The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

THE GLASGOW DRUG COURT IN ACTION: THE FIRST SIX MONTHS

CHAPTER FIVE: REVIEWS AND ENFORCEMENT

INTRODUCTION

5.1 The system of regular Court reviews of Orders, with pre-court review case meetings between the Sheriff and the relevant Treatment and Supervision Team workers, are a key function of the Drug Court. In the reference manual for the pilot Glasgow Drug Court, it was stated that review hearings would occur at least monthly with a pre-court review meeting convened in the 24 hours prior to each review.

5.2 It was expected that the Sheriff and clerk of court, the procurator fiscal, members of the Drug Court Treatment and Supervision Team and, with the offender's consent, the defence agent would attend pre-court review meetings. The manual outlines that pre-court review meetings would be held in private in order that consideration might be given to issues, some of which might be highly personal, that may be pertinent to the consideration of progress.

5.3 The Drug Court Sheriff has responsibility for the oversight of the Order. The purpose of the reviews is to enable the sentencer to monitor the client's progress on an Order. On the basis of these regular reviews the sentencer may, among other courses of action, vary the conditions of the Order (such as the frequency of testing, the type of treatment or the frequency of the attendance at treatment), revoke the Order on the basis that satisfactory progress has been made or, in the event of non-compliance, revoke the Order and re-sentence the offender for the original offence. In addressing the progress of Orders at reviews, the Drug Court Sheriff was anticipated to adopt the roles of motivator, enforcer and sanctioner. The offender would have the right to legal representation at reviews. The Reference Manual suggests that the direct dialogue between the bench and offender was the cornerstone of the review hearing.

5.4 The role of defence agents in the review process was examined closely since the evaluation of pilot DTTOs indicated that defence agent intervention had the effect of limiting dialogue between the offender and the bench (Eley et al., forthcoming). It was anticipated that defence agents could have a limited role in reviews where there is no prospect of sanctions being imposed, in order that the bulk of the review can consist of dialogue between the Sheriff and the offender. However, where sanctions were being considered the bench may consider direct representation from the defence agent.

5.5 The review process aims to enable the pilot Drug Court in Glasgow to employ a range of sanctions in the event of non-compliance or lack of effort and progress on the part of the offender without recourse to formal breach proceedings. These include increasing the frequency of testing, of supervision appointments or of reviews. The Drug Court Sheriffs are responsible for initiating or endorsing breach proceedings, with a 'fast track' procedure instituted in order that breaches might be dealt with at the next scheduled review. In the event of a breach being accepted or proved, the Drug Court may allow the Order to continue and impose a fine or, in the case of probation, a community service order of up to 240 hours. Alternatively, the court may terminate the Order and re-sentence the offender for the original offence, in which case it is likely that a custodial sentence will be imposed.

5.6 A feature of Drug Courts in other jurisdictions is their ability to impose 'short, sharp' sanctions, such as a brief period of imprisonment, where the offender is in violation of the Order, without prejudice to the continuance of the Order. Sanctioning non-compliance in this way is not presently possible in the pilot Drug Court since the imposition of a custodial sentence would automatically result in termination of the treatment Order. At this six-month juncture of the pilot Drug Court in Glasgow in action, Drug Court Sheriffs perspectives on the value of the introduction of new legislative provisions to enable the Drug Court to operate in this way are explored.

5.7 Also in this chapter, the pre-court review meetings and reviews are critically examined from a variety of perspectives and the enforcement of Drug Court Orders is discussed. This chapter concludes by identifying aspects of reviews and enforcement that appear to enhance or distract from the effectiveness of the Drug Court in Action in the first six months.

PRE-COURT REVIEW MEETINGS

5.8 Pre-court review meetings were held from noon onwards on the day of the scheduled review in the Drug Court (Court 2 of Glasgow Sheriff Court). The purpose of the pre-court review meetings is to enable the sentencer to hear first hand from all the key workers about the client's progress on the Order and any mitigating factors. As a member of the Drug Court Supervision and Treatment Team stressed:

"I think they're invaluable, I don't think the drug court could survive without them. I think of all the meetings, it is the most important. It's really important that everybody's talking to each other before the reviews, even if it only is two hours before the review, because a client's situation can change overnight. So it's very responsive actually. I can't think of a criminal justice disposal that's as responsive as a Drug Court Order to the needs of the client, because the client could be presented to us with a really impressing difficulty and that could be reported to the Sheriff. Sheriffs have been very responsive to situations in the client's life, not only drug related but for employment situations, everything."

5.9 Both of the Drug Court Sheriffs regarded the pre-court review meetings as extremely valuable, perhaps even more so in the case of probation reviews since no report would otherwise be available to inform the content of the review ²³. Sheriffs valued having the opportunity to obtain feedback from those directly involved in supervising and treating the client. The pre-court review meeting was an important information-gathering forum. By obtaining information from each of those working with the client, Sheriffs felt better able to understand the relative significance of different issues. As one Sheriff noted:

"You get an overall picture with them all being there, whereas if you saw them individually or didn't see some of them and saw others, you wouldn't get it."

5.10 Sheriffs emphasised the importance of the pre-court review meetings in providing information that enabled them to decide "which buttons to push" in the dialogue with the client. By this they meant which issues might be brought into the discussion in such a way that they might serve to encourage, motivate or sanction the client. Other benefits of these meetings were said by Sheriffs to include the following:

• Pre-court review meetings allowed for consideration of sensitive issues that it would be inappropriate to discuss in open court;
• The gaps between the pre-court review meeting (at 12 noon) and the review hearing (at 2 p.m.) meant that there was an opportunity for further information gathering to resolve any outstanding questions prior to the review;
• The opportunity for face-to-face discussion meant that more up-to-date information could be provided about the client's circumstances and progress than could be furnished by a report that had been prepared a few days previously.

