problem solving courts qld

Australasian Therapeutic Jurisprudence Clearinghouse

3. problem-solving courts, 3.1 overview.

Problem-solving courts originated in the United States with the establishment of drug courts and domestic violence courts. Since then, a large range of problem-solving courts have been established, including community courts, drug courts, domestic violence courts, DWI (driving whilst intoxicated) courts, mental health courts, tribal drug courts and courts dealing with the substance abuse problems of parents whose children may be at risk. There are also courts that are taking a hybrid approach, assisting people with more than one offending related problem.

Problem solving courts were introduced into Australasia in the 1990s. Family violence courts operate in Australia and New Zealand. Drug courts have been established in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia. There are mental health court programs in several jurisdictions. The Geraldton Alternative Sentencing Regime in Western Australia is a hybrid program working with participants with a range of offending related problems and often with more than one problem. It has assisted participants with problems such as licit and illicit substance abuse, family violence, gambling and stress.

Key elements of problem-solving court programs that distinguish them from mainstream courts include: seeking to address all the underlying issues rather than simply focusing on the legal problem; judicial case management; a multi-disciplinary court team; a collaborative approach with participants; involvement of government and community agencies in the development and running of the project; and the use of therapeutic legal processes by the court and team members. However, there is wide variation between problem-solving courts as to the extent to which these elements are present in practice.

There is general acceptance that therapeutic jurisprudence has become the underlying philosophy of these courts. It suggests processes that court team members can use to promote the therapeutic outcomes of the court.

A critique of problem solving courts suggests that the concept of the court as problem solver is inappropriate and does not reflect best practice in therapeutic jurisprudence. According to this critique, the key change agent is not the court but rather it is the individual whose problem is to be solved. Often participants in problem solving court programs will have initiated change before coming into a problem solving court, may develop and apply change strategies while in the court program and may need to continue to apply change strategies after completing the court program. It has been suggested that these courts should be solution focused courts, supporting participants’ change mechanisms and facilitating their engagement in appropriate treatment and support services to address their underlying issues. A solution-focused approach is markedly different from a problem solving approach not only in conceptual terms but also in how judicial officers, lawyers and other professionals involved in the court program carry out their work.

This critique is discussed further in this  article  and in this  chapter .

Bartels L and Richards K, ‘Talking the Talk: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Oral Competence’ (2013) 38 Alternative Law Journal 31. Bartels L, ‘Mainstreaming Problem-Oriented Justice: Issues and Challenges’ in Marie Segrave (ed), Australia and New Zealand Critical Criminology Conference 2009 Conference Proceedings (Monash University, 2009) pp 31-40. Available at SSRN:  http://ssrn.com/abstract=2188711 Bartels L, Challenges in Mainstreaming Specialty Courts. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice No 383 (Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2009). Blagg H,  Problem-Oriented Courts  (Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, 2008) Duffy J, ‘Problem-solving courts, therapeutic jurisprudence and the Constitution: if two is company, is three a crowd?’ (2011) 35(2) Melbourne University Law Review 394. Freiberg A, ‘Problem-Oriented Courts: Innovative Solutions to Intractable Problems” (2001) 11 Journal of Judicial Administration 8. Freiberg A, ‘Innovations in the Court System’ Paper presented to the conference ‘Crime in Australia: International Connections’, Melbourne, 29-30 November, 2004. Freiberg A, ‘Problem-Oriented Courts: An Update’ (2005) 14 Journal of Judicial Administration 178. Hannam H, ‘Problem Solving Courts and Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Children’s Jurisdiction’ Paper presented to the ‘Children and the Courts’ conference, National Judicial College of Australia, 5 November 2005. King MS, ‘Problem Solving Court Programs in Western Australia’ Paper presented to the ‘Sentencing: Principles, Perspectives and Possibilities’ Conference, Canberra, 10-12 February 2006. King MS, ‘Problem Solving under the  Dangerous Sexual Offender Act 2006 (Western Australia) ‘ (2007) 14 eLaw Journal 32 King MS, ‘What can Mainstream Courts Learn from Problem-Solving Courts” (2007) 32 Alternative Law Journal 91. King MS, ‘Problem-solving Court Judging, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Transformational Leadership’ (2008) 17 Journal of Judicial Administration 155. King MS,  Solution Focused Judging Benchbook  (AIJA, 2009). King MS, ‘Judging, Judicial Values and Judicial Conduct in Problem-Solving Courts, Indigenous Sentencing Courts and Mainstream Courts’ (2010) 19 Journal of Judicial Administration 133. King MS and Duguid W, ‘Geraldton Alternative Sentencing Regime: First Year Self- Evaluation’ (Curtin University School of Business Law Working Paper 03:01, 2003). King MS and Piggott L, ‘Mirroring the Stages of Change in the Establishment of Problem Solving Courts’ in Reinhardt G and Cannon A (eds),  Transforming Legal Processes in Court and Beyond  (AIJA, 2007) 161. Lau T, ‘Protecting Procedural Fairness in Mainstreaming Problem-solving Courts’ (2010) Pandora’s Box 41. Law Reform Commission of Western Australia ,  Court Intervention Programs: Consultation Paper  (LRCWA, 2008),  https://www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/p/project_96.aspx#downloads . Law Reform Commission of Western Australia ,  Court Intervention Programs: Final Report  (LRCWA, 2008). Madell D, Thom K, Mckenna B, ‘A systematic review of literature relating to problem-solving youth courts’ (2013) 20(3) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 412. Nolan JL Jr, ‘The International Problem-Solving Court Movement: A Comparative Perspective’ (2011) 37 Monash University Law Review 259. Phelan A, ‘Solving Human Problems or Deciding Cases’ Judicial Innovation in New York and its Relevance to Australia Part I, II and III’ (2003) 13 Journal of Judicial Administration 98, 137 and 244. Popovic J, ‘Meaningful v Meaningless Sentences: Sentencing the Unsentenceable’ Paper presented to the ‘Sentencing: Principles, Perspectives and Possibilities’ conference, Canberra, 10-12 February 2006.          15(4) (May 2006) Journal of Judicial Administration 190-205 Previtera T, ‘Responsibilities of TJ Team Members v Rights of Offenders’. Paper presented at the Cutting Edge: Therapeutic jurisprudence in Magistrates’ Courts Conference held May 2006 in Perth WA. (2006) 1 eLaw Journal (special series) 51,  http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/QldJSchol/2005/38.html . Richardson E, Thom K and McKenna B, ‘The Evolution of Problem-Solving Courts in Australia and New Zealand: A Trans-Tasman Comparative Perspective’ in Wiener RL and Brank EM (eds), Problem-Solving Courts: Social Science and Legal Perspectives (Springer: 2013). Turner S, ‘The New South Wales Youth Drug & Alcohol Court Program: A Decade of Development’ (2011) 37 Monash University Law Review 280. Tinsley Y, ‘Increasing safety and improving healing: The potential of a specialist sexual violence treatment court’ (2013) 5(2) Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand 31. Walsh T, ‘Defendant’s and Criminal Justice Professionals’ Views on the Brisbane Special Circumstances Court’ (2011) 21 Journal of Judicial Administration 993. Waterworth, Rhondda (2024)  Therapeutic jurisprudence: a practical guide to developing therapeutic intervention skills for judicial officers in specialist courts   (Judicial Commission of NSW).

