Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Evolution of Problem-Solving Courts in Australia and New Zealand: A Trans-Tasman Comparative Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Problem Solving Courts

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of problem-solving courts currently in operation in Australia and New Zealand. We explore how the evolution of the problem-solving courts has been shaped by the localized needs of the justice, health, and social service sectors and the dynamic academic, legal, and professional cultures of these countries. The recognition that many people coming before court do not have a single problem that can be identified as the sole cause of offending is highlighted and we illustrate that this has led some Australian states, and New Zealand, to develop integrated programs that address multiple and complex problems more holistically. We argue that a key issue integral to the longevity of problem-solving courts is the ability of the legal, health, and social services sectors to better address issues of coexisting mental health and addiction problems, develop integrated services, and achieve effective collaboration between the various sectors. Collaboration is a multifaceted concept that is integral to the successful operation of problem-solving courts but may be hard to achieve because of the complexities of the wider health and social service systems. We argue that collaboration is a concept that has not yet adequately been explored in the literature or in the practice of these courts. However, we suggest ways in which problem-solving courts can bring about meaningful and effective interdisciplinary collaboration between the legal, health, and welfare sectors beyond paying lip service to the concept.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Law Reform Commission of Western Australia (2008, 2009) has used the term “court intervention programs,” whereas Payne (2005) preferred the use of the term “specialty courts.”

  2. 2.

    Australian problem-solving courts have been comprehensively reviewed elsewhere (Freiberg 2001, 2005; King et al. 2009; Law Reform Commission of Western Australia 2008, 2009; Payne 2005; Richardson and McSherry 2010).

  3. 3.

    Although King’s comments pertained to drug courts, this is true generally of other types of problem-solving courts, however, the broader drug diversion system has become more structured in Australia over recent years as a result of national campaigns to target illicit drug use such as the National Illicit Drugs Strategy and the Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative (Hughes and Ritter 2008; Law Reform Commission of Western Australia 2008).

  4. 4.

    King and Auty (2005) have noted that Magistrates’ Courts have not traditionally been the site of innovation. The pressure of onerous lists, multiple jurisdictions, and circuit requirements meant that magistrates had little time to consider different ways of administering justice, but it is these same pressures that have driven the push towards problem-solving courts. Freiberg (2001) has also discussed the factors behind the adoption of problem-solving courts in Australia in more detail.

  5. 5.

    As Nolan (2009) highlighted, this is not the case in England, Scotland, and Ireland, where therapeutic jurisprudence has not generally been embraced.

  6. 6.

    Studies of Australian drug courts have generally used experimental or quasiexperimental design: for an overview of Australian drug court evaluations see Indermaur and Roberts (2003) and Jones (2011).

  7. 7.

    These courts can be contrasted to the Queensland Mental Health Court, which sits in the Supreme Court of Queensland and primarily determines legal issues of fitness to plead and criminal responsibility. For a more comprehensive overview of Australian mental health courts see Richardson and McSherry (2010).

  8. 8.

    Other states considering establishing mental health courts include New South Wales, where a symposium was held by the Law Reform Commission of New South Wales on 1 April 2011 to consider “Should NSW have a Mental Health Court?” See, http://sydney.edu.au/news/law/457.html?eventcategoryid=35&eventid=7386 and http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2011/3189078.htm. Retrieved 15 June 2011. The Law Reform Commission of New South Wales subsequently made recommendations that a mental health court be established in that state: New South Wales Law Reform Commission (2012).

  9. 9.

    A Community Court in Northern Territory also exists, however, this is a indigenous sentencing court. See below for further discussion of these types of courts.

  10. 10.

    Restorative justice has been described as “the restoration of victims, offenders and communities primarily through mediated encounters between victims and offenders—and in some cases their supporters—where they discuss what happened, in relation to harmful behavior, and why it happened, and determine what offenders will do to make amends” (King et al. 2009, p. 39).

  11. 11.

    More information on the Neighbourhood Justice Centre can be found at http://www.neighbourhoodjustice.vic.gov.au/site/page.cfm.

  12. 12.

    Examples of holistic approaches to dealing with an individual with multiple problems can be found in Michael King’s Solution-Focused Judging Bench Book (2009) at p. 40–41. King (2009) states that “problem-solving programs that take this approach seek to provide assistance to participants where needed and appropriate in major life domains, such as health (addressing substance abuse and other problems), employment and training, accommodation, financial planning, other life skills, recreation and relationships” (p. 40–41).