5.11 The majority of clients on Drug Court Orders who were interviewed noted that they would welcome the opportunity to be present at pre-court review meetings, but acknowledged that the pre-court review ensured that any personal issues would be dealt with before they appeared in open court. Drug Court Sheriffs and workers within the Drug Court Supervision and Treatment Team supported the procedure that the offender was not present. Several of the offenders, who were interviewed by the researchers, noted that any reports presented at their pre-court review were discussed with them and so they were aware of any issues likely to be discussed. It was clear that most respondents felt confident that DTTO workers and their solicitor could deal with things in a satisfactory manner:

"You have a rough idea what the people from the drug place… are going to say. They go through your report with you before it…it's not as if I'm panicking wondering what they are going to tell the Sheriff."

"I think you don't need to be really concerned, you don't need to know about it, they will tell you."

"If I had to go I'd go, but my lawyers there and if he's got anything to say he'll say it for me."

5.12 The Drug Court Sheriffs believed that the fact that the person on a Drug Court Order was not present at the pre-court review meeting meant that there was a more open and blunt discussion. Sheriffs did not consider Drug Court clients to be disadvantaged by not being present at pre-court review meetings since those present were " striving to keep people on Orders, not get them off Orders." Issues such as new charges or breaches would not be discussed at the pre-court review meetings since matters of this kind should be fully aired and debated in open court and needed the defence agent to be present.

5.13 Twenty-eight pre-court review meetings, involving both Drug Court Sheriffs, were observed by the researchers. At the front of the Court, the professionals were typically seated for pre-court review meetings as shown in Figure 5.1.

Figure 5.1: Typical seating plan for a pre-court review in the pilot Glasgow Drug Court

5.14 The procurator fiscal rarely attended the pre-court review meetings as these ran concurrently to meetings of the Drug Court Screening Group. Table 5.1 provides further details of attendance at the pre-review meetings. Of the 28 observations, in two cases neither a social worker nor an addiction worker was present for the case while other members were present at the pre-court review meetings but not briefed to talk about the cases.

Table 5.1: Attendance at the observed pre-court review meetings

5.15 In six cases, a social worker provided cover for a colleague who was unable to be there in person. There was a strong perception within the Drug Court Supervision and Treatment Team, that social workers involved in the case work of Drug Court Orders were experiencing difficulties in managing their workloads and that this frequently impacted on their physical attendance at the Drug Court:

"Its quite different for them to be in 20 places at once, which I think seems to be what's expected of them."

"I think the social workers are badly over-worked and that is just looking at it from the outside. Running off to court at 12.00, running back to write a couple of reports and rushing back there for 2 o'clock. And going to other courts and all the rest of it, they seem to be quite under-staffed and although they have their own kind of caseload to follow through, and I think they do keep tabs on things as best they can, I think too much is asked of them."

5.16 The role of the Drug Court Sheriffs in pre-court review meetings was principally that of information gatherer. In this respect they considered themselves to be more passive than at other stages in the Drug Court process where they were required to make decisions. They emphasised the importance of listening to what those present had to say and not "second-guessing" the other professionals, as their task was to distil the main issues in such a way as to inform what will be said to the client in court. Professionals working within the Drug Court Supervision and Treatment Team perceived the pre-court review as valuable in the Drug Court process and felt that the Drug Court Sheriffs were effective in their chairing of professional participation in pre-court review meetings:

"I think the Sheriff takes account of everybody's views. It's very good. I think he can sum up the different bits well. He takes on board that somebody might be relating to their drug workers and attending for that but not engaging with us and he seems to balance that very well. I think that's very positive."

"To get everybody involved together to discuss it prior to the actual official court so kind of discuss things in there that you don't really discuss in open court… I think they're very useful cos one person's report can be interpreted in several ways and its not always the one person that's involved with the client its kind of team effort."

"I think it allows the Sheriff to see the bigger picture you know because there is always with a particular client group, there is going to be many issues that are underlying or that someone is dealing with, it just would not be appropriate to speak about that in open court."

5.17 The Drug Court Sheriffs were of the view that all of those who needed to be at the pre-court review meetings had 'a seat around the table'. As one professional expressed "In the pre-court reviews you're there to get your tuppence-worth in alongside everybody elses' tuppence-worth which I think is valuable". It was also possible to invite along agencies that might have a specific contribution to make in individual cases. Of all those who did attend pre-court review meetings, Sheriffs considered defence agents to make the most limited contribution. Sheriffs considered the presence of the defence agent to provide an essential safeguard for their clients' interests, though one Sheriff remarked that defence agents rarely attended pre-court review meetings. This remark was supported by the observational data in Table 5.2. Although the defence agents infrequently attended the pre-review meeting, almost all the defence agents were observed to make regular use of the timetabled meeting as an opportunity to approach the clerk prior the start of the review hearing. This enabled them to obtain copies of progress reports and subsequent updates for that afternoon's review. Some defence agents were observed to enter into discussion with social workers about progress. The significant amount of work conducted by the defence agents prior to the start of the scheduled pre-court review meeting should not be overlooked.

5.18 At the beginning of each pre-review meeting, the Sheriff would invite verbal contributions, from their reports or notes, from each of the professionals in turn. These were typically asked for in anti-clockwise rotation from around the table. The Medical Officer would begin the verbal report, speaking from his/her medical notes of attendance at appointments with the Medical and Nursing Team, and from results of urine testing. The Sheriff would then invite the social worker, followed by the addiction worker (if present) to share their professional views on progress since the last review. The participation in pre-court review meetings by the Supervision and Treatment Team are summarised in Table 5.2 below.

