Drug Court of New South Wales

Cnr George and Marsden Sts Parramatta NSW Australia PO Box 92 Parramatta NSW 2124 Australia

●Registry: +61 2 8 688 4525 ● Tel: +61 2(02) ● Fax +61 2(02) 8 688 4913

14 January 2019

Professor Dan Howard SC Commissioner, Special Commission of Inquiry into the Drug Ice GPO Box 5341 SYDNEY NSW 2001 Dear Commissioner, My congratulations upon taking on such a challenge, and I wish you well in your difficult endeavours. It is pleasing to see a new opportunity for some direction on this issue. The binder “National Leadership Forum on Ice” in my bookcase is dated 2006 – so this is clearly an issue which has not been successfully addressed. I apologise in advance that some of what follows is rather obvious, but I have included it anyway. Whilst the Special Commission must of course focus on Ice, in my view the key issue is in fact addiction, and the treatment thereof. Over my 14 years at the Drug Court of NSW I have seen the use of heroin and benzodiazepines decline, and other drugs (such as the synthetics) come and go. The illicit drugs which are enduring, and which become entrenched, are those which are preferred on a long-term basis by addicts. As I write this, the Drug Court is facing new issues regarding fentanyl use, largely within one ethnic group, and also as to whether we need to start targeted testing for Carfentanil. So the substance/s may be a shifting target, with the commonality across the years being addictive behaviours causing damage to the addict, his family, and the community generally. So, whilst of course it is sensible to focus on Ice at this time, perhaps the answers lie within addiction prevention and treatment, not in, for example, using sniffer dogs to detect users and low-level suppliers. A: The nature, prevalence and impact of ‘ice’ in NSW. There is no doubt that ‘ ice’ has had a very significant impact on our community, families, victims and users. At the Drug Court we deal with, assist and manage addicts who are offending to fund their habit, and who have offended in such a way that gaol is inevitable. Participants on the Drug Court program often continue to use illicit drugs as they undertake a comprehensive treatment and case plan. They admit such drug use. Ice use now comprises about 75% of illicit drug use on program. Poly-drug use is common in our clientele, and

2

ice is often used in conjunction with other drugs, such as heroin or cannabis. Ice has brought a change in clientele. There is, for example, an emerging group of participants who have come to drug use and crime later in life. Typically, it is a male in his 30’s with a trade who has initially done well in life and then perhaps lost all assets, family and employment before turning to crime to fund an Ice addiction. So it is a dynamic environment, and just as the pattern of drug use has changed, so has the clientele or target group. I would therefore suggest that the solutions recommended by the Special Inquiry need to anticipate these changes and fluctuations, and have flexibility built in. Whilst the drug of addiction and the target groups change, crime being committed to support a drug addiction is a long-term problem, and has a very significant impact on the general community. The Drug Court accepts those who commit non-violent crime, so the participants have committed break and enters, significant frauds, shoplifting (on a commercial scale at times), car theft etc. The Drug Court also manages several aspects of the Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Centre (CDTCC), whereby more serious offenders are allowed an opportunity to serve their sentence at the CDTCC. The impact of their offending is even greater upon the community, with many having committed robberies (even armed robberies, but not involving a firearm). C: Options to strengthen NSW’s response to ice Can I suggest the obvious, and that is the need for a continuum of responses? A comprehensive package of strategies and actions, which starts with safe opportunities for school age children to get appropriate information and advice, additional counselling services beyond city areas, and residential rehabilitation beds are needed. The issues of preventive education and the various modes of treatment for both addicts and others at risk of addiction are of course within the expertise of others, and no doubt you will hear from them. Whilst some might question the efficacy of spending money on treating criminals through the Drug Court, they are in fact a very sensible target. The relationship between drugs and crime is very strong – 70% of prisoners identify drugs and or alcohol as being the reason why they offended, and most female prisoners have a history of injecting drug use. Drug addicted offenders cost a great deal of money to imprison, and yet we know that imprisonment is an ineffective response. They cause a great deal of distress and angst to their victims, and to their own parents and children. However, with treatment and assistance, they are often very ordinary, and can become useful and contributing members of our society. They are also very easily identified and already corralled, so the targeting of treatment on addicted offenders is in fact pinpoint. At the serious end of the spectrum of responses to Ice, an expansion of the geographical coverage of the Drug Court is a rather obvious need. Given its proven success over 20 years since the Drug Summit of 1998, this program has only expanded twice, with the Hunter receiving coverage in 2011, and the inner city of Sydney in 2013. Expansion is very simple in technical terms, as funding, whilst difficult to achieve, is the only actual barrier. Funding is required for the services provided by all partner agencies, particularly NSW Health, and just a simple change to the regulations. The provision of programs for all of the Sydney metropolitan area, the Illawarra, Dubbo and Lismore are clear priorities. During any consultations with those communities, I would

