The effectiveness of Australia’s drug courts
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865816673412 |
| Published date | 01 March 2018 |
| Author | Ryan Kornhauser |
| Date | 01 March 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
2018, Vol. 51(1) 76–98
!The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865816673412
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
Article
The effectiveness of
Australia’s drug courts
Ryan Kornhauser
Melbourne, Victoria
Abstract
Operating in Australia since 1999, drug courts are now present in the majority of Australian
jurisdictions. This paper takes stock of the impact evaluations of Australia’s drug courts to
date, and considers to what extent these evaluations support drug courts as being more
effective than ‘conventional’ sanctions in reducing recidivism.
While Australian evaluations indicate drug courts reduce recidivism more than conven-
tional sanctions, certainty in these findings is tempered by mixed results and methodological
limitations.
Keywords
Drug courts, program evaluation, recidivism, reoffending, sentencing
Date received: 25 February 2016; accepted: 12 September 2016
Introduction
There is ‘nothing new about the idea that the best available evidence should underpin
policy decisions’ (Productivity Commission, 2009, p. 1). Governments often rely on good
intentions and common sense, but fail to achieve their aims.
Sentencing, in particular, has a history of ineffective, and sometimes counter-
productive, policies. These have resulted in the inefficient use of public funds, and detri-
ment to offenders and the wider community.
In what could be seen as an encouraging ‘sign of the maturity of Australia’s social and
jurisprudential science’, when drug courts were introduced into Australia in 1999 and the
early 2000s the need for thorough evaluation was recognised, and initial programs were
introduced as pilots subject to evaluation (Freiberg, 2000, p. 233). The fact that such
evaluations were being undertaken, it was said at the time, provided opportunities for a
‘firm basis for informed policy decisions as to whether the pilot programs [would]
become permanent and, if so, in what form’ (Freiberg, 2000, p. 233).
Shortly after the introduction of Australia’s first drug courts, Indermaur and Roberts
(2003) reviewed this ‘first generation’. The authors noted that evaluations of the courts
were still limited, and that, coupled with their tentative findings, it might be ‘optimistic’
Corresponding author:
Ryan Kornhauser, Melbourne, Australia.
Email: ryan.kornhauser@gmail.com
to think that they would ‘provide the kind of unequivocal endorsement some may be
seeking’ (Indermaur & Roberts, 2003, p. 150).
It is now over 15 years since drug courts first appeared in Australia. This paper
takes stock of the impact evaluations of Australia’s drug courts to date, and considers
whether we are any closer to this ‘unequivocal endorsement’ or ‘firm basis for informed
policy decisions’.
Drug courts in Australia
Drug diversion programs have operated in Australia since at least 1977, and Australia’s
first drug court opened in New South Wales in 1999 (Crime Research Centre, 2003;
Indermaur & Roberts, 2003).
In addition to the New South Wales Drug Court, drug courts now operate in a
number of other Australian jurisdictions:
1
South Australia and Western Australia
since 2000, Victoria since 2002 and as a program of the Australian Capital
Territory’s Childrens Court since 2011 (Children’s Court of the Australian Capital
Territory, 2011; Indermaur & Roberts, 2003; see further, King, Freiberg, Batag ol, &
Hyams, 2014).
2
Queensland had a drug court in operation between 2000 and 2013 (Queensland
Courts, 2013, p. 27), and the Queensland Government has recently announced an inten-
tion to reinstate the program (Queensland Courts, 2016). The Northern Territory’s
Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court also operated briefly
between 2011 and 2013 (Department of Treasury and Finance (NT), 2012; Hannam,
2013). Despite calls for a pilot program (Tasmania Law Reform Institute, 2006), there
has been no drug court in Tasmania.
The drug court model
Drug courts incorporate principles of therapeutic jurisprudence to address a number
of criminal justice and offender-wellbeing aims (Freiberg, 2000, p. 214; King et al., 2014,
p. 161), but are ultimately focused on reducing drug-related offending (see, e.g.,
Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), s 18X). They typically involve judicially supervised engage-
ment in interdisciplinary substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation services (Freiberg,
2000).
3
There is no ‘uniform’ drug court; various models exist (see King et al., 2014, p. 155ff).
In South Australia, for example, following a plea of guilty sentencing can be deferred so
an offender’s participation in a drug court treatment program can be taken into account
in the court’s final disposition (Criminal Law (Sentencing)Act 1988 (SA), s 19B). In
Victoria, a ‘drug treatment order’ containing both treatment and custodial components
may be imposed by the court, the latter being effectively suspended and then discharged
upon successful completion of the treatment program (Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), s
18ZK).
Sanctions are usually imposed for non-compliance with treatment and other condi-
tions. Non-compliance may also result in termination from the program and resenten-
cing, or the activation of a custodial component of the initial sentence (e.g., Sentencing
Act 1991 (Vic), s 18ZP).
Kornhauser 77
To continue reading
Request your trial