Extracts from 2004 Review
Foreword
Introduction
Lessons from the First Five Years
Program Participation Data 2004
Legal Issues Facing the Drug Court
Forward
The tragic death of Senior Judge Neil Milson in November was a great loss, especially to the tight knit Drug Court community, and a blow to the cause of therapeutic jurisprudence in Australia. Senior Judge Milson had been with the Drug Court since its inception in 1999, firstly as an Acting Judge and then as the Senior Judge. His wisdom, compassion and uncompromising passion for justice guided the court during early and crucial years. The philosophies he articulated and the practical systems he implemented will continue to guide and serve the Drug Court for many years to come.
One of those philosophies is to use the referral of an offender to the Drug Court as an opportunity to create long-term change in his or her life. The Drug Court achieves this by providing a supportive environment, coupled with the intensive resources required, and importantly the ability to enforce compliance with the program prepared for each individual. Sanctions are imposed for breaches of program, including short terms of imprisonment. So this court has a wide range of powers to monitor and assist each participant and give them a great opportunity to reduce their dependence on illicit drugs, and their consequent need to commit crimes in the community.
This court typically deals with individuals who have had traumatic and dysfunctional childhoods. They may have been raised in violent and abusive households, where all adults used illicit drugs, and neglected any norms of parenting. They come to the Drug Court at far greater risk of losing their lives than the general population. Sadly, two participants on the Drug Court program died during 2004, and nine participants have died since the Court commenced operations in 1999. The very real level of danger and despair in the lives of participants is the backdrop against which the great successes achieved must be contrasted.
Some participants flourish and change to a remarkable degree while on the Drug Court program, and that is recognised by graduation. To achieve the graduation standard participants must have made very substantial, proven and measured changes to their lives. Twenty participants graduated in 2004, bringing the total graduations since the inception of the Drug Court to 121.
A further five participants were awarded Substantial Compliance certificates, and a further thirty seven received non-custodial terms at the completion of the program. So in 47% of cases, applying the ordinary sentencing law of this State, full time custody was not the required sentencing outcome at the end of the Drug Court program for 62 of the 133 participants who received final sentences.
Unfortunately, the Court continues to turn away potential participants, as program resources are limited, and the number of offenders who can be allowed to enter a program must be strictly controlled. Referring courts nominated 346 defendants, however 91 had to be returned as they were unsuccessful in the ballot held each week to determine the allocation of available places. A total of 142 defendants did get the opportunity to start a Drug Court Program. The balance were returned to referring courts, usually due to eligibility or appropriateness issues.
The challenge in 2005 will be to continue to improve upon the level of success achieved in 2004 for both participants and the community, whilst working towards integrating and absorbing the Drug Court’s responsibilities to the Compulsory Drug Treatment Gaol Program at Parklea.
The Drug Court is a success because of the tireless devotion of our multi-disciplinary team partners, and the passion within both the court and registry teams for this program. I would like to express my gratitude and admiration for their efforts and achievements.
J R Dive
Senior Judge
14 October 2005
Introduction
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.
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:
(1) evidence-based treatment of drug use;
(2) social support and the development of living skills;
(3) regular reports to the Court regarding participant progress; and
(4) 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
- 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 or an offence punishable under Division 2 Part 2 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act (1985); 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 by Justice Health 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 1 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 a week.
- Phase 2 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 3 is the 'reintegration' phase where participants are expected to gain or be ready to gain employment, and to be financially responsible. In Phase 3, drug testing is conducted twice weekly and report-back court appearances are conducted monthly.
All participants are closely monitored by the Court. The Drug Court team meets before Court each day to receive reports from treatment providers and Probation Officers and to discuss those participants who will be appearing that day. The team consists of the DPP solicitor, the Police representative, the Clinical Nurse Consultant, Legal Aid solicitors, the Probation & Parole coordinator, the Registrar of the Court and the Judge. 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 1. Sanctions may be imposed on a participant who fails to comply with the program. Participants are informed of the types of behaviour which 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 offenders 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 order. The Court awards a Certificate of Graduation or a Certificate of Substantial Achievement to participants who have met the standards which the Court has set.
Lessons from the first five years
Address by Senior Judge Neil Milson
at the ceremonial sitting of the Drug Court of New South Wales
5th anniversary of the Court on 5 February 2004.