3.2 Drug Courts

Drug courts help participants address their underlying illicit drug problems with the aid of a court team and community agencies and with ongoing judicial case management, which can be for more than a year. Some courts will also assist in relation to alcohol problems alone or when the participant has both alcohol and illicit drug problems. Drug courts offer community or residential based rehabilitation – sometimes in custody – and work collaboratively with community and justice agencies to promote this service. Drug courts often use a system of sanctions and incentives to promote participant compliance. A breach point system is one mechanism they use for promoting compliance. Graduation ceremonies, the use of applause in court to recognise participant achievement and the use of behavioural contracts are also common features of drug courts.

Australian Capital Territory Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List New South Wales Drug Court New Zealand Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court  Queensland Drug and Alcohol Court South Australia Drug Court Victorian Drug Court   Western Australian Drug Court

Australian Institute of Criminology . Court Drug Diversion Initiatives Conference, Brisbane, 25-26 May 2006. Birgden A, ‘A Compulsory Drug Treatment Program for Offenders in Australia: Therapeutic Jurisprudence Implications’ (2008) 30 Thomas Jefferson Law Review 367. Cappa C, ‘The Social, Political and Theoretical Context of Drug Courts’ (2006) 32 Monash Law Review 145. Costanzo, J, ‘Final report on the South-east Queensland Drug Court pilot’ (Queensland Courts, 2003),  http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/93914/m-drug-court-seq-pilot-costanzo-final-report.pdf Dekker J, O’Brien K and Smith N, ‘An Evaluation of the Compulsory Drug Treatment Program (CDTP)’ (NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research 2010).  https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Publications/Legislative/l20.pdf Dive R, Killen M, Cole D and Poder A, ‘NSW Youth Drug Court Trial’ Paper presented to the ‘Juvenile Justice: From the Lessons of the Past to a Road Map for the Future’ conference, Sydney, 1-2 September 2003. Dive R, ‘Sentencing Drug Offenders’ Paper presented to the ‘Sentencing: Principles, Perspectives and Possibilities’ conference, Canberra, 10-12 February 2006. https://drugcourt.nsw.gov.au/documents/sentencing-drug-offenders-judge-dive.pdf Dive R, ‘Judging in the Land of the Chaotic’ (2011) 20 Journal of Judicial Administration 185. Foster J, ‘A Drug Court: A Police Perspective’ in Reinhardt G and Cannon A (eds),  Transforming Legal Processes in Court and Beyond  (AIJA, 2007) 107. Freiberg A, ‘Australian Drug Courts’ (2000) 24 Criminal Law Journal 213. Freiberg A, ‘Drug Courts: Sentencing Responses to Drug Use and Drug-Related Crime’ (2002) 27 Alternative Law Journal 282.  http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/journals/AltLawJl/2002/99.html Freiberg A, ‘Australia’s Drug Courts’ (2004) 2(1) Of Substance 12. Heath S, ‘Innovations in Western Australian Magistrates Courts’ Paper delivered to the 2005 Colloquium of the Judicial Conference of Australia.  https://ajoa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2005-Heath_Paper.pdf Hora, Peggy Fulton, ‘The Synergy Between Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Drug Treatment Courts’ in Reinhardt G and Cannon A (eds),  Transforming Legal Processes in Court and Beyond  (AIJA, 2007) 155. Indermaur D and Roberts L, (2003) ‘Drug Courts in Australia: The First Generation’ 15(2) Current Issues for Criminal Justice Journal 136.  http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/CICrimJust/2003/21.pdf Jones C and Kemp R, ‘The Strength of the Participant-Judge Relationship Predicts Better Drug Court Outcomes’ (2014) 21(2) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 165. King MS, ‘Challenges Facing Australian Court Drug Diversion Initiatives’ Keynote Address, Court Drug Diversion Initiatives Conference, Brisbane, 25-26 May 2006.  https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4d7d/1e8ef13529ad1b4b54e91c3f179a8e91c2e1.pdf King MS, ‘Perth Drug Court Practice’ (2006) 33(11) Brief 27. King MS and Piggott L, ‘Mirroring the Stages of Change in the Establishment of Problem Solving Courts’ in Reinhardt G and Cannon A (eds),  Transforming Legal Processes in Court and Beyond  (AIJA, 2007) 161. King, Michael S., New Directions in the Courts’ Response to Drug and Alcohol Related Legal Problems: Interdisciplinary Collaboration (2012) Paper presented to the ‘Making it Happen: Improving Services Through Collaboration’ conference, Perth, Western Australia, 6-8 August 2012.  http://ssrn.com/abstract=2130343 Makkai T, ‘Drug Courts: Issues and Prospects’ (Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice n 95, 1998). https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi95 Moore L, Tackling Drug Crime the TJ Way: Report on Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Tasmanian Court Mandated Diversion Program (January 2012). Available at SSRN:  http://ssrn.com/abstract=1992734  or  http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1992734 Moore L, Measures of Success: Capturing the Impact of Drug Courts (December 20, 2012). Available at SSRN:  http://ssrn.com/abstract=2236482 Moore L, ‘International Best Practice in Drug Courts’ (2014) 7 Arizona Summit Law Review 481. Payne J,   The Queensland Drug Court: A Recidivism Study of the First 100 Graduates  (Australian Institute of Criminology, Research and Public Policy Series no 83,2008). https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/rpp83 Previtera T, ‘Responsibilities of TJ Team Members v Rights of Offenders’ (2006) 1 eLaw Journal (special series) 51.  http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/QldJSchol/2005/38.html Tasmania Law Reform Institute,   The Establishment of a Drug Court Pilot in Tasmania  (2006).  https://www.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/283818/Drug_Court_17nov06_A4_Final.pdf Took G, ‘Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Drug Courts: Hybrid Justice and its Implications for Modern Penality’ (2005) Internet Journal of Criminology.  https://958be75a-da42-4a45-aafa-549955018b18.filesusr.com/ugd/b93dd4_3b024db2a3a64111927a69415d57274d.pdf Wexler DB and King MS, ‘Promoting Societal and Juridical Receptivity to Rehabilitation: The Role of Therapeutic Jurisprudence’ (October 17, 2011). Court-supervised treatment alternatives to incarceration for drug-dependent offenders: the drug policy agenda. Caroline S. Cooper & Antonio Lomba eds., 2013; Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 10-46. Available at SSRN:  http://ssrn.com/abstract=1722278 Wilson A, ‘Putting therapeutic jurisprudence on edge: a gendered engagement’ (2014) 47(3) University of British Columbia Law Review 1185.