Table 5.2: Supervision and Treatment Team contribution at the observed pre-court review meetings (n=28)

Note: Contribution is classified in terms of speaking during the Pre-review

5.19 Some tensions concerning ownership and accuracy of the progress report presented to the Sheriff at the pre-court review meetings were conveyed to the researchers in the interviews with workers within the Drug Court Supervision and Treatment Team. These concerns revolved around the production of the overall progress report by Social Workers by transferring existing documentary evidence into a report as opposed to the attachment of original reports:

"We don't know quite what's being said. The reports that the nurses write on clients are amalgamated by social workers so how good a reflection that actually gives of what ways the medical team might think, you can't be sure."

5.20 The Drug Court Co-ordinator also observed that the staffing shortages in the Supervision and Treatment Team had prevented the social worker, addiction worker and medical officer from having a case meeting to ensure that they had achieved a consensus prior to the pre-court review meeting. This meant that in the pre-court review meetings, their different perspectives on a case were being brought together and discussed for this first time.

5.21 At the pre-court review meetings, potential issues that were considered to be compromising a client's progress on a Drug Court Order were also discussed around the table. Broadly, these included:

• housing situation (e.g. if homeless or in temporary accommodation)
• the influence of family and friends (e.g. parents are unsupportive of methadone prescribing as part of drug treatment; cohabiting with a partner who uses drugs or alcohol but who is not undergoing treatment)
• unresolved counselling issues (e.g. sexual abuse, bereavement); and
• financial concerns (non-payment of benefits to client; threat of violence from debt collectors).

The duration of the 28 pre-court review meetings observed ranged from two minutes long to 16 minutes long, with an overall average of seven minutes long (Table 5.3).

Table 5.3: Length of pre-court review meetings observed

5.22 The multi-agency round table approach to determining the progress of clients prior to the formal review (usually held monthly) was perceived, by the Sheriffs who sat in the Sheriff Court, as possible due to a shift in power, in this instance only, from the Sheriff to the professionals of the Treatment and Supervision Team (addiction workers, social workers and medical officers). As one Sheriff expressed:

"because at least to some extent he is allowing other people to have a more significant input into what is the appropriate way to deal with any particular offender."

and in the words of another Sheriff:

" the pre-court meetings where the Sheriff meets with the other members of the team before the court appearance.. that's a real strength."

REVIEWS

Perspectives on reviews

5.23 The Drug Court Sheriffs considered the main purpose of reviews to be monitoring the progress of the offenders on a Drug Court Order. The review hearings were considered by the Sheriffs to be similar to those conducted in the Sheriff Court, though the existence of pre-court review meetings in the Drug Court meant that the review hearings that took place there tended to be better informed. In Order to encourage compliance with the various elements of an Order the Sheriffs variously took on the role of sanctioner, motivator and encourager. Reviews were, therefore, a critical element of the Drug Court:

"It's the point really where the legal side of things melds with the non-legal sort of therapeutic side of things, it's the process which joins the two together. And it enables the individual first of all to understand that he's still in a court situation, it enables us to encourage, it enables us to penalise if need be and it's the crucial point, it's the nexus between the two aspects of the approach so it's absolutely vital."

"It's important I think from the point of view of the accused that he is a real part of the process - rather than just a product he has an investment in it and he wants to appreciate that he himself will influence what happens to him. And he knows that when he goes into Court that he'll be answerable for what he's done in the last weeks, and he knows as well if we're doing it properly that if he's done very well that will be recognised by us…. To have the Court looking over you all the time does I think provide a bit of a stick as it were and a Sword of Damocles²⁴which will keep them going."

5.24 Reviews were held in the Drug Court from Mondays to Thursdays at 2 p.m., in an open court, with seating for 36 persons in the public seating area at the back of court. Drug Court Supervision and Treatment Team workers had a heightened awareness of the public nature of the reviews and had voiced concerns about the protection of confidentiality, as one worker said ".. anybody can come in and sit in that court - the actual drug court".

5.25 The Drug Court Sheriffs identified a number of advantages of holding review hearings in open court. First, it helped to reinforce the fact that the client is subject to a court order. Second, it provided an opportunity for them to see how others were progressing and how the Sheriff responds to those who were doing well and those who were doing badly. Third, it was possible for families, partners or friends to see how well the client was doing and the recognition received for this:

"They've turned up with their families to see that they're doing well because they've probably not done anything particularly worthwhile in their family's eyes for a long time."

However, the support of a partner and other family and friends was physically apparent in the open court in only 4 out of the 32 reviews observed by the research team, with supporters preferring to stay outside the Drug Court in the basement waiting room.

5.26 Finally, Drug Court Sheriffs considered it important that reviews be conducted in open court in order that the Drug Court procedures were seen by the public to be transparent. In this way they were less likely to arouse suspicion. The Drug Court Sheriffs felt that the main disadvantage of reviews in open court related to the discussion of material of a sensitive nature. Due to this, they were alert to the need to exercise discretion so that sensitive information, for example a recent bereavement, was not disclosed and employed 'codes' when discussing material of this kind.

Review procedures

5.27 Thirty-two reviews were observed by the research team. At the front of Court, the professionals were typically seated as shown in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2: Typical seating plan for a review in the pilot Glasgow Drug Court

5.28 There was a consensual view that backs should not be turned on the offender during reviews. The 'spare' seat was occupied on some occasions by the researcher making observations. Otherwise, another defence agent would be seated there. Generally, there would be one social worker at the table for each case. While waiting, social workers would sit in the public seats and defence agents would stand towards the sides of the court. Across the 32 reviews observed, there was full attendance by defence agents while five reviews were conducted without a social worker being present.

