COURT ASSESSMENT REFERRAL DRUG SCHEME

350 Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (4 October 2011) (First Session).

1. What has been the aggregate number and percentage attendance rates of adult offenders diverted into the Court Assessment Referral Drug Scheme in each year since 2006?

2. What has been the aggregate number and percentage attendance rates of those individuals diverted into the scheme and have subsequently gone on to re-offend?

3. How many of those individuals diverted into the scheme did not attend and have subsequently gone on to re-offend?

4. How many of those individuals diverted into the scheme did not attend and have been subsequently prosecuted for either their non-attendance or for their original offence in each year since 2006?

5. What has been the aggregate number and percentage attendance rates for adult offenders directed into the Court Assessment Referral Drug Scheme (or its replacement), who then who have gone on to re-offend and subsequently been diverted again into the same program (or its replacement) on—

(a) one occasion;

(b) two occasions;

(c) three occasions;

(d) four occasions; and

(e) five or more occasions?

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers): I am advised of the following information:

1. The aggregate number and percentage attendance rates of adult offenders diverted into the Court Assessment Referral Drug Scheme in each year since 2006 is:

Note: CARDS ceased operating from 1 July 2010 and is to be replaced with a 6-month Drug Treatment Program (6DTP) which has the same programmatic components as the Drug Court except for the Drug Court requirement from home detention bail. The percentage completion rates are worked out by subtracting those still in treatment from the accepted number.

2. The Court Administration Authority does not have data on how many of those individuals directed to attend these programs have subsequently gone on to re-offend.

An evaluation of the pilot phase of CARDS 2004-06 was undertaken by the Office for Crime Statistics and Research (OCSAR). One aspect of the evaluation was concerned with re-offending. The full report of the evaluation of Adult CARDS is available from the OCSAR website www.ocsar.sa.gov.au.

3. The CAA does not have information on how many of those individuals directed to attend these programs did not attend and have subsequently gone on to re-offend.

4. CARDS participants were diverted to treatment under section 21B of the Bail Act, 1985 which stipulates participation is voluntary.

Everyone participating on CARDS was prosecuted for their original offence at the completion of the program and/or at the next hearing set for four months from the acceptance date. So regardless of whether someone completed or not they returned to court for sentencing after four months.

Under section 10(5) of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 participation in an intervention program, in this case CARDS, and the defendant's achievements in the program, may be treated as relevant to sentence. However, section 10(6) says that the fact that a defendant—

(a) has not participated in, or has not had the opportunity to participate in, an intervention program; or

(b) has performed badly in, or has failed to make satisfactory progress in, such a program, is not relevant to sentence.

5. There is no data readily available on the number of times an individual has participated in CARDS. The policy has been that, any outstanding sentence imposed after the individual was offered the option of CARDS and did not complete the program, would have to be served before the individual could participate in.