the criminal justice system and provide an opportunity to divert offenders into treatment for drug, alcohol or mental health issues, refer offenders to relevant support services and address offending behaviour prior to being sentenced. A number of these interventions have been shown to significantly reduce the number of offenders sentenced to imprisonment and, in the longer term, their rates of reoffending.
Drug Court
824. The Drug Court of Victoria operates in Dandenong and offers Drug Treatment Orders as an alternative to imprisonment to a cohort of offenders with multiple issues. The aims of its two year interventions488
are to improve the health and well-being of participants and reduce the severity and frequency of reoffending.
To be eligible, offenders must: • plead guilty
• not have committed a sexual offence or an offence involving the infliction of bodily harm
• live in the Dandenong area.
488 KPMG, Evaluation of the Drug Court of Victoria: Final Report to
825. A recent evaluation by KPMG489 of
the Drug Court found that successful completion of the program reduced the rate of recidivism by over a third and also lowered the seriousness of reoffending behaviour490. KPMG estimated the cost
at $26,000 per participant for two years, compared with two years’ imprisonment at an average cost of $197,000 per prisoner. KPMG calculated a $1.2 million in saving on prison expenditure as a result of the program completed by 61 offenders. 826. The scale of this program is limited both
in terms of the number of places available and its single location. Chief Magistrate Peter Lauristen has recently spoken for expansion of the drug court model beyond Dandenong, endorsing the effectiveness of the program for addressing the needs of a particularly difficult cohort of offenders491.
Court Integrated Services Program
827. The Court Integrated Services Program (CISP) was established in 2006 as a coordinated, team-based approach to the case management, assessment, referral and treatment of offenders at the bail stage. It aims to improve treatment, court, sentence and reoffending outcomes for participants492.
828. CISP currently operates in the Magistrates’ Court at Melbourne, Sunshine and the Latrobe Valley, and has broad support from court staff, magistrates and external stakeholders493. CISP also integrates the
Koori Liaison Officer Program, which seeks to provide CISP services through culturally appropriate interventions494.
489 ibid. 490 ibid.
491 J. Lee, ‘Drug Court the ‘only way’ to help drug-addicted criminals’,
The Age, 12 March 2015.
492 Department of Justice, Court Integrated Services Program:
Executive Summary Evaluation Report, 2010.
493 S. Ross, Evaluation of the Court Integrated Services Program, final report prepared for the Department of Justice by The University of Melbourne, 2009.
494 Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Annual Report 2013-14.
829. The program was developed as an integrated approach to linking offenders with a variety of support services in an effort to reduce the rate of imprisonment or the length of sentence. It has been reported that magistrates use the program to ensure that:
• offenders receive a comprehensive and independent assessment of any problems or special needs
• an appropriate and timely therapeutic response is provided
• offenders receive supervision and case management while on bail • offenders’ suitability for alternative
sentencing options, such as a CCO, can be determined495.
830. A 2010 evaluation used cost benefit modelling to show that for every dollar invested in CISP, there were savings of between $1.70 and $5.90496.
831. In addition to the economic benefits, offenders who completed CISP had a recidivism rate 10 per cent lower than non-CISP offenders497. A decrease was
also found in the seriousness of any reoffending following participation in the program.
832. In addition to this reduction in recidivism, CISP has resulted in more offenders being sentenced to a CCO rather than imprisonment, and increased bail compliance rates.
495 Department of Justice, Court Integrated Services Program:
Executive Summary Evaluation Report, 2010.
496 ibid.
497 S. Ross, Evaluation of the Court Integrated Services Program, final report prepared for the Department of Justice by The University of Melbourne, 2009.
833. When the program was evaluated in 2014, it was found that approximately half of CISP clients had a combination of mental health and drug issues, together with other issues including alcohol abuse, ABI and homelessness498. Limited availability
of residential drug and alcohol treatment places, housing and access to mainstream mental health services have presented barriers to the effective operation of this program, as has CISP staff turnover499.
834. My officers heard strong support for an expansion of CISP, along with an acknowledgement that significant work would be required to ensure the support and services were able to meet increased demand.