  13. 13.

    Family group conferences are used both as a precharge mechanism to determine whether prosecution can be avoided and also to determine how to process cases admitted or proved in the youth court (Ministry of Justice 2011). Family group conferences involve the young offender, the victim, and their families with the aim to reach a group consensus on a “just” outcome (Ministry of Justice 2011). The conferences results in a family group conference plan, which includes methods of addressing the victim’s needs and concerns, accountability issues, the young person’s treatment plan, and other relevant issues such as education and cultural reports (Court in the Act 2008, October).

  14. 14.

    Indigenous sentencing courts have emerged as a result of the over-representation of indigenous offenders in the criminal justice system and a recognition that there is a more appropriate way of delivering justice to indigenous offenders such as the use of more informal and flexible processes (King et al. 2009). A key feature of Indigenous sentencing courts is that the magistrate is usually “assisted or advised by one or more respected persons from the offender’s community” (King et al. 2009).

  15. 15.

    Nolan (2009) uses the term “legal accents” to denote that, just as countries have different accents in terms of language and speech, so too do countries have different legal accents as a result of the particular legal culture reflected in the different ways in which these countries have developed problem-solving courts.

  16. 16.

    Regardless, questions over whether a national model for domestic violence courts should be implemented (Mansfield 2008) at the expense of localized need (Ministry of Justice 2008) remain.

  17. 17.

    Although Richardson and McSherry (2010) were commenting on the need for adequate resources in mental health courts, these comments apply equally to other problem-solving courts.

  18. 18.

    There has been considerable attention focused on this issue at a National and State level in Australia, New Zealand, the USA, and the UK to the extent that there are now numerous government initiatives, policy documents, and guides to best practice regarding coexisting mental health and addiction problems.

  19. 19.

    One significant initiative that has now ceased operation, and although not targeting criminal offenders, was the Multiple and Complex Needs Panel (the Panel) a statutory body that operated as part of the Multiple and Complex Needs Initiative (MACNI) in Victoria from 2004–2009. Although the Panel was not a problem-solving court and operated in the civil justice system, it sought to improve service provision to those people with multiple needs, who often became involved with the criminal justice system (Hamilton 2010). MACNI involved work at many levels in order to gain the cooperation of the different service sectors (Hamilton 2010, p. 316). The Panel ceased operation in 2009 due to legislative changes to the MACNI, which saw many of the functions of the Panel devolved to Department of Human Service regions. However, the model continues to influence policy as there is much to be learned from the experiences of this program. It is described in detail at http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/operations/multiple-and-complex-needs-unit/how-macni-was-developed. Retrieved 10 July 2011.

  20. 20.

    The evaluation of outcomes from CISP by Ross (2009) “involved comparing the post-court records of 200 persons who had completed CISP in 2007 with a sample of 200 persons sentenced in other Magistrates’ Court venues in the same period” (p. 111).

  21. 21.

    In Australia, the Victorian Government is currently exploring the mainstreaming of problem-solving and therapeutic approaches through the Integrating Court Programs (ICP) project. See http://www.courts.vic.gov.au/Integrating-Court-Programs. Retrieved 15 July 2011. The project website states “The challenge at the heart of the Integrating Court Programs (ICP) project is to take the lessons learned from Victoria’s local court initiatives—both the well-publicized and the little-known—and consider how they can be applied across the court system, beginning with the Magistrates’ Court. The overall aim is to develop a more holistic response to court users that embeds the successful processes and outcomes of problem-oriented approaches to justice within the day-to-day business of the courts.”

  22. 22.

    Conversely, in the evaluations conducted of the Christchurch Youth Drug Court, Carswell (2004) found amongst other outcomes, that interagency co-ordination was working well. However, a later study found that the Youth Drug Court was not reducing reoffending (Searle and Spiers 2006). Although it is not possible to say why that was, and numerous factors were undoubtedly involved, successful interagency coordination was not seemingly having a significant impact on reoffending in this court.

  23. 23.

    This arrangement is uncommon in Australia and reflects the way in which this program was established using only the existing resources available to the Court with no additional funding or resources available to commence the pilot. Thus, the existing forensic mental health liaison workers who, prior to the commencement of the Mental Health Diversion List, provided forensic mental health assessments to the Magistrates Court of Tasmania agreed to become involved in the new List as part of their current work with the Court. The provision of these services continues to be provided by the Department of Health even though the List has become an established program in the Magistrates Court.

