Estimates Committee A - Answers to Questions Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia Estimates Committee A - Answers to Questions published Estimates Replies Courts Administration Authority COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY In reply to Mrs REDMOND House of Assembly Heysen COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY In reply to Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (26 June 2008). The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON House of Assembly Croydon Attorney-General Minister for Justice Minister for Multicultural Affairs Minister for Veterans' Affairs COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs): I have received this advice: Evaluations carried out by the Office of Crime Statistics and Research (OCSAR) indicates that both the Mental Impairment and the Drug Court programs reduce offending behaviour. In 2004 the Office of Crime Statistics and Research published 'Magistrates Court Diversion Program: An Analysis of Post-Program Offending'. The full report can be accessed at the OCSAR website at www.ocsar.sa.gov.au. These points are drawn from that report: The total number of offending incidents committed before program entry was higher than the number detected post-program. Pre-program, the 157 participants who formed the study cohort were charged for 348 incidents. Post-program this decreased to 116. This difference was primarily owing to the large number of participants who did not offend at all in the 12 months after program completion. Two thirds (66.2 per cent) of program participants did not offend during their post-program year¹. One in three (30.5 per cent of the 157) were apprehended for three or more incidents pre-program compared with only 9 per cent of the group post-program. Just over three quarters (76.4 per cent) of the participants either became non-offenders or were charged with a smaller number of incidents post-program. 12.7 per cent remained the same—i.e. they were not apprehended for offending either pre- or post-program or were charged with the same number of incidents pre- or post-program. 10.8 per cent recorded more incidents post-program. OCSAR published 'Offending Profiles & S.A. Drug Court Pilot Program Completers' in 2005. Once again it is available on the OCSAR website. It studied 43 participants who had completed the program by 31 March 2004 who had at least six months to offend after program completion. The report showed: Overall, there was a reduction in the number of 'completers' who were charged with a criminal event after program completion as well as a reduction in the actual number of criminal events charged against them. One quarter (10 or 23.3 per cent of the 43 'completers') were not charged with any offence in the 'free time' (ie, time not in custody) after program completion. Thirty four of 43 'completers' (79.1 per cent) were either not apprehended or were apprehended for fewer events post-program. In contrast, three were charged with the same number of events in both the pre- and post-program period, while six were charged with more events post-program. In terms of the seriousness of offending, of the four graduates who had been charged with at least one moderately serious offence pre-program, one had not been apprehended post-program, and two had been charged with minor offences only. Of the 39 serious offenders pre-program, nine had not been charged with any offence post-program, and 13 had been apprehended for minor offences only and three had been apprehended for a moderately serious offence. In total, then, nearly two-thirds of the 'completers' (65.1 per cent or 28 of the 43) had either not offended or were charged with less serious offences post-program. OCSAR is responsible for research into and the monitoring of crime trends in the criminal justice system within the State. As well as the annual 'Crime and Justice in South Australia' publications, OCSAR researches on many topics each year. Although OCSAR does not do a continuing assessment of the Drug Court and Mental Impairment Court, the intermittent studies show that the Courts are working as intended. ¹ While all participants had to have offending to qualify for entry into the program, for eleven clients the offending incident, which resulted in their referral to the program, occurred more than twelve months earlier.