The Assessment and Referral Court List program in the Magistrates Court of Victoria: An Australian study of recidivism

Chesser, Brianna; Smith, Kenneth H.

doi:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2015.12.003

Cited by 3 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…the offending behaviour (Berman and Feinblatt, 2015;Boothroyd et al, 2003;Hora et al, 1998;Poythress et al, 2002;Wren, 1998). Specialist Lists and Mental Health Court initiatives have been adopted by four Australian jurisdictions: South Australia (1999), Tasmania (2007), Victoria (2010) and, most recently, Western Australia (2013) (Chesser and Smith, 2015).…”

Section: Current Criminal Justice Responses To Offenders With Psychol...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Entry to the list is granted only where the offending behaviour fits within the legislative provisions. The offender must have been charged with one or more criminal offences which fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, either less serious summary offences or indictable offences that can be heard summarily (Chesser and Smith, 2015;Lesser, 2011). Offenders who have been charged with a serious, sexual or violent offence, as defined in s 6B (1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), are not eligible for participation in the List in accordance with s 4S (3) (a) (i)-(iii) of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 (Vic).…”

Section: The Current Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This method aims to build the law’s “healing potential to increase well-being” (Graham, 2007; Poythress et al , 2002; Redlich et al , 2005; Wexler, 1990; Wexler and Winick, 1991; Winick et al , 2010). Therapeutic jurisprudence takes a nonadversarial approach to the administration of justice (Perlin, 2013; Redlich et al , 2005; Wexler and Winick, 1991; Winick et al , 2010) and acknowledges the socio-psychological impact of legal rules, procedures and the roles of court personnel on offenders (Chesser and Smith, 2015; Freckelton, 2007; Wexler, 1990; Winick, 2000). All court personnel in the problem-solving court model adopt a proactive role by drawing together relevant professionals and services that work to address the offenders often complex range of personal needs.…”

Section: Current Criminal Justice Responses To Offenders With Psychol...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ARC List commenced operating in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria in 2010. In 2015, the results of a pilot study conducted by Chesser and Smith (2015) revealed that where offenders had been diagnosed with the psychological disorder and completed the programme, the ARC list was able to reduce recidivism at a level of 0.5. Chesser (2016) further found that where reoffending behaviour occurred, there was a reduction in the seriousness of that reoffending.…”

Section: The Current Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Criminal courts have long recognised the criminogenic role of mental health problems in the contexts of guilt, fairness of trials and sentencing, but their response has been to address psychological disorders as a mitigating factor rather than as the root cause of the offending behaviour (Castellano and Anderson, 2012; Chesser and Smith, 2015; Karras et al , 2006; Krameddine and Silverstone, 2015). Offenders diagnosed with a psychological disorder have an increased risk of arrest (Fisher et al , 2011), of appearing before courts and tribunals, of receiving a custodial sentence (Hall et al , 2019) and of reappearing before the court after reoffending (Jones et al , 2020; Chesser, 2016; Chesser and Smith, 2015). In addition, qualitative research has shown that individuals with psychological disorders face barriers to accessing legal assistance and participating effectively in the legal system (Karras et al , 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Specialist courts and borderline personality disorder: a pilot study of the efficacy of the assessment and referral court list to reduce recidivist behaviour

Chesser

Smith

Sigamoney

et al. 2023

JCP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This paper aims to examine the ways in which the criminal justice system has evolved to accommodate mental illness. Mental health courts are one such alternative; these courts actively seek rehabilitative and therapeutic outcomes for participants. However, current literature suggests that these courts are ineffective for offenders who have been diagnosed with borderline personality disorder (BPD). Design/methodology/approach The aim of the current inquiry was to determine the degree to which participation in the Assessment and Referral Court (ARC) List in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria reduced re-offending rates for offenders diagnosed with BPD by providing a comparative analysis of pre and post ARC List offending. Findings The results of a two-year recidivism study suggest that successful completion of the ARC List reduces recidivism for 50% of offenders diagnosed with BPD. Originality/value To the authoring team’s knowledge, this is the second paper to explore the efficacy of the Assessment of Referral Court List (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria) in reducing recidivist behaviours for programme participants; however, it is the first paper to look specifically at the recidivist behaviours of participants of the Assessment of Referral Court List (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria) who have been diagnosed with BPD.

show abstract

Section: Current Criminal Justice Responses To Offenders With Psychol...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Current Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Current Criminal Justice Responses To Offenders With Psychol...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Current Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Specialist courts and borderline personality disorder: a pilot study of the efficacy of the assessment and referral court list to reduce recidivist behaviour

Chesser

Smith

Sigamoney

et al. 2023

JCP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Impact of Mental Health Court Diversion on Reoffending: A Direct Comparison of Diverted and Undiverted Groups

Soon,

Singh,

Greenberg

et al. 2024

International Journal of Forensic Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mental health court diversionary programs are a key strategy to address over-representation of individuals with a mental illness in the criminal justice system. The study examined 2,476 individuals identified as eligible for mental health court diversion by the Statewide Community and Court Liaison Service (SCCLS) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia and compared reoffending of those granted and not granted court diversion. Individuals not diverted had 43% higher reoffending rate than those granted diversion. Predictors of nondiversion and reoffending included younger age, being male, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander background, primary personality and/or substance use diagnosis and non-violent offence charges.

show abstract

Forensic mental health assessments of juvenile misdemeanor cases involving demoralization (status offenses) and delinquency

Rode,

Kabzińska,

Rode

et al. 2023

JCP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The role of evidence-based psychological knowledge in cases of juvenile offending is essential to make appropriate decisions relating to youth who violate legal or social norms, as it carries implications for treatment, intervention and practice. Psychological expert opinions therefore need to meet high formal and methodological requirements while maintaining ethical standards. The purpose of this study is to investigate psychological expert opinions in cases of juvenile misbehavior reported to regional courts in Poland. Juvenile court proceedings concern cases of demoralization and/or delinquent offenses. Demoralization is a legal concept described in the Act of June 9, 2022 on juvenile support and resocialization. This concept was not defined; it was only described through examples of behaviors indicating demoralization. These include the following: violations of the principles of community life; evading compulsory education or schooling; use of alcohol, narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, their precursors, substitutes or new psychoactive substances; and prostitution. Design/methodology/approach To reach these goals, court records of juvenile cases in six district courts (N = 253) were gathered and analyzed. A semistructured questionnaire was used to examine the cases in which psychologists were appointed and to analyze the procedures used by these experts for assessing adolescents and their families. Findings Findings revealed that family judges appoint psychologists both in cases of “demoralization” (i.e. status offenses) and in cases of juvenile delinquency. The opinions were delivered by psychologists who were mostly members of diagnostic teams. Results indicate that such opinions generally comply with the minimal standards recommended by the Ministry of Justice, yet a few problems were observed with the determination of levels of demoralization. Originality/value The limitations of diagnostic tools used by psychologists are discussed, and recommendations for future practice are provided.

show abstract

The Assessment and Referral Court List program in the Magistrates Court of Victoria: An Australian study of recidivism

Cited by 3 publications

References 9 publications

Specialist courts and borderline personality disorder: a pilot study of the efficacy of the assessment and referral court list to reduce recidivist behaviour

Specialist courts and borderline personality disorder: a pilot study of the efficacy of the assessment and referral court list to reduce recidivist behaviour

Impact of Mental Health Court Diversion on Reoffending: A Direct Comparison of Diverted and Undiverted Groups

Forensic mental health assessments of juvenile misdemeanor cases involving demoralization (status offenses) and delinquency

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About