3

expect them to be quite vocal in wanting some concrete solutions to the crime and addiction issues in their area. At the moment many residents in Sydney can be excluded from a Drug Court opportunity, and will therefore go to gaol on a full-time basis, because they live on the wrong side of the street (and therefore live in a Local Government Area which is not within the catchment of the Drug Court). Others are denied an opportunity simply through a lack of places on the program, and being referred to the program on an unfortunately busy week. The attached copy of the Court’s review for 2017 sets out the detrimental effects of unmet demand. The Drug Court is very successful program. BOCSAR has undertaken two comprehensive evaluations, and it is proven to be less expensive than gaol, and is proven to reduce re-offending. It makes fundamental sense to pursue evidence-based proven solutions, rather than trying new ideas. The Drug Court program is well-entrenched within the criminal justice system and the treatment community. A common scenario is for a participant to begin their program at residential rehabilitation, which is partly funded by the Drug Court program. We then work closely with the rehabs, and in fact having the backing of the Drug Court is very effective at the rehab end – so it is a symbiotic relationship. After a period in rehab, the participant may then be able to move back to be with family and return to work, now trustworthy enough to be allowed into the house, or to be with children. Issues which might be included within the scope of the Inquiry 1) In my view the first priority should be towards assisting children and young people – providing them with sensible information and programs regarding the risks of addictive substances. Those programs must work within the reality of youthful risk-taking and experimentation. 2) Rehabilitation beds and opportunities. The services available are woefully inadequate, despite the very best efforts of those working within the sector. Long waiting times (weeks or months) for a bed at WHOs makes no sense when the individual needs assistance immediately. Facilities for women with babies or domestic violence concerns are almost non-existent. It is a disgrace that not one more rehab bed for women on pharmacotherapy has been created in NSW since Guthrie House opened 25 years ago. 3) An expansion of the Drug Court program. Anecdotal information I have received suggests some regional communities are alarmed at the impact Ice has had upon their towns. Beyond crimes committed to fund Ice addiction, the ripple effect of addiction leads to troubles in schools, increased domestic and other violence, unpaid bills, including essential utilities such as electricity, and increased child neglect and abuse reports. Justice NSW and NSW Health could be asked to identify the city, regional and rural locations of greatest need. There should be a sensible plan for the orderly expansion of the Drug Court program, which would take into account the current and future ability of providing the services required. So such issues as the ability to recruit and retain counsellors must be factored in, together with the availability of pharmacotherapy and psychiatric services – so as to avoid raising expectations that cannot be met.

4

I hope the brief material above might be of assistance. I appreciate there will be immense demands upon the Inquiry’s time, however if a visit to the Drug Court could be fitted into the schedule, you and your team would be very welcome. I am often told that the Drug Court program suddenly made sense when there was an opportunity to see it in action. If a visit might be possible, or if I can assist in any other way, my phone number is

, and email I have attached a brief visitor’s guide, which explains how the program works, together with a copy of the 2017 Review. Much more information is on our website www.drugcourt.justice.nsw.gov.au. Yours sincerely J R Dive Senior Judge

