Therapeutic jurisprudence and procedural justice in Scottish drug courts

Scotland, like other Western jurisdictions, has recently witnessed the development of problem-solving courts aimed at responding more effectively to issues that underlie certain types of offending behaviour. The first to be established were two pilot Drug Courts which drew upon experience of Scottish Drug Treatment and Testing Orders. In common with Drug Courts elsewhere, the Scottish pilots combined treatment, drug testing, supervision and judicial oversight. This article focuses upon the role of judicial involvement in the ongoing review of Drug Court participants’ progress, drawing upon court observation and interviews with offenders and Drug Court