  24. 24.

    These groups may also play a role in selecting service providers and which treatment and services will be utilized by the problem-solving court program. In Australia, the way in which service providers for problem-solving courts are selected and paid for differs in each jurisdiction. Generally, most problem-solving courts only have access to the treatment and service providers available in the community. Many grassroots programs, such as the Tasmanian Mental Health Diversion List start with no additional funds to purchase services. However, in some states interdepartmental agreements between government departments to make services available for these programs are used. Programs which have been established as government funded pilots may have brokerage funds available to purchase designated funds for purchasing services or goods to address a participant’s specific needs and to assist in his or her engagement with the program (Trimboli 2012, 22; see Tasmania Law Reform Institute 2006).

  25. 25.

    Nor do we have any indication of the reciprocal impact that problem-solving courts are having on health and social services, for example, are these courts stretching services in the community and resulting in rationing of services for other users who are not accessing these services through the criminal justice system.

  26. 26.

    Housing NSW is an agency of the NSW Department of Family and Community Services responsible for social housing in that state.

  27. 27.

    The debate regarding whether to underpin problem-solving courts with legislation is not a straightforward one, however, and requires future consideration as to the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach.

  28. 28.

    Wenzel et al. (2004) conducted a study of collaboration practices in 14 drug courts in the USA and examined the following factors: “(1) The extent to which drug courts and providers accommodate each other’s practice standards; (2) the availability and extent of case management services; (3) cross training of staff; (4) documentation of relationships (e.g., written agreements); (5) resource sharing; (6) joint assessment of clients; (7) joint planning of client service goals; (8) client referrals; (9) mutual sensitivity to concerns of the other agency or program; (10) sharing of information about clients; and (11) staff meetings” (Wenzel et al. 2004, p. 256).

References

  • Bartels, L. (2009). Challenges in mainstreaming specialty courts. Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice, no. 383. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becroft, A. (2010). Problem solving and therapeutic youth courts in New Zealand—restoring cultural links. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the South Pacific Council of Youth and Children’s Courts, Sydney, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becroft, A. (2011). 2011, a big year for youth justice: 21 years old and challenging youth advocates in court and beyond! Paper presented at the National Youth Advocates’ Conference, Te Papa Tongarewa, Wellington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, G., & Feinblatt, J. (2001). Problem-solving courts: A brief primer. Law and Policy, 23(2), 125–140. doi:10.1111/1467-9930.00107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blagg, H. (2008). Problem-oriented courts. A research paper prepared for the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia Project 96. Perth: Law Reform Commission of Western Australia. http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/_files/P96-BlaggRP.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Blagg, H. (2009). Youth justice in Western Australia. Prepared for the Commissioner of Children and Young People, WA. http://www.ccyp.wa.gov.au/files/article/Harry%20Blagg%20report%20-%20Youth%20Justice%20in%20Western%20Australia%20-%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Brookbanks, W. (2006). Making a case for a mental health court in New Zealand. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Perth, Western Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, R., & Appleton, C. (2004). Joined up youth justice: Tackling youth crime in partnership. London: Russell House Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, T., Indig, D., Allnutt, S., & Mamoon, H. (2011). Co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorder among Australian prisoners. Drug and Alcohol Review, 30, 188–194. doi:10.1111/j.1465-3362.2010.00216.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Canaway, R., & Merkes, M. (2010). Barriers to comorbidity service delivery: The complexities of dual diagnosis and the need to agree on terminology and conceptual frameworks. Australian Health Review, 34, 262–268. doi:10.1071/AH08723.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, T. (2000). New configurations of justice and services for the vulnerable: Panacea or panegyric? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 33(3), 318–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carswell, S. (2004). Process evaluation of the Christchurch Youth Drug Court Pilot. Wellington: Ministry of Justice. http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/p/process-evaluation-of-the-christchurch-youth-drug-court-pilot/publication. Accessed 29 Apr 2013.

  • Cheng, D. (4 May 2011). Specialised drug courts aim to cut reoffending. New Zealand Herald Online. http://www.nzherald.co.nz. Accessed 29 Apr 2013.

