The County Koori Court An Information Paper for Legal Practitioners
Background to Koori Courts
The 1991 report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody highlighted the link between the high level of disadvantage suffered by Australia’s Aboriginal people and their over-representation in Australia’s criminal justice systems. The Royal Commission made it clear that any effective response to over- representation would need to address the underlying drivers of disadvantage and at the same time, reform specific programs and practices in the justice system.
The Royal Commission emphasized the importance of listening to and working with Aboriginal communities. In response to this advice, members of the Victorian Government and representatives of Victorian Aboriginal communities entered into the inaugural Victorian Aboriginal Justice Agreement (AJA) in May 2000.
Burra Lotjpa Dunguludja or ‘Senior Leaders Talking Strong’ is the most recent agreement and is the fourth phase of the AJA. The governance of the AJA and its implementation is achieved through a number of bodies.
The AJA established the Aboriginal Justice Forum (AJF). The AJF is comprised of senior representatives of the Victorian Aboriginal community, the Justice and Community Safety, Human Services, Health and Education government portfolios, as well as representatives from Courts and the chairs of the more localized Regional Aboriginal Justice Advisory Committees (RAJAC)1. It oversees the development, implementation, monitoring and direction of the AJA. The Aboriginal Justice Caucus (AJC) is made up of the Aboriginal community members of the AJF. Their role is to ensure Aboriginal input into all facets of the AJA and its implementation.
Courts and Tribunal programs are aligned to the policies committed to in the AJA. The implementation of the AJA is an important step towards achieving effective structural and system change to improve justice outcomes and, to provide further support to reduce the over representation of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system.
Programs are planned and designed in consultation with the AJF, the RAJACs and the broader Aboriginal community. A community-led approach is considered an important step in supporting self-determination.
One project suggested for consideration in the VAJA and subsequently endorsed by the AJF, was the replication “with cultural adaptation” of the Nunga Magistrates’ Court in Port Adelaide, South Australia. The Nunga Court commenced sitting in 1999 as a Court where Elders from the local community could speak directly to Aboriginal offenders during the sentencing hearing. One of the aims of this approach was to make the Court process more meaningful for the offender.
1 The AJF is responsible for developing and endorsing Koori justice programs. The involvement of the RAJAC chairs ensures that matters come before the Forum from Aboriginal communities throughout Victoria. The AJF meets at least three times a year at different venues throughout Victoria.
County Court of Victoria 250 William Street Page 1 of 10 Melbourne Victoria 3000 countycourt.vic.gov.au
The County Koori Court: An Information Paper for Legal Practitioners
AJF endorsement provided the impetus for the Department of Justice, Koori communities and members of the Magistrates’ Court to work together on establishing a Koori Court.
In the second reading speech in support of the legislation that established the Magistrates’ Koori Court, Rob Hulls, Attorney General, made it clear that one of the aims of the Koori Court was to address the over- representation of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system. He noted that the government did not “pretend that the Koori Court is the only answer to address the alarming number of Aboriginal people represented within our justice system. Rather, it is one initiative of the government’s and the Aboriginal community’s agreement which encompasses the areas of prevention, accessibility, effectiveness of justice related services and rehabilitation.” The Koori Court was identified as one part of a comprehensive program to support Aboriginal offenders. Other suggested initiatives included an adult residential program2, a cultural immersion program, Koori family history and link up, increased numbers of indigenous bail justices, community legal education and improved relations between Victoria Police and Aboriginal communities.
The Attorney General saw the establishment of a Court with participation of Koori Elders and Respected Persons (ERP’s) as an important initiative. He stated that the key emphasis “is on creating an informal and accessible atmosphere and allowing greater participation by the Aboriginal community through the Koori elder or respected person, Aboriginal justice worker, indigenous offenders and their extended families or wide group of connected kin, and if desired, victims in the Court and sentencing process.” This was to reduce “perceptions of intimidation and cultural alienation experienced by Aboriginal offenders.” It also reflected the view that input by the offender’s community “is both an appropriate and potentially more effective method of sanctioning unacceptable conduct” than the traditional approach has been. The Attorney General spoke of the important role of the ERP’s in ensuring a cultural context is “applied to the Court’s processes allowing for Koori Court participants to comprehend the consequences of their offending behaviour from both the law’s and the Aboriginal community’s perspective.”