This ceremonial sitting of the Drug Court of New South Wales is being held to commemorate the completion of 5 years of the pilot program established by the Drug Court Act of 1998. The Court welcomes those present to celebrate with us, and particularly recognizes the Hon. R. J. Debus, Attorney General.
The pilot program has extended past the evaluation stage, which was completed when the reports of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research were published early in 2002. The Court has evolved substantially beyond that which was examined in that evaluation, and it is timely today to state some of the things we have learned during this process of evolution, and which might be valuable for the future of this Court or in other similar ventures into therapeutic jurisprudence.
Among drug treatment courts throughout the world it is exceptional to have exclusive legislation that empowers and directs the Court. We have learned to value the wisdom which underlies the Act and the specific goals that encourage the court to deal with offenders, not only by treating addiction, but by attending to the social circumstances of drug offenders. We have learned about the extremes of social deprivation that in some cases has preceded addiction, and in others can be one of the consequences of addiction. The Act allows the Court the discretion necessary to deal with offenders as individuals, and take into account their special circumstances. There are no conditions in the legislation that establish absolute failure or that require the Court to take a punitive approach. The addition of S8AC in 2003 requires the court to impose a cumulative sentence for some offences. Whilst often appropriate, the fact that this is mandatory can have counter-therapeutic consequences. The Act enables and encourages the Court to take a therapeutic approach, so that the Court can consider what are the prospects for future change, and weigh them against the risks associated with failure, which is an obvious example of harm minimisation in action.
Because of the novelty of the legislation, and the extent of discretion allowed within it, the Court has also learned the value of expressing the policies under which it will operate. In this regard I must acknowledge the leadership of the first Senior Judge of the Court, Her Honour Judge Gay Murrell who established the process of policy statements that have evolved into the many statements which the Court has published, and which now guide our operations.
We have learned the real meaning of the word “collaborate”, and the value of the unique collaboration of institutions that enables the Drug Court process to work in the community. Initially attempts to collaborate were met with suspicion, a fear of loss of autonomy, and perhaps some resentment. Over time, the working relationship with Government Departments and treatment providers has proved a healthy and vigorous process, at time enhanced by the tensions within the process. Of all things, the most important lesson from this process is to focus on the common set of goals to which we are all working. The completion of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Court and the Probation and Parole Service in late 2002 was a symbolic demonstration of this collaboration in action.
Similarly, the concept of the Judge being part of a multi-disciplined team of professionals is unusual in judicial life. However the value of the Drug Court team in developing policy and planning the court’s therapeutic approach to individual participants is inestimable.
We have learned much of the social circumstances of participants, and what, in many cases precedes their addiction. We have heard of 2nd and 3rd generation addiction, of addicts introduced to using drugs by parents, brothers or sisters and of addiction commencing while serving a prison sentence. We have heard of flight from terror of war and from refugee camps, of children witnessing the violent deaths of relatives, and of violence at the hands of relatives. We have learned of the need for specialist psychiatric intervention in such extreme cases, and found how little scope there is for such intervention apart from that which the Court has been able to provide. We have identified the fact that many other organisations and schemes do not have the scope for dealing with exceptional cases and do not contemplate rehabilitation creating genuine change in a person. For example, we have discovered some of the unintended consequences of penalties for crimes. In particular the mandatory and irrevocable disqualification of drivers licences that can create an unemployment trap from which there is little chance of escape despite a person’s change from immaturity and irresponsibility into a citizen with a desire to contribute.
We have learned a lot about addiction. For some of the partners in the process, the treatment of addiction is their field of specialization. For the rest of us an understanding of addictive behaviour has become an essential tool of our trade, and we acknowledge the teaching that so many health workers and treatment providers have supplied to us. For the lawyers, particularly, the insight we have gained into human behaviour has been of value far beyond the courtroom. We have learned more about mental illness and conditions that affect so many addicts (and prisoners). But more importantly, all of those associated with the processes of the court have learned not to be judgmental and to be patient in the face of behaviour that, to the unprepared, could be provocation for the most extreme and non-therapeutic reactions. We have learned that recovery and change comes in very small increments, and that relapse is often part of the process of change. We have learned that lasting changes in attitudes and behaviour cannot be mandated, but are the result of developing trust, of seeing examples and of coming to aspire to something different.
