DRUG COURT SUCCESS QUERIED

THE Drug Court has not stopped people re-offending, Attorney-General Jim
McGinty said yesterday.

Mr McGinty said a draft evaluation report found that offenders were just as
likely to commit another crime as those dealt with by other courts but also
said that the reliability of the results was limited because it was based on
a small number of people.

The study by the University of WA crime research centre was given to the
Department of Justice three months ago.

Mr McGinty said he could not release the report yet because it was still a
draft. He was surprised by the results.

He said another finding of concern was that only a third of the 729
offenders who went through the court in the two years to November 2002
completed treatment programs. The more intensive the program, the less
likely offenders were to complete it.

"What we will do is publish the evaluation and obviously we will then need
to have a hard-headed look at it," he said.

Asked if the results were because the court had only limited powers, Mr
McGinty said: "They refer to that but basically they say underpinning all of
that is that there is no demonstrable reduction in recidivism by people who
entered the drug court."

But the report suggested the court had had other benefits, such as reducing
offenders' drug use and improving their health.

Mr McGinty defended himself against criticism that the legislation would not
allow the Drug Court to work effectively.

The court, set up as a pilot project in December 2000, can deal only with
people who plead guilty and can make drug treatment only a condition of
bail. Offenders then are sentenced for their original offence by another
court.

The Government's drug law reform committee chairman and Law Society
spokesman John Prior said legislation letting the court hear a wider range
of offences and giving it greater sentencing powers was critical to its
success.

"I would have serious reservations about the quality of the evaluation
because the Drug Court was never properly legislated and is restricted in
what it can do," he said.

Mr McGinty said he would act on the drug summit recommendation, made almost
two years ago, to give the Drug Court more powers. He could not detail all
of the new powers but they would be in magistrate court legislation likely
to be introduced to Parliament in a few months.

Mr Prior said that legislation had been talked about for five years and was
not likely to be the appropriate vehicle to make the necessary changes.