3.3 Mental Health and Mental Health Courts

Mental health courts connect defendants with mental health problems with appropriate treatment and support resources within the community and seek to promote their engagement in the treatment programs. Proper assessment of participants’ needs and the development of a treatment plan accordingly are features of these programs. Mental health court participants often also have related problems such as homelessness and substance abuse problems.

Queensland Mental Health Court South Australia: Magistrates Court: Treatment Intervention Court Tasmania: Magistrates Court of Tasmania Diversion List Victoria: Assessment and Referral Court List, Magistrates Court of Victoria Western Australia: Mental Health Court Diversion Program

Albalawi O et al, ‘Court diversion for those with psychosis and its impact on re-offending rates: results from a longitudinal data-linkage study’ (2019) 5(1) BJPsych Open 1-9 Allan A, ‘The Past, Present and Future of Mental Health Law: A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Analysis’ (2003) 20(2) Law in Context 24. Beaupert F and Vernon A, ‘Odyssey of hope’: the role of carers in mental health tribunal processes and systems of mental health care’ (2011) 18(1) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 44. Bogdanoski T, ‘Psychiatric Advance Directives: The New Frontier in Mental Health Law Reform in Australia?’ 16 Journal of Law and Medicine 891. Burville M, Dusmohamed S, Hunter N and McRostie H, ‘The Management of Mentally Impaired Offenders Through the South Australian Criminal Justice System’ (2003) International Journal of Law & Psychiatry 13. Cannon A, Doley R, Ferguson C and Brooks N, ‘Antisocial personality disorder and therapeutic justice court programs’ (2012) 22 Journal of Judicial Administration 99, also available at:  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2166131 . Carne J, ‘The Unimportance of M’Naghten’s: What Happened to Therapeutic Jurisprudence?’ (2003) 15(11) Judicial Officers’ Bulletin 91. Carney T, Tait D, Chappell D and Beaupert F, ‘Mental Health Tribunals: ‘TJ’ Implications of Weighing Fairness, Freedom, Protection and Treatment’ (2007) 17 Journal of Judicial Administration 46. Carney T and Tait D, ‘Mental health tribunals – rights, protection, or treatment? Lessons from the ARC linkage grant study?’ (2011) 18(1) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 137. Davidson F, Heffernan E, Greenberg D, Waterworth R and Burgess P, ‘Mental Health and Criminal Charges: Variation in Diversion Pathways in Australia’ (2017) 24(6) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 888 Diesfeld K and Freckelton I (eds),  Involuntary Detention and Therapeutic Jurisprudence  (Ashgate Publishing, 2003). Diesfeld K and McKenna B, ‘The Unintended Impact of the Therapeutic Intentions of the New Zealand Mental Health Review Tribunal : Therapeutic Jurisprudence Perspectives’ (2007) 14 Law and Medicine 566. Edgely M, ‘Solution-Focused Court Programs for Mentally Impaired Offenders: What Works?’ (2013) 22 Journal of Judicial Administration 207. Edgely M, ‘Why do Mental Health Courts Work? A Confluence of Treatment, Support and Adroit Judicial Supervision’ (2014) 37 International Journal of Law & Psychiatry 572. Edgely M, ‘Addressing the solution-focused sceptics: Moving beyond Punitivity in the sentencing of drug-addicted and mentally impaired offenders’ (2016) 39(1) University of New South Wales Law Journal 206-233 Freckelton I, ‘Mental Health Review Tribunal Decision-making: A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Lens’ (2003) 10(1) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 44. Graham H,  A Foot in the (Revolving) Door? A Preliminary Evaluation of Tasmania’s Mental Health Diversion List  (University of Tasmania, 2007). Hill M, ‘Hobart Magistrates Court’s mental health diversion list’ (Tasmania) (2009) 18(3) Journal of Judicial Administration 178. Lim L and Day A, ‘Mental Health Diversion Courts: Some Directions for Further Development’ (2013) 20(1) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 36-45. Lim L and Day A, ‘Mental Health Diversion Courts: A Two Year Recidivism Study of a South Australian Mental Health Court Program’ (2014) 32(4) Behavioral Sciences & the Law 539-551. Lim L and Day A, ‘An examination of stakeholder attitudes and understanding of therapeutic jurisprudence in a mental health court’ (2016) 46 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 27-34. Lim L and Day A, ‘Mental health diversion courts: A prospective study of reoffending and clinical outcomes of an Australian mental health court program’ (2016) 55(4) Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 254-270. Newitt E and Stojcevski V,  Mental health diversion list evaluation report  (Hobart, Tas: Magistrates Court Tasmania, 2009) Popovic J, ‘Meaningful v Meaningless Sentences: Sentencing the Unsentenceable’ Paper presented to the ‘Sentencing: Principles, Perspectives and Possibilities’ conference, Canberra, 10-12 February 2006. Purser K, Magner ES and Madison J, ‘Competency and Capacity: The Legal and Medical Interface’ (2009) 16 Journal of Law and Medicine 789. Purser K, Magner Eilis S, Madison J, ‘A therapeutic approach to assessing legal capacity in Australia’ (2015) 38 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 18. Richardson E, ‘Mental health courts: Access to justice for people with mental illness and cognitive impairments’ (2019) Alternative Law Journal (in press). Richardson E and McSherry B, ‘Diversion Down Under: Programs for Offenders with Mental Illness in Australia’ (2010) 33(4) International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 249. Ross S and Graham J, ‘Screening offenders for health and mental health problems at court’ (2012) 19(1) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 75. Skrzypiec G, Wundersitz J and McRostie H,  Magistrates Court Diversion Program: An Analysis of Post-Program Offending  (OSCAR 2004) Soon YL et al, ‘Mentally ill offenders eligible for diversion at local court in New South Wales (NSW), Australia: factors associated with initially successful diversion’ (2018) 29(5) Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology 1-12 Smith A and Caple A, ‘Transparency in mental health: why mental health tribunals should be required to publish reasons’ (2014) 21(4) Journal of Law and Medicine 942. Toki V, ‘Therapeutic jurisprudence and mental health courts for Maori’ (2010) 33(5-6) International journal of law and psychiatry 440. Topp V, Thomas M and Ingvarson M,  Lacking Insight: Involuntary Patient Experience of the Victorian Mental Health Review Board  (Mental Health Legal Centre, 2008). Walsh T, ‘The Queensland Special Circumstances Court’ (2007) 16 Journal of Judicial Administration 223. Waterworth R, ‘The New Mental Health Act 2016 (QLD): An Evaluation of the Impact on Mental Health Clients in the Magistrate’s Courts’ (2017) International Journal of Therapeutic Jurisprudence 195. Weller P, ‘Taking a Reflexive Turn: Non-Adversarial Justice and Mental Health Tribunals’ (2011) 37 Monash University Law Review 81. Zafirakis E, ‘Curbing the “Revolving Door” Phenomenon with Mentally Impaired Offenders: Applying a Therapeutic Jurisprudence Lens’ (2010) 20 Journal of Judicial Administration 81.