3

To finalise all matters also led to delay – to finalise all those matters took from two to ten months from the return to the referring court. There is a second issue in relation to a Drug Court opportunity being denied. The 96 discussed above are additional to those declined “pre-ballot”, so they have been refused entry at what is described as “pre-ballot”. In this review last year I wrote:

“The number returned (after the ballot) does not represent all who were denied an opportunity, as, almost invariably, if an offender has had a previous Drug Court program, they are excluded from even taking part in the ballot for a placement, and are similarly returned to the referring court. The Court seems it as more equitable to give a “fresh” referral a first Drug Court opportunity than a second opportunity to a previous participant. However treatment theory tells us very clearly, as would common sense, that a drug-addicted offender may well need more than one episode or opportunity to grasp recovery. It may be that the previous participant was young, chaotic and perhaps foolish on the last occasion, and desperately wants assistance now. So denying a second Drug Court program opportunity can be tragic for the offender and a poor result for the community”.

Parramatta Drug Court alone returned 209 referrals to the originating court in 2017. There are many reasons for such a return, ranging from significant violence issues to not facing a full-time sentence for the referred offences. But of those 209, a significant number, 64, had received a previous Drug Court opportunity in the last 18 years, and were excluded on that basis. Appointments The Drug Court was pleased to welcome two new judges to this jurisdiction in June 2017. Her Honour Judge Jane Mottley and His Honour Judge Garry Still have been appointed. Judge Mottley continues to also fulfil her role as a Deputy Chief Magistrate, and Judge Still continues to be the Regional Co-ordinating Magistrate for the Parramatta complex in addition to managing the Sydney Drug Court each Thursday. There are now six judges holding a commission to sit in the Drug Court. Our dedicated professionals Some amazing professionals work with, and devote their time to, the Drug Court program. The greatest staffing challenge with our Corrective Services officers is finding placements for new officers, not filling vacancies. Our counsellors and registry staff work with clients with complex needs with compassion and great common sense. The Justice Health staff manage the complex flow of prisoners in such a way as to miraculously minimise the time needed for treatment plans to be prepared. Our partners in the residential rehabilitation services work so hard to make recovery possible. So my heartfelt thanks to all - our nurses, the judges, lawyers, treatment providers and the police officers who all contribute tirelessly to this very successful program. Roger Dive Senior Judge 24 August 2018

5

Parramatta Drug Court – Key Statistics 2017

Program entry Persons Total referred 578 Pre ballot exclusion 209 Placed in ballot 369 Accepted after ballot 279 Returned ineligible/not appropriate/unwilling/withdrawn 15 Program progression Participants Participants who entered Phase 1 in 2017 184 Participants who progressed to Phase 2 in 2017 119 Participants who progressed to Phase 3 in 2017 79 Participants on program as at 31/12/17 159

Court Determinations Participants Terminated after “potential to progress” hearing 37 Terminated after “risk to community” hearing 12 Retained after “Potential to progress” or “risk” hearing 2

Programs Completed Participants Graduated 54 Substantial Compliance 0 Total Non custody 97 Custody 72 Total completions 169

Hunter Drug Court – Key Statistics 2017

Program entry Persons Total referred 141 Pre ballot exclusion 49 Placed in ballot 92 Accepted after ballot 92 Returned ineligible/not appropriate/unwilling/withdrawn 19 Program progression Participants Participants who entered Phase 1 in 2017 65 Participants who progressed to Phase 2 in 2017 49 Participants who progressed to Phase 3 in 2017 39 Participants on program as at 31/12/17 67

Court Determinations Participants Terminated after “potential to progress” hearing 10 Terminated after “risk to community” hearing 6 Retained after “Potential to progress” or “risk” hearing 2

Programs Completed Participants Graduated 29 Substantial Compliance 4 Total Non custody 51 Custody 16 Total completions 67

6

Sydney Drug Court – Key Statistics 2017

Program entry Persons Total referred 103 Pre ballot exclusion 22 Placed in ballot 81 Accepted after ballot 68 Returned ineligible/not appropriate/unwilling 5 Program progression Participants Participants who entered Phase 1 in 2017 51 Participants who progressed to Phase 2 in 2017 36 Participants who progressed to Phase 3 in 2017 20 Participants on program as at 31/12/17 40

