandstructureofthelegalsystem...Itwasasiftheyhadnothingmoretosay.

ThisassessmentwasforecastbyoneofthefoundersofFitzroyLegalService,PeterFarisQC:Band-aidworkwasmypreference.Becauseitwasuseful.Iwaswaryofreformandtakingonsociety.Ithoughtyoucouldachievereformbyamassiveband-aidsystem.Itwastoomuchtotrytotakeonthemonolith.(Neal,1984,p.57)

Intheearlydayscommunitylegalcentreswereregardedasradical,partlyaproductoftheirnewness.DavidScottexplainswhathecallsthe“lifestages”ofanorganisation.Theyare,inorder:Anexcitingandenthusiasticestablishment,ofteninitiatedbyoneormorecharismaticpeopleoradramaticresponsetoabreakdowninexistingservices;dynamicgrowthandaperiodofbuildingnewprograms,capacitiesandclientele;stabilisation,adaptation,aperiodoflevellingoffandmaintainingthestatusquooveralongperiodoftime;demiseandirrelevanceorrevivalandredirection.(Neal,1984,p.34)

Communitylegalcentreswerepartofabroadmovementwhichsoughttodevelopastrongrelationshipbetweengroupsofpeoplewhowerebeingunfairlytreatedinsociety.Themovementlookedateducational,health,housingandlegalmatters,tonameafew,andtradeunions,charitiesandreligiousgroupsfiguredprominently.Arepovertylawyersdreamingofutopiatoday?TheAmericanresearchbyAnnSouthworthnotedthattheearlyaimwastoachieveatransformativeexperienceforpoorclientswiththeeradicationofpoverty,butthatpovertylawyerstodayhaveableakerviewofachievingradicalreformthroughtheirlabours.They“understoodthatlitigationwouldachievefarmorelimitedresultsthansocialreformlitigation’searlychampionshadhoped.”(1998,p.502)ShequotesDiller:Mostpovertylawyersarescepticaloftheoriginalcorepromiseofthelegalservicesprogram—thatlegalrepresentationcanplayamajorroleinendingpovertyinAmerica...mostcontemporarylawyershavemuchmoresoberassessmentsofitspotential.(1998)

Whilecommunitylegalcentreshaverealisedthatmajorchangeisbydefinitiondifficulttoachieve,theynowknowmoreaboutpovertyandpowerlessness.NicoleRich’sassessmentin2009isthis:CLCshavenotcreatedmajortransformationsinoursocialstructurestowardseliminatingpovertyanddisadvantagefromthecommunity.However,thisdoesnotmeanthatCLCs’lawreformandpolicyworkhasnotbeeneffective.(2009,p.54)

Oneissueisthefactthatpoorclientscannotpay.Howaretheyregarded,andhowdotheyviewthemselves?Howdoesanimpoverishedclientappraisetheirownstatusvis-à-visthelawyer?Theprobonolegalrelationshiphaselementsthatcanpotentiallymaketheclientfeeldisempowered.Legalworkforthepooristypicallydescribedasaservice.Representingsomeonechargedwithcriminaloffencesmaysucceedinkeepingthepersonoutofjail,oradebtmaybewrittenoff,butasEdgarandJeanCahnwarn,service-orientedprogramscanbe:Ameansofperpetuatingdependencyratherthanterminatingit...thisisperhapsthemostseriouscostofaserviceorientation:itneglectsthepovertyofthespiritinministeringtotheneedsoftheflesh.(1964)

EdgarCahnwroteintheUniversityoftheDistrictofColumbiaReviewthat,whenapersondeclaresthataserviceprovidesfreelegalservices,thatpersonimpliesthattheservicewantsto“help”:“Butthemessagereceivedmaybeverydifferent.Itmaybe:‘YouaregettingitfreebecauseyouhavenothingIneed,wantorvalue’”(2000,p.110)Thisapproachhasthepotentialtocompoundtheclient’ssenseofdisempowerment.However,thisisaminorriskcomparedtodenyingaccesstolegalrepresentation.Forcommunitylegalcentres,thechallengeistoclearlyunderstandtheirplaceinasystemthatcanprovidefreelegaladvicethroughmultiplechannels.Insomecases,aclientcanbejustaswellservedbyaprivatelawyeroraVictoriaLegalAiddutylawyer.Defendingpeoplechargedwithcrimesisdefensiveandreactive,butessentiallegalwork.Iwouldpreferthatcommunitylegalcentresundertakeoffensivework,atleastinaconceptualsense.Hardworkbyacommunitylegalcentrelawyerandacommitmentbytheclientwilloftenachieveagoodresultfortheclientincourt,potentiallysuperiortothatavailablethroughuseofnon-legalcentrerepresentation.Thisisbecausethecommunitylegalcentreseekstoofferahigherqualityofadviceandengagementthroughempathy,accessibilityandalong-termrelationship,reflectiveofproblem-solvingprinciples.Thereisalsothepotentialfortheclient’ssituationtoinformbroaderlegalreform,apotentialthatisonlyrealisedwhentheclientwillinglypartnerswiththelegalcentre.Theimplementationofproblem-solvingprinciplesthatreflectonthebroadercircumstancesandlifecourseoftheclientinthecontextofcaseworklawisnoteasy.Lawyersmarshalargumentsinfavourofpropositions,andanticipateargumentsinrebuttal.Thinkingaboutcaseworkandlegalproblemsinanadversarialwayisthelotofcaseworkers.Thinkingcreativelyabouthowpeople’scircumstancescanbeamelioratedismoredemandingthanthinkingaboutanindividualclient’simmediatelegalissues.NooneandDigneyfoundthat:Thereisanunstructuredinterviewingstyleinlegalinterviewsat[theLegalService],whichpositivelyresultsinajointunderstandingandidentificationbetweenlawyerandclientofotherproblemslinkedtopresentinglegalproblems.”(2010,p.137)

Amechanismforchangingtheretainerbetweenlawyerandclientthatcouldbetriedbycommunitylegalcentresistherigorousimplementationofaregularlegalcheck-up.Basedinacommunityhealthcentre,IhaveobservedatcloserangethechangestodeliveryofprimaryhealthandmedicalservicesinAustralia.TheadventofMedicarepermitsthepoortoatleastconsultadoctorfromtimetotime,tocheckupontheiroverallhealth.Thesameconceptcouldbeappliedincommunitylegalcentres.Currently,ourclientsvisitusonlywhentheyperceivetheyhaveamajorproblem,whenitisoftenverylateinproceedings.Ifwehaveestablishedalong-termrelationshipwiththeclientthenwehaveanopportunitytodealwiththatprobleminitsbroadercontext.Itispossibleforthecommunitycentrelawyertoencourageclientstoperiodicallyvisitalawyerforalegalcheck-up.Itisbetterfortheclienttodealwithwhatisgoingoninhisorherlifesoonerratherthanlater.Communitylegalcentrescangetoutintothecommunity,andencourageindividualsinthecommunitytocomeandseeusoccasionallyforapreventativecheck-up.Throughthis,wecanoperationaliseachangedretainerrelationshipbetweenthelawyerandclient.Italsoprovidesanopportunitytoseepatternsinourwork.Thebroadimplementationofproblem-solvingprincipleswillestablishamorejustsystem.Thepoor,andthosewhoareactingforthem,needtocontinuetoforgerelationshipswiththeexistingstructuressuchasthecourts,governmentagencies,theuniversitiesandwelfareorganisations.

RecommendationsWithincommunitylegalcentresthesechangesshouldbeemployed:•Theretainerbetweenlawyerandclientmustbestructuredsothatworkdonehasthecapacitytoachievebroaderchangeandparticularlyforthepoorandpowerless;notjusttoassisttheindividualclient.