Establishment of Koori Courts
The first Koori Court was established as a pilot program in October 2002 at the Shepparton Magistrates’ Court. A second Court at Broadmeadows followed in April 2003. These locations were agreed after extensive consultation with Koori communities. There was significant preparatory work undertaken with the local communities, legal practitioners, police and relevant service providers before the Courts commenced sitting.
The Courts were evaluated over a two-year period starting in October 2002.
The evaluation made several findings including that the Court had -
2 Such a program for male offenders has been established at Yarram in Gippsland. It is managed by the Office of Corrections and called ‘Wulgunggo Ngalu Learning Place’. Offenders can reside at the facility during their Community Corrections Order.
Page 2 of 10
The County Koori Court: An Information Paper for Legal Practitioners
• less Koori offenders breaching correctional orders and fewer failures to appear on bail; • provided a forum for the sentencing of offenders that is less alienating for them and has allowed the Court to hear their account of the reasons for the offending; 3and • developed a particularly effective means of integrating various service providers to support offenders in the community.
The evaluation highlighted a major achievement of the Court as being the way it has served to increase Aboriginal community participation in the justice system. This observation has been confirmed by subsequent developments. In 2002 there were very few (if any) Aboriginal people working in Victorian Courts. There are now over 100 ERP’s participating in Koori Courts throughout Victoria. 30 ERP’s sit on the County Koori Court. In addition, many Aboriginal people are employed within Court Services Victoria and the Department of Justice and Community Safety.
The Magistrates’ Koori Court sits at Shepparton, Broadmeadows, Melbourne, Mildura, Warrnambool, La Trobe Valley, Bairnsdale, Swan Hill, Geelong, Portland, Hamilton and Dandenong.
In 2005, the first Children’s Koori Court commenced sitting at Melbourne. They are now located in 12 locations, including Melbourne, Heidelberg, Dandenong, Mildura, Latrobe Valley (Morwell and Bairnsdale), Warrnambool, Portland, Hamilton, Geelong, Swan Hill and Shepparton.
The County Koori Court division was officially launched at the La Trobe Valley Law Courts on 19 November 2008. It draws on the success of the Koori Courts in the Magistrates Courts. It has now been extended to Melbourne, Mildura, Shepparton and Warrnambool, with further expansion planned for Geelong, Bendigo and Wodonga.
The County (Koori) Court
The County Court Amendment (Koori Court) Act 2008 established the County (Koori) Court. The Act has the objective of ensuring greater participation of the Aboriginal community in the sentencing process through the role to be played in that process by the Aboriginal ERP and others. 4
The legislation also creates the position of “Koori Court Officer” (KCO) who has the responsibility of supporting the operation of the Court.
The Koori Court may regulate its own procedure although it is required to take steps to “ensure that, so far as practicable, any proceeding before it is conducted in a way which it considers will make it comprehensible to:
3 A few offenders spoke to the evaluator of their experiences in the Koori Court. They made positive comments about the court and its processes. For example, one offender said, “it means a whole lot more to be given directions about your future life path from a person who is an Elder of your community and has a better understanding of the shoes us blackfellas walk in”. Another said, “to be able to sit opposite the Magistrate and the Elders, you don’t just feel like a number and they actually listened to what I had to say, and when the Elders pass some advice you do actually listen”. 4 The Secretary of the Department of Justice and Community Safety appoints elders /respected persons.
Page 3 of 10
The County Koori Court: An Information Paper for Legal Practitioners
(a) The offender; and (b) A family member of the offender; and (c) Any member of the Aboriginal community who is present in the Court.”