5.29 The duration of the 32 reviews observed ranged from 1 minute long (where the client did not appear and a warrant was issued for arrest) to 14 minutes long, with an overall average of 6 minutes (Table 5.4). The first and second reviews were generally shorter than the later reviews during a Drug Court Order. This is mainly due to the greater confidence shown by the Client in developing the dialogue with the Sheriff. Compared to the observed reviews conducted in the Glasgow Sheriff Court as part of the DTTO pilot scheme evaluation, where the average review time was 5 minutes across all points of the Order, the reviews in the Glasgow Drug Court were longer.

Table 5.4: Length of reviews observed

*At 4 of the first reviews observed, the client was not present and therefore the proceedings were 1 minute long.

5.30 At the beginning of each Court session, the client would confirm his/her name to the Clerk of Court and the Sheriff would invite the professionals around the table to report on progress. The two Sheriffs who sat in the Drug Court had differing approaches to how they engaged social workers in the review process. One Sheriff would ask the social worker to address the court briefly, highlighting any areas of concern, before opening up dialogue with the person whose Order was being reviewed. The social worker's input at this stage was regarded as very valuable, with the Sheriff acknowledging that he had some admiration for the ability of the social workers to be appropriately critical of clients with whom they have regular and ongoing contact.

5.31 The other Sheriff, by contrast, usually addressed the person on the Order first but would then, if appropriate, ask the social worker to confirm or refute what the person had said. The Sheriff explained that this approach had been adopted for tactical reasons since it made it impossible for the offender to manufacture excuses in response to what the social worker has said.

5.32 Defence agents were said by Sheriffs to have a role in the Drug Court primarily if there was a new complaint against someone on a Drug Court Order. Otherwise their role was thought to be fairly limited and the Sheriffs observed that defence agents appeared often to be unsure what was expected of them in the Drug Court. The Sheriffs tended to outline the main issues for consideration at the review then ask to speak directly with the client. As one member of the Drug Court Team said of the defence agents in general:

"They don't tend to say very much and I don't think they're allowed to take over in the drug court really, I think that's one of the things (about) a specialist bench, they've got their own… they decide how they're going to deal with things and usually they listen to what the defence agent has to say, and they'll just say, 'Do you mind if I talk to your client now?' and off they go."

5.33 One Sheriff suggested that offenders on Drug Court Orders were much more open and honest in the review hearings than they would be if the review was taken through a solicitor. Although their role might be limited, the Sheriffs nonetheless considered the presence of defence agents at reviews to be important since the Drug Court had the potential to impinge significantly on their client's liberty.

5.34 Of the 32 reviews observed by the researchers, on 22 occasions the defence agent took the lead in making a verbal statement from the Progress Report ²⁵ and spoke first in the Court session. The social worker spoke first on nine occasions and the procurator fiscal once. Both the procurator fiscal and defence agents participated in all the 32 reviews observed, while on eight of the 27 occasions where the social worker was present, there was no observed participation. In these instances, the entire progress report was presented to the Drug Court by the defence agent, before the Sheriff invited the Drug Court client to comment on their progress.

5.35 The Drug Court Sheriffs were of the view that the range of information provided at reviews - for example, test results, details of appointments kept etc. - provided them with a comprehensive picture of how well a person was complying with their Drug Court Order. Sentencers expressed satisfaction with the provisions for reviewing the Order and with the content and quality of the review reports they received, though both Sheriffs commented that reports were, on occasion, not received in time for the pre-court review and indicated that they would welcome an earlier report or at least a verbal report. Sentencers were likewise content, in the main, with the frequency of reviews, though it was suggested that it might be useful to have the option of more frequent reviews (for example weekly, or fortnightly) in the early stages of an Order.

5.36 Compliance with the requirements of their Orders was regarded by Sheriffs as one indicator of the person's motivation to become and remain drug-free. Sheriffs also assessed levels of motivation with regard to information provided by the drugs workers and social workers, through dialogue with the person in court and through visible changes in their appearance. As one Sheriff explained:

"I see them once a month and sometimes I can see a dramatic improvement physically in someone in the space of four weeks. And that will tell me, you know a sort of brightness about them that wasn't there before - that will tell me that they're motivated, they're keen."

Perceptions of reviews

5.37 Reviews were considered by all the clients interviewed to be an important part of the Drug Court and were seen as something to work towards. However, one respondent noted that reviews were occasionally a source of 'embarrassment', particularly if the Court was busy, which it often was due to professional visitors from external agencies and as a result of significant media attention. All the respondents saw reviews as very positive factors in terms of their Orders. Reviews were seen as an opportunity for everyone involved to discuss individual situations.

"These people actually want to give you a chance."

"… what's good about it is because I'm getting treated now like a human being and an equal…"

5.38 The respondents noted that the reviews gave them an opportunity to speak directly to the Sheriff, a very different situation to 'ordinary' courts.

"You don't think you're important enough to speak to a Sheriff. Cos you open your mouth maybe in court and go 'that's not right' they would just go 'silence' do you know what I mean? But in there if you were to say 'That's not right Sheriff', I don't know why that is, they'll listen and they make you feel important and you actually go out of the court on a high."

"Any other time you try to speak to the judge he usually gives you six months for contempt of court."