•Asapreventativemeasuretoencourageearlyengagementwithlegalassistanceandtoplacetheirlegalissuesintheirbroadercircumstancesandlifecourse,clientsshouldbeencouragedtoaccessregularlegalcheck-upswiththeircommunitylegalcentre.

•Consistentwiththeintentiontoreducetheadversarialnatureofthecriminaljusticesystem,communitylegalcentresshouldcontinuetoworkcloselywithcommunityorganisationsandthejusticesystem,includingpolice,withaviewtoundertakingjointpreventativeprograms.

Selecting the destinationsIwassittingintheOrangeCountyCollaborativeCourt.Thelastcasewasannounced:a“graduation”.AhandsomeyoungAfrican-Americanmanwalkedfromthebacktothewellofthecourt.Thelecternwasturnedaroundsothattheyoungmancouldaddressthebodyofthecourt.Itwaspacked.Courtstaff,includingthejudge,satatthebartableoneithersideofhim.Theyoungmanreadanessay,whichrecountedhispre-courtcircumstances,ashedeterioratedintomoreandmoreseriousdruguse.Histimewiththecourtcoverednearlytwoyears.Hedescribedableakexistence,withouthope,slowlytransformingintoapurposefulandactivelife.Hewarmlythankedthecourtforgivinghimanopportunityandforitssupportoverthejourney.Oncompletionofhisspeechthejudgereturnedtothebench,andannounced:“Twofelonies!Twomisdemeanours!Gone!”Andshebangedhergavel.Ithasbeensaidthatanexplanationispartlyaconfession.MyreasonsforchoosingtovisitthreeplacesinNorthAmericaoverthreeweeksinearly2011—NewYork,VancouverandOrangeCounty,SantaAna—areelusive.NewYorkhadnotonlytheCentreforCourtInnovationbuttheRedHookareaofNewYork.RedHookisregardedasthemodelfortheNeighbourhoodJusticeCentreinCollingwood.MyimpressionoftheimpactofthecourtsIobservedinNewYorkisthatdefendantsintheproblem-solvingcourtsdoreceivejusticeandtheyreceiveitlocallyandquickly.Insteadofbeingheldinjailforalongsentencetheygetoutofjailquickly.Theyareengagedbyattendingprogramswithinthecourtprocessforlonger.Thismaywellinvolvewearingbrightbluevestsandtidyinguptheircommunityaspartoftheircommunityworkobligations.Theyreturnregularlytocourtforprogresstobemonitored.Traditionallawyersandtheirtraditionalclientsstickwiththestandardoutcome.Itispredictableandknown.Evenifitmeansabitmorejailtime,thereisnoongoingobligationlikeintheproblem-solvingcourts.IwantedtovisitVancouver,Canada,mainlybecauseofitsexemplaryreputation.Theirjusticesystemismostlikeoursandtheyappearedtobethemostadvanced.Iwonderedifthiscouldbetrue?Californiaseemedtobeslowlybankruptingitselfwithitsobsessionwithlockingupordinaryfolkwhohadcommittedreasonablyminoroffences.IhadreadaboutajudgeinOrangeCountywhohadsetupaspecialistcourt,theCombatVeteransCourt.ItseemedtomethatthosewhohadsetuptheCombatVeteransCourtwerenotonlysmart,butbrave.Herewerestreet-smartandsavvyAmericanstacklingtheirnation’s‘lock-‘em-up’mentality.Thedefendantswerereturnedsoldiers,trainedbythecountrytocausedetrimenttoothers,butnowbackhome,somewerequitemessedup.Thiswasnotnecessarilythethinkingofthosewhoapplied

Appendix: Problem-solving courts in North America

themselvestosettingupthiscourt,butwhileIwascontemplatingwheretovisitthat’swhatstruckme.Whatswayedmewasdiscoveringthatunlikesomespecialistcourtswhichacceptonlythemostminorandlow-levelcrimefortheirremit,theCombatVeteransCourtdealtwithcrimesofviolence—includingdomesticviolence.Igottogotootherplacesasitturnedout,suchasahomelessshelterwhichprovidedlodgingstoacourtonitspremisesfromtimetotime,butthere’llbemoreaboutthatlater.

New York

Youth CourtMyvisittoNewYorkwascoordinatedbytheCentreforCourtInnovation(CCI).RedHookwasmygoal,butwiselymyguidesleftthattotheverylastday.ActuallytheheavysnowinJanuarywastherealreasonIdidn’tvisitittilltheverylastpartofmytimeinNewYork.Havingarrivedonthepreviousweekend,andlearningthatBrettTaylorfromtheCCIwasawayfromNewYorkduringthatweek,wehadamealtogether.BrettistheDeputyDirector,TechnicalAssistance,attheCCI,anda“longtimedefenceattorneyinhispreviouslife”,accordingtohisbossattheCCI.Brettbroughtalongayoungfriend,Johnny,andthiswasavaluablecontacttoo.Johnnyiskeenonbaseballandishopingtoplayprofessionallyafterheleavesschool.JohnnyisoneofmanyyoungNewYorkersinajurypoolfortheYouthCourt.IwasabletolearnalittleaboutYouthCourtfromthemboth.MattersdealtwithinYouthCourtarelow-levelmattersdeterminedbyajuryofpeers.Punishmentmaybewritinganessay,improvingschoolattendanceormakinganapology.Thereisclosesupervisionofthejurors.WhatIfoundmostinterestingwasthepersonaltimecommitmentthejurymembersmakeandhowmuchtrainingwasprovided.Thosewhowereselectedforjurydutycouldlikelybeleadersintheirowncommunitiesincivics.Igatherthatthepowers-that-have-beeninVictoriaarenotkeenonayouthcourt.Iwonderiftheyhavefocussedtoomuchontheyoungoffenderandnotenoughonthebenefitsthatcomefromtrainingenthusiasticyoungpeopleabouttheroleofjusticeinoursociety.Howmanyyoungpeopleunderstandandtelltheirpeersaboutwhatthe‘RuleofLaw’actuallymeans?

Midtown Community CourtOnMonday24January2011IattendedtheMidtownCommunityCourt.DanielleMalangoneistheDeputyProjectDirectorandoriginallytrainedasapsychologist.ThecourtislocatedintheentertainmentareaofManhattanIslandbut,becauseofthecomprehensiveundergroundrailnetwork,itisaccessibletoclientsfromalloverNewYork.Havingbeenestablishedin1993itisregardedastheforerunneroftheproblem-solvingcourts.Itsbriefisdescribedas“quality-of-lifeoffences”suchasprostitution,fareevasion,unlicensedvending,vandalismandshoplifting.Thecourthasundertakeninnovativeworkwithinthecommunity.OnematterDaniellementionedwasmeetingsbetweendefendantsandrepresentativesfromlocalbusiness.Shegavetheexampleofunlicensedvending,whichwasregardedasavictimlesscrime.Atthemeeting,theshopkeepersexplainedthatwhensomeonesellsCDsafewyardsfromarecordstore,theyarenotpayingrentforthespaceliketheproprietorwhothenneedstochargemoreandlosesbusiness.Defendantslearnedsomethingabouthowbusinesseswork,andtheshopkeepersgottohaveasayandincidentallylearntsomethingabouttheworkingsofthejusticesystem,atalocallevel.