3.4 Community Courts

Community courts also known as community justice centres are a problem-solving court which primarily focuses on addressing local crimes and any concerns in the community. They provide mediation services to help resolve any disagreements which may be occurring in the community.

Community courts utilise principles in restorative justice, problem solving approaches and therapeutic jurisprudence. They attempt to find the underlying cause of crime within that neighbourhood to better access to justice and increase community cohesion.

Australian Centre for Court Innovation and the Neighbourhood Justice Centre (principal author E Richardson), Innovative Approaches to Justice: The NJC Experience. (Monash University, 2013) Online Resource, https://www.monash.edu/law/research/excellence/acji/research/njc/innovative-approaches-to-justice-the-njc-experience Chan EHY, ‘Courts: Evaluating therapeutic jurisprudence’ (2012) 37(4) Alternative Law Journal 274. Douglas K, ‘Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Restorative Justice and the Law’ (2007) 32 Alternative Law Journal 107. Douglas K, ‘Steering Through Troubled Waters?’ (2007) 81(5) Law Institute Journal 30. Jordens J and Richardson E, ‘Collaborative problem solving in a community court setting’ (2014) 23(4) Journal of Judicial Administration (JJA) 253. Murray S and May S, ‘Envisioning a Community Justice Centre for Western Australia: Feasibility, Challenges and Opportunities’ (2018) 43(1) University of Western Australia Law Review 221 Murray S,  ‘Community Justice Centres – New Trajectories in Law ‘  (Routledge, 2022) Murray S and Blagg H, ‘Reconceptualising Community Justice Centre Evaluations – Lessons from the North Liverpool experience’ (2018) 27(2)  Griffith Law Review  1-15 Murray S, ‘Keeping it in the Neighbourhood – Neighbourhood Courts in the Australian Context’ (2009) 35  Monash University Law Review  74-95. Neighbourhood Justice Centre

3.5 Family Violence and Family Violence Courts

Violence in families is a significant problem confronting communities in Australasia and internationally. It can have long-lasting physical, psychological and behavioural impacts on victims, children of the parties and perpetrators, affecting their overall quality of life. There are multiple dimensions of the problem such as the safety of the victim and children involved, providing appropriate support to address the trauma and any social dislocation arising as a result of the violence, the resolution of any outstanding issues concerning child and financial issues and the relationship and promoting the rehabilitation of the perpetrator.

The Australian justice system deals with differing aspects of the problem in various jurisdictions: criminal to hear and determine any charges arising out of the violence, specialist family violence courts to protect victims and promote rehabilitation of perpetrators, restraining order or apprehended violence order applications in magistrates courts to protect victims and family courts to address issues to do with the welfare of children and other relationship-related issues.

Therapeutic jurisprudence in this context examines the impact of court processes upon victims, perpetrators and any children involved. It looks to see whether victims and perpetrators are given voice, validation and respect. It examines court and other legal processes in each jurisdiction relating to family violence in the light of findings from research in the area, to see whether they promote or interfere with victim wellbeing and whether they promote offender rehabilitation and to make suggestions as to reform.

Since the mid 1990s, Australasian jurisdictions have introduced reforms to make the process of applying for a restraining order/AVO less intimidating for victims. There are more specialist family violence services available to support victims. In addition, family violence courts have been introduced to promote victim safety and perpetrator compliance with family violence perpetrators programs. Family Violence Courts use a system of judicial monitoring, participant engagement in family violence perpetrator programs and case management by a multi-disciplinary case management team to promote perpetrator accountability, prevent the recurrence of family violence and protect victims. The Geraldton Alternative Sentencing Regime has included perpetrators of family violence in its problem-solving, drug court-style program. The page on problem-solving courts discusses family violence courts further.

South Australia: Abuse Prevention Program and Family Violence Courts Tasmania: Magistrates Court Family Violence and Restraint Orders Information Victoria: Magistrates Court of Victoria. Family Violence Intervention Orders Western Australia: Magistrates Court of Western Australia, Family Violence Service New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse

‘Just Partners: Family Violence, Specialist Courts and the Idea of Integration’ conference, Canberra, 22 May 2008, papers.

Australian Law Reform Commission , Family Violence – a National Legal Response (ALRC Report 114, 2009). Holder R, ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes: Court and Justice Initiatives to Address Family Violence’ (2006) 16 Journal of Judicial Administration 30. King MS and Batagol B, ‘Enforcer, Manager or Leader? The Judicial Role in Family Violence Courts’ (2010) 33 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 406, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1729092. King MS, ‘Innovation in Court Practice: Using Therapeutic Jurisprudence in a Multi-Jurisdictional Regional Magistrates Court’ (2004) 7(1) Contemporary Issues in Law 86. Marchetti E, ‘An Australian Indigenous-focussed Justice Response to Intimate Partner Violence: Offenders’ Perceptions of the Sentencing Process’ (2015) 55(1) British Journal of Criminology 86. Morgan M, Coombes L, Te Hiwi E and McGray S, Responding Together: An Integrated Report Evaluating the Aims of the Waitakere Family Violence Court Protocols (Ministry of Justice, New Zealand, 2008). Morgan M, Coombes L and McGray S,  An Evaluation of the Waitakere Family Violence Court Protocols  (Massey University and WAVES, 2007).  https://nzfvc.org.nz/sites/nzfvc.org.nz/files/evaluation-WFVC-protocols.pdf Robertson N, Busch R, D’Souza R, Sheung FL, Anand R, Balzer R, Simpson A and Paina D, Living at the Cutting Edge: Women’s Experience of Protection Orders  (University of Waikato, 2007), Vol 1:  http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/450 ; Vol 2: http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/handle/10289/431 . Stewart J, ‘Specialist Domestic/Family Violence Courts Within the Australian Context. 2005 Toki V, ‘Domestic violence and women: can a therapeutic jurisprudence approach assist?’ (2009) 78(1) Revista Juridica de la Universidad de Puerto Rico 61.