It is still a Court of law and must be treated respectfully by all participants. The Judge’s role is to ensure that it is conducted respectfully and is a safe space. Judges always retain authority.
Jurisdiction
The Koori Court only has jurisdiction to deal with an offender in accordance with the following criteria –
1. The offender must be Aboriginal. This means a person who: (i) Is descended from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander; and (ii) Identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander; and (iii) Is accepted as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander by an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community.
2. The offence is within jurisdiction of the Court (excluding sexual offences).5
3. The offender must plead guilty to the offence.
4. The offender consents to the matter proceeding in the Koori Court.
5. The Koori Court considers it is appropriate in all the circumstances for the matter to proceed in the Court.
As well as dealing with pleas of guilty, the Court is also empowered to hear contraventions of County Court orders and sentence appeals from the Magistrates’ and Children’s Courts.
Sentencing procedure
The Koori Court does not have any different sentencing orders for offenders appearing before it. The judge exercises the same sentencing powers that apply in the “regular” Court. As in any criminal case, the judge is responsible for making the sentencing order. This is emphasized to the offender at the commencement of the sentencing conversation.
5 Until recently, family violence offences were also excluded from being heard in the Koori Court. The Family Violence Act was amended in May 2017 to expand the jurisdiction of the Koori Court to include family violence offences. This amendment came about after detailed consultation with the Koori community. The amendments commenced on 1 September 2018. Mildura is currently the only Court gazetted to deal with such matters. This is because it is part of the ‘Umalek Balit’ pilot program. This will be reviewed following the conclusion of the pilot program, and thereafter other sites may be gazetted to deal with family violence matters.
Page 4 of 10
The County Koori Court: An Information Paper for Legal Practitioners
The Koori Court process has been endorsed by the Court of Appeal. In Honeysett v The Queen 6 the Court of Appeal outlined how participating in the Koori Court process is relevant to sentencing. Mr Honeysett appealed against his sentence of 5 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years for armed robbery and theft on the basis that it was manifestly excessive. He submitted that insufficient weight was given to his depraved childhood and participation in the Koori Court sentencing conversation.
In an earlier decision of R v Morgan (2010) 24 VR 230, the Court of Appeal accepted that active participation in the Koori Court process was a factor that mitigated punishment in that case, as a consequence of the 'shaming' which occurs during the hearing and the inability of the offender to 'hide behind counsel'.
While Morgan and other relevant case law provided useful guidance, the Court in Honeysett recognised that 'it would be useful to have this Court provide guidance as to how, precisely, the procedures adopted in the Koori Court should impact [sentencing]'.
The Court identified at [54] a non-exhaustive list of factors which a sentencing court should consider when determining the weight to be attached to an offender’s participation in the Koori Court sentencing process including:
(1) The fact that participation in the process is a voluntary one, may be confronting to the offender, and will likely involve him or her being ‘shamed’. As noted in Morgan, participation in the process may of itself be rehabilitative.
(2) The fact that the offender is, rather than ‘hiding behind counsel’, taking the opportunity to personally:
(a) demonstrate his or her remorse for the offending;
(b) demonstrate insight into the reasons for, and the seriousness and effect of, the offending; and
(c) express any intention to reform and how that will be done, including by participating in available rehabilitation programs.
(3) The Court’s assessment of the genuineness of the offender’s statements during the sentencing conversation. That assessment should take account of all the information before the Court.
6 [2018] VSCA 214
Page 5 of 10
The County Koori Court: An Information Paper for Legal Practitioners
The Koori Court process differs from plea hearings conducted in the General List. Judges sitting in the division may: (i) Consider any oral statement made to it by an Aboriginal elder or respected person; (ii) Inform itself in any way it thinks fit, including by considering a report by, or a statement or submission from: (a) a Koori Court officer; or (b) a community corrections officer; or (c) a health service provider; or (d) a victim of the offence; or (e) a family member of the defendant; or (f) anyone else whom the Koori Court Division considers appropriate.