  • Clancey, G., & Howard, J. (2006). Diversion and criminal justice drug treatment: Mechanism of emancipation or social control? Drug and Alcohol Review, 25, 377–385. doi:10.1080/09595230600741388.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, S. (13 August 2008). Specialist family violence courts fail. New Zealand Herald Online. http://www.nzherald.co.nz. Accessed 29 Apr 2013.

  • Court in the Act. (October 2008). Specialist youth courts. Court in the Act, Newsletter of the Youth Court of New Zealand, Issue 39. http://www.courts.govt.nz/courts/youth/documents/publications-and-media/newsletters/court-in-act-issue-39.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Court in the Act. (July 2010). Te Kooti Rangatahi ki Orakei, the Pasifika Youth Court, and Te Kooti Rangatahi ki Owae - three inspiring community initiatives opened in the same week. Court in the Act, Newsletter of the Youth Court of New Zealand, Issue 47. http://www.courts.govt.nz/courts/youth/documents/publications-and-media/newsletters/Issue%2047.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Coverdale, R. (July 2011). Postcode justice - rural and regional disadvantage in the administration of the law in Victoria. (Deakin University School of Law) http://www.deakin.edu.au/buslaw/law/news/docs/postcodejus-rpt.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Day, A., Chung, D., O’Leary, P., & Carson, E. (2009). Programs for men who perpetrate domestic violence: An examination of the issues underlying the effectiveness of intervention programs. Journal of Family Violence, 24(3), 203–212. doi:10.1007/s10896-008-9221-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dive, R. (2009). Drug Court of NSW 2009 review. http://www.drugcourt.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/_assets/drgcrt/m407001l2/2009review.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Fletcher, B. W., Lehman, W. E. K., Wexler, H. K., Melnick, G., Taxman, F., & Young, D. W. (2009). Measuring collaboration and integration activities in criminal justice and substance abuse treatment agencies. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1035, 554–564. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.01.001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freiberg, A. (2001). Problem-oriented courts: Innovative solutions to intractable problems? Journal of Judicial Administration, 11, 8–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freiberg, A. (2003). Therapeutic jurisprudence in Australia: Paradigm shift or pragmatic incrementalism? Law in Context, 20(2), 6–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freiberg, A. (2004, November). Innovations in the court system. Paper presented at the Crime in Australia: International Connections Conference, Australian Institute of Criminology, Melbourne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freiberg, A. (2005). Problem-oriented courts: An update. Journal of Judicial Administration, 14, 196–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freiberg, A. (2011a). Post-adversarial and post-inquisitorial justice: Transcending traditional penological paradigms. European Journal of Criminology, 8, 82–101. doi:10.1177/1477370810385434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freiberg, A. (2011b). Psychiatry, psychology and non-adversarial justice: From integration to transformation. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 18(2), 297–314. doi:10.1080/13218719.2010.543755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilling, D. (1994). Multi-agency crime prevention: Some barriers to collaboration. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(3), 246–257. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2311.1994.tb00810.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gondolf, E. W. (2002). Batterer intervention systems: Issues, outcomes and recommendations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvie, P., & Manzi, T. (2011). Interpreting multi-agency partnerships: Ideology, discourse and domestic violence. Social and Legal Studies, 20(1), 79–95. doi:10.1177/0964663910384907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, M. (2010). People with Complex Needs and the Criminal Justice System. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 22(2), 307–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiller, M., Belenko, S., Taxman, F., Young, D., Perdoni, M., & Saum, C. (2010). Measuring drug court structure and operations: Key components and beyond. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 37(9), 933–950. doi:10.1177/0093854810373727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, S. Persson, P. McClelland, M., & Berends, R. (2 September 2007). Intellectual disability in the Victorian prison system: Characteristics of prisoners with an intellectual disability released from prison in 2003-2006. Corrections research paper series, paper No. 2, Department of Justice of Victoria. http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/resources/f2a52573-4686-46a5-9069-73a622395be8/intellectual_disability_in_the_victorian_prison_system.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Hora, P. (2011). Courting new solutions using problem-solving justice: Key components, guiding principles, strategies, responses, models, approaches, blueprints and tool kits. Chapman Journal of Criminal Justice, 2(1), 7-52. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1801315. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Housing NSW (18 February 2011). Operating agreement – Drug Court partnership between Housing NSW and Drug Court NSW. NSW Housing and Human Services Accord.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, C., & Ritter, A., (2008). Monograph No. 16: A summary of diversion programs for drug and drug-related offenders in Australia. DPMP Monograph Series. Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. http://www.dpmp.unsw.edu.au/DPMPWeb.nsf/resources/Monograph+16.pdf/$file/DPMP+MONO+16.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Indermaur, D., & Roberts, L. (2003). Drug courts in Australia: The first generation. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 15(2), 136–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M. Hardy, G. Persson, P., & Holland, S. (2011). Acquired brain injury in the victorian prison system. Corrections research paper series, paper No. 04 April 2011, Department of Justice of Victoria. http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/resources/70313138-7b11-4652-a6c2-c98c02cb3ad6/acquired_brain_injury_in_the_victorian_prison_system.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Jones, C. (November 2011). Intensive judicial supervision and drug court outcomes: Interim findings from a randomized controlled trial. Crime and Justice Bulletin, Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, no. 152. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB152.pdf/$file/CJB152.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Joudo, J. (2008). Responding to substance abuse and offending in Indigenous communities: review of diversion programs. Research and public policy series, no. 88. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/1/8/0/%7B1807C117-551B-4D5A-B30C-CF07EF532F7D%7Drpp88.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Keith, L. (17 June 2010). Court will help ’lost’ Maori youth. Taranaki Daily News Online.http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news . Accessed 29 Apr 2013.