3.6 Indigenous Issues and Indigenous Sentencing Courts

There is increasing recognition in courts and in other parts of the justice system that legal processes have failed to take into account the cultural background and rehabilitation needs of Indigenous peoples. Indeed, arguably legal processes have compounded social and behavioural problems confronting Indigenous people in the justice system and promoted distrust as to its fairness and capacity to address their problems.

One response of the court system has been to educate members of the judiciary, legal profession and justice system personnel as to Indigenous cultural issues so that they are more sensitive in interacting with Indigenous people whether in court or elsewhere and can use processes that are appropriate in the circumstances. For example, the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration commissioned the development of a special model benchbook for the judiciary dealing with these very issues.

The legal system has investigated alternative responses to addressing Indigenous issues in the justice system for some time – albeit not on a systematic basis until recently. For example, Magistrate Terry Syddall invited Indigenous Elders to sit with him on the bench of the Magistrates Court at Broome, Western Australia in the 1970s. Subsequently special courts, called ‘Aboriginal Community Courts’ were set up in Western Australian Indigenous communities.

More recently Australian Magistrates Courts have engaged with Indigenous communities in the collaborative design of special Indigenous sentencing courts. Common features in these courts include: the court convening in a less formal atmosphere around a table in a room rather than in a formal court setting; a departure from court formalities including standing and bowing; a recognition by the judicial officer of the traditional owners and respect for their culture; the promotion of voice, validation and respect of all involved; active listening; promotion of decision making where all are involved in the process; and the promotion of restorative outcomes.

Some commentators have argued that Indigenous sentencing courts do not fall within the ambit of therapeutic jurisprudence and should not be regarded as problem-solving courts. However, given that therapeutic jurisprudence says that court processes can be designed to promote wellbeing, Indigenous sentencing courts fall within that concept. Their processes promote concepts valued by therapeutic jurisprudence: voice, validation, respect and self-determination. They also demonstrate respect for Indigenous culture and the Elders who are its authority figures. Their processes, collaborative in nature, promote the resolution of underlying problems that have brought individual offenders to court.

New South Wales Legal and Court Support for Aboriginal People and Torres Strait Islanders Queensland Murri Court South Australia Aboriginal Sentencing Courts (Nunga Court) Victoria: Koori Court Victoria: Children’s Court Koori Court Western Australia: Aboriginal Services

Aquilina H, Sweeting J, Liedel H, Hovane V, Williams V and Somerville C, Evaluation of the Aboriginal Sentencing Court of Kalgoorlie Final Report (Shelby Consulting, 2009). Auty K, Briggs D, Thomson K, Gibson M and Porter G, ‘The Koori Court: A Positive Experience’ (2005) 79 (5) Law Institute Journal 41. Auty K, ‘We Teach All Hearts to Break But Can We Mend Them’ Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Aboriginal Sentencing Courts. Paper presented at the At the Cutting Edge: Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Magistrates’ Courts Conference held May 2006 in Perth WA. Bartels L, Diversion Programs for Indigenous Women (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2010) https://aic.gov.au/publications/rip/rip13 Dick D, ‘Circle Sentencing of Aboriginal Offenders’ Paper presented to the ‘Innovation – Promising Practices for Victims and Witnesses in the Criminal Justice System’ seminar, Canberra, 23 October 2003. Edited version of paper in 7(1) (September 2004) Judicial Review 57-72 Daly K and Marchetti E, Innovative Justice Processes: Restorative Justice, Indigenous Justice, and Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Marinella Marmo, Willem de Lint, and Darren Palmer (eds), Crime and Justice: A Guide to Criminology (Sydney: Lawbook Company, 4 th  ed, 2012)  https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/234325/2012-Daly-and-Marchetti-Innovative-justice-processes-pre-print.pdf Fitzgerald J, ‘Does Circle Sentencing Reduce Aboriginal Offending?’  Crime and Justice Bulletin no 115 (NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2008).  https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Publications/CJB/cjb115.pdf Harris M, ‘From Australian Courts and Aboriginal Courts in Australia ‘ Bridging the Gap’ (2004) 16 Current Issues in Criminal Justice 1. Harris M, ‘The Koori Court and the Promise of Therapeutic Jurisprudence’ (2006) 1 eLaw Journal (special series) 129 Heath S, ‘Innovations in Western Australian Magistrates Courts’ Paper delivered to the 2005 Colloquium of the Judicial Conference of Australia.  https://ajoa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2005-Heath_Paper.pdf Hennessy A, ‘Indigenous Sentencing Practices in Australia’ Paper presented to the ‘Justice for All–Victims, Defendants, Prisoners and Community’ conference, Brisbane, July 2006  http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/QldJSchol/2006/102.pdf Hennessy A, ‘Rights of Indigenous Australians – Queensland Murri Court’ Paper presented to the ‘Rule of Law’ conference, Brisbane, 31 August 2007. Jeffries S and Bond C, ‘Does a therapeutic court context matter?: The likelihood of imprisonment for Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders sentenced in problem-solving courts’ (2013) 41(1) International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 100. Johnson S and Sarra S, ‘International Indigenous Therapeutic Jurisprudence +: Rekindling ancient knowledge’ in International Indigenous Development Research Conference 2014 Proceedings 25-28 November 2014 University of Auckland,  http://www.maramatanga.ac.nz/sites/default/files/IIDRC%202014%20Proceedings.pdf#page=68 King MS, ‘Applying Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Regional Areas: The Western Australian Experience’ (2003) 10(2) eLaw Journal,  http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v10n2/king102nf.html , King MS, ‘Innovation in Court Practice: Using Therapeutic Jurisprudence in a Multi-Jurisdictional Regional Magistrates Court’ (2004) 7(1) Contemporary Issues in Law 86. King MS, ‘Judging, Judicial Values and Judicial Conduct in Problem-Solving Courts, Indigenous Sentencing Courts and Mainstream Courts’ (2010) 19 Journal of Judicial Administration 133. King MS and Auty K, ‘Therapeutic Jurisprudence: An Emerging Trend in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction’ (2005) 30 Alternative Law Journal 69. King MS and Guthrie R, ‘Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Human Rights and the Northern Territory Emergency Response’ (2008) 89 Precedent 39. King MS and Wilson S, ‘Country Magistrates Resolution on Therapeutic Jurisprudence.’ (2005) 32(2) Brief 23. Kwaymullina A, ‘Country and Healing: An Indigenous Perspective on Therapeutic Jurisprudence’ in Reinhardt G and Cannon A (eds),  Transforming Legal Processes in Court and Beyond  (AIJA, 2007) 1. Marchetti E and Daly K, ‘Indigenous Sentencing Courts: Towards a Theoretical and Jurisprudential Model’ (2007) 29 Sydney Law Review 415. Marchetti E and Daly K, ‘Indigenous Courts and Justice Practices in Australia’ (2004) 277 Trends and Issues 4. Payne S, ‘Darwin Community Court Trial’ Paper presented to the ‘Youth Justice: A Crime Prevention Forum’ conference, Darwin, 4-6 May 2005. Potas, I, Smart J, Brignell G, Thomas B and Lawrie R, Circle Sentencing in New South Wales: A Review and Evaluation (Judicial Commission of NSW, 2003)  https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/research-monograph-22.pdf Sharma N, ‘Mirror, mirror on the wall, is there no r(e)ality in neutrality after all? Re-thinking ADR practices for indigenous Australians’ (2014) 25(4) Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 231. Temby D, ‘Yandeyarra Aboriginal Community Court Project’ (2006) 1 eLaw Journal (special series) 141 Toki V, ‘Will Therapeutic Jurisprudence Provide a Path Forward for Maori?’ (2005) 13 Waikato Law Review 169. Toki V, ‘Are parole boards working? Or is it time for an (indigenous) re entry court?’ (2011) 39(4) International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice 230. Tomaino J, Aboriginal (Nunga) Courts (OSCAR Information Bulletin 39 2004)  https://www.indigenousjustice.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/mp/files/resources/files/aboriginal-nunga-courts-office-of-crime-statistics-and-research.v1.pdf