"Any other judge wouldn't even look at you… I think he's (Drug Court Sheriff) probably read books or something, but he knows more about it…"

"I have been through hundreds of courts and you're always wanting your lawyer to say something he doesn't say, it's always through your lawyer. But it's quite good, he (the Drug Court Sheriff) gives you the chance to speak up for yourself."

5.39 While this could mean that they were publicly rebuked for unsatisfactory behaviour, the very fact that they were given the opportunity to speak in court and present their views and be listened to, was seen as universally positive:

"Aye, it's really good 'cos you feel important and you feel noticed and you know that they are respectful to you at the end of the day 'cos they're going with your wishes. So at the end of the day they're giving you your place and they're giving you respect, they're not just right on to your lawyer."

"If you're doing well, the solicitor really doesn't have to say much but they're there anyway."

"You get the same Sheriff all the time, it's not like you are coming one month and the Sheriff is just getting your paperwork. You could say it's like building up a relationship with the Sheriff."

"In a court room you like to hide a few of your feelings and in there you can just tell them what you think knowing you are not going to get criticised for speaking out."

"I think it's quite a good idea you can put your views across, good or bad he listens to you."

5.40 Good behaviour was rewarded by encouragement and with praise from the Sheriff and this was viewed as very important by all respondents.

"Now, it's in the back of my head 'don't take that' because the judge, … gave me a chance, he'll not take it. At least he is giving me a chance to help me, he knows the score and in my head I'm not wanting to mess him about. In my opinion it was him that really helped me and it's him that put me on it."

"It gives you a wee boost…saying to you he's proud, 'I'm glad you have done this and done that' and it gives you a wee boost when you go home from court."

"You feel good cos you just spoke directly to the Sheriff. And he treats you with the utmost respect as you seen in the court for yourself. And he will, he'll praise you but if you're doing bad he'll kick your arse really severe."

5.41 The Drug Court Sheriffs considered the dialogue between the bench and the person on a Drug Court Order to be critical to the success of the Order. Through the dialogue with the offender the Sheriff could sanction non-compliance but could also praise and encourage progress. As one Sheriff commented:

"I think it creates a relationship and I think it matters to them whether you praise them or you're disappointed…Some will get quite upset if you say 'You're not doing well and I'm disappointed that you've done this, that and the next thing. You've let me down.' It will actually work. And likewise praise. You see people responding to direct praise…almost enjoying the experience, because praise is not a very great commodity in most of their lives."

Another member of the Drug Court team describes the relationship between the Sheriff and the offender as "paternalistic":

"They're encouraged to tell the Sheriffs if they've got problems and they're encouraged to deal with those problems."

5.42 Social workers and addiction workers within the Drug Court Supervision and Treatment Team supported the impact of the prominence of the Sheriff-offender dialogue within the open court review. The quantity and quality of the dialogue was perceived as beneficial in terms of establishing a relationship between the sentencer and the client on a Drug Court Order, to maximise compliance and motivation and in terms of broader principles of restorative justice:

" I would say its quite an intense relationship, I'm thinking now as Orders progress its certainly one which has a greater degree of familiarity and mutual familiarity. … I think that offenders…take that very seriously. I think in part they are quite impressed that a Sheriff is taking an interest in their progress and their lives and what is happening to them."

"Up at court and a lot of them when they get the feedback from the Sheriff in court it motivates them as well, … a pat on the back basically 'well done you've really progressed there'. ..to stand in front of the Sheriff and have that said in open court makes them because they're used to dealing with the judicial system where they go in, they're given a sentence and the Sheriff doesn't look up from the papers sometimes, I think they appreciated it as well, the review system."

"I'm quite surprised actually how beneficial it has been for some of the clients. I mean it really changes their view of the court system, I think and it will make them less antagonistic towards it I think."

"I think its about giving the person a voice, it makes them part of the whole process, you know they're not being talked at - this is not something that is being done to them, they are part of it and they have a say in what's happening."

5.43 There was interaction between the Sheriff and the Drug Court client in all reviews observed with the exception of one where the defence agent represented their client in answering the complaints against them. The Sheriff-Drug Court client dialogue lasted between one and eight minutes, with an average of two and half minutes across the 28 dialogues observed (Table 5.5). When the length of this dialogue is considered as a proportion of the total length of the review, its crux within the review process is demonstrated. On average, the dialogue was 37 per cent of the review and ranged (with the exception of the client not invited to speak), from 20-100 per cent.

Table 5.5: Length of the Sheriff- Drug Court client dialogue

*At 4 of the first reviews observed, the client was not present

Table 5.6: Sheriff- Drug Court client dialogue as a proportion of review length

*At 4 of the first reviews observed, the client was not present

5.44 On the sentencers' side, 75 per cent of the sentencer-offender interactions were encouraging, irrespective of the degree of positivity in the progress reports presented at the pre-court review and in court at the start of the review. Across all the points in the Orders, Sheriffs gave general encouragement such as "good, overall you are doing well" to many offenders. At early reviews (1 and 2), both Drug Court Sheriffs stressed that they knew that Drug Treatment was difficult and offered encouragement to those who had made significant progress within a short period of time such as "its early stages and I'm pleased you've started well" or "you've made remarkable progress indeed". Acknowledgement was also made of strong personal motivation ( "you've shown us what you can do and that excellent with negative tests") to an offender who had stopped taking heroin and benzodiazepines: "everyone is delighted, I congratulate you on your test results but you have to keep up progress."

5.45 Where progress had not been ideal at the earlier reviews of Orders, Sheriffs found something positive to offer encouraging words to the offender about. Sometimes this would be related to attending testing appointments but producing positive results ( "you've been keeping up appointments" and "you are doing as well as can be expected"), opening up to their key addiction worker ( "you have insight into the problem") and being honest in the Drug Court about their drug use ( "at least you are recognising the problem").