We have learned that this process is very hard work. The members of the staff of the Drug Court and the team that work here at the Court have had to do so under cramped conditions, with a sense of urgency and purpose driven by what has proved to be an outstanding work ethic. To have the opportunity to be part of the rehabilitative process provides professional rewards rarely found in the criminal justice system. To achieve these rewards there has been unusual multi-skilling, with lawyers involvement with pharmacotherapy and urinalysis, with nurses addressing the court, with clerical staff becoming quasi-counsellors or computer programmers, and with counsellors having to inform the court when clients admit to a breach of program conditions. Judges have had to learn to communicate on an appropriate level with participants, to show respect and admiration for the smallest of forward steps and to administer sanctions for program breaches in a manner that will enhance and not inhibit future progress. They have learned the humbling lesson that their input into the processes of this Court are not merely an avenue to the provision of treatment, but is an integral part of that therapy.
In summary, those who have worked within the Drug Court during the 5 years of its existence have found themselves to be changed people, with new skills and insight into a world far removed from that in which they lived and worked before. We are grateful to have had the opportunity to participate in this program, and look forward to a future when “therapeutic jurisprudence” is not just a new term in American literature, but also a fact of judicial life in our society.
Program Participation Data 2004
Participant Data 2004
| 01/01/2004 - 31/12/2004 | Pre 2004 referrals | 2004 referrals | TOTAL 2004 Activity |
| Pre-program | | | |
| Placed in ballot | | 346 | 346 |
| Accepted after ballot | | 255 | 255 |
| Not entered into Program | | 27 | 104 |
| Awaiting Initial Sentence | | 9 | 9 |
| On Program | | | |
| Number of participants who entered Phase 1 | 5 | 137 | 142 |
| Number of participants who progressed to Phase 2 | 40 | 40 | 80 |
| Number of participants who progressed to Phase 3 | 35 | 12 | 47 |
| Number of participants on program as at 31/12/04 | 50 | 123 | 173(2) |
| Court Determinations (3) | | | |
| Participants terminated after “potential to progress” hearing | 24 | 1 | 25 |
| Participants terminated after “risk to community” hearing | 8 | | 8 |
| Participants retained after “Potential to progress” or “risk” hearing | 33 | 6 | 39 |
| Programs Completed | | | |
| Graduated | 20 | | 20 |
| Substantial Compliance | 5 | | 5 |
| Non Custody | 36 | 1 | 37 |
| Total Non custody | | | 62 |
| | | |
| Custody | 64 | 7 | 71 |
| Deceased | 2 | | 2 |
(2) Not all participants are receiving treatment inthe community at any one time. As at 31 December 2004, 24 were serving sanctions, 14 were the subject of arrest warrants, and 20 were in residential rehabilitation. (3) Under s.3 of the Act, If the Court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a drug offender has failed to comply with his or her program, and that the offender is unlikely to make any further progress in the program or that the offender's further participation in the program poses an unacceptable risk to the community that the person may re-offend - the Court may decide to terminate the program.
Legal Issues Facing the Drug Court
Amendments to the Drug Court Act consequent to the Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2003
Amendments to the Drug Court Act 1998 effected by the Crimes Legislation Amendment Act 2003 commenced on 18 July 2003. Of principal relevance is the insertion of Division 1A into Part 2 of the Drug Court Act, the provisions of which were intended to facilitate the acceptance onto the Drug Court program of persons who had breached bonds imposed under section 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
The relevant provisions make a distinction between breaches of bond referred to the Court in relation to a person who is currently participating in a Drug Court program (section 8AC) and those in relation to a person who is not (section 8AB). The main point of difference is that any sentence of imprisonment or community service order imposed with respect to the former is taken to be served consecutively with any other penalty of the same kind imposed at the initial sentence stage (section 8AC(6)). By contrast, any sentence imposed by the Drug Court for a breach of bond dealt with at the time of the initial sentence is not required to be expressed to be consecutive.
This distinction appears to be contrary to general sentencing principles because it removes the discretion of the sentencing court in relation to the issue of accumulation. It also appears to be contrary to the manner in which persons dealt with in the general Court system are sentenced in relation to breaches of bonds and as such may also be inconsistent with the provisions of section 15(1) of the Drug Court Act.
This issue, among others, was addressed in a discussion paper prepared by the late Senior Judge Milson that was forwarded to the Attorney General’s Department for consideration of any necessary amendments.Sentencing in the Drug Court
In 2004, the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) heard a number of appeals from sentencing decisions of the Drug Court.
In Regina –v- Toman [2004] NSWCCA 31, the CCA held that an appeal court, as with a judge at first instance, is bound by section 12(4) of the Drug Court Act, and that section should not be construed in a way that would allow an effective increase of the initial sentence. The section strictly operates to prevent a final sentence from being greater than it was at the initial sentencing stage. Importantly, the CCA held that there does not appear to be any limitation on appeal by the Crown asserting inadequacy of the initial sentence.
The question of a Crown appeal against an initial sentence was dealt with in Regina -v- Rice [2004] NSWCCA 384, and it is this decision that will possibly have the greatest impact on the work of the Court. Prior to the decision in Regina –v- Rice, the Court had adopted the practice of only taking into account the objective features of the offences together with the offender's plea of guilty and, where appropriate, any time served in custody bail refused prior to initial sentence that was referable to the offence. All other subjective features relating to the offender were not taken into account at initial sentence, but were taken into account at final sentence after the conclusion of the offender's Drug Court program. In addition, it was the practice of the Drug Court not to set a non-parole period at initial sentence such that the sentence imposed only reflected the head sentence in relation to the offence.
There were very sound practical reasons for the practice adopted by the Court. First, it was the prior experience of the Court that it was often the case that, through the offender's participation on a Drug Court program, the true subjective features of the offender were revealed to be very different to those placed before the Court at initial sentence. Secondly, the practice recognized that the Court would be in a much better position to properly judge an offender's prospects for rehabilitation at the end of his or her Drug Court program. Finally, it avoided wasting Court time at initial sentence addressing issues that would only have to be revisited in their entirety at final sentence, including whether to find special circumstances. This was particularly the case where matters were proceeding on indictment.
Whilst the CCA indicated that it appreciated the practical considerations behind the practice (see per Smart J at paragraphs 100 and 101), it nevertheless held that it was not permitted by the terms of section 7(2A) of the Drug Court Act and section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Since the decision in Regina -v- Rice, the Drug Court has reverted to taking into account all objective and subjective matters at initial sentence and to setting non-parole periods in accordance with section 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Already the Court is experiencing an increase in the amount of Court time being expended on initial sentences, even in summary matters. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the recent decision of the CCA in Regina -v- Rowley [2004] NSWCCA 385 followed the decision of James J in R v Ohar [2004] NSWCCA 83 and held that appeals with respect to summary offences that are dealt with at final sentence under section 12 of the Drug Court Act are appropriate matters to be heard by a Judge of the Supreme Court sitting alone. Thus, even where all the offences dealt with at initial sentence are summary matters, the Court must provide far more detailed reasons than would ordinarily be the case in a Local Court.
The Drug Court Team has been aware of this conflict between the legislation and the practice of the Court for some time and the late Senior Judge Milson proposed some amendments to the Drug Court Act with a view to overcoming some of these problems. Appeals from final sentences imposed by the Drug Court
A somewhat related matter is the issue of appeals from the Drug Court. In Regina –v- Toman [2004] NSWCCA 31, the Court held that under the Criminal Appeals Act, a Crown appeal from the Drug Court is to be heard by three judges, but an appeal by an offender against the severity of a sentence imposed by the Drug Court in accordance with section 12 of the Drug Court Act is to be heard by a single judge. The Court acknowledged that this “might be considered anomalous” (per Grove J at paragraph 11). In particular, the decision raises the issue of how the CCA will proceed where there is both a severity appeal and a Crown appeal arising in the same matter from the Drug Court.
More recently, the decision of the CCA in Regina -v- Rowley [2004] NSWCCA 385 has highlighted a further problem with the legislation, namely, the prospect of split appeals from the Drug Court. In short, the CCA in Regina -v- Rowley determined as follows:
1. All matters (whether summary or on indictment) dealt with at final sentence under section 12 of the Drug Court Act were appropriate matters to be dealt with on appeal by a Judge of the Supreme Court sitting alone.
2. Any matters dealt with at final sentence on indictment which were not previously the subject of an initial sentence imposed under section 7 of the Drug Court Act and therefore proceeded to final sentence pursuant to section 8 of the Drug Court Act were properly to be dealt with on appeal by a Court constituted by either two or three Supreme Court Judges.
3. Any matters dealt with at final sentence summarily (i.e., exercising the jurisdiction of a Local Court) which were not previously the subject of an initial sentence imposed under section 7 of the Drug Court Act and therefore proceeded to final sentence pursuant to section 8 of the Drug Court Act were properly to be dealt with on appeal by the District Court and an appeal with respect to such a matter to the CCA would be an incompetent appeal.
One manner in which these issues might be resolved is to amend the Criminal Appeals Act to allow for all appeals from any sentence imposed by the Drug Court, whether lodged by the Crown or the offender, to be heard by a Judge of the Supreme Court sitting alone.Commonwealth offenders at the Drug Court
At the Drug Court Conference on 18 November 2004, the Drug Court Team discussed the issue of whether to accept Commonwealth Offenders and resolved that it was a matter that should be pursued.
Presently, the Drug Court does not have the jurisdiction to deal with Commonwealth offences. The Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) remains the exclusive repository for the sentencing of Commonwealth offenders. When a Local or District Court sentences a Commonwealth offender to a term of imprisonment, for example, that sentence is imposed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), not the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
Section 20AB of the Crimes Act 1914 does allow for some limited State sentencing options to be utilised by the State courts dealing with Commonwealth offenders. However, these are limited to community service orders, work orders, periodic detention orders, weekend detention orders and the like. In addition, Regulation 6 of the Crimes Regulations 1999 (Cth) prescribes for the purposes of section 20AB a number of applicable State sentencing options. These include a Periodic Detention order made under Part 2 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and a Home Detention order made under Part 2 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
There is presently no reference in either section 20AB or the Regulations to a suspended sentence under the Drug Court Act. Indeed, there is not even a reference in either section 20AB or the Regulations that would encompass a suspended sentence pursuant to section 12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. This is because the Crimes Act 1914 already has provision for the imposition of a suspended sentence (section 20(1)(b)).
It is also relevant to consider the manner in which a State court comes to impose a sentence of Periodic Detention or Home Detention upon a Commonwealth offender. The Court first determines the appropriate sentence of imprisonment and then makes the relevant order that it be served by way of Periodic Detention or by Home Detention as the case may be. The determination of the appropriate sentence of imprisonment is determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Crimes Act 1914 and not the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. It is merely the making of the order that the sentence be served by way of Periodic Detention or Home Detention that is allowed by Section 20AB and Regulation 6.
The obvious difficulty that arises in relation to the Drug Court is that when it sentences a person under either section 7 or section 8, it can only impose a sentence in accordance with the provisions of Part 2 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (sections 7(2A) and 8(2A)). In the case of offences dealt with under section 7 the Court then makes an order imposing the conditions of the person's Drug Court program and an order suspending the execution of the sentence for the duration of the person's Drug Court program. It therefore seems that the Court is precluded from imposing a sentence in accordance with the provisions of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) such that an inconsistency arises between the manner in which Commonwealth offenders are dealt with by the Drug Court and the manner in which they are dealt with in the general Court system.
Any amendments to be made in order to allow for Commonwealth offenders to be dealt with under the Drug Court Act should be effected at both a State and Commonwealth level. It may not be sufficient to simply amend the Commonwealth Regulations to allow for the making of an order suspending the execution of a sentence in accordance with section 7(3) of the Drug Court Act as the problem of the manner in which the sentence of imprisonment is to be determined may still remain. Alternatively, it may not be sufficient to simply amend the Commonwealth Regulations to allow for Commonwealth offenders to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Drug Court Act as the inconsistencies in the sentencing of Commonwealth offenders may still remain.
In addition, there are a number of practical issues regarding the acceptance of Commonwealth offenders onto the Drug Court program. The resolution of such issues will require effective co-operation between the relevant Commonwealth and State agencies.
|
|