The Act does not offer guidance on sentencing procedure and the Court has developed a procedure that builds on the approach developed in the lower Courts whilst acknowledging the differences of the County Court. The Court has a three-step process on a plea that involves formal arraignment, the sentencing conversation and sentence.7
Formal Arraignment
Arraignment is conducted in the normal way with the Judge robed and seated on the bench. After the formal plea of guilty and the admission of any prior criminal history, the matter is adjourned briefly to enable the parties to prepare for the next step in the process.
The Sentencing Conversation
7 This process is set out in the Koori Court Practice Note which is available on the County Court website.
Page 6 of 10
The County Koori Court: An Information Paper for Legal Practitioners
The Sentencing Conversation takes place at the bar table in the body of the courtroom. The judge sits at the table with two ERP’s. In addition, the Koori Court Officer, the prosecutor, a corrections worker, the offender’s lawyer, the offender and a family member/support person also sit at the table. If there is a worker (i.e. drug and alcohol worker, or mental health worker) involved with the offender, that worker may also sit at the table. Other family members and community members are present in the courtroom. Any person who is present in the courtroom may speak to the Judge and ERPs concerning the offender during a Sentencing Conversation.
The Koori Court respects Aboriginal tradition and culture. Art works by Aboriginal artists, and the Australian, Aboriginal and the Torres Strait Islander flags, are on display in those courtrooms where the Koori Court sits.
Each case commences with an acknowledgement of country. The judge explains to the offender that the Court respects Aboriginal culture and how the Court was smoked according to culture and tradition at the commencement of the division. A smoking ceremony is an ancient Aboriginal custom that involves burning eucalyptus leaves indigenous to the site that produces smoke that has cleansing properties and is said to have the ability to make a pathway for a brighter future. Each venue where a County Koori Court sits has been smoked as part of the launch by a traditional elder from the place where the Court is located. The emphasis is on providing a culturally safe space where the Koori participant has a voice that is heard and respected.
The Judge will explain to the Koori participant the role of ERP’s and makes it clear that the ERP’s are not responsible in any way for the sentencing decision – that is the sole responsibility of the judge. The Judge will observe the Koori participant and make an assessment of whether the participation is genuine.
The prosecutor provides an agreed statement of facts. The prosecutor or victim can read the victim impact statement at this time.
The Koori participant is then offered the opportunity to speak about their life and the offending. ERP’s will speak with the offender and to the family.
Voice is an important aspect of the County Koori Court. The offender is encouraged to engage with the ERPs and reflect on their behaviour and discuss their future.
It is a matter for the ERP’s as to what they say. Often, they will speak strongly to an offender on the importance of obeying the law and the harm caused to the victim, the Aboriginal community and the broader community by their misbehaviour. ERP’s focus on condemning their behaviour, not the person. They may talk about the offender’s family and the distress the offending has caused to family and community. Often the offender is reminded of their value as a member of their community and encouraged to change their behaviour and work with agencies that offer help in that regard. ERP’s frequently offer advice based on their lived experiences. Offenders engage in discussion with ERP’s and accord respect to the process. The Koori Court Officer may also speak about matters relevant to the
Page 7 of 10
The County Koori Court: An Information Paper for Legal Practitioners offender. There may be discussion about possible support programs for the offender and others present in Court such as a Community Health worker or a Drug and Alcohol worker, may have matters they wish to tell the Court.
At times, the proceedings become particularly dynamic with various persons contributing to discussion – it may be family members, support persons or other members of the Aboriginal community who contribute.
The Judge’s role is different from the mainstream Courts. ERP’s initiate and control the conversation with the offender. The Judge can summarise what has been discussed and talk directly to the offender as part of the conversation.
