Abstract
The most promising initiative that has reduced the numbers remanded in custody is to offer pretrial services to defendants with vulnerabilities. These include giving defendants access to drug programs, and assistance from mental health professionals, and housing, to make it easier for magistrates to grant bail. The chapter reviews three ways in which services are offered in Australian courts: through ad hoc arrangements, integrated services and parallel agencies such as the Forensic Mental Health Service. Drawing on a focus group with case workers in Melbourne, it provides an overview of the services provided through the Court Integrated Services Program (CISP). The chapter looks critically at whether programs are effective and whether welfare programs are punitive.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Allocation of a case worker to defendants who reports back to magistrates already happens in children’s courts and diversion lists (Richards and Renshaw 2013). Some courts have already established informal committees with representatives from agencies, with the aim of developing pretrial services.
- 2.
It was not, in fact, clear whether courts sent a written reminder. One magistrate asked defendants to “put a note on their fridge” of the next hearing date. It sounds like the key issue is not having a home, but whether the defendant would remember to attend after being told in court. Having a stable address made it easier for police to contact them and was also necessary for a curfew order that reduced the risk of further offending.
- 3.
In the hostel in South Australia, officers from Community Corrections visited defendants on deferral orders once a week. It sounds like living in a hostel makes it easier to have regular contact or, to put this differently, exercise greater control and surveillance than asking defendants to travel for supervision meetings.
- 4.
- 5.
On one occasion, we were told about what seemed to be a “rationing” system for magistrates. They were allowed to send a number of defendants for a CISP assessment each month. This suggests that there was greater demand than resources. It appeared from observing hearings that there was a waiting list of a few weeks for assessments at that time, although magistrates could request to fast-track defendants.
- 6.
It is difficult to comment given our limited access. One possible explanation is that defendants knew this was a final chance before receiving a custodial sentence. Or perhaps judicial monitoring was only available for defendants on the CISP.
- 7.
The defendant may have already spent ninety-one days in prison before this application (line 4).
- 8.
Perhaps it is being too critical to describe positive reports as “hype”. Yet many evaluations seem selective and uncritical in collecting evidence. For criticism of methodological standards in this applied field, see Feeley (1983).
- 9.
It is difficult to support this political argument with statistical evidence. One interpretive issue is whether minor offenders are given fewer chances today by the police or whether there are more offenders committing repeat minor offences than previously.
- 10.
More empirical research, perhaps speaking to lawyers and their clients, might reveal how such decisions are made. One possibility is that defence lawyers have different views about the value or appropriateness of the CISP for different types of clients.
References
Burns, S. and Peyrot, M. 2003. “‘Tough love’: Nurturing and coercing responsibility and recovery in California drug courts”. Social Problems. Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 416–438.
Castellano, U. 2011 Outsourcing Justice: The Role of Non-profit Caseworkers in Pretrial Release Programs. Lynne Rienner, Boulder, CO.
Coghlan, P. 2017 Bail Review: Second Advice to the Victorian Government. Victorian Government, Melbourne.
Donoghue, J. 2014. Transforming Criminal Justice? Problem-Solving and Court Specialisation. Routledge, London.
Drakeford, M., Haines, K., Cotton, B. and Octigan, M. 2001 Pre-trial Services and the Future of Probation. University of Wales Press, Cardiff.
Feeley, M. 1983 Court Reform on Trial: Why Simple Solutions Fail. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
Hanley, N. and Ross, S. 2018 “Forensic Mental Health in Australia: Charting the Gaps”. Current Issues in Criminal Justice. Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 341–356.
Hannah-Moffat, K. and Maurutto, P. 2013 “Shifting and targeted forms of penal governance: Bail, punishment and specialized courts”. Theoretical Criminology. Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 201–219.
Indemaur, D. and Roberts, L. 2003 “Drug courts in Australia: The first generation”. Current Issues in Criminal Justice. Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 136–154.
Law Reform Commission of Western Australia 2009 Court Intervention Programs. LRCWA, Perth.
Meekins, T. 2006 “Specialized justice: The over-emergence of speciality courts and the threat of a new criminal defense paradigm”. Suffolk UL Rev., Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 1–55.
Passey, M., Bolitho, J., Scantleton, J. and Flaherty, B. 2007 “The magistrates early referral into treatment (MERIT) Pilot Program: Court Outcomes and recidivism”. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. Vol. 40, pp. 199–217.
Richards, K. and Renshaw, L. 2013 Bail and Remand for Young People in Australia. Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.
Ross, S. 2009. Evaluation of the Court Integrated Services Program. University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
Tasmania Corrections Think Tank 2011 Establishing a Bail Hostel for Adults in Tasmania: Scoping the Issues and Opportunities. Tasmania Corrections Think Tank, Hobart.
VanNostrand, M. and Keebler, G. 2009 “Pretrial risk assessment in the Federal Court”. Federal Probation. Vol. 73, No. 3, pp. 3–28.
Wilson, S. 2018. “California abolishes cash bail, aiming to treat rich and poor defendants equally”. Washington Post, 29 August. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/california-abolishes-cash-bail-aiming-to-treat-rich-and-poor-defendants-equally/2018/08/29/70891a9e-abad-11e8-b1da-ff7faa680710_story.html. Accessed November 2018.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Travers, M., Colvin, E., Bartkowiak-Théron, I., Sarre, R., Day, A., Bond, C. (2020). Pretrial Services. In: Rethinking Bail. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44881-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44881-3_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-44880-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-44881-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)