Neighbourhood Justice Centre
835. The Neighbourhood Justice Centre (NJC) was established in 2005 in Collingwood and is based on a community justice model of problem solving and therapeutic justice. Its functions include:
• a single magistrate operating with the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court, the Children’s Court, the Special Circumstances, Indigenous and Family Violence Lists, the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal • client services including counselling,
employment and training support, housing support and legal assistance • community engagement.
836. An evaluation of the NJC found that it continues to meet the ongoing need for a local approach to justice that addresses the underlying causes of criminal behaviour and disadvantage500.
498 Department of Justice, CISP Remand Outreach Pilot Evaluation, November 2014.
499 S. Ross, Evaluation of the Court Integrated Services Program, final report prepared for the Department of Justice by The University of Melbourne, 2009.
500 KPMG, Evaluation of the Neighbourhood Justice Centre, final report commissioned by the Department of Justice, December 2012. See also: Magistrate David Fanning, ‘Neighbourhood Justice Centre, Delivering Justice Locally – Strengthening the Yarra Community’, presentation at Non-Adversarial Justice Conference, 6 May 2010.
837. This evaluation identified a 16.7 per cent reduction in recidivism for NJC clients, compared with offenders who went
through the mainstream Magistrates’ Court. Savings in annual imprisonment costs were estimated at $4.56 million per annum based on a 24 per cent reduction in prison days for NJC users501.
838. There has been a 20 per cent increase in completed cases in the NJC between 2009-10 and 2013-14502.
839. The current government has committed to building on the success of innovative courts and diversion lists by integrating similar processes and approaches throughout the mainstream court
system503; however, specific details of this
proposal are yet to be released.
Koori Courts
840. The Koori Court operates as a division of the Magistrates’ Court, and originally commenced as a pilot in Shepparton on 7 October 2002504. Today, the Koori Courts
operate across eight Magistrates’ Court locations and at the County Court:
1. Bairnsdale 2. Broadmeadows 3. Latrobe Valley
4. Melbourne (Children’s Court)
5. Mildura (Adult and Children’s Court) 6. Shepparton
7. Swan Hill
8. Warrnambool505.
841. Unlike Indigenous courts in other jurisdictions, the Koori Courts in Victoria were established by specific legislation: the
Magistrates’ Court (Koori Court) Act 2002506.
501 Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Annual Report 2013-14. 502 ibid.
503 2014 Victorian ALP Platform.
504 Sentencing Advisory Council, Sentencing in the Koori Court
Division of the Magistrates’ Court: A Statistical Report, 2010.
505 Department of Justice, Koori Court: A Defendant’s Guide, 2008. 506 Sentencing Advisory Council, Sentencing in the Koori Court
842. While not technically a diversionary court, the adult and children’s Koori Courts aim, among other things, to reduce the rate of repeat offending by addressing underlying offending behaviour in a culturally
appropriate way507 and ‘to provide fair and
equitable justice services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’508.
843. The Koori Court aims to provide an informal atmosphere that allows
participation by the Koori community509.
All parties to the court proceedings,
including any family of the accused and the Magistrate sit around a table and have a ‘sentencing conversation’510.
844. Aboriginal offenders are only eligible to elect to have their matter heard at the Koori Court if they plead guilty or intend to do so, and their offences do not include family violence or sexual offences511.
845. While the Koori Court has not been subject to recent evaluation, a 2006 evaluation of the original pilot, commissioned by the then Department of Justice found that:
… in virtually all of the stated aims of the Koori Court pilot program, it has been [a] resounding success. Specifically the Koori Courts have:
• Reduced the levels of recidivism amongst Koori defendants, which in turn has direct ramifications for the levels of over-representation with the prison system
• Achieved reductions in the breach rates for community corrections orders and the rates of Koori defendants failing to appear for their court dates • Increased the level of Koori community
participation in, and ownership of, the administration of law
507 Department of Justice, Koori Court Information for Legal
Representatives, 2008.
508 Department of Justice, Victorian Aboriginal Justice Agreement, 2000.
509 Department of Justice, Koori Court Information for Legal
Representatives, 2008.
510 ibid.
511 Department of Justice, Koori Court: A Defendant’s Guide, 2008.
• Provided a forum for the sentencing of defendants that is less alienating for them and which has allowed them to give their account of the reasons for their reoffending
• Provided a mechanism whereby the sentencing process takes account of cultural considerations
• Developed a particularly effective means of integrating the various service providers who might be involved in the tailoring of community based orders
• Reinforced the status and authority of Elders and Respected Persons, thereby strengthening the Koori community and
• Effectively broadcast the vision of the Koori Courts, such that they have received support from some sectors that had previously been sceptical about initiatives such as the Koori Courts512.
CISP Remand Outreach Pilot and specialist court lists
846. The CISP Remand Outreach Pilot (CROP) began in February 2014 and adopted integrated case-work intervention to identify prisoners on remand who may be able to secure bail after being linked into relevant community support services, particularly to address accommodation, mental health and drug and alcohol issues513. An evaluation of CROP was
undertaken after six months514 and found:
• just under one third of men in the CROP program (29 per cent) were released to bail compared with only 21 per cent in a comparison group
512 Department of Justice, A Sentencing Conversation: Evaluation
of the Koori Courts Pilot Program October 2002–October 2004
(written for the Department of Justice by Mark Harris), 2006. 513 Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Annual Report 2013-14. 514 Corrections Victoria, CISP Remand Outreach Pilot evaluation –
• 25 per cent of males in the comparison group were still on remand at the time of analysis compared with 20 per cent in the CROP group, while 40 per cent had become sentenced prisoners compared with 39 per cent of males in the CROP group
• among the CROP group, 22 more males (6 per cent) were released from custody (to bail, non-custodial sentences or time served) than in the comparison group
• CROP participants were 16 per cent more likely to obtain bail than those who were not involved515.
847. The evaluation concluded that: While it is difficult to obtain a reliable estimate with a highly variable and complex client base, the benefit of CROP appears to be not only meeting but exceeding the cost of the program. Program benefits come from both increased numbers of remandees being granted bail, and increased numbers of remandees being released from custody. 848. The Assessment and Referral Court (ARC)
List commenced in 2010 at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court to assist defendants on bail experiencing mental illness or cognitive impairment including acquired brain injury, by addressing the underlying causes of their offending behaviour through facilitating access to treatment and support services516.
515 ibid.
516 Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, Annual Report 2013-14.
849. The Department of Justice and Regulation has advised that an internal independent evaluation of the ARC List shows a return on investment benefit of between $2 and $5 for every dollar, when compared to the costs of imprisonment. The most common outcome for those who successfully complete the program is a full discharge of their matter by the court, lowering the imprisonment rate for this cohort of vulnerable offenders.
850. The Criminal Justice Diversion Program for first time or low risk offenders is available in all Magistrates’ Courts across Victoria. The program is less intensive than some of the other court-based interventions and provides diversion plans which aim to assist the offender in avoiding criminal conviction. An evaluation in 2004517 found that 94 per
cent of participants successfully completed the diversion program and avoided
conviction and that the reoffending rate within the cohort was low518.
851. The CREDIT/Bail Support Program operates in eight Magistrates’ Court locations and aims to assist defendants in getting and staying on bail by providing up to four months of case management and access to treatment and support services. While the focus is on drug and alcohol treatment, other services may be provided based on the needs of each defendant. The objectives of the program include reducing or delaying further offending and reducing the likelihood of a prison sentence to lower costs in the prison system519. An evaluation
conducted in 2004 found that 2.5 per cent of participants who successfully completed the CREDIT program received a custodial sentence, compared to 30 per cent of participants who did not complete the program520.
517 S. Alberti et al Court Diversion Program Evaluation: Overview
report, Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre and Health
Outcomes International, 2004. 518 ibid.
519 ibid. 520 ibid.
852. Some of these court programs have
ongoing funding, while others are still pilots with short term funding. Most operate in a small number of locations, notwithstanding generally positive evaluation results.