Court Determinations Participants Terminated after “potential to progress” hearing 5 Terminated after “risk to community” hearing 10 Retained after “Potential to progress” or “risk” hearing 3

Programs Completed Participants Graduated 5 Substantial Compliance 1 Total Non custody 17 Custody 36 Total completions 53

Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Centre Key Statistics 2017

Pre Program Persons Referral 83 Eligibility and Suitability Assessments 59 Ineligible 41

Program progression Participants Participants who entered Stage 1 in 2017 39 Participants who progressed to Stage 2 in 2017 30 Participants who progressed to Stage 3 in 2017 25 Participants on program as at 31/12/17 65

Programs Completed Participants Order Revoked * 22 Order Expired 3 Parole Granted ** 13

* The revocation of the order usually, but not always, reflects a failure to comply with the program. **The granting of Parole can be regarded as a successful CDTO

7

Visitors and Presentations

February

• Ms Margaret Crawford, Auditor General • Japanese delegation of professionals from medical, psychological, social work, residential

rehabilitation and family support fields • Judge Dive addressed trainees at the Corrective Services Academy • Magistrate Tony Parsons of Victoria attended the Drug Court • Drug Court of NSW Practitioner’s conference

March

• Japanese delegation UNAFEI (United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders)

• Youth Koori Court Magistrate Susan Duncombe attended Drug Court • Judge Myers of the Australian Law Reform Commission visited • Judge Dive addressed students at the University of NSW Law School

April

• ACT Supreme Court Justice Burns and Registrar visited Drug Court

May

• Chief Justice of Victorian County Court, Peter Kidd visited June

• Phillip Clark AM, Drug Misuse Trafficking Act Committee visited • Judge Yoshitaka Uno, Tokyo District Court visited • AOD Treatment Courts Clinical Manager, Sharlene Wong from Auckland NZ visited

July

• Robin Butterfield, Addiction Medicine Registrar at St Vincents Hospital visited August

• Chief Justice Veerapol Tungasuan, President of the Supreme of Thailand attended, accompanied by ten Judges of the Supreme Court of Thailand

• Two graduates returned to Drug Court to mark ten years since their graduation! September

• The Hon. David Elliott, MP, Member of the Legislative Assembly, Member for Baulkham Hills, Minister for Counter Terrorism, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Veteran Affairs visited.

• The Hon. Justice Ryan of the Family Court attended Drug Court. October

• Judge Dive presented to trainees at the Corrective Services Academy

November

• General Manager and team from ACT Corrective Services, ACT visited

8

• NSW Police Commissioner Michael Fuller APM attended a graduation • Judge Dive presented to the EBE Teachers Conference, Parliament House, Sydney.

December

• Attorney General of NSW, The Honourable Mark Speakman SC MP visit on 12 December 2017 • Judge Dive presented to trainees at the Corrective Services Academy

Introduction to Drug Court 2017

1

The Drug Court Combining justice and treatment

Drug Courts are specialist courts that deal with offenders who are dependent on drugs. They emerged as a result of growing disenchantment with the ability of traditional criminal justice approaches to provide long-term solutions to the cycle of drug use and crime. Drug Courts aim to assist drug-dependent offenders to overcome both their drug dependence and their criminal offending. The Drug Court of New South Wales is the first Drug Court to be trialled and evaluated in Australia. The Court began operation as a two-year pilot in February 1999 and has matured from that pilot status to become a welcome addition to the criminal justice system of this State. The Drug Court now sits in three locations, Sydney city, Parramatta and Toronto for the Hunter region, and is funded to provide programs for 270 participants at any one time. Objectives The objectives of the Drug Court are set out in section 3 of the Drug Court Act 1998:-

• to reduce the drug dependency of eligible persons, • to promote the re-integration of such drug dependent persons into the

community, • to reduce the need for such drug dependent persons to resort to criminal

activity to support their drug dependencies. To achieve those objectives the Drug Court diverts drug dependent offenders into supervised treatment plans, which are designed to reduce or eliminate their drug dependence, and each participant's Drug Court program is individually tailored to address his or her specific needs. The treatment options offered include abstinence and pharmacotherapy programs, and may be provided in either a community or residential rehabilitation environment. There are four fundamental aspects that are common to each Drug Court program plan:-

• Evidence-based treatment of drug use. • Social support and the development of living skills. • Regular reports to the Court regarding participant progress, and • Regular testing for drug use.