Recommended Readings and Recordings on Australian Problem-Solving Courts

Contributors

Quick links.

All in the Mind. (2011, April 16).  Mental health courts and the challenge of therapeutic jurisprudence . Retrieved from  https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/mental-health-courts-and-the-challenge-of/2998652

Bartels, L. (2009).  Challenges in mainstreaming specialty courts . Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Bond, C., Holder, R., Jeffries, S., & Fleming, C. (2017).  Summary report: Evaluation of the specialist domestic and family violence court trial in Southport . Brisbane: Griffith Criminology Institute.

Duffy, J. (2011). Problem-solving courts, therapeutic jurisprudence and the constitution: If two is company, is three a crowd?  Melbourne University Law Review ,  35 , 394–425.

Fitzgerald, J. (2008).  Does circle sentencing reduce Aboriginal offending?  (Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 115). Sydney, Australia: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

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

Freiberg, A. (2001b). Three strikes and you’re out – It’s not cricket: Colonization and resistance in Australian sentencing. In M. Tonry & R. S. Frase (Eds.),  Sentencing and sanctions in Western countries  (pp. 29–61). New York: Oxford University Press.

Freiberg, A., Payne, J., Gelb, K., Morgan, A., & Makkai, T. (2016).  Drug and specialist courts review: Report summary and recommendations . Brisbane: Queensland Courts (Prepared for the Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney-General).

Nolan, J. L., Jr. (2012). Problem-solving courts: An international comparison. In J. Petersilia & K. R. Reitz (Eds.),  The Oxford handbook of sentencing and corrections  (pp. 150–172). New York: Oxford University Press.

Payne, J. (2006).  Specialty courts: Current issues and future prospects . Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Richardson, E., Thom, K., & McKenna, B. (2013).  The evolution of problem-solving courts in Australia and New Zealand: A trans-Tasman comparative perspective . In R. Wiener & E. M. Brank (Eds.), Problem solving courts: Social science and legal perspectives (pp. 185–210). New York: Springer.

Schaefer, L., & Beriman, M. (2019). Problem-solving courts in Australia: A review of problems and solutions.  Victims & Offenders ,  14 (3), 344-359.

Schaefer, L., & Egan, C. (2022). Problem-solving courts in Australia. In M. Camilleri, A. Harkness, & R. Hale (Eds.),  Australian courts: Controversies, challenges, and change  (pp. 197-220). London: Palgrave.

Trood, M. D., Spivak, B. L., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2021). The effects of judicial supervision on recidivism of offenders in Australia and New Zealand: A systematic review and meta-analysis.  Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law ,  29 (5), 651–678.

See also (selected UK and US summaries, respectively):

Centre for Justice Innovation. (2016).  Problem-solving courts: An evidence review . London: Centre for Justice Innovation.

DeMatteo, D., Heilbrun, K., Thornewill, A., & Arnold, S. (2019). Problem-solving courts and the criminal justice system. In D. DeMatteo & K. C. Scherr (Eds.),  The Oxford Handbook of Psychology and Law  (pp. 429-448). New York: Oxford University Press.

Related resources

A new perspective on legal need and legal capability is now available.

The third report from the Public Understanding of Law Survey explores how attitudes, skills and confidence matter in satisfactorily resolving justiciable issues.

Problem-Solving Courts

• First Online: 11 January 2023

Cite this chapter

• Lacey Schaefer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2981-2542 3 &
• Caitlyn Egan 4  

3854 Accesses

This chapter considers the catalyst for developing specialist problem-solving courts across Australia. It charts their emergence and assesses their evolution from tentative beginnings to the critically important role they play within the contemporary criminal justice system. Use of the term ‘problem-solving’ is, in itself, somewhat controversial, as these courts might be better considered as ‘problem-oriented’ to reflect that they cannot solve the causes of criminal behaviour. Australia has observed an ‘Americanisation’ of these specialty courts: this somewhat confused identity creates challenges and warrants change. It describes the potentially coercive nature of participation in problem-solving courts and the contentious sentencing practices that undergird them. There are multiple complexities and therefore challenges inherent in the contemporary operationalisation of problem-solving courts, including equity of access; resourcing issues; and case co-ordination hurdles. In order to ‘solve problems’ related to offending, problems must be better defined, access increased and solutions better resourced.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

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

Problem solving courts: therapeutic jurisprudence in practice.

Discovering Mental Ill Health: ‘Problem-Solving’ in an English Magistrates’ Court

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). (2018). Interesting facts about Australia’s 25,000,000 population . Australian Bureau of Statistics. http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf

AIJA (Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration). (2017). Guide to judicial conduct (3rd ed.). Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration.

Google Scholar  

ALRC (Australian Law Reform Commission). (2010). Family violence—A national legal response . Australian Government.

Austin, J., Schiraldi, V., Western, B., & Dwivedi, A. (2019). Reconsidering the “violent offender.” Executive Session on the Future of Justice Policy.

Bartels, L. (2009). Challenges in mainstreaming specialty courts. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 383 , 1–6.

Berman, G., Adler, J., Barrett, J., & Penrose, K. (2021). What comes next? On the evolution of community courts. In P. K. Lattimore, B. M. Huebner, & F. S. Taxman (Eds.), Handbook on moving corrections and sentencing forward: Building on the record (pp. 46–57). Routledge.

Berman, G., & Feinblatt, J. (2001). Problem-solving courts: A brief primer. Law & Policy, 23 (2), 125–140.

Article   Google Scholar  

Birdsey, E. M., & Smith, N. (2012). The domestic violence intervention court model: A follow-up study . NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

Blagg, H. (2008). Problem-orientated courts . Law Reform Commission of Western Australia .