IobservedtheMidtownCourtinaction.Itisabusyandnoisycourt;prosecutors,DistrictAttorneys,sittingonthesideoftheBench,notdirectlyfacingit.Defencelawyersdidn’thaveanyseat,thiswasexplainedinpartbecauseofhowfasttheyspokeandhowlittletheyactuallysaid.Themostunusualaspect,toanAustralianlawyer,wasthefactthatthepersonwhoannounced“Casedismissed!”insuchmatterswasnotthejudgehimselfbutapersoninfrontofhimwearingapoliceorsecurityuniform;amemberofthejudge’sstaffIassumed.Midtownisafast-movingcourt.TheCommunityCourtrequiresapleaofguiltybeforeitfunctions.Approximately30%ofmattersareredirectedtothetraditionalcourtsbecausethedefencedonotenterapleaofguilty.Thismaybebecauselawyersandtheirclientsarelookingtoreceivea“time-served”order.“Time-served”meansthatacourtagreestoorderthereleaseofadefendant,thatpersonhavingservedthetimeupuntilthenonremand.Thisiseasierforthelawyers,andtheclientdoesnothavetoconfronttheirunder-lyingissues,justremainincustodyforaperiodoftime.Prostitutioncasesareanexception;thosecasesremainatCommunityCourtwhetherornotthecliententeredapleaofguiltyornotguilty.TheCommunityCourtoperateswithreferencetothe“principleofimmediacy”,whichisdesignedtoencouragecompliancewithanyordersofthecourt.Thecourtalsoaccompaniesallclientsthroughthecourtprocesspersonallysotheydon’tgetlost,ordepartthebuildingbeforemattersarefinalised.Volunteersarerecruitedforthepurpose.Theprincipleofevidence-basedpracticewasraisedmanytimesbymanydifferentpeopleinmytravels.ThepurposeofmanyoftheMidtownCourtprogramsisnottosolve,butto“motivateandinform”.Anexampleofaprogramisa90-minutetalkonthedangersofdruguse,anordercommonlyimposedonminordrugusers.Someatthecourtspeculatedthatitoughttolookatthebehaviourmorecloselytobecomeawareofthedeeperreasonsforit.However,thisisdifficult,particularlybecausetheoffenceitselfisusuallyaminoroneinthecriminalcalendar,anditisthereforedifficulttojustifyasignificanttimeandresourcecommitmentbythedefendantandthegovernment.Anotherdifficultyisthatmanyjudicialofficersareyettobepersuadedoftheefficacyofthatapproach.InmaterialprovidedbytheCenterforCourtInnovation:Eighty-sevenpercentofdefendantsatMidtowncompletedtheircommunityservicemandates,comparedtoapproximately50%ofthedefendantswhowereprocessedatthedowntowncriminalcourt.AlthoughMidtownislesslikelytousejailasaninitialsentence,Midtownismorelikelythanthedowntowncriminalcourttoimposejailasasecondarysanctiononthoseoffenderswhofailtocomplywithinitialcourtorders.

ThatafternoonIvisitedtheCCIandhadmeetingswithstaff.Iwasinformedthatdefencecounselhavenotalwaysbeeninvolvedininitiatingproblem-solvingcourts.ThenotableexceptionwastheBronxDefenderswhoIwastovisitthefollowingday.Thecourtsoperatewithanemphasisonestablishingvalueformoney.Itakethistomeanthatcourtscanassessthebenefit,withinthecommunity,ofprogramsestablishedtoaddressproblemswhichmanifestthemselvesincriminalbehaviour.

Bronx DefendersThefollowingdayIvisitedtheBronxDefenders,andtheirlocalcourthouseintheSouthBronx,whichremindedmeoflargepublichousingestatesendlesslyconnectedtootherlargehousingestates,andahostoftiredbuildings.SeannRileyistheDeputyDirector.ThegenesisofBronxDefendersisthat,aftergovernmentfundedlegalaidlawyerswentonstrikeabout15yearsago,thethenGovernorofNewYorkbecameannoyed.Heofferedcontractstoanyonewhowantedtodothework.ThefounderofBronxDefenders,RobinSteinberg,sawanopportunityandtherestishistory.AsItouredthebuilding,Ithoughtaboutthehistoryofmyownworkplace.ThehealthandlegalpartsoftheWestHeidelbergCentrehadsimilarresourceswhenthecentrewasestablished,butfundingtothehealthcomponentofthecentretodayfarsurpassesfundingtothelegalcomponent.ThestaffingofBronxDefendersisconsiderable,withteamsofprofessionalsworkingcloselytogether—notjustlawyers,butotherprofessionalssuchascollegestudents,retiredpoliceofficers—andthereisnophysicalbarriertoentry.Moraleamongstaffishighandtheyimpressasknowledgeableandenthusiastic,andthinkinginnovatively.Theplaceiswelcomingandcommunitymemberscancomeinandmakeaphonecallorgetacupofcoffee.Iwasgivenadifferentperspectiveonproblem-solvingcourtswhileatBronxDefenders;theproblem-solvingcourtswereregardedas“tootreatmentandrehabilitationfocussed”.BronxDefendersweretroubledthatserviceprovidersreporteddirectlytothecourt,particularlyintheeventofclient‘failure’,forexample;clientsslippingbackintodruguseforaperiodoftime.BronxDefenderswanttheexpertsworkingdirectlywiththemtobetterusetheirexpertknowledge.BronxDefenders’positionwasthatapersoncomingoffanaddictionwillnotusuallybesuccessfulimmediately,butratherwillprogressthroughtrialanderror.Thisviewisbackedupbymedicalexperts.TheBronxcourtIobservedistheArraignmentCourt.Therewereaconsiderablenumberofdefendantsincustody,beingreleasedonbailbythecourt,alargenumberofcases,andallmovingquickly.Iwitnessedthephenomenonofthejudgecallinglawyersuptothebenchforadiscussion.Iwastothesideofthebench,wherethedefencecounselwerebased;theirstaffbusykeepingtrackontheircomputers.Onematterinparticulartookmyattentionandmademewonderwhatthoseinthebodyofthecourtmayhavebeenthinkingaseventsunfolded.Thedefencelawyerpointedtohisclient’swrist,whichhadbeenplastered,andallegedthattheinjuryhadoccurredwhilehisclientwasinpolicecustody,andfurther,thatitwasaresultofmisbehaviourbythepolice.HeandtheDistrictAttorneyapproachedthebench.Therewasaquietdiscussionbetweenallthreeandwheneverybodyresumedtheirplaces,thejudgeannouncedthatthedefendantwastobebailed.Inmyopinionsuchpracticesundermineanessentialstrengthofcourts—thatjusticemustbetransparentandopentothepublic.

Drug Courts, Staten Island Youth Justice Centre, Harlem Community Justice CentreAustraliaDay,26January2011,comprisedaseriesofmeetingsinthemorningattheCCI,followedbyavisittotheHarlemCommunityJusticeCentre.Thedrugcourtshavebeenincorporatedintomanytraditionalcourts.ValerieRaineistheDirectorofDrugCourtProgramsattheCCI.InNewYorkStatealonetherearenearly100drugcourts.Afiveyearlongresearchprojectevaluatingdrugcourtsisduetoreportsoonanditislikelytoconcludethattheydoreducerecidivismandsubstanceabuse.Thequestionastowhetherthedrugcourtsaddresspovertyappearstoberesolvedinthenegative.Theresearchunderlinesthecomplexitiesofaddressingpoverty.Lifewithoutdrugsisanachievement.Buttheabsenceofoffending,anddrugs,afteralifeinwhichdrugshasplayedasignificantpart,doesnotnecessarilymeanthattheindividualwillbeabletocompeteonequaltermsagainstothers.Lifewithoutdrugsdoesnotguaranteesuccessinacompetitiveworld.MartinLutherKingusesthemetaphorofasportingcompetition:“Hewhostartsbehindinaracemustforeverremainbehind,orrunfasterthanthemaninfront.”(1967,p.120)Thisisunderstandablydifficultforsomeonewhohasturnedtodrugsasawayofdealingwithlife’stravails.Thereisanappreciationthatdrugcourtshavetoprotectpeople’sconstitutionalrightsandthedefendantoughttohaveaccesstorelevantresources,regardlessoftheirplea.Theroleofprosecutorasgatekeeperwasdiscussed.InNewYork,aprosecutormaynotobjecttoacasegoingtothedrugcourt.Trainingforthoseonthebenchistwodays,focussingonthepsycho-pharmaceutical;thatis,theeffectofdrugsonthebrain.MelissaGelberistheProjectDirectoroftheStatenIslandYouthJusticeCentre.Atthecentre,mistakesandmisdemeanoursbyyoungpeoplearerespondedtothroughanapproachoflearningandtraining.Perhapsthisisnottheperspectiveoftheyoungpersonwhohastofrontagroupofhispeersandanswerforhisorherbehaviour.Ajuryofyoungpeoplebetween14and18yearsofagedealwithmattersrelatingtoyoungpeoplewhoare15andunder.Anyyoungpersonmaybeselectedforjuryservice,includingyoungpeoplewhomayhavebeenrespondentsinthepast.Asmallhonorariumispaidtojuryparticipants.Itisapeer-ledprocess,basedonrestorativejusticeandrepairingharmtothecommunity.ReferralsmaybemadebytheDepartmentofProbation,thecriminalcourts,orthepolice.Sanctions,essentiallyadiscretionaryprocess,mayincludeareflectiveessay,awrittenapology,orcommunityservicesuchascleaninggraffiti.Workshopsaddressingbehaviourmodification,decision-makingandgoalsetting,werealsoavailable.Theseactivitiesarenottreatedaspunitive.Asecondprogram,“ProjectReady”,targets‘opendelinquent’cases.Thesemattersarereferredbycourt.Thecourttakestheplea,hearsthecase,anddetermineswhethertoreferittoProjectReady.WhenVictorianchildren’scourtsimposeaprobationorder,forexample,thatdecisionfinalisesitsinvolvementwiththechild.InProjectReadycases,thecourtmaintainsthematteranddeterminesthedisposition.Thecourtmaybeinformedinaparticularcaseofmentalhealthconditionordrugissue,oracademicfailure.Curfewsandconditionsareimposed,includingattendanceatafter-schoolprograms,compulsoryschoolattendance,beingathomebyacertaintimeeachevening.Theseconditionsaremonitoredbymeansoftelephonecallstothechild’shometospeaktothechildandtheirparentorguardiandirectly.Callsarealsomadetotheschool.Theseconditionsoperateforamaximumoffourmonths.

Thethirdprogram,offeredinconjunctionwiththeagencyNewYorkFoundling,isusedwhenafamilycannolongercopewithachild.Areferralismadefora21-dayperiodtoafosterhome.Therapeuticprogramsaresetupforthechildandtheirbiologicalfamily.Thereareinvariablyestablishedproblematicbehaviourstorespondto.Whileitisearlydaysinthisprogramandthenumbersofparticipantsarestilllow,allhavebeenreunitedsofarwiththeirfamily.Thekeybenefitofthisprogramisthatitplacestheyoungpersoninthecontextofafamily,andsupportsfortheirownfamilyareinstitutedalongsideworkingwiththeyoungperson.Afourthprograminvolvesafter-schoolactivitiesfortargetedindividualswithprogramsscheduledatatimeofdaywhenayoungpersonisperhapsmorelikelytogetintotrouble.Significantly,theyoungpeoplethemselvesseeminvariablyhappytoattendtheseprograms.TheHarlemCommunityJusticeCentre,basedinEastHarlem,isstriking,majesticandhistoric.Whileproblem-solvingcourtspaytheirwayandareclaimedtobecheaperandmoreeffectivethanthealternative,theydorequirelargepremises.Theinitialoutlayisthebigcostwithproblem-solvingcourts.JohnMegaw,theDeputyProjectDirector,escortedmearoundthebuilding,andIwasabletoobservethecourtinoperation,andspeakwiththePresidingJudge,RubenMartino,aswellaslawyerswhoactfordefendantsandthecity.Thediscussionconfirmedthatachargeagainstajuvenileisnotlaidattheoptionofthepoliceofficerwhodealswithit,butratherfollowsinvolvementbyboththeprobationserviceandtheDistrictAttorney.Thechargewillnotbelaidunlessallagreetodoso.IcameawaywiththeviewthatincomparisonwithVictoria’sYouthJusticeSystem,thisprobationservicehasafarmoresignificantandbeneficialrole,becauseitparticipatesvirtuallyfromtheoutsetofpoliceinvolvement.

Red Hook Community Justice CenterOn28January2011IvisitedRedHookCommunityJusticeCenter,whichishousedinaformerschoolandhadbeenderelictbeforeitwaschosentobethelocationfortheCommunityJusticeCentre.Artworkwasafeatureofthecenter,andtheresponsibilityofmanagingitwasthatofonestaffmember.Thisshowstheircommitmenttocreatingapleasantspace.JulianAdleristheProjectDirector.Thecenter’scriminaljurisdictioncoversthreeprecincts,approximately200,000peopleandthehousingjurisdictionislimitedtothedistrictofRedHook.ImetJudgeAlexCalabreseinitiallyinChambers,andlaterincourt,whereheaskedmetositbesidehimonthebench.Herunshiscourtinagenialway.LikeothercourthousesIvisited,therewasveryhighmorale,staffwerecomfortablewitheachotherandkneweachotherwell.WhileIcannotdescribetheclientsasinvariablysunnyindisposition,theywerepurposefulandengaged,admittedlyapeculiartermtousefordefendantsincourt.Therewasapowerfulconnectiontothelocalcommunityandthemodelstruckmeasinterventionist.IgainedtheimpressionthatthecommunityofRedHookhadgainedsociallyandeconomicallyfromthedecisiontoopenaproblem-solvingcourtthere.LikeallofthecommunitiesIvisited,thevisitswereveryshort,andIcannotconcludethatwhiletherehavebeenremarkableimprovements,theproblem-solvingcourtsarethesolereasonforsuchchanges.

Vancouver, Canada

Downtown Community Court,ThefirstweekofFebruary2011wasspentattheDowntownCommunityCourtinVancouver.VancouverisregardedasthecitywiththebestweatherinCanada.Itboastsaliberallifestyle.IwonderedifthisisthereasonwhysomanydriftersandstreetpeoplearevisibleinthedowntownareaofVancouver.ThischaracterisationoftheclientsatDowntownhadbeensharedwithme:“60%havementalhealthissues,70%aredrugaddicted,and100%aren’tsleeping.”Thisseemedtometobeauniversalcategorisation.Icouldnotbuthelpthinkofmyownclientswho,ifqueried,invariablyacknowledgealackofsleep.VancouverhostedtheWinterOlympicsinMarch2010,andIunderstandthatthecitybuiltadditionalaccommodation.PerhapsthatattractedmorepeopletoVancouver.AsaMelbournianIfeltcomfortableinVancouver;itrained.OneofthehousingagenciespartneredwiththeCourtrejoicesinthenameRainCityHousing.“BestweatherinCanada”doesn’tactuallymean‘good’weather.MyguidefortheweekwasAllanShoom,whoisthecoordinatoroftheCourt.Allancombinesknowledgeandhistorywithreflection.Heandaprosecutorweretaskedwiththeresponsibilityofsettingupthecourt.DowntownCommunityCourtislocatedinalargebuilding;aconvertedremandcentre.Nodoubtitpresentedquiteaproblemforthearchitects.Itwasdescribedtomeasa“1970sboutiquejail”.Prisonersareheldinthefloorsabovethecourtin16cells.WhileAustralianandCanadiancourtscanbebusy,theyarenomatchforNewYorkcourtsintermsofnoise.ThiscourtwasformalinthewayofAustraliancourts.Mattersbeforethecourtseemedtoincludemid-andhigh-rangeoffences.Thecourthadcontestedbailmattersbeforeit,againreinforcingthesimilaritieswiththeMelbournecourtsIhaveappearedin.Overtheperiod,IhadtheopportunitytoobserveandinterviewJudgeTomGoveandJudgeElizabethBurgess.Ialsojoinedasessionforaboutadozenpeopleandinterviewedalawyerwhoisasterncriticofthecourt.Igainedasenseofthecourtday.ItisquitedifferentfromtheoneIwasusedto.Ourcourtdaysarenotsomuchforthepublicwhoarerequiredtoattendcourt,butforthecourtpersonnel—theprofessionalsandstaffwhohaveaformalroletoplayincourt.TheactivitiesatDowntownCommunityCourtarestructuredforclients.Itmeansanearlystarttotheday.Ethical,practicalandorganisationalissuesreceiveanairingbetweentheprofessionalsinorderthatthecourtcanachievefinalityinsittingsontheday.IndescribingdowntownVancouver,AllanShoomassertedthattherewerenostreetgangstospeakof.Hedescribedtheareaservicedbythecourtas“includingourskidrow”,andthatsevendisparatecommunitieshadbeenidentified.Heexplained,“Youhavetounderstandyourneighbourhoodbeforeyouchange[it].”Intheestablishmentofthecourt,therewasdebateoverwhichshouldcomefirst,theestablishmentofthecourt,orthefacilitiesandagenciesaroundit?Somearguedforresourcesfirstwhichisnosurprisegiventhechronicshortage.Theestablishmentcommitteedecidedthatitwastobe“courtfirst”.Thedecisionwasalsomadethattheresourcesbroughtintothecourtwouldonlybeusedforthosepeoplewhowereappearingbeforethecourt.

TheDowntownCommunityCourtisveryaccessibletothecitycentre.Onarrival,thereissubstantialsecurityscreeningtogothroughbeforebeingabletogetintothecourt.Therehadbeendebateaboutthissecurity,withsomearguingthatitwouldputafewpeopleofffromaccessingtheservices.Incidentally,theNeighbourhoodJusticeCentre(NJC)inMelbourneistheclearwinnerinthisregard;Icommenditsentrancelayoutwhichyouenterinazigzagway,throughglasswalls.Securitystaffarepositionedtoobserveeachpersonastheyenter,butinadiscreteway—abigticktotheMelbourneNJCarchitects.ForthosebroughttoDowntown,thecourtseekstoprovideallservicesinatimelywayandinsidethecourtitself.Theaimisthatthosewhoareincustodyaretobebroughtbeforeacourtonthesameday;thosewhoarenotincustody,withinfivedays.Thekeytomanagingthisrapidprocessisameetingofarangeofpeopleeachmorningatcourtat8.30am.Thisincludesprobation,health,forensic,incomeassistance,police,andvictimservices,togetherwithlawyers.Themeetingreviewsfivedatabases,includingprobationandpolicehistories.Aprofileiscreatedwithouttheneedforadirectinterviewwiththeindividual.“Tombstoneinformation”wasthetermusedtodescribethedataobtained.Earlier,thepersonbeingprocessedisspokentobyanumberofpeople,startingwithadefencelawyerwhoexplainstheprocessandseeksconsent.Ifconsentisnotgiven,mattersdonotproceedinthiswayandtheperson’scaseistransferredout.Thecourtdoesnotruntrials,butsentencescanbeaslongas18months.Problem-solvingcourtsarenotsoftoncrime.Courtpersonnelmeetby8.30amandthecourtsaimtocomplete‘opencourt’businessby3pm.ProgramsandactivitiessuchasHealthyEating,Literacy,MoneySkillsandLifeSkillsareplannedinthree-monthblocksatthecourt;Ihadtheofferofattendingtheacupunctureclass—Ideclined.Ilearnedthatvolunteerstakepeoplearoundthecourt,andtoprograms,sotheydon’tgetlost.Staffmentionedthatcourtconditionsdon’tasaruleincludeurinalysis,foracoupleofreasons,includingcost,andthelikelihoodthatauserwilllapsefromtimetotime,particularlyintheearlystages.Inanycase,courtconditionsdon’tusuallyincludeabstinence.Iwaspermittedtositinonan8.30ammeeting,knownasatriagemeeting.Triageisamedicalterm,andinthatcontextmeansdecidingwhichpeoplegettreatmentfirst,accordingtotheseverityoftheirpresentingcondition.Thesemeetingswereanattempttoanticipatethekindofsupportsthevariouspersonswouldneed,andhowtheyweregoingontheirprograms.Importantly,thisisagroupofprofessionalsdrawnfromquitedifferentareasofpractice,allofwhomcouldanddidhaveasay.Ontheotherhandaprivatelawyerwhoispartofthecourtrosterarguedthatthecourtwascoerciveinnature;thatclientsonwelfareandwithsignificantforensichistorywerepunishedbythecourtforfailingtoattendprograms,thatclientsmayhaveadefence,butabandonthedefence,sothattheycanstayinthiscourtsystem.Shearguedthattherewasnospaceavailablefortheprofessionand,linkedtothat,noconfidentiality.Thelawyerswhoworkedinthebuildingwere“captured”bythesystem,sheasserted.Finally,sheconsideredthatthecourtimposedtoomanybailconditionsondefendants.

MyobservationsofthecourtproceedingsreinforcedthehereditaryrelationshipbetweentheCanadianandAustraliancourtprotocols.ButIdidnoticesomethingwhichwouldnotoccurinAustraliancourts.Adefendantwascalleduptothebenchaftermattershadbeenresolved,andthejudgequietlyandcomprehensivelyexplaineddirectlytotheyoungmanwhatwasgoingtohappen,andwhatwasexpectedofhim.IlaterraisedthispracticewiththejudgeinChamberswhoregardeditasadeliberateandeffectivepracticeinthecourt.TheclientsessionIsatinon,“SmartRecovery”,startedincongruously.OneparticipanthadgainedtheimpressionthatIwasaCanadianlawyerattendingthesessionbecauseIhadadrinkingproblem—heseemedquiterelaxedaboutthat—andasecondpersonthoughtIwasa“Narc”,anarcoticsagent.Hewasnotsorelaxed.Heinterruptedquiteafewtimesasotherswerespeaking,andwaseventuallyaskedtoleavebythecoordinators.Itwasputtohimthathewasclearlyaffectedbysomething(hedidnotdisagree)andhecouldreturnthefollowingweek.Thefocusofthesessionwasthataddictionisnotsomuchadiseasebutabadhabit.Iwasimpressedwiththeapproachandthesession.Myobservationsofcourtlaterthatdaywerepunctuatedbycaseswherepersonswerechargedinrelationtobeingonrailwaypremises.Iwaspuzzledbythis,thinkingitmustbeaspecificchargesuchasbegging,oraggressivebeggingbutthecaseswereineffecttrespasscases.Thepersonswerereleasedonthebasisthattheynotattendparticularstations.Imustalsomentionthattherewasacontestedbailcasewherethejudgedidindeedimposeasobrietyconditionaspartofbail,overtheobjectionofdefencecounsel.Whilethischallengedanearlierconclusion,itisasegueintothenextplaceIvisited,whichembodiesthatapproach.

California

Orange County Collaborative CourtIspentthesecondweekofFebruary2011inOrangeCounty.Thecourthasfacilitiesforvariousservices,andisaconverteddepartmentstore.Therewasformalsecurityattheentrance,andasinglecourtroom.WhenIenteredthecourtroomInoticedtotheleft-handsideofthecourtalargecageinwhichdefendantsinorangeboilersuitsweresitting.Theyremainedinthisareaimpassivelyuntiltheircaseswerecalled.Ididnoticeacouplereleasedintotheopenbodyofthecourt;theyhadbeenbailedbythecourt.Igainedtheimpressionofmeticulousnessbythecourt.Thememberofthecourtstaffwhoshowedmeroundonmyfirstday,JimMahar,explained:“Wewillhaveanimpact—inordertohaveapositiveoutcome.”Programsrunforanythinguptotwoyears.Thisinitiallycameasasurprise.Chargesappearedtobeatthelowendofthecriminalrange.Thecourtsitsinastatewhichhasjailedmanyofitscitizens.Judgeshadtobepersuadedoftheefficacyofthecourt’sprograms.JudgeWendyLindleyoftheOrangeCountyCollaborativeCourttoldanaudiencethat,someyearsearlier,ajudgefromadifferentjurisdictionhaddescribedherdismissivelyinajudges’meetingas“asocialworkerinagown.”Thesentenceshandedoutinthiscourtarenotinsignificant.Iobservedbailconditionsforarelativelyminoroffencethatwere,accordingtothejudge,moreonerousthanwouldoccuronasexoffenderprogram.Onepersonwastold:“nodrugs,noalcohol,andnobadfriends,allright?”Anothertoldthecourtthathehadbeenincustody“forfortydaysalready.”Apersonwasremovedfromhisprogrambecausehehad“pickedup”newcharges.Thefactthattheseappearedtopredatehisinvolvementinthecourt’sprogramswasirrelevant.

HavingarrivedinsunnyCaliforniafromthesnow-coveredstreetsofNewYorkandtherainyweatherinVancouver,Irecalledacoupleoflinesfromthepoet,eecummings:“yesisapleasantcountry;if’swintry”Therewereno“ifs”or“buts”inthiscourt.MytimeattheOrangeCountyCollaborativeCourtledmetotheconclusionthatsympathyandcompassionisnottobemistakenforfaintnessofheart.Thecourtishardnosedinitsapproach.SuccessisawallinChamberscrammedwithphotosofbabiesingoodhealth.Thesewerehealthychildrenofdefendantswhohadsuccessfullycompletedcourtprogramsandwerenolongerdependentondrugsoralcohol.LikeRedHookCommunityJusticeCenterinNewYork,therewassomemagnificentartworkonthewalls.Thecourthasanumberofinnovativedivisions.TheyincludetheCombatVeteransCourt,theOpportunityCourt,theRecoveryCourt,theOutreachCourt,theDrugCourt,theDrivingUndertheInfluenceCourt,(DUICourt),andtheWhateverItTakesCourt,(WIT).Thecourtnamesgivesomesenseofthecourt’smethodology.WhiletheWITCourtdoesdealwithmattersuptofelonylevel,thechargemustnotbeanoffenceinvolvingviolence,andasignificanthistoryofviolencewillalsoexcludetheperson.Thepersonmustbeassessedasbeinghomelessoratriskofhomelessness,andbediagnosedasseverelyandpersistentlymentallyill.Theprogramrunsforaminimumof18months.ThepartnerstotheprogramaretheHealthCareAgency,theMentalHealthAssociationofOrangeCounty,thePublicDefender,theDistrictAttorney,probation,andthecourtitself.Theprogramoffersindividualandgroupcounsellingandsupportservices,includinghousingandmedicalreferrals.Substanceabuseisdirectlytargeted.APersonalServiceCoordinatorisappointedforthedurationoftheperson’scase.Astatementinthecourt’sliteratureinrelationtotheDrugCourtexplainstheCourt’sapproach.Itaffirms:ThemissionoftheOrangeCountyDrugCourtistoprovideanon-adversarialjudicialresponsetoselectednon-violentoffenderschargedwithdruguse—providingacomprehensivetreatmentandsupervisionprogramthatincludesdrugeducationandtreatment,aswellasvocationalandemploymentcomponentssothateachparticipantdevelopsalevelofself-sufficiencyandbecomesaproductive,responsiblememberofthecommunity.

Itisdifficultformetoadjusttothenotionofacourtbeing“non-adversarial”.Itissimilartotheinquisitorialsystem.Itisgenerallyacceptedintheinquisitorialsystemthatthereisnotapresumptionofinnocence.Inthesecases,thecourtdoesnotdealwithdefendantsuntiltherehasbeenapleaofguilty.Thereisno“searchforevidence”supervisedbythecourt,asthereisintheinquisitorialsystem.Thejudgenonethelesshasanactiverole.Iwasabletositinacoupleofthespecialistcourts.IhaveearliernotedthattheHomelessCourtwasheldinahomelessshelter.Itmademereflectonmyirritationaboutcourtattire.Icanputupwiththesuitandtieforcourtofficialssuchasjudgesandlawyers,butnotwigsandgowns.Thedeploymentofthegownatthehomelessshelterwassignificant.Thejudgearrived,chattedtoanumberofpeople,thenwalkedtothefrontoftheroom,anddonnedtherobe.Thishadtheeffectofformalisingproceedingsfromthispointoftime,andmattersproceededinasuitablyrespectfulmanner.

ThesentencesoftheHomelessCourtareusuallyfocusedonactivitiesruninthehomelessshelter,suchaslifeskillsprograms,self-helpmeetingssuchasAlcoholicsAnonymousandNarcoticsAnonymous,jobtrainingandliteracyskills.Attendanceatactivitiesintheshelterreplacesthetraditionalcourtpenaltiessuchasfines.Toamiddle-classgenerallywell-organisedperson,regularattendanceatprogramsmayseemhardlyapenalty.Butforsome,attendanceisnoteffortless.Assistance,afocusandasenseofpurposeareessential.Therewerearangeofpeopleonhandattheshelter.Onepersondealswithanxietyanddepressionissues,anotherpreparestaxreturns.Twopeopleworkwithveterans,andanotherorganisesshowers,mealsandemployment.Therewerelawyers,housingservices,andajobcoachwhohelpedthehomelesspreparejobapplications.Roundsofapplauseweregivenonquiteafewoccasionsforthedefendants.TheCombatVeteransCourtwasquiteanexperienceforme.Forastart,Ididnotexpecttoseesomanyyoungfacesamongthevariousdefendants.Therewasanoldermanwhotoldthecourtthathehadbeeninjailfor47yearsintotal,relatingtosixcourtcases.Heseemedtometobetheexception.Mostweremuchyounger.Therewasunexpectedhumourduringproceedings.Atonepointthejudgewasaskingadefendantwhetherhehadmaintainedthesamegroupofpeopleaswhenhehadbeenoffending,andheresponded:“No,theyarenotpartofmysupportnetwork,judge!”Anothertoldthecourtthathewaswelladvancedinhispreparationforrunningamarathon.Again,therewerequiteafewroundsofapplausefromthefloor.Thereisalwaysoneexception.Hehadreturneda“dirtytest”foralcoholthedaybeforeandwastoldinamatter-of-factwaybythejudgethathewasincustodytobereleasedthefollowingmorningat6am.Twomeetingsthefollowingmorningwerethensetupbythecourt.Thejudgedescribedsuchcourtinterventionas“flashincarceration”,withthefocusbeingonquicklyaddressingpoordecision-making.Thepersonwasplacedinwhatlookedlikeajuryboxtothesideofthecourtroom.Handcuffswereplacedonhimbehindhisback.Thepersonwhosewordscompletelypreventedmefromcontinuingtotakenoteswasanoldermanwhotoldthecourt:“Ihavehadtochange.”Hepresentedquitewelltothecourt.Hequietlydeclared:“IhavediscoveredthatIamaniceguy.”Interestingly,thecourthaddebatedwhethertoincludedomesticviolencecases,andhadagreedtodosoafterconsultingwithexperts,whopointedoutthatcombatveteranscamefromaviolentworld.Insuchcases,thecourtalsohasahearingwiththevictim.Assomethingofarelatedissue,inaninterviewwithamemberofthecourtstafflaterintheweek,IwastoldthatmoreandmorepolicearebeingpickedupandchargedinrelationtodomesticviolenceinOrangeCounty.Theinferencewasthatithasbeenalong-standingissue,butthatinthepast,policedidn’tchargepolice.Itmademewonderaboutescalatedlevelsofviolencebythepoliceintheirprivatelives,giventhecourt’sreasoningaboutcombatveterans.Iattendedanexpertsmeetingwhichwasforthegroupofdefendantsnotbeforethecourtthatday,butthefollowingweek’slist.Lawyersandthejudgewerepresent,andplayedasignificantroleastheylistenedtovariousrepresentativesdescribinghowthedefendantswereprogressingontheirprograms.Therewerequestionsfromthefloor,oneaboutpersonsusingnarcoticsforpainrelief,andanotheraboutmedicalmarijuana.Itwasclearthatallmind-alteringsubstancesthatshowedasadirtytestwouldbetakenintoaccount.

InCalifornia,theterm“jail”isusedforlocallyrundetentioncentres,andareforsentencesuptoayear.TheStaterunstherest.Itisnotunheardoftohaveapersonupto30daysinjail,thatis,inthelocalarea,inorderto‘dryout’.Jailsaremoresterile,amorecontrolledenvironmentand,asinAustralia,ahighproportionofinmateshavementalhealthconditions.Interestingly,reflectingexpertadvice,thecourtavoidsdealingwithparticularkindsofmentalhealthconditions,especiallythosewithpersonalitydisordersandthosewhoexhibitnarcissisticbehaviourbecausetheyareoftennotsuccessfulinthevariouscourtprograms.Theactivitieswereregardedastooeasilydisruptedbyoneperson,whoseneedsweretoogreatforgroupactivities.(IwouldimaginethatthosepeopleweremorelikelytobeconsideredforVancouverprograms.)Forthosewhoattendtheresultsweregood;morethan70%donotreoffend.OntheThursdayofmyweekatOrangeCountyIsatinonthestandardmeetingofprofessionalspriortotheDrugCourt.Itwasattendedbyabout10people,includingthejudgeandlawyers.Itseemedtometherewasmuchnegotiationaboutwhowouldbeincludedinwhichcourt,andpossiblywhichprogramstheycouldbeplacedinto.AlthoughIhadbeenadvisedthatpeoplewithcertainpsychiatricassessmentswereexcluded,Iobservedthatacoupleofpeoplewithpersonalitydisorder-typediagnoseswereconsideredforthevariouscourts.Igainedtheimpressionthatthesepeoplewerelikelytobemonitoredmorecloselytoseehowtheywerefaring.Istruggledwiththetermsandthenumberswhichricochetedaroundtheroom.Ipresentthefollowingdirectexchange,bywayofillustration:(DistrictAttorney):“It’sa10-WF,a10-90!”(Judge):“HehasaTD.”(PublicDefender):“It’saC-55!”

Thoseattendingthemeetingallknewwhatitmeant,barme.Myguessisthattheexchangewasanattempttofinalisethechargesthatwouldbeproceedinginopencourt.TheequivalentinthejurisdictionIworkinwouldbesaywhetheranassaultwasa“recklessconduct”assaultasagainsta“commonassault”.ThefirstisaCrimes Act 1958matter,thesecondaSummary Offences Act 1966matter.Theseriousnessofthepenaltyisreflectedtosomedegreebywhichprovisionproceedsasthemajorcharge.Therewasdiscussion,againincludingthejudge,abouthowtocharacteriseaparticularsetofoffendinginvolvingintroducingdrugsintowhatwasindeeddescribedas“theCage”,referredtoearlier.Thepersonrepresentingtheprobationserviceinitiallyassertedthatthebehaviourseemed“sophisticated”butchangedhermindafterdiscussion.MyfinalcourtobservationwasatDrugsCourt.ThefirstthingInoticedwasthelargenumberofpeoplequietlywaitinginsideandoutsidethecourt,some30minutesbeforethecourtcommencedproceedings.Itbecameclearoncecourtbeganthatasmallnumberofthemappreciatedthattheywouldbeshortlyplacedincustodyovernightforcertainbehaviours.

Onedefendanttoldthecourtthatshehad“completedtheTwelveSteps…andI’vemetmygreat-grandfather!”Anothersaidtothecourt:“I’mnotgoingtoowell,yourHonour”.Therepresentativefromprobationtoldthecourtthatthatdefendanthadbeen“workinglonghours,andhasonlymissedonesession.”Afterinquiringaboutthedefendant’sinterestindoingcommunitywork,thiswasagreedandsoordered.Thenextcasemovedquickly.AllIdiscernedwasthejudgesaying:“Youwillbeincustodytill6amtomorrow.Seeyoubackonthe24th”Thenextpersontoldthecourtthathehadhadajobinterviewthatmorninganddeclared:“Iwasn’tthebestdressed,butIwasthemostpersonable.AndtomorrowyourHonour,Iamhavinglunchwithmyfather.Ihaven’tseenhimin16years.”Anotheransweredhisname,andwasalmostimmediatelyplacedin“theCage”.Again,itappearedtobeaninfraction,becausehewastobereleasedatsixo’clockthefollowingmorning.Therewasnohesitation,nodiscussionbetweenthebartableandthebench,andnoargument.Amanpresentedanessaytothecourt,punishmentbecausehehadarrivedsixminuteslateforasession.Aftercourtrose,Ispokewithaclinicianwhowasinattendanceatthecourtmeetinginthemorningandwhoplayedaroleatcourt,explaininghowvariousdefendantshadbeengoingintheirlives,andontheirprograms.Hesaidhehadbeenpartofthetraditionalsystem,thattherewereethicalissuesfortheprofessionalstoworkthroughwiththeCollaborativeCourts,thatdefendantshavethecourtprocessexplainedtothem,andthatthosewhoparticipate:“choosethecourt,withallitsimplications.”Hedeclared:“Ihaveseenbothsystems.Thisoneworks.”

Alinsky,SD1971,Rules for Radicals,RandomHouse.BanyuleCommunityHealthService2010,‘Workingtogetherwithtrustandrespect:2010QualityofCareReport,WestHeidelberg’.BanyuleCommunityHealthService2010,NeedsAssessment,August.Berg,S2006,‘HowNewYorkgotitsgrooveback’,Star Tribune,11June.BronxDefenders,websitehttp://www.bronxdefenders.orgBronxDefenders2010,‘Redefinepublicdefense’,brochure,NewYork.Cahn,E2000,‘Co-producingjustice:Thenewimperative.Transformingthelegalservicesparadigm’,University of District of Columbia Review,vol.105.CahnEandCahn1964,J‘TheWaronPoverty:ACivilianPerspective’,Yale Law Journal,vol.73,p.1317.CenterforCourtInnovation2003,‘NewYorkStateAdultDrugCourtEvaluation’,pamphlet,NewYork.CenterforCourtInnovation2007,‘PrinciplesofProblem-solvingJustice’,pamphlet,NewYork.CenterforCourtInnovation2010,RedHookCommunityJusticeCenterDocumentedresults,Mediarelease.Cissner,ABandRempel,M2005,‘Thestateofdrugcourtresearch’,pamphlet,CenterforCourtInnovation,NewYork.Clark,R2009,SpeechtotheVictorianParliament,Hansard,10December.Clark,R2010,SpeechtotheVictorianParliament,Hansard,23March.Clarke,ForellandMcCarron2008,‘Finebutnotfair:finesanddisadvantage’,LawandJusticeFoundationofNewSouthWales.Curran,L2007,‘Makingthelegalsystemmoreresponsivetocommunity:areportoftheimpactofVictorianCommunityLegalCentrelawreforminitiatives’,LaTrobeUniversityandWestHeidelbergCommunityLegalService,Melbourne,May.Davidson,K2010,‘Timetostartthinkingagainondruglaws’,The Age,6September.DowntownCommunityCourt2010,‘InterimEvaluationReport’,Vancouver.Edwards,D1997,Discourse and Cognition,SagePublications.Edwards,LP2005,‘Theroleofthejuvenilecourtjudge’,Juvenile and Family Court Journal,vol.Winter,p.33.Evans,etal2011,‘Promisingpracticesfordeliveryofcourtsupervisedsubstanceabusetreatment’,Evaluation and Program Planning, vol.34,p.124.Feeley,M1992,The Process is the Punishment,RussellSageFoundation.Flanagan,K2010,‘Therearepeoplelivinghere:exploringurbanrenewalandpublichousingestates’,Anglicare,Tasmania.Fraser,K2011,‘Preventionisbetterthancure:Caneducationpreventrefugees’legalproblems?’,VictorianLawFoundation.Friedman,L‘AccesstoJustice:SomeComments’(2004–2005),Fordham Law Review,vol.73,p.927.Giddings,J1992,‘Casework,bloodycasework’,Alternative Law Journal,vol.17,no.6,p.261.Halsbury’sLawsofAustralia,2005,LexisNexis

References

Hausman,AWandPerle,LE2007,‘Securingequaljusticeforall:abriefhistoryofcivillegalassistanceintheUnitedStates’CenterforLawandSocialPolicy.Karafin,DL2008,‘CommunityCourtsacrosstheGlobe:Asurveyofgaols,performancemeasuresandoperations’OpenSocietyFoundation,SouthAfrica.Kelling,GLandWilson,JQ1982,‘BrokenWindows’AtlanticMagazine,March.King,ML1967,Chaos or Community?HodderandStoughton.King,ML1963,Letter from a Birmingham JailAlabama,USA.Marshall,S2000,‘MissionImpossible?EthicalCommunityLawyering’,Clinical Law Review,vol.148.Middendorp,C2011,‘Ignoranthazehidesdangersofcannabis’The Age,15February.O’Brien,P2010,AddresstoNationalConferenceofCommunityLegalCentres,Melbourne.O’Malley,P2010,‘SimulatedJustice.Risk,MoneyandTelemetricGovernance’,British Journal of Criminology,vol.50,no.5,p.795–807.O’Malley,P2009,The currency of justice: fines and damages in consumer societies,Routledge-Cavendish,UK.NeighbourhoodJusticeCentre,2010,StrategicFramework,2010–2013.NealD(ed)1984,‘OnTapnotonTop’,LegalServiceBulletin.Noone,MAandDigney,K2010,‘It’sHardtoopenuptostrangers’LegalServicesBoardofVictoria.PivotLegalCentre2008,‘BrokenPromises’,LawFoundationofBritishColumbia.PivotLegalCentre2009,‘HandsTied’,Vancouver.Rhode,D2004–2005,‘AccesstoJustice:Again,Still’,Fordham Law Review,vol.73,p.1022.Rice,S2010,AddresstoNationalConferenceofCommunityLegalCentres,Melbourne.Rich,N2009,ReclaimingCommunityLegalCentres,VictoriaLawFoundation.Ritchie,D2011,‘Doesimprisonmentdeter?Areviewoftheevidence’SentencingAdvisoryCouncil,Melbourne.Robertson,C1997,‘ReconceivingtheroleofthePovertylawyerasagentofthepoor’,Osgoode Hall Law Journal,vol.35,p.637.Rood,D2011,‘Libstokeep‘apartheid’courts’,The Age,8April.Sacks,O1982,Awakenings,Picador,London.Smith,A1976,The Wealth of Nations,RandomHouse.Smith,A,Couch,MandPitts,M2005,‘ImprovinghealthandwellbeingoutcomesforstreetsexworkersinMelbournethroughaninnovationintherapeuticjurisprudence’Researchpaper,AustralianResearchCentreinSex,HealthandSociety,LaTrobeUniversity.Southworth,A1998,‘Lawyersandthe‘mythofrights’incivilrightsandpovertypractice’,Boston University Public Interest Law Journal,vol.8,p.469.SteeringCommitteefortheReviewofGovernmentServiceProvision,2011,ReportonGovernmentServices,Melbourne.Sullivan,L2000,‘BehaviouralPoverty’Centre for Independent Studies, Policy

Monograph,vol.45.SuperiorCourtofCalifornia,CountyofOrange2010,CollaborativeCourts2010AnnualReport.Tanner,MD2003,The Poverty of Welfare,Cato.The Age,2011,‘Drunkanddisorderlyfinestoincrease’,2March.The Age 2011,‘Well-offdominatementalcare’,15March.The Economist,2011,‘DrugCourts:Stayoutofjailclean’,26February.Turgeon,C2006,‘Workingtogether’,pamphlet,CenterforCourtInnovation,NewYork.VictoriaPolice2010,AnnualReport2009–10,Melbourne.VictorianAttorney-General2010,AnnualReportontheInfringementsSystem2009–10,Melbourne.VictorianAuditor-General2009–10,ManagingOffendersoncommunitycorrectionsorders,Melbourne,No.10.VictorianAuditor-General2010–11,Problem-SolvingApproachestoJustice,Melbourne,No.28.VictorianLegislation,Children, Youth and Families Act 2005.VictorianLegislation,Control of Weapons Act 1990.VictorianLegislation,Control of Weapons Amendment Act 2010.VictorianLegislation,Crimes Act 1958.VictorianLegislation,Infringements Act 2006.VictorianLegislation,Infringements and other Acts Amendment Act 2008.VictorianLegislation,Magistrates’ Court Act 1989.VictorianLegislation,Magistrates’ Court Amendment (Assessment and Referral Court List) Act 2010.VictorianLegislation,Police Regulation Act 1958.VictorianLegislation,Sentencing Act 1991.VictorianLegislation,Summary Offences Act 1996.Wolf,RV2007,PrinciplesofProblem-SolvingJustice,CentreforCourtInnovation,NewYork.Wolf,RV2009,‘Race,biasandproblem-solvingcourts’,National Black Law Journal.

poor, powerless and in trouble with the law · rich and poor are fined the same amount for the same...

Documents

poor, poverty. poverty and poor ot.pdf · sociological...

selecting, planting and staking trees · why do trees and...

pharmacotherapy of myocardial infraction

myocardial infraction by satyavardhan pharm.d

myocardial infraction

arrange money on same day even in your poor or bad credit...

infraction appeal booklet - superior court of california -...

traffic infraction fixed penalty … infraction fixed...

all change or more of the same? life for the paupers … ·...

nursing management patient with myocardial infraction

final degree project: traffic infraction supervisor (smit)

neonatal asphyxia final.ppt - umf iasi 2015 · pdf file¾--...

poor beginnings - ncb beginnings.pdfnarrowing the gap in...

infraction règlementaire : la csst y voit ! (convergence...

infraction appeal booklet - occourts.org · infraction...

magic the gathering infraction procedure guide pdf2

pt’s treated with b-blockers post infarction are seen to...

images.pcmac.orgimages.pcmac.org/.../sarah_marley_parent_handbook_16-17.docx ·...

100618workshopgiugno2010definitivo1 rev2...

effect of cardiac rehabilitation program on lifestyle...