Eligibility and selection To be eligible for the Drug Court a person must:-

• be highly likely to be sentenced to full-time imprisonment if convicted, • have indicated that he or she will plead guilty to the offence, • be dependent on the use of prohibited drugs, • reside within the specified catchment area, • be referred from a court in the catchment area, • be 18 years of age or over, and

Introduction to Drug Court 2017

2

• be willing to participate. A person is not eligible if he or she:-

• is charged with an offence involving violent conduct, • is charged with a sexual offence, • is charged with a strictly indictable supply of prohibited drugs, or • is suffering from a mental condition that could prevent or restrict participation

in the Program. Offenders who are before a Local or District Court in the defined catchment area, who appear to meet the Drug Court eligibility criteria, and seek entry into a program, must be referred to the Drug Court. Whenever there are more eligible applicants than there are available program places, a weekly random selection process occurs to determine which applicant is assigned to each available place. The number of places available each week is determined by the Senior Judge, in consultation with the court team, after consideration of the number of participants currently actively engaged in their program. Each offender successfully referred to the Drug Court is given a preliminary health assessment and further investigations regarding the offender's eligibility are made. Successful applicants must then enter the assessment and detoxification stage, where an assessment of the individual's treatment needs is conducted and, where possible, a highly suitable treatment plan is formulated. Offenders chosen in the ballot to the Drug Court may later be excluded from participation in the Drug Court Program due to ineligibility, unwillingness to participate, or lack of a highly suitable treatment plan. In addition, the Drug Court will consider an offender's criminal history and background when assessing if it is appropriate for a person to enter a Drug Court program. A history of violence, sexual assault or dangerous conduct may prevent the Court from accepting a person. Offenders who are referred to the Drug Court but do not enter the Drug Court Program are sent back to the referring court for sentence. Program Progression After detoxification and assessment, the offender appears before the Drug Court where he or she enters a guilty plea, receives a sentence that is suspended, and signs an undertaking to abide by his or her program conditions. This process marks the commencement of the offender's Drug Court program. Each participant's program comprises three phases. Each phase has distinct goals that must be achieved before the participant graduates to the next phase of their program. Phase One is the 'initiation' phase where participants are expected to reduce drug use, stabilise their physical health and to cease criminal activity. In this phase, participants are required to undergo drug testing at least three times a week and to report back to the Drug Court once, or even twice, a week.

Introduction to Drug Court 2017

3

Phase Two is the 'consolidation' phase where participants are expected to remain drug-free and crime-free, and to develop life and job skills. In this phase, testing for drug use is conducted twice weekly and report-back court appearances occur fortnightly. Phase Three is the 'reintegration' phase where participants are expected to gain or be ready to gain employment, and to be financially responsible. In this phase, drug testing is conducted twice weekly and report-back court appearances are conducted monthly. The Court closely monitors all participants. The Drug Court team meets before Court each day to receive reports from treatment providers and Probation Officers and to discuss the participants who will be appearing that day. The team consists of the Judge, the DPP solicitor, the Police Prosecutor, the Clinical Nurse Consultant, Legal Aid solicitors, the Community Corrections Coordinator and the Registrar of the Court. In the light of this discussion the Judge then speaks to each participant about his or her progress. The Drug Court Act 1998 allows the Court to confer rewards on a participant when they maintain a satisfactory level of compliance with their Drug Court program. Rewards may be simply a round of applause, or perhaps permission to work even during Phase One. Sanctions may be imposed on a participant who fails to comply with the program. Participants are informed of the types of behaviour that can attract rewards and sanctions. The most severe form of sanction available to the court, short of program termination, is a custodial sanction of up to 14 days. Community-based sanctions, such as increased supervision or community work, are also available to the Court. A program will last for at least 12 months unless it is terminated sooner. A Drug Court program can be terminated when:-

• the Court decides that the participant has substantially complied with the program, or

• the participant applies to have it terminated, or • the Court decides that the participant is unlikely to make any further progress

in the program, or that further participation poses an unacceptable risk to the community that the offender will re-offend.