Bond, C., Holder, R., Jeffries, S., & Fleming, C. (2017). Summary report: Evaluation of the specialist domestic and family violence court trial in Southport . Griffith Criminology Institute.

Bowen, P., & Whitehead, S. (2015). Problem-solving courts: An evidence review . Centre for Justice Innovation.

Bull, M. (2010). Punishment and sentencing: Risk, rehabilitation and restitution . Oxford University Press.

Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2012). Correctional theory: Context and consequences . Sage.

Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., & Mears, D. P. (2017). Reinventing community corrections: Ten recommendations. Crime and Justice, 46 , 27–93.

Department of Social Services. (2020). Specialist DFV Court Model . https://plan4womenssafety.dss.gov.au/initiative/specialist-dfv-court-model/

Duffy, J. (2011). Problem-solving courts, therapeutic jurisprudence and the constitution: If two is company, is three a crowd? Melbourne University Law Review, 35 (2), 394–425.

Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. (n.d.). Adult drug court . https://www.jud11.flcourts.org/Adult-Drug-Court

Freeman, K. (2002). New South Wales drug court evaluation: Health, well-being and participant satisfaction . NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

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

Hall, W., & Lucke, J. (2010). Legally coerced treatment for drug using offenders: Ethical and policy issues . NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.

Haskins, P. A. (2019). Problem-solving courts: Fighting crime by treating the offender. National Institute of Justice Journal, 281 , 70–79.

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

Jeffries, S. (2005). How justice “gets done”: Politics, managerialism, consumerism, and therapeutic jurisprudence. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 17 (2), 254–268.

Kornhauser, R. (2018). The effectiveness of Australia’s drug courts. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 51 (1), 76–98.

Lim, L., & Day, A. (2013). Mental health diversion courts: Some directions for further development. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20 (1), 36–45.

Lim, L., & Day, A. (2016). Mental health diversion courts: A prospective study of reoffending and clinical outcomes of an Australian mental health court program. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55 (4), 254–270.

Magistrates Court of Western Australia. (2021a). Start Court . https://www.magistratescourt.wa.gov.au/S/start_court.aspx

Magistrates Court of Western Australia. (2021b). Intellectual Disability Diversion Program Court . https://www.magistratescourt.wa.gov.au/I/intellectual_disability_diversion_program_court.aspx

McCoy, C., Heydebrand, W., & Mirchandani, R. (2015). The problem with problem-solving justice: Coercion vs. democratic deliberation. Restorative Justice , 3 (2), 159–187.

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

Book   Google Scholar  

Nolan, J. L., Jr. (2011). The international problem-solving court movement: A comparative perspective. Monash University Law Review, 37 (1), 259–279.

Nolan, J. L., Jr. (2012). Problem-solving courts: An international comparison. In J. Petersilia & K. R. Reitz (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sentencing and corrections (pp. 150–172). Oxford University Press.

Paparozzi, M. A., & Schlager, M. D. (2009). Reconciling what works and broken windows: The policy relevance of individual and social correlates to recidivism reduction. Victims & Offenders, 4 (4), 427–434.

Payne, J. (2006). Specialty courts: Current issues and future prospects . Australian Institute of Criminology.

Queensland Courts. (2019). Specialist Domestic and Family Violence Court . https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/domestic-and-family-violence-court

Queensland Courts. (2020). About the Mental Health Court . https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/mental-health-court/about-the-mental-health-court

Queensland Courts. (2021). Queensland Drug and Alcohol Court . https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/courts/drug-court

Schaefer, L., & Beriman, M. (2019). Problem-solving courts in Australia: A review of problems and solutions. Victims & Offenders, 14 (3), 344–359.

Stobbs, N. (2017). Therapeutic jurisprudence and due process—Consistent in principle and in practice. Journal of Judicial Administration, 26 (4), 248–264.

Thielo, A. J., Cullen, F. T., Burton, A. L., Moon, M. M., & Burton, V. S., Jr. (2019). Prisons or problem-solving: Does the public support speciality courts? Victims & Offenders, 14 (3), 267–282.

Thomas, N. K., & Bull, M. (2013). Negotiating the challenges of coerced treatment: An exploratory study of community-based service providers in Queensland, Australia. Contemporary Drug Problems, 40 (4), 569–594.

Wexler, D. B., & Winick, B. J. (1996). Law in a therapeutic key: Developments in therapeutic jurisprudence . Carolina Academic Press.

Legislation

Drug Court Act 1998 (NSW) No 150.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Lacey Schaefer

Caitlyn Egan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lacey Schaefer .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Federation University, Ballarat, VIC, Australia

Marg Camilleri

University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia

Alistair Harkness

Practitioner Perspective: A Reflection on Problem-Solving Courts in Australia

• Elizabeth Daniels 

Queensland Magistrates Court, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

Elizabeth Daniels

I started my legal career in 2011 as a young general practice lawyer in rural Queensland, spending much of my time representing clients in Magistrates Courts for a variety of criminal proceedings. During that period, I did not devote much thought to the purpose of the justice system, nor did I readily recognise the system’s shortcomings when it came to interacting with those experiencing or exposed to domestic and family violence (DFV).

To me, courts were a place for justice, punishment and accountability for someone’s actions according to the law. Even with my narrow view of the function of the justice system, I still recall questionable practices, particularly in the domestic and family violence (DFV) jurisdiction, which did not serve the needs of those seeking protection. I regularly observed lawyers representing perpetrators enter courthouse saferooms and demand victims withdraw applications for protection orders or make submissions to the court that a domestic violence offence was ‘not overly serious’ and punishment ‘should be at the lower end of the sentencing regime’.

Throughout the second decade of the twenty-first century, we have seen significant government reform and a spotlight on solving the ‘problem’ of DFV, including the delivery of the ground-breaking report of the Queensland Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence (2015) Not now, not ever: Putting an end to domestic and family violence in Queensland (NNNE Report) in February 2015. I am fortunate to say, through the introduction of specialist DFV courts, I have played an active role in one of the more significant justice system reforms in Queensland’s history.

Background and Challenges

In response to the recommendations from the NNNE Report, a trial of the Southport Specialist Domestic and Family Violence Court (SDFVC) commenced in September 2015 and a report evaluating this court was released in 2022 (ARTD, 2022). The NNNE Report implored the Queensland Government to reform the justice system to ensure it better protected victims/survivors (and their children), achieved fair and protective outcomes and made perpetrators of violence accountable for their behaviour. Many reported to the Taskforce that the justice system (courts and police) only further victimised or marginalised victims. From inception, the implementation of a specialist court and the key outcomes it was to achieve had overarching support from government and non-government agencies alike; however, factors such as day-to-day operations, how we would achieve reform, and what would be the ‘measures of success’ remained key challenges.