5.46 At the point of possible relapse, highlighted by the medical team to be around the 3-4 months point, the Sheriff reaffirmed the challenges of treatment for drug addiction by offering encouragement relating to urine test successes with words such as:

"you've done very well to produce negative results already, I hope that we can see some more."

"I have been made aware that you are doing well but one slip up for the test of opiates"

"your progress is very mixed but you have done well".

5.47 Some Drug Court clients had made substantial progress early on in the Order and had then struck difficulties in terms of motivational factors. Words of encouragement in these reviews, pointed to achievement earlier on in the Order, if it had been felt by the team at the Pre-court review briefing that the Offender remained motivated:

"In general terms you're doing well, you've been making efforts that you're doing well."

"You're making efforts you are trying and there are difficulties. You have shown us what you can do, you take advice on board and get on with it, you've done well enough."

At the later reviews, where offenders were consistently producing negative urine tests, physical presentation was commented upon by the Sheriff during the reviews ( "you look better every time"; "You're looking better than expected").

5.48 During the 32 reviews, Sheriffs were observed to ask very open questions to generate responses from the offenders. These prompts included "How are you doing?"; "Any problems?"; "How are you surviving?"; " Have you had cravings?"; " What do you want me to do?"; "Have you been having difficulties?"; "Why did you start drugs again?"; "Spare time?"; and "Is there temptation?".

5.49 During the reviews, offenders were generally responsive, co-operative and honest. Across the different observed review points in the Orders, there were seven main areas of response:

• Getting off drugs
• The challenge of being on a Drug Court Order
• Dealing with temptation
• Reasons for drug use while on Order
• Feeling Good
• Boredom
• Fighting against possible sanctions by the Drug Court Sheriff.

5.50 In the open Drug Court at the observed reviews, offenders frequently expressed their motivation to reduce and eventually stop taking drugs ( "I want to be clean 100%"; "I will co-operate") but stressed their awareness of the challenge ahead of them ( "I will give it 100%") and that it would be difficult for them emotionally ( "I am frightened") and certainly no 'soft' option ("For me prison is the easy option").

5.51 Sheriffs were clear to offenders that they recognised that, in their home environments and because they were 'known faces' as drug users, changing their lifestyle (in terms of drug use and offending) would take huge sustained efforts. Temptations from dealers, other users, siblings and friends may arise within their homes or elsewhere. One offender responded to the Sheriff that he had experienced considerable pressure from dealers at his home and elsewhere: "they don't want to see you on the up they want to put you down"; that was another part of the battle to win. In relation to reported positive tests for illicit drug use, the Drug Court clients were commended by the Drug Court Sheriffs for their honesty ("I'm not going to be a liar or make excuses") in replying to questioning about "why take drugs?". Reasons offered involved being with others who also used drugs: "I was just being sociable"; "I was with old friends and had a relapse" and "my partner was taking some heroin". Several offenders reported to the Sheriff that they regretted the drug-taking resulting in a positive test when the 'high' was not as before ("no use getting a dirty urine if no hit"; "I took it to see what I was missing but I wasn't missing anything").

5.52 While the Sheriff commented in several observed later reviews (3, 4, 5 and 6), that the physical presentation of the clients was much improved since their first calling, the offenders, in their own words, expressed the changes to them since the start of the Drug Court Orders: " brand new"; " brilliant - the best I've been for along while"; " I'm feeling as though it's a lot better" and " Feeling good, I'm doing well I've never had this challenge before". Boredom during the day was highlighted in many cases as an issue, while awaiting that component of the Drug Court Order to be organised.

5.53 The Sheriffs' position as motivator was clear but also their roles as enforcer and sanctioner were evident in 40 per cent of the observed reviews. This related to the three major issues of attendance at appointments ( "your attendance could be better - if you don't turn up you'll be breached"), positive testing for drugs in urine ( "If you were an Olympic medallist you would have it taken away!") and overall motivation to the Drug Court Order:

"It's for your benefit at the end of the day, I walk out of the court and you may not. I want to see you back on the rails, please please co-operate over the next two weeks to make some kind of progress"

5.54 The Sheriffs generally stressed the importance of motivation, participation and reducing drug use to remain on a Drug Court Order. Offenders were generally responsive to these remarks. In four observed instances, the 'non-compliance' of the offender had been consistent over a couple of reviews. In these cases, the Sheriffs 'read the riot act' to the offender and reminded them of behaviour that could lead to contempt of court ( "I saw you grinning, you need to take this seriously"), including swearing, and the possibility of the Order being breached ( "you have let me down very badly and I am going to do a number of things"; "I'm not going to stand for any member of the team to put up with behaviour like this"). The breach of a Drug Court Order would typically mean that the offender would start a custodial sentence that had been deferred at the first calling. As a Drug Court Sheriff reminded one client on a Drug Court Order:

"I don't want to send you to prison… remember this is last chance time, I really mean that."

5.55 Generally, offenders, rather than their defence agents, verbally fought against the possibility of sanctions by reaffirming their co-operation and their previous achievements ( "in my fairness I had done quite well last month") and, recognising that a Drug Court Order is their last chance, a strong desire for another opportunity ( "Give me another chance m'lord"; "I want another bite of the cherry").