When a program is terminated the Court must reconsider the initial sentence. If appropriate, that sentence can be set aside and another sentence imposed in its place. In deciding the final sentence the Court will take into consideration the nature of the offender’s participation in the program, any sanctions that have been imposed and any time spent in custody during the program. The initial sentence cannot be increased. When the Court finds that a participant has substantially complied with a program a bond is the usual final court order. The Court awards a Certificate of Graduation or a Certificate of Substantial Achievement to participants who have met the standards that the Court has set.

Introduction to Drug Court 2017

4

For further information, including policies and decisions of the Drug Court, go to: www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/drugcrt

Evaluation 2008 In 2008, the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research re-evaluated the Drug Court's effectiveness regarding recidivism. The Bureau’s study covered a period between February 2003 and April 2007, and involved 645 in the Drug Court Group, and 329 individuals in a Comparison Group. So the samples were of a significant size. After controlling for pre-existing differences between the treatment and comparison groups, BOCSAR found that, when compared with those in the Comparison Group, Drug Court participants (whether ultimately successful on the program or not) were: • 17 per cent less likely to be reconvicted for any offence, • 30 per cent less likely to be reconvicted for a violent offence and • 38 per cent less likely to be reconvicted for a drug offence And in relation to those who successfully completed the Drug Court program, they were found to be: • 37 per cent less likely to be reconvicted of any offence at any point; • 65 per cent less likely to be reconvicted of an offence against the person; • 35 per cent less likely to be reconvicted of a property offence; and • 58 per cent less likely to be reconvicted of a drug offence Don Weatherburn has said: "These are very substantial findings. It is possible that they are influenced by extraneous factors not controlled for in the present study. In my opinion, however, this is fairly unlikely. Our analysis includes controls for all the main factors known to influence risk of recidivism." Our research relationship with the Bureau continues, and the most recent research in 2010-12 dealt with the role of the judge in the process, by way of a randomised trial of Intensive Judicial Supervision. An article on that research was recently published in the NSW Judicial Officers’ Bulletin1. That research found that:

• the risk of drug use and sanctioning (for breach of program) decreased by more that 40% among the intensive supervision group, and that

• 35% of the intensively supervised participants were returned to prison when their program finished, as against 49% of the participants in the control group.

1 (2013) 25 Judicial Officers’ Bulletin 10

Introduction to Drug Court 2017

5

Visiting the Drug Court

A typical day:

• Team Meeting at 9.15am – collection of information and discussion of today’s participants

• “Report backs” and minor legal matters from 11am • More significant cases are usually heard in the afternoon, such as arguments as

to eligibility and appropriateness, risk to the community, or final sentences. At the Team Meeting we get information from;

• The Area Health Service or the rehab. as to their attendance and participation in counselling, group programs and compliance with any pharmacotherapy,

• Community Corrections as to the weekly home visit, including parent or partner feedback, compliance with any curfew checks, the sighting of payslips etc.

• Any intelligence from Police, or, for example, current investigations of old offences.

• Urine drug screening results A “report back” is a short meeting with the judge during which the participant’s progress is reviewed. They range in nature from chatty and light to significant dissatisfaction being expressed by the judge. Workload: At Parramatta:

• 150 active on program, • the court sees 40 plus participants and prisoners per day.