  • King, M. S. (2006). Challenges facing Australian court drug diversion initiatives. Paper presented at the Court Drug Diversion Initiatives Conference, Brisbane, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, M. S. (2007). Therapeutic jurisprudence and criminal law practice: A judicial perspective. Criminal Law Journal, 31, 12–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, M. S. (2009). Solution-focused judging bench book. Melbourne: Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration and the Legal Services Board of Victoria.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, M. S. (2010). Should problem-solving courts be solution-focused courts? Revista Juridica Universidad de Puerto Rico, Forthcoming; Monash University Faculty of Law Legal Studies. Research paper no. 2010/03.http://ssrn.com/abstract=1725022 . Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • King, S. (8 April 2011). Next generation treatment courts. Paper presented at Mental Health Diversion List (MHDL) Integration and Collaboration: Building capacity and engagement for the provision of criminal justice services to Tasmania's mentally ill workshop. The Tasmanian Institute of Law Enforcement Studies (TILES), University of Tasmania, Hobart. http://www.utas.edu.au/tiles/events/workshops/workshop_pdf/mhdl_workshop_SKing.ppt.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • King, M. S., & Auty, K. (2005). Therapeutic jurisprudence: An emerging trend in courts of summary jurisdiction. Alternative Law Journal, 30(2), 69–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, M., & Batagol, B. (2010). Enforcer, manager or leader? The judicial role in family violence courts. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33, 406–416. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.09.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • King, M., Freiberg, A., Batagol, B., & Hyams, R. (2009). Non-adversarial justice. Sydney: Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knaggs, T., Leahy, F., Soboleva, N., & Ong, S. (2008). The Waitakere and Manukau Family Violence Courts: An evaluation study. Wellington: Ministry of Justice of New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konrad, E. L. (1996). A multidimensional framework for conceptualizing human services integration initiatives. New Directions for Evaluation, 69, 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law Reform Commission of Western Australia. (2008). Project No. 96: Court intervention programs: Consultation paper. Perth: Quality Press. http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/P/project_96.aspx. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Law Reform Commission of Western Australia. (2009). Project No. 96: Court intervention programs - Final report. Perth: Quality Press. http://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/_files/P96-FR.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Lehman, W. E. K., Fletcher, B. W., Wexler, H. K., & Melnick, G. (2009). Organizational factors and collaboration and integration activities in criminal justice and drug abuse treatment agencies. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 1035, 565–572. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.01.004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linhorst, D. M., Dirks-Linhorst, P. A., Stiffelman, S., Gianino, J., Bernsen, H. L., & Kelley, B. J. (2009). Implementing the essential elements of a mental health court: The experiences of a large multijurisdictional suburban county. Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 37(4), 427–442. doi:10.1007/s11414-009-9193-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manasse, M. (2009). The dilemmas and opportunities of collaboration: Drawing lessons from one mental health court. Journal of Court Innovation, 2(1), 157–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, A. (2008). Carrots, sticks, and family violence courts. New Zealand Lawyer Magazine, 82. http://www.nzlawyermagazine.co.nz/Archives/Issue82/F3/tabid/733/Default.aspx. Accessed 29 Apr 2013.