5.56 From the 28 observations of the Sheriff-Drug Court client dialogue, it was notable that, irrespective of the quantity and quality of progress on the Drug Court Order, the final words concerning the next review in two or 4 weeks time were encouraging. The words of encouragement could focus on targeting problem areas such as attendance ( "I want a 100% attendance next time") or positive drug testing ( "I hope that we can see some negative tests for benzos next time"; "I want to see you negative"). Reflection on the major issues of reducing drug use such as relapse and associated offending ( "I don't expect miracles from you but you try and keep it up, it shows you what can happen if you drop your guard"), persistent dealers offering 'free' heroin and cocaine ( "you'll find temptations put your way but try and avoid them") and keeping the motivation going ( "you've got to keep it up, times will get harder"; "we don't expect miracles but we do expect efforts"; "shows what you can do - you've done very well if you keep it up") was also made by the Sheriff.

5.57 The Sheriffs remarked upon how the nature of the dialogue with offenders on Drug Court Orders changed through the course of an Order. Exchanges became longer as Drug Court clients became more confident at addressing the bench. Through the relationship that was built up with the Sheriff they were observed to become keener to relate their experiences, and Sheriffs emphasised the importance of them being listened to:

"This is the first time probably in their lives that anybody of any sort of authority has listened to what they had to say and I think it's important that they're treated like human beings."

"I've tried when I'm imposing an Order in the Drug Court to have their input immediately in it. They're usually quite reticent - they mumble something about wanting to change and so on and so forth. As the thing progresses they get more confident, they do give you an element of feedback."

5.58 Comparing reviews of DTTOs conducted in the Sheriff Court to informal knowledge about the procedures in the Glasgow Drug Court, another Sheriff expressed that although the review procedures were identical in their adherence to the legislation (for instance, in being conducted at least one month after the last review), the quality of the review process was felt to be superior in the Glasgow Drug Court, compared to elsewhere in the Sheriff Court. The level of resources available to the Drug Court, and, to a certain extent, the relatively small number of Drug Court Orders under review, was felt to allow a greater amount of time and consideration of the content of the dialogue between the Sheriff and the offender. The luxury of a greater time spent on Sheriff-offender dialogue during a review, and the impact of what is said to each other during this dialogue, was stressed by one Sheriff as beneficial to the successful outcomes of Orders:

"Based on my experience of conducting DTTO reviews myself, I would say yes, my impression is that people clearly attach a good deal of importance to the reviews, what they have to say and what will be said to them at the reviews."

5.59 The concept of drug use as a relapsing condition was emphasised strongly in shrieval dialogue with offenders on Drug Court Orders. The Sheriffs had observed how offenders often struggled to avoid relapse after around three months on an Order (see also Eley et al, forthcoming) and took steps to ensure that those on Orders were aware that relapse -if it did occur - was not unexpected:

"I go out of my way to say to them that we understand that this will not be a process in which there are no setbacks, that we understand it is a relapsing condition and what we're expecting is not miracles. We expect commitment and we expect honesty but we can't expect miracles."

"They always seem to do very well in the initial stages then take a huge dip and come back up again, We can recognise that but I think it is important that we say that to the accused as well. Because what we don't want is the accused to be doing well and then relapsing and thinking 'My God, that's it!' and running away and hiding and not turning up for the reviews and not turning up for the assessments and so forth. We know perfectly well that happens so we try and explain that as best we can. That's one of the reasons we tell them not to be complacent, because that is a critical time during the Order."

5.60 The Sheriffs stressed the pragmatic basis of this approach, which they were aware others not involved in the operation of the Drug Court might perceive as a 'soft option'. Addiction workers within the Drug Court Supervision and Treatment Team commented on how informed the Drug Court Sheriffs were in their practice, through the induction training they had received. It was felt that both Drug Court Sheriffs had:

"a very good understanding of drug related issues and a non-punitive attitude to drug use as well which is probably essential to making best use of a drug court set up"

ENFORCEMENT

5.61 All Orders made by the Drug Court are subject to drug testing and regular (at least monthly) review. The same Sheriff who imposes the Order has responsibility for reviewing the Orders and responding to non-compliance, thereby ensuring the continuity of contact that has been found to be an important feature of Drug Courts in other jurisdictions.

5.62 The Drug Court Sheriffs were very satisfied with the way in which Drug Court Orders were being enforced by the Supervision and Treatment Team. The Drug Court Social Workers were seen to take active steps to respond to instances of non-compliance, including through the issuing of warning letters and disciplinary meetings. One Sheriff suggested that the Drug Court Social Workers were more 'hard nosed' in this respect that social workers involved in the supervision of Orders made in other courts:

"The accused must understand that they [the social workers] will not be mucked about and they are not shy in saying 'this guy is mucking me about'. So they're not shy in having disciplinary hearings and sending letters. So that's good, I'm very impressed by that."

5.63 The review process enabled the Drug Court to employ a range of sanctions in the event of non-compliance or lack of effort and progress on the part of the offender, without recourse to formal breach proceedings. These included increasing the frequency of testing, of supervision or of reviews. Data was available from the monitoring database for 29 reviews which had taken place.

5.64 In 21 of these reviews, the Drug Court clients had been fully compliant, or acceptably non-compliant, with all aspects of their Order. In 6 cases, clients had evidenced some element of unacceptable non-compliance. In the remaining 2 cases, clients had been charged with further offences and were unable to comply with the Order requirements as they were in custody. In 26 of the 29 reviews, no changes were made to the frequency of drug testing, while in three cases drug testing was reduced from twice weekly to once per week. No changes were made to social work provisions in 22 cases. Of the changes made to seven orders, additional support was made available in two cases, one Drug Court client had the frequency of visits to Drug Court social workers reduced as a result of review in three cases, it was noted at review that service-users were about to be assessed for groupwork and in one case educational opportunities were being pursued by the Drug Court client.