Drug use and other breaches of program: As they progress, the reins are loosened and the participants are seen less often. This means, mathematically, you may see many persons who appear to be struggling, and perhaps not so many who are doing well. That is because if they are doing well, they are only coming to court once per month, whereas the chaotic may be attending twice per week. Admitted drug use is dealt with as a treatment issue, unadmitted use as dishonesty and lack of engagement in treatment. The aim is to develop a working relationship with the participant, and to have the participant working in the community with their counsellor and case manager, psychiatrist, Department of Family and Community Services etc.

Introduction to Drug Court 2017

6

Sanctions and rewards: The principal reward for good progress is applause. I invite you to join in. The participants care greatly as to whether they have been acknowledged by applause, and it is often the first time in their life they have received such recognition. Other rewards include the relaxation of conditions, allowing a return to paid work before Phase 2, and more flexible court attendance. Sanctions are usually days in gaol. They are administered on a scale determined by a published policy. They are allowed to accumulate, but never allowed to exceed fourteen days. Good behaviour is rewarded by the removal of sanctions. Other sanctions may be, for example, written homework on the effects of certain drugs, a written apology to a treatment provider, or the imposition of a curfew. Addressing fundamental issues: You might be surprised at how much time is spent discussing:

• Dental work • Housing • Mental Health and medication • Centrelink • Medicare • TAFE • FACS, children, parenting courses • Partners • Financial counselling • Green Cards, Forklift licences • Living Skills

Experience has shown that by addressing these fundamentals, participants can progress in addressing their drug use. It can get very complicated, because by encouraging a young woman to receive counselling for her sexual assault history, her drug use may initially escalate, not diminish. Similarly, participants with a mental illness who have been self medicating with illicit drugs for years, may become more unpleasant at home, and spark family issues, when finally receiving some mental health intervention. Teamwork is the key to the whole program. There is a courtroom team, and then a wider team of community providers. There is a culture of co-operation and problem solving right across this program, which is nurtured. How successful is the program? The first measure is the survival of the participants. No participant died of a drug-related death between May 2004 and March 2013, however that long period of success was tragically broken recently.

Introduction to Drug Court 2017

7

A success is a participant who is not required, in accordance with the ordinary principles of sentencing, to return to gaol when their program comes to an end. That success rate is consistently 48% over several years. Whilst about 35 graduate each year, reaching our “gold” standard, a further 40 are not returned to gaol. The Drug Court had an exceptional year in 2016, with 71 graduations across the three centres. Many have made significant changes in their lives, but not meet the exacting standards of graduation. Some years ago I calculated that the 73 participants NOT required to go back to gaol that year had a total non-parole period of 67 years. With gaol costing $269 per day, that amounts to $6.6 million. Who succeeds? Just one example: One of our graduates is the mother of six children. Within two weeks of commencing the program she was evicted from her Department of Housing home, and Family and Community Services assumed care of the six children. She had a large debt to Centrelink. She had never cooked a meal, as her partner did all the cooking. She was still using speed, and was returned to gaol to serve sanctions after only two weeks of the program. Over the next 13 months, and her partner have been re-allocated housing, and have a 4 bedroom home, with payments made automatically from her bank account. She will be able to enter into a five year lease soon, given how well she has managed for the last several months. Her partner is now in full time employment, and the Centrelink arrears are also being paid by automatic bank deduction. She has not used any drugs for 11 months of the program. Not only are all six children back with her; there is the seventh child born during the course of the Drug Court program. The Probation and Parole officer helped them through the Children’s Court proceedings, and FaCS are now very happy with them, and plan to close their file. is very proud that she is paying her bills, and that the children can now come into the shop and try on shoes and chose a colour. The shoes are now paid for, rather than the previous, necessarily rushed, selection process!

mother is very proud of her daughter, and they have a great relationship, after 10 years of strain and burden, including caring for the children at various times. During the program the couple completed a parenting program, a living skills program and undertook financial counselling. She has learnt to cook.

was dreadful at the start, yet grasped the help and made enormous changes. So whilst you cannot predict who will succeed, and who will fail, we have established that by creating a genuine opportunity, some of the most unlikely offenders can and do respond in extraordinary ways.

- - - -