The open exchange of information that occurs within the Koori Court gives the judge a better understanding of the offender’s circumstances, the context of the offending and the prospects for rehabilitation. The sentencing decision is a fully informed one.
Sentencing
Sentencing is done formally with the offender in the dock and the judge sitting on the bench. ERPs do not sit with the judge. This reinforces the position that sentencing is the responsibility of the judge and not the ERPs.
Koori Court and the impact of Covid-19
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic led to the suspension of County Koori Court effective from 27 March 2020.
Given the prolonged nature of the pandemic and the declaration of emergency and subsequent declaration of disaster with the associated restrictions the Court has adapted the Koori Court process utilising technology to facilitate the appearance of the Elders & Respected Persons, relatives of the Koori participants, support workers, service providers, the prosecuting authorities, victims, media and any other interested person.
The Court recognised that it was important to provide certainty to Koori offenders especially for those on remand awaiting resolution of their matters. The model adopted by the Court demonstrates a commitment to resumption that meets safety requirements and preserves the cultural aspects of the Court in particular, the Sentencing Conversation. Access to justice and cultural justice is emphasised.
After consultation with all relevant stakeholders (including the Aboriginal Justice Caucus), training of selected elders, the conduct of two pilot pleas and a positive evaluation where there was universal approval for the model, a decision was made to utilise the model for all outstanding matters until it is deemed safe to return to in-court appearances.
Elders & Respected Persons from across the State were thereafter consulted, and the process was universally endorsed. Training has been rolled out for all regions and those Elders who are available for sittings have been supported by the Koori Court Officers.
Page 8 of 10
The County Koori Court: An Information Paper for Legal Practitioners
The model adheres to the processes developed over the years of its operations, however necessity dictates that there needs to be heavy reliance on the parties providing written submissions on sentence and that the Sentencing Conversation is the focus of the hearing, with the Elders & Respected Persons appearing remotely. The Koori Participant and defence counsel are present in Court. The Prosecutor appears remotely as well as any other participant. The Sentencing Conversation proceeds in the usual way with the Judge seated at the bar table.
A Koori Court officer is present during the plea hearing to support the Koori participant in Court. This is deemed essential to ensure that there is cultural support in the courtroom.
The adapted process is an emergency response only and it is not intended to permanently change the process.
An Alert to Practitioners was published on 26 August 2020 in the attached form details the adapted process.
Alert - Resumption of County Koori Cou
There were 28 outstanding matters that were awaiting allocation when the adapted process was approved. All matters have been triaged with priority given to young offenders who were on remand.
The Chief Judge’s approval for the matter to proceed must be given in accordance with the Stage 4 Restrictions.
The Court will proceed with this model until such time it is possible to safely resume the previous operating model. All Koori participants are required to provide informed consent to participate in this model and continuous feedback and opportunities for improvement are sought from all participants.
It is anticipated that all outstanding matters will be processed by the close of business in December 2020.
Conclusion
The Koori Court provides an alternative sentencing process for Koori offenders. ERP’s from Aboriginal communities engage directly with offenders. Offenders consent to participate in a process that is meaningful to them because it involves engaging with people whose authority they respect. Offenders accept responsibility for their offending behaviour and the ERP’s challenge offenders to change their behaviour and work with those agencies that can help bring about change.
The County Koori Court was evaluated between 2009 and 2011. The evaluation found that the experience of Koori accused in the justice system “is vastly improved by the availability of the County Koori Court.” Offenders reported that they valued the opportunity to appear before ERPs in a Court that allowed them to speak directly about their
Page 9 of 10
The County Koori Court: An Information Paper for Legal Practitioners
personal history and the circumstances of their offending. The experience of appearing in the Koori Court resulted in offenders, “being more engaged and respectful of sentencing decisions, which in turn facilitates an intention to adhere to Court orders and motivation to address causes of offending behaviour.”
The evaluators concluded that it was too early to definitively say whether the Court would have a long-term impact on re-offending. However, they noted two main ways the Koori Court experience might influence future behaviour. First, offenders going through the Court felt shame and responsibility for what they had done and secondly, they felt more motivated and supported to address the factors behind the offending behaviour.8 These observations accord with the experience of judges sitting in the Koori Court who have seen the positive impact of the process on offenders; offenders who have listened respectfully to the direction and guidance offered by the ERPs and in a significant number of cases, changed their behaviour.
Finally, the best indicator of the value of the Koori Courts comes from the Koori community itself. In 2005, the “Victorian Implementation Review” of the Royal Commission recommendations noted how the Koori Court initiative received almost universal approval from those communities. Subsequent expansion and continued expansion of the Koori Court confirms this assessment.
Judge Irene Lawson 8 October 2020
8 https://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/CKC%20Evaluation%20Report_FINAL_27Sep11_0.pdf Interestingly, the evaluation also reported how the Koori Court had fostered respect for the judiciary through its inclusive Court process.
Page 10 of 10
Aboriginal Community Justice Reports Pilot Project Introduction to the Project
Partnership • VALS, UTS, Griffith University, AIJA, Five Bridges
• Australian Research Council Linkages Grant Funding • $1.18m over 3 years
• VALS, UTS, Griffith University, Five Bridges, AIJA In-kind support • ALS (Ontario, Canada) and Aotearoa/NZ report writing services and staff
Time frame • Three year project (2020-2023) BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT
Bugmy v The Queen Gladue Reports (2013) VALS research and advocacy
ALRC Inquiry on VALS paper - Incarceration of Addressing Over- Aboriginal peoples - Aboriginal incarceration: > recommendation Community Justice ALS (Ontario, Aboriginal on VALS Submission reports identified as Canada) visit to Community Justice Indigenous into the Sentencing a policy priority VALS Reports Experience Reports Act reform
2015 2015 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2018 2019
development of VALS research visit Aboriginal Justice Burra Lotjpa MoU between VALS to ALS in Toronto Caucus identify ACJR Dunguludja (AJA4) and Toronto ALS and other Gladue as priority commits to trialling Report services in ACJR over 5 years Canada 2015: AIJA funded Professors Anthony, Behrendt and Marchetti to research and evaluate Pre-Sentence Reports in Victoria and NSW, and Aboriginal Narrative Reports in the NT and QLD. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ cultural background and community circumstances were given little attention in PSRs. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander defendants were more likely to be classified as ‘high risk’ of reoffending than non- Academic Indigenous defendants Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-specific sentence options research were rarely identified. When cultural background was identified in PSRs, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background information was often referenced using vague or general terms Discrete sentencing reports on an Aboriginal person’s personal background, community, needs and strengths (akin to Gladue Reports) are the most appropriate way to supplement pre- sentence information on Aboriginal background. 2016: Research conducted by Anthony and Marchetti in Canada based on interviews with judges, lawyers and report writers Report writing service needs to be placed in an Indigenous organisation which Indigenous people feel safe accessing, have established relationships with communities and are experienced in advocating for Indigenous people impacted by criminal justice system. Academic The service needs to be staffed by Aboriginal people and have a history of providing justice services to Aboriginal research people.
See: Anthony, T., Marchetti, E. Behrendt, L. & Longman, C. Individualised Justice through Indigenous Community Reports in Sentencing (2017) 26(3) Journal of Judicial Administration 121-140. What is happening in other Australian jurisdictions?
ACT QLD NT • 2017 Government committed • Five Bridges have been • the draft Aboriginal Justice to trial of ‘Aboriginal and developing Narrative reports Agreement (currently being Torres Strait Islander for use in Murri Courts in developed) includes a Experience Court Reports’ in Maroochydore, Brisbane and commitment to implement sentencing courts. Ipswich since 2015. Aboriginal Experience • Not been significant progress • other justice groups in Reports. to date. Queensland also do similar o NAAJA’s Community Legal reports. Education team has been working for a number of years with Law and Justice Groups comprised of Aboriginal Elders, drafting letters for sentencing in the local court and Supreme Court Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander adults are 13 times more likely to be in prison, yet account for 2% of the general adult population Addressing In Victoria: Aboriginal adults comprise 10% of the prison population; yet account for 0.9% of the over- general population (Corrections Victoria 2019, ABS 2016). Rates are higher for Indigenous incarceration women. Recidivism rates for Aboriginal peoples of Aboriginal are 55% compared to overall rate of 44.1%. The Sentencing Advisory Council July 2020 data peoples on Victoria’s Indigenous Imprisonment Rates more than doubled between 2009 and 2019, consistently higher than the imprisonment rate for the total Victorian population. The project aims to improve sentencing processes and outcomes for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander defendants by providing courts with information about the Project personal and community circumstances of Aboriginal individuals before the courts, and Objectives which provide relevant sentencing options that are accompanied with appropriate supports. Intended Project Output Report for community Aboriginal Community and stakeholders Justice Reports for 40 summarising findings and defendants (20 in VIC) recommendations Enhanced capacity at VALS and Five Bridges Academic symposium in Presentations to key 2022 bringing together stakeholders and scholars from Canada, Academic publications Aotearoa/NZ & Australia Koori County Court & County Court (before Koori Court judges) Melbourne, Broadmeadow, La Trobe Valley Both Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander men and women Scope of the 20 reports prepared, commencing in 2021 It is estimated that each report will take approx. Project 50 hours to prepare Report writing process will involve: interviews with the client and other members of family/community; independent research from other sources (data sets, archives, local libraries, academic sources) Two new positions (report writer and case manager) currently being finalised Employed by UTS and located at VALS Daily supervision from VALS Manager of Community Justice Programs with ongoing feedback from UTS supervisor Structure of Information barriers at VALS to ensure no conflict of interest – Project staff will be located within the Project the Community Justice Projects team Report service will have separate office space and staff to Legal Practice Separate electronic record keeping and databases Restricted access to records Appropriate training and protocols Pre-sentence reports focus on risk, on the criminogenic needs of a defendant; contain negligible information on Aboriginal social history; limited information on community-driven and culturally appropriate services available and are not strengths- based. Difference ACJR provide a more holistic account of individual with Pre- circumstances, including as it relates to their community, culture and strengths; sentence provide an opportunity for the defendant and related people to consider and speak about such impacts in a supportive environment; reports provide a voice to the defendant, her/his family and community support people in the preparation of pre- sentence information and thus greater engagement with the justice system, consistent with the aims of Koori Courts. Inform the court of community-based options. Connection to country; Family/Kinship relations; cultural identity Adverse affects of historical and contemporary circumstances Colonial history (including inter-generational trauma resulting from land dispossession and child removals) Institutional and direct racism; Administrative segregation; Poverty, drug and alcohol use, loss of connection to Contents of culture, family violence Adverse effects of institutionalisation the ACJR Supports/protections in and strengths of the community Holistic approach to health/wellbeing of individual in relation to sentence options; Available Indigenous support programs, groups and relationships Relevant Aboriginal/gender specific programs & services; Individual’s strengths, value to community and family; • Voluntary participation • Referrals from VALS Criminal Law Practice and external Referral process organisations • Central email
• The Project Steering Committee is composed of project partners and key stakeholders Refine project scope, outcomes and methodology Governance Advise on implementation Ensure that the project responds to client needs Oversight for the development of evaluation framework
• UTS and Griffith University will evaluate the pilot • Feedback sought from participants Defendant, defence and prosecution lawyers, judges, Elders in Koori Evaluation court, community experts, caseworker and report writer. • Thematic analysis of reports and sentencing remarks • Data will be de-identified in accordance with UTS policy Questions?
Nerita Waight, CEO, Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service [email protected] Andreea Lachsz, Senior Policy, Research and Advocacy Officer [email protected].