  • Mattessich, P., Monsey, B., & Murray-Close, M. (2001). Collaboration: What makes it work (2nd ed.). St. Paul: Fieldstone Alliance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Justice. (2011). Family group conference [Fact sheet]. http://www2.justice.govt.nz/youth/about-youth/family-group-conference.asp. Accessed 10 Mar 2011.

  • Ministry of Justice. (2008). Family violence courts national operating guidelines. Wellington: Ministry of Justice. http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/f/family-violence-courts-2013-national-operating-guidelines. Accessed 29 Apr 2013.

  • Mooney, N. (2010). Predicting offending within the New Zealand youth justice system: Evaluating measures of risk, need and psychopathy. (Unpublished Doctor of Clinical Psychology thesis). Massey University, Wellington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M., Coombes, L., Te Hiwi, E., & McGray, S. (2008). Responding together: An integrated report evaluating the aims of the w aitakere family violence court protocols. Wellington: Ministry of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrissey, J. P., Fagan, J. A., & Cocozza, J. J. (2009). New models of collaboration between criminal justice and mental health systems. American Journal of Psychiatry, 166(11), 1211–1214. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09050670.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • National Justice CEOs Group and the Victorian Government Department of Justice. (2010). Diversion and support of people with mental illness: Guidelines for best practice. Melbourne: Justice Health, Victorian Government Department of Justice and the National Justice Chief Executive Officers’ Group. http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_community/communitycrime/mental%20health%20and%20crime/~/media/aic/njceo/diversion_support.pdf.

  • New South Wales Law Reform Commission. (2012). People with cognitive and mental health impairments in the criminal justice system: Diversion. Report no. 135. Sydney: Author. http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/lrc/ll_lrc.nsf/vwFiles/r135.pdf/$file/r135.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • New Zealand Law Commission. (2011). Controlling and regulating drugs: A review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Law commission report no. 122. Wellington: Author. http://www.lawcom.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/2011/05/part_1_report_-_controlling_and_regulating_drugs.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Newitt, E., & Stojcevski, V. (2009). Mental health diversion list evaluation report. Hobart: Magistrates Court of Tasmania. http://www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/127029/Mental_Health_Diversion_List_-_Evaluation_Report_-_May_2009.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Nolan, J. L. (2009). Legal accents, legal borrowing: The international problem-solving court movement. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, J. (2005). Specialty courts in Australia: Report to the Criminology Research Council. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, R. H., & Osher, F. C. (2004). Co-occurring disorders and specialty courts. (2nd ed.). Delmar: The National Gains Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popovic, J. (2003). Judicial officers: Complementing conventional law and changing the culture of the judiciary. Law in Context, 20(3), 121–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recordon, P. (2005, October). The family violence specialist court. Paper presented at the Towards a Restorative Society Symposium, Victoria University, Wellington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rempel, M., Labriola, M., & Davis, R. C. (2008). Does judicial monitoring deter domestic violence recidivism? Results of a quasi-experimental comparison in the Bronx. Violence Against Women, 14(2), 185–207. doi:10.1177/1077801207312535.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, E., & McSherry, B. (2010). Diversion down under – Programs for offenders with mental illnesses in Australia. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(4), 249–257. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.06.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roach Anleu, S., & Mack, K. (2007). Magistrates, magistrates courts, and social change. Law and Policy, 29(2), 183–209. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9930.2007.00252.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, L., & Indermaur, D. (2007). Key challenges in evaluating therapeutic jurisprudence initiatives. Journal of Judicial Administration, 17, 60–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, D. P. (2002). Evaluating multi-agency anti-crime partnerships: Theory, design, and measurement issues. Crime Prevention Studies, 14, 171–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. (2009). Evaluation of the court integrated services program: Final report. Melbourne: University of Melbourne. http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/resources/9931fe61-ca5e-4c54-a118-597fe9a7363c/cisp_evaluation_report.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Sandfort, J. (1999). The structural impediments to human service collaboration: Examining welfare reform at the front lines. Social Service Review, 73(3), 314-339. http://www.hhh.umn.edu/people/jsandfort/pubs/peer_reviewed/examine_welfare_reform.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, W., & Spier, P. (2006). Christchurch Youth Drug Court Pilot: One year follow-up study. http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/c/christchurch-youth-drug-court-pilot-one-year-follow-up-study-february-2006. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Sisterson, C. (2010, August 6). New Special Circumstances Court to open its doors next month. New Zealand Lawyer Magazine, 142. http://www.nzlawyermagazine.co.nz/Archives/Issue142/142N5/tabid/2508/Default.aspx. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Smith, N., & Trimboli, L. (2010). Comorbid substance and non-substance mental health disorders and re-offending among NSW prisoners. Crime and Justice Bulletin, Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, no. 140. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB140.pdf/$file/CJB140.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Steadman, H. (1992). Boundary spanners: A key component for the effective interactions of the justice and mental health systems. Law and Human Behavior, 16(1), 75–87. doi:10.1007/BF02351050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steadman, H. (2005). A guide to collecting mental health court outcome data. New York: Council of State Governments. http://consensusproject.org/jc_publications/guide-to-collecting-mental-health-court-outcome-data/MHC-Outcome-Data.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Steadman, H. J., Davidson, S., & Brown, C. (2001). Mental health courts: Their promise and unanswered questions. Psychiatric Services, 52, 457–458.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J. (2005). Specialist domestic/family violence courts within the Australian context. Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse. Issues paper no. 10. http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/documents/Issuespaper_10.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Stewart, J. (2011). Specialist domestic courts: What we know now - how far have Australian jurisdictions progressed? Australian Domestic & Family Violence Clearinghouse. Topic paper 20: 2011. http://www.austdvclearinghouse.unsw.edu.au/PDF%20files/Topic%20Paper%2020.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Tasmania Law Reform Institute. (2006). The establishment of a drug court pilot in Tasmania research paper no. 2. Tasmania Law Reform Institute. http://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/283818/Drug_Court_17nov06_A4_Final.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Thompson, M., Osher, F., & Tomasini-Joshi, D. (2007). Improving responses to people with mental illnesses: The essential elements of a mental health court. New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toki, V. (2010). Therapeutic jurisprudence and mental health courts for Maori. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33, 440–447. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.09.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trimboli, L. (2012). NSW Court Referral of Eligible Defendants into Treatment (CREDIT) pilot program: An evaluation. Crime and Justice Bulletin Contemporary Issues in Criminal Justice Number 159. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/Lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/cjb159.pdf/$file/cjb159.pdf. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • TVNZ. (6 December 2010). Govt’s ’head in the sand’ over drug courts. http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/govt-s-head-in-sand-over-drug-courts-3948847. Accessed 30 Apr 2013.