5.65 One of the Drug Court Sheriffs would have welcomed the option of conducting more frequent reviews in some cases where it appeared that weekly or fortnightly reviews would be necessary to sustain the offender's motivation and compliance. The DTTO legislation does not allow for more frequent than monthly reviews. This being so, the Sheriffs were occasionally interspersing DTTO reviews with probation reviews to enable them to see Drug Court clients more often.

5.66 Both Drug Court Sheriffs thought that once sufficient progress had been made on an Order the reporting requirements could be relaxed (for example, changed from monthly to quarterly) though the Order would still be reviewed monthly in chambers because the person's situation could change very quickly. If someone had made sufficient progress - that they had found a job, for example - the Sheriffs would not wish the requirement to attend for monthly review hearings to jeopardise their employment:

"I think there comes a time when you say 'right, you've done so well that I will review them in chambers'. Because you don't want an employer to find out they're going to court every month and wondering what's going on."

Outstanding and new charges

5.67 If an offender has outstanding or new charges and the procurator fiscal decides to proceed with prosecution in the Sheriff Summary Court, the case will be brought in the first instance to the Drug Court and dealt with by the Drug Court in the event of a guilty plea being tendered. Amongst the options open to the Sheriff is the imposition of a deferred sentence. The 37 offenders subject to Drug Court Orders at the end of May 2002 had 45 additional deferred sentence complaints between them. If the offender is entering a not guilty plea the case will be referred to the Sheriff Court, which then has the option of referring back to the Drug Court or sentencing the offender if s/he is found guilty and informing the Drug Court of the outcome. In the event of a further offence during a probation order (but not a DTTO) the Drug Court may decide to take no action or may sentence the offender for the original offence.

5.68 The Reference Manual requires that when someone on a Drug Court Order is charged with a new offence the procurator fiscal should obtain a report from the social worker within seven days before deciding how to proceed. In practice, however, those who are charged with further offences generally appear in the custody court, where they enter a guilty plea and can either be sentenced or referred across to the Drug Court for disposal.

5.69 Sheriffs believed that that procurator fiscal was very effective in getting outstanding charges brought together for the first calling in the Drug Court or, if that was not possible, for the first review. However, outstanding charges from other jurisdictions could not be dealt with in this way and offenders on Drug Court Orders, by the very nature of their offending, often had charges outstanding that would be dealt with in other courts.

5.70 No data from the monitoring data were available to the research team at the time of writing, and so the enforcement practices adopted by supervising officers, the extent to which they are consistent with agreed procedures on enforcement and the effectiveness of enforcement practices in securing compliance with Drug Court Orders could not be examined.

Sanctions available to the Drug Court

5.71 Both Sheriffs believed that the range of actions open to the Drug Court in the event of a person's failure to comply with their Drug Court Order was insufficient. For example, if an offender failed to attend for appointments or tested positively for drugs, the only options open to the court would be to fine the offender, amend the Order or revoke the Order. The Sheriffs were strongly in favour of having available to them a "short, sharp prison sentence" or a short community service order in order to punish instances of non-compliance while allowing the Order to continue. Such an approach, they believed, might be effective in securing compliance with the Order:

"What we need are sanctions that are real sanctions but nonetheless allow the Order to continue. At the moment we are managing somehow but it's quite inadequate."

"If someone is not turning up frequently, failing to provide the samples, for example, it may well be they require a week in jail to think about it… I think something like that might be worth looking at… Apart from anything else it provides a wee bit of credibility… I think it might help the public perception of this to know that there are sanctions available and there are some teeth to it."

5.72 The Sheriffs took the view that revocation of an Order signified a failure for all of those concerned and they aimed to keep Orders going if possible. The availability of a short prison sentence as a sanction might allow them to do so while signalling disapproval of the behaviour that resulted in the imposition of the sanction.

5.73 In the absence of sanctions of this type, the Sheriffs were taking measures such as increasing testing or deferring sentence on concurrent or new charges. This latter approach enabled them to reward progress and sanction further offending ²⁶ but it could not be adopted to deal with other types of non-compliance, such as failure to attend for tests. When the interviews were conducted only one Order made in the Drug Court had been breached and Drug Court Sheriffs had, on very few occasions, made amendments to Orders to encourage compliance. They believed that in some cases the issuing of a breach report and convening of a hearing were sufficient to bring about increased commitment and improved compliance.

SUMMARY

5.74 Pre-court review meetings were perceived to be a beneficial component to the process of supervising and treating clients on Drug Court Orders. The thorough private exchanges of information around the multi-agency table, chaired by the Drug Court Sheriff, informed and shaped the nature of the dialogue presented at the review with the client. While some offenders wished they were able to attend pre-court review meetings, all were confident that their progress was discussed in a fair and appropriate manner.

5.75 Review meetings were held in open court, a transparency that was perceived by the Drug Court Sheriffs as valuable to maintaining public confidence in the Glasgow Drug Court in its pilot stage. Sheriff-client dialogues were at the heart of reviews, ranging from 20 per cent to all of the review time. The sentencers on their side generally offered words of encouragement, regardless of progress, and the clients on their side were honest, responsive and usually co-operative. The concept of drug use as a relapsing condition was recognised by Drug Court Sheriffs and emphasised particularly in shrieval dialogue.

5.76 Supervision and Treatment Team workers took active steps to respond to instances of non-compliance. The Drug Court Sheriffs had a number of sanctions without recourse to formal breach proceedings, although sentencers believed that the range of actions currently available to the Drug Court was insufficient. During the first six months of the pilot Drug Court in action, only one Order had been breached and Drug Court Sheriffs has made very few amendments to Orders to encourage compliance.

« Previous | Contents | Next »