1. The Southport Domestic & Family Violence Specialist Court:
What did it achieve?
Christine Bond
Griffith Criminology Institute

2. Acknowledgements
All those who facilitated data collection and access to data (including Department of Justice and Attorney-General, Queensland Courts, Queensland Police Service, Legal Aid Queensland)
Chief Magistrate, Deputy Chief Magistrate, Southport and Ipswich Magistrates Courts,
All magistrates, staff and stakeholders who participated in interviews and focus groups
All victims and perpetrators who participated in the survey
Domestic and Family Violence Court Reform Team

3. Overview Background to the evaluation
Summary of key evaluation findings
Lessons and reflections

4. Background

5. processes domestic violence cases “on a separate calendar or assign[s] domestic violence cases” to a single or group of dedicated judicial officers
engages associated specialists such as dedicated prosecutors and victim advocates
Common features
From: U.S. Centre for Court Innovation (Labriola et al. 2009, pp.iv, 38-39);
image:

6. Interventionist Integrated Early intervention Targeting high-risk
Focus on building relationships between stakeholders, and coordinating processes
Interventionist
Integrated
Early intervention
Targeting high-risk
Focuses on low-risk or first-time perpetrators, where little harm to victim
Targets high-risk or repeat perpetrators, often through criminal justice processes
Offender-focused, emphasising offender treatment, may involve judicial monitoring

7. Drug courts Domestic violence courts
Violent offender/perpetrator
Victim
(in Aust) criminal + civil
No well-established treatment
More diverse approach
Early access to advocacy and services
Non violent offender
No direct victim
Plea of guilt
Well-established treatment
Non-adversarial rehabilitative approach

8. Court process Information & access Orders & outcomes
Management
Coordination
Information & access
Victim knowledge & assisstance
Victim experience
Perpetrator knowledge & assistance
Orders & outcomes
Appropriate orders
Accountability
Minimal inconsistency (familiy law orders & DVOs)

9. Trial/ comparison group design
Element
Southport
(trial site)
Ipswich
(comparison site)
Listing
all
applications
Magistrate
specialist
rotating
Courtroom
Registry
not separate
Support
Legal representation
full
advice only
(at the time)*
Police prosecution
standard
Information desk
on same floor
none
Stakeholder meetings
weekly
quarterly
Trial/ comparison group design

10. Southport
Ipswich

11. What did the evaluation find?
Summary:
What did the evaluation find?

12. --at least for civil jurisdiction--
Overall assessment
Specialisation all professionals (developed unique processes)
Services integrated (present, collaborating, weekly meetings, specialist registry, improved ability to liaise out)
Explicit management of clients on the day (information desk, checking prepared)
--at least for civil jurisdiction--
Strong progress
Strongly positive assessments
Culture of innovation
Primary focus on civil jurisdiction

13. 1. Role of a specialist magistrate
“What are key characteristics of a specialist DV magistrate?”

14. Depth of knowledge (legislation)
Knowledge legal/procedural with other areas of law
Better understanding of dynamics of DV
Detailed knowledge of support systems and services
“Robust” empathy
They understand domestic violence, …They just know what you're talking about, we want to make this order …

15. 2. Impact of collaboration on change
What was the key feature identified by stakeholders?

16. Collaboration → problem-solving
It's a strength that everyone meets and we collaborate and we're able to - I mean the relationships we have, I've seen operationally, people are so much more safer because we're able to talk and have that relationship and share information so much more freely now and that continually improves
Frequency
Court-involved
Regular meetings
well supervised with a solution oriented style, if there's a problem it's not approached with finger pointing, but how can we do it better

17. 3. Sustained support for victims
What matters to victims?

18. Average assessment of service
Victim use of services
% using service
Average assessment of service SP IP
A court support worker
74.0
76.5
3.69
68.6%
3.57
57.1%
A duty lawyer or other publicly funded lawyer
83.0
36.4
3.59
64.9%
An interpreter
0.0
---
The information desk
70.5
3.38
51.7%
The specialist court registry
62.2
3.46
53.6%
The support/safe room
91.8
90.9
3.61
68.4%
3.4
50.0%
Good access of support services at courthouse
Legal advice

19. Victims reported more positive experience
Victims reported higher levels of perceived procedural justice

20. [victims] don’t understand the court process and I suspect that a lot of them are very surprised to discover that just writing their application is not the end of the matter, which is why I think a good application right at the start is the key …
[a] lot of it is about managing people’s expectations, isn’t it, rather than necessarily the length of time that they're there. I don't know what people expect when they come here; I think that people … understand that there's a high volume. But does that mean I wait half an hour, does that mean I wait 5 hours?

21. 4. Engaging with perpetrators
What was the impact on perpetrators?

22. Perpetrator use of services
Small numbers of participants at Ipswich
Better access…
Positive assessments
% using service
Average assessment of service SP IP
A court support worker
89.5
55.6
3.76
81.1%
---
A duty lawyer or other publicly funded lawyer
73.7
0.0
3.13
19.4%
An interpreter
2.6
The information desk
The specialist court registry
21.1
3.38
37.5%

23. Aggrieved
Perpetrator
Improved self-reported understanding of court outcomes for both victims and perpetrators

24. Aggrieved
Perpetrator
Impact on perceptions of accountability among perpetrators?

25. 5. Understanding local and diverse needs of your area
How do we respond to diverse communities?

26. Experiences of those working with diverse communities
Many wary in their engagement with police and justice system
Value and strength of partnerships vital for pathways in and out
Issues of support and availability of appropriate interventions more critical

27. Key messages from external stakeholder interviews
Importance of local community partnerships
Importance of understanding who is coming before the courts

28. Lessons & Reflections

29. Issues to consider Improved quality of information
Role of risk assessment
Adapting to the needs of the community before the courts
Criminal jurisdiction

30. Key lessons learnt Leadership, collaboration and partnership
Sustained support for victims and perpetrators
Collaborative change management
Context matters

31. How to achieve…? Some ideas from our experience…
Establish clear roles
Regular discussions with agency
Consultation on key design issues
Feedback on key findings
Workshop recommendations
Embed a collaborative change management process

32. What should a court response do?
Victim safety and inclusion
Immediate response that prioritises safety
Short term focus on safety and protection goals and preferences
Medium-term inclusion in deliberation of what next
Longer term opportunities for victim involvement in later processes
Perpetrator accountability and inclusion
Initiation of process to bring offender to account
Short term focus on held swiftly to account
Medium term inclusion in the deliberation on what next
Longer term opportunities to participate in rehabilitation etc.

33. Questions?
Thank you