From the outset, the SDFVC had a clear mandate: to create a justice system response where the safety of victims/survivors was paramount and perpetrator accountability was a key objective. The specialist court model differed from traditional courts as it became a place of engagement for people attending court and provided not only a legal response but encouraged ‘wrap-around’ DFV support for those who attended. The model required all stakeholders (government and non-government/legal and social work) to work together in a way and to a magnitude which was unprecedented. The concepts of integration, collaboration and co-ordination would become the cornerstones of the court’s operation.

A major challenge was ensuring that the model maintained the separation of powers of the court, preserved the functions of individual stakeholder roles (prosecutors, lawyers, DFV support services) and pursued reform. Despite the collaborative spirit being evidenced from the outset, it did not prevent issues arising which placed significant pressures on all to reflect and understand how their organisations internal operations, purpose and traditional functions may be contributing to the ongoing generation of barriers and marginalising or re-victimising those seeking protection/safety. This reflective practice was particularly challenging for government departments with deeply entrenched organisational cultures, which at the time were reported as not consistent with a ‘best practice’ response to DFV or the specialist court approach.

Some of the more significant challenges for practitioners involved in the implementation of SDFVCs have included:

an ‘open door policy’ and broad eligibility criteria for accessing the specialist court, leading to substantial increases in case numbers, workloads and file complexity (which contributed to staff burnout, placed pressure on resources, and impacted the ongoing sustainability of the model);

integrated methods of working for government and non-government agencies, including the need to proactively share information about parties attending the court to ensure the most appropriate orders were made (including the granting of protection orders) 1 ;

a lack of a common risk screening and assessment tool or any uniform terminology 2 ;

complexity and confusion, particularly for victims, in navigating the legal processes (combination/intersection of both civil and criminal proceedings in Queensland) and limited support available to assist; and

limited availability of specialist DFV support services to assist persons attending court (and for legal practitioners to refer clients to). The services available would eventually increase in functionality/scope and assist victims in drafting and filing protection order applications, conduct risk assessments and generate safety plans (including securing emergency accommodation), receive referrals to men’s support services and assist entry into behaviour change programmes. These support activities were identified by stakeholders as key engagement opportunities which if conducted at court and in a timely fashion, could assist in promoting the protection and safety of victims, increase engagement and potentially achieve perpetrator accountability.

Reforms and Solutions

In February 2017, Griffith University released its Evaluation of the Specialist DFV Court Trial in Southport , making several interim findings and key recommendations (Bond et al., 2017). The evaluation found the Southport SDFVC had made significant inroads toward achieving its desired objectives. Fundamentally the court had taken steps to increase engagement with parties and to create a safe place for victims to attend and seek protection, all the while providing ‘wrap-around’ support for both victims and perpetrators. Recommendations were made highlighting some of the areas for continued improvement, perhaps most significantly the need for increased perpetrator accountability and access to men’s behaviour change programmes, as well as consideration as to how the model might work in other locations in Queensland.

As a practitioner working across the model, I attribute the positive outcomes and the ‘specialist’ nature of the court to two key initiatives adopted by Southport (and replicated at subsequent specialist court locations). First, the implementation of the Operational Working Group (OWG)—a weekly stakeholder meeting with representatives from each agency and the dedicated DFV magistrates to openly discuss issues, challenges, failures or successes of how the model was operating and developing. 3 This was one of the key ‘problem-solving’ elements of the model. Second, the commitment to ‘continuous improvement’ and ‘innovation’—this was despite differences in opinion, ever changing court operations and ongoing pressures on stakeholders’ resources including funding, staffing, workloads and fluctuations in government agenda/reform momentum. The commitment and collaborative spirit displayed by those involved in the implementation, development and ongoing sustainability of SDFVCs is what has made it a true privilege to be a practitioner involved.

Sustainability of Problem-Solving Courts

Without the delivery of the second evaluation of the Southport SDFVC at the time of writing this reflection, it is difficult to comment on the sustainability of the model from an evidence-based perspective. As a practitioner involved in inception and ongoing implementation, some of the challenges for sustainability include:

ensuring models are properly resourced and are not ‘person-based’ or rely upon goodwill to function;

the ongoing need for clarity about the model and its core elements—as the SDFVC developed at a rapid pace and in an organic fashion, the model continued to evolve making it challenging to define and sustain over a longer period and across multiple locations;

the need for the model to reflect diversity, be accessible to people from all cultural backgrounds and diverse groups, and to be able to translate notions of ‘best practice DFV’ to courts across the state of Queensland (including regional areas/First Nations communities); and

clarity around the concept of ‘success’, particularly in relation to the goal of perpetrator accountability.

Upon reflection of my involvement in the implementation of specialist DFV courts in Queensland, it has been encouraging to see the justice system proactively and creatively adapt in its response to NNNE. From my perspective, it is important to continue reflecting on the model, both internally and externally through independent evaluations and reviews to improve. Building the OWG as a key function/component of the SDFVC was integral to the success of the model and in my view could be adapted to other problem-solving courts.

In my experience, the questionable practices observed during the start of my career are far less likely to be observed in the SDFVC—if they were, the OWG would certainly have something to say. Despite the significant reform to date, it remains imperative the justice system continues its journey to ensure courts are a place of safety for victims seeking protection and perpetrator accountability remains at the forefront of the response. It is these key objectives which must be achieved before the long-term objective of eliminating domestic and family violence can be realised.

This was in comparison with the traditional ‘siloed’ approach by agencies only submitting to the court ‘what they knew’. At the time of commencement of the SDFVCs, there were no uniform processes or platforms for sharing of information between agencies. The amendments to the Domestic & Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld) introducing Part 5A regarding increased information sharing did not come into effect until 30 May 2017.

In 2017, the Queensland Government introduced the Common Risk and Safety Framework (CRASF). The framework was developed for use by government and non-government community service agencies. It articulates a shared understanding, language and common approach to recognising, assessing and responding to DFV risk and safety action planning, including common minimum standards and approaches for in an attempt to adopt a more uniformed approach.

Note that the OWG continues to date, albeit with less frequent meetings, but still as a key part of the model.

ARTD. (2022). The Southport Specialist Domestic and Family Violence Court: Process Evaluation 2017–2020 . Department of Justice and Attorney-General. https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/722674/southport-specialist-dfv-process-evaluation-2017-2020.pdf

Queensland Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence. (2015). Not now, not ever: Putting an end to domestic and family violence in Queensland . Report provided to the Premier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Schaefer, L., Egan, C. (2022). Problem-Solving Courts. In: Camilleri, M., Harkness, A. (eds) Australian Courts. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19063-6_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19063-6_9

Published : 11 January 2023

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-19062-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-19063-6

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research