  • Wenzel, S. L., Turner, S. F., & Ridgely, M. S. (2004). Collaborations between drug courts and service providers: Characteristics and challenges. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(3), 253–263. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2004.02.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wexler, D. B., & Winick, B. J. (Eds.). (1991). Essays in therapeutic jurisprudence. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winick, B. J., Wiener, R., Castro, A., Emmert, A., & Skovran, L. C. (2010). Dealing with mentally ill domestic violence perpetrators: A therapeutic jurisprudence judicial model. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33(5–6), 428–439. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.09.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, N., & Pogorzelski, W. (2005). Measuring the effectiveness of mental health courts: Challenges and recommendations. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(4), 539–569. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.4.539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Bernadette McSherry and Arie Freiberg for comments on earlier drafts of this chapter.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian Centre for Justice Innovation, Faculty of Law, Monash University, Monash University Law Chambers, Level 1/555 Lonsdale Street, 3000, Melbourne, Australia

    Elizabeth Richardson

  2. Centre for Mental Health Research, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Katey Thom

  3. Australian Catholic University and North Western Mental Health, Melbourne, Australia

    Brian McKenna

Authors
  1. Elizabeth Richardson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katey Thom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brian McKenna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Richardson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Burnett Hall 338, Lincoln, 68588-9296, Nebraska, USA

    Richard L. Wiener

  2. , Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Burnett Hall 339, Lincoln, 68588-0308, Nebraska, USA

    Eve M. Brank

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Richardson, E., Thom, K., McKenna, B. (2013). The Evolution of Problem-Solving Courts in Australia and New Zealand: A Trans-Tasman Comparative Perspective. In: Wiener, R., Brank, E. (eds) Problem Solving Courts. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7403-6_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation