international best practice in drug courts . . . the
TRANSCRIPT
International Best Practice in Drug Courts . . . the journey continues.
A new way of looking at an old problem (London, 2012).
Magistrate Glenn Hay LLB *
•32 years legal experience – Family Law / SES Registrar
of Family Court of Australia, Tribunal Member, Director of
Centre for Legal Studies;
•10 years as a Magistrate overseeing Drug Courts,
Mental Health lists and Family Violence lists.
Liz Moore MA LLB *
•25 years case managing in Corrections;
•Master of Criminology and Corrections (2012) examining
the impact of drug courts;
•Visits to ~20 jurisdictions around the world.
* Views expressed are our own and do not necessarily
represent those of the Court or the Department of Justice.
The therapeutic courts in Tasmania
❖ Youth Court
❖Mental Health Diversion List
❖ Court Mandated Diversion (Drug Court)
❖ (Safe at Home Family Violence Lists)
Mental Health Diversion List
• Pilot commenced May 2007
• Bail legislation used to defer sentence for up to six months
to enable mental health and other relevant issues to be
addressed (eg health, education, occupation, recreation,
relationships, transport, legal advice).
• Collaboration between Forensic Mental Health Services,
Courts, Police, Legal Aid and private lawyers.
• Four magistrates statewide sit for a total of ~3 days / month.
• List size varies from 6 to 10.
• Solution-focussed approach.
Youth Court
O Youth Justice Act 1997. Specialist list for complex matters since 2011 –
intensive court supervision and appropriate case management.
O Collaboration between Youth Justice & Child Safety Services (Health and
Human Services) Police & Education Departments, Courts, Legal Aid, Save
the Children (Supporting Young People on Bail program).
O Courts in all three regions of the State (S, N, NW). 1331 matters lodged in
2015-16.
O A therapeutic approach has generally been adopted – regular judicial
overview builds relationships between the court, service providers and young
offenders. (First names, seated in court, closed court).
O Restorative justice framework. Solutions-focussed. Aim to divert young
people from the criminal justice system.
Family Violence lists
O Separate family violence court lists, for the benefit of victims and
to improve court responses and co-ordination with support
agencies.
O Three Hobart magistrates sit for a total of 6 days / month.
O Supported by ‘Safe at Home’ statewide collaborative approach
(Safe Families co-ordination unit, Justice, Health & Human
Services, specialist police prosecutors, Legal Aid, Victim Support
Services, Court Support and Liaison Officers).
O Referral to appropriate intervention programs such as the Family
Violence Offenders Intervention Program (for high risk perpetrators
on a community based order) or Relationships Australia (for low to
medium risk perpetrators who may enter into an undertaking).
O Bail option to the Defendant Health Liaison Service for health and
criminogenic needs assessment.
O Potential to develop into genuinely therapeutic courts with the
infrastructure to address offending behaviour.
Take home messages:Measures of success: Capturing the impact
of drug courts.
O Drug courts work! - reduced drug use
- reduced crime
- improved global functioning
O Drug courts save taxpayer dollars and are intelligent and effective use of public money.
O Long term savings represent excellent value for taxpayer dollars.
O Good quality evaluation is essential.
O Investment must be sufficient to do the job properly.
Masters Thesis (2012)
Court Mandated Diversion Program (Drug Court)10 year anniversary in 2017
O 40 participants (South); 20 participants (North); 20
participants (North West)
O Five ‘part time’ Magistrates statewide (total = 14) and
option available in Supreme Court since February 2017
O Three phase post-sentence program for up to two years
O Requirement for serious addiction and related offending
(alternative to an actual sentence of imprisonment)
O Regular court reviews, frequent urinalysis, intensive case
management and counselling
O Collaborative teamwork (magistrates, lawyers, prosecutors,
program staff, treatment staff)
O Solutions focussed, using a sanctions and rewards regime.
Pre Court Conferences with Magistrates Hay and Rheinberger, 2014
The 12 Key Components for effective drug courts:
Some frontline observations and future challenges
1. Drug Courts integrate alcohol and other drug
treatment services with justice system case
processing
Suggestions for
legislative
amendments in
CMD and relevant
legislation in the
Mental Health list.
Improve fidelity
to 12 Key
Components.
Weekly case review meeting (CMD, Prosecution, Treatment Services)
2. Using a non-adversarial approach, prosecution and
defence counsel promote public safety while protecting
participants’ due process rights
Room for improvement re dedicated staff from Police
and Legal Aid. No dedicated TJ courtroom or judicial
officer.
Progression to Phase 2, Magistrate Hay, 2016
3. Eligible participants are identified early and promptly placed
in the drug court program
• Delays between
referral and
treatment can be
lengthy.
• Access limited to
major centres
x
xx
x
Referrals are now
being received from
the Supreme Court
Graduation – DCM Daly, December 2015
4. Drug courts provide access to a continuum of alcohol, drug
and other related treatment and rehabilitation services
Fragmentation across the State / the various
Courts / and between the Courts and other
agencies (Community Corrections, Health &
Youth Justice) impedes the development of a
comprehensive therapeutic culture.
Magistrates Hay and Rheinberger, 2014 and 2015
5. Abstinence is monitored by frequent alcohol and other drug
testing
• Inconsistent police
response
• Delays in return of test
results
• Cost of testing / limited
spaces
A handshake on the way to prison and donated graduation gifts (January 2017)
6. A coordinated strategy governs drug court responses to
participants’ compliance.
Currently, a greater
focus on sanctions
than rewards. Intern
project to address this
over Summer 2017.
DCM Daly (August 2015) and Magistrate Hay (July 2016)
Progression to Phase 2 Progression to Phase 3
Time for a dedicated TJ / CMD Magistrate?
Triage of cases, creative sanctions regime.
7. Ongoing judicial intervention with each drug court
participant is essential
Developing the Best Practice Model, 2015 (putting the theory into practice)
8. Monitoring and evaluation measure the achievement of
program goals and gauge effectiveness
• Need for better evaluation of measures of
success / progress. Project currently underway.
• High turnover of staff and managers.
• The pace of change is slow within inherently
conservative organisations.
• Expand relationship with Utas (education &
research, grants, evaluation, placements)
Mag Hay 2014, Mag Rheinberger March 2016
9. Continuing interdisciplinary education promotes effective
drug court planning, implementation and operations
Need for a culture of
continuous improvement in
training and development
for all parties across the
statewide jurisdiction.
Peggy Hora, come on down!!
Toys donated by student intern for courts to use as participant rewards, January 2017
10. Forging partnerships among drug courts, public agencies and
community-based organisations generates local support and
enhances drug court effectiveness.
Room for improved community relationships and support from
business. Community Advisory Committee under development.
Alternative sources of funding – churches, health insurance firms.
Now the 12 Key Components
Two new components added by the UN in 1999:
11.Ongoing case management should include the social support
necessary to achieve social reintegration. Need for extra
resources, particularly for residential treatment and evening
and weekend programs (the program in Tasmania has only
ever been Commonwealth funded).
11. Programs should employ flexibility to address the needs of o
women, indigenous people and minority ethnic groups.
Blank cheque
Big shoes to fill . . .
Retiring Chief Magistrate Michael Hill, December 2014.
Everyone’s a winner
CMD graduation, December 2014 –Chief Magistrate Hill.
Need for resources for
leadership, direction and
development of the
therapeutic courts and
wider education about
what they can achieve.
What has worked well?O ‘CMD has been successful in diverting a large group of offenders away from prison
into community-based treatment and has had some positive impacts on delaying
relapse or a return to crime’. (Magistrates’ Court of Tasmania Annual Report 2015-
16).
O Improved global functioning leading to greater social and economic productivity.
O Anecdotal evidence of lives turned around – chaotic and pro-criminal to structured
and pro-social. Regular phase progression and graduation ceremonies. Eg KD – 13
prior prison terms; NH – 34 prior prison terms.
O Numerous improvements in drug use, crime (and victim impact), compliance,
accommodation, education, employment, volunteering, family relationships,
parenting, recreation, companions, attitudes, physical / mental health & well being,
(weight gain, stable medication, dental treatment, reduced smoking, trauma
recovery), social engagement, life skills, finances (including debt and fines
repayment) and licence acquisition - even where orders are cancelled.
O Drug free days are counted and lead to abstinence. Insight is developed through
journalling. Life work hours are credited for positive community engagement such as
attending relevant programs (360 hours required for graduation).
O Substantial savings in costs of imprisonment and other public services (health,
courts, legal aid, child protection, social welfare, police & emergency services).
Improved community engagement.
O Huge positive impact on community safety. Typically, LS/CMI scores reduce from high
or very high to medium. Dramatic and sustainable change.
Tasmania’s ‘Best Practice Model’
O General principles
O Referrals
O Assessment reports
O Sentencing to Drug Treatment Orders
(DTOs)
O Case management
O Drug Testing
O Leisure / Recreation
O Case Review Meetings
O Pre-Court Conferences
O Court listing
O Court reviews
O Rewards and Sanctions
O Progression to Phase 2 and Phase 3
O Graduation
O Structure / staffing
O Strategic program development
Other challenges for the future
O Funding limitations for CMD (80 places statewide)
and MHDL (no dedicated funding)
O Need for resources for residential treatment
O Limitations in data collection and evaluation
O Wider education within the community and the courts
O Multi party political support
O Legislative amendments for CMD and MHDL
O Resources for initial family violence investigations (eg
chest cameras) would expedite entering of pleas,
save court time and improve victim impact
O Court geography could be more therapeutic
What else is on the TJ horizon?O Tasmanian Law Reform Institute (TLRI) and Tasmanian Institute of
Law Enforcement Studies (TILES) have recently conducted a study
and drafted a Consultation Paper Responding to the Problem of
Recidivist Drink Driver, including consideration of a Recidivist
Drink Driver therapeutic court list.
O Sentencing Advisory Council final report (March 2016) supports
extension of drug courts and more community based alternatives
to custodial and suspended sentences.
O Drug Treatment Orders extended to Supreme Court from Feb
2017.
O Deferred sentencing commences Feb 2017 - Bail Act
amendments to allow for rehabilitation programs.
O Consideration being given to extending treatment orders to
include alcohol (within a couple of years).
O Discussions about a therapeutic Family Violence Court.
O Recent KPMG review of the court structure and admin processes.
O Current discussions about a national / international drug court
association or community of practice.
Exciting times – the cusp of a revolution?
What I learned in Paris: Sometimes we have to spend
money in order to save money.
Jewellery shop in Paris.
Please can we have a therapeutic division of the court??
Drugs are bad . . . but drug courts are good – mkay?
Thanks to South Park’s Mr Garrison.
Thanks for listening!O ‘International Best Practice in Drug Courts’ (published in 7
Arizona Summit Law Review, Spring 2014, pp 481-505)
available at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2315921
O Thesis available at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2236482
O Liz Moore, CMD, Community Corrections, Tas.
Thanks to Community Corrections for allowing time to attend this
conference, and to the Probation and Community Corrections
Officers’ Association (PACCOA) for financial support.