The Need for Referral Guidelines

Development by QPS at an operational level, perhaps in consultation with DJAG, of a set of guidelines providing direction to QPS officers in terms of the referral to and setting down of matters for JP Courts would better ensure that matters are appropriately referred to JP Courts with some reliability and uniformity. This may overcome problems that arise in terms of shifting support on communities as a result of QPS staff turnover, for instance Police themselves, along with DJAG staff members acknowledge the difficulties they face and the utility in such a direction.

We need clarification about what should be put before the JPs. This would allow for streamlined consistency. To do this, it’d be like it is for children. You issue a set of guidelines or principles as to cautioning and conferencing for first and second offences. Though it does always depend on the offence level not just whether it is the first or second offence. A first offence could be more serious than another (QPS OIC).

A blanket direction from the Commissioner would be good for police. JPs deserves the support of police. It doesn’t need to be legislative. At the moment, it’d be quite good to do that direction under the CMC report. That’d be the easiest way. I think it’s not just the OIC, must be higher. If our Director finds out that something is not happening then he can talk to his counterpart in QPS. It’s like the agreement that they may have with ATSILS around offenders in custody. Some loosely developed agreement would be good. If the offender has a particular history and has committed certain offences then give it to the JPs (DJAG staff). The guidelines could state that at a minimum, there is a presumption that certain matters must be referred to JP Court. Alongside any QPS overarching direction, there could be scope for

We are currently doing consultations with Murri Elders. The feedback indicates that the Elders want to decide at a local level what they have capacity to deal with – what types of matters. It may be the same for JPs. A local agreement about their scope between JPs and police may be effective... Some consistency might be good in terms of what types of matters are listed where. A statewide acceptance of parameters for JPs could be put in place and then JPs decide at a local level too (DJAG staff)

Magistrates may also have some influence upon the number of matters that JP Courts are able to deal with, as noted above. They may refer matters back to JP Courts as appropriate or take clusters of matters away from them, as occurred in relation to alcohol-related offences on one community. Interestingly, the latter occurred so that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders on the community in question may have access to the Queensland Indigenous Alcohol Diversion Program (QIADP). Ideally, Indigenous justice initiatives should be better aligned, rather than operate in this way. One QPS OIC contacted suggested that in place of any set of guidelines issued by QPS to police officers relating to the range of matters that JP Court is empowered to deal with, local magistrates might issue a direction to ensure that appropriate matters are placed before the JPs. There was some comment, for instance, that magistrates had in some instances referred matters from Magistrate Court back to JP Court (as well as take them away, as noted above). This might be more formalised as a process.

To get police to list matters you could have a directive from the Magistrates Court. Like when they’ve made it quite clear about youth justice cases, if they get something before them that they think should be at conferencing they will say so and send it back (QPS OIC). It is useful that all stakeholders, including police and magistrates, consult with JPs and other services in making decisions about appropriate referrals – not for each and every offender, obviously, but in a more strategic sense. This should take place within respective

communities in a JP court users forum, as recommended. Providing further information to magistrates about the functions and powers of JP Courts may also assist in guiding

magistrates about the range of matters they can direct to or remove from JPs.

Police could also benefit from comprehensive training in relation to the role, objectives, and powers of JP Magistrates Courts to inform development of any statewide guidelines along with localised practice. One JP indicated that police are used to dealing with magistrates but need more training to deal with JPs more effectively. Training might also include detail of the ATSILS 1800 number and the sentencing powers of JP Courts (see below).

8.4 Key Points

JP Court is (implicitly at least) expected to reduce the workload of Magistrates Courts by hearing a certain number of matters. They are generally not reaching capacity in this regard and this is may be due in part to existing referral mechanisms. QPS are key decision-makers in terms of the type and number of matters listed before JP Courts but presently practice relating to QPS referrals is generally localised and unchecked. A statewide QPS directive setting out what matters, at a minimum, are appropriate for JP Courts may be required. Magistrates may also have a more formalised role to play in ensuring that matters are referred appropriately to JP Court. (In addition) there is a need for consultation at a community level between JPs and other stakeholders about the sort of matters are appropriate for a particular community.

Recommendation 10

It is recommended that QPS, in consultation with magistrates and DJAG, develop guidelines for the referral and setting down of matters for JP courts.

Recommendation 11

It is recommended that QPS provide training to police in relation to JP courts, which should include information concerning the JP Courts’ role; the potential scope of matters that can be referred to JP Courts; sentencing options available to the JP Court; and the availability of 1800 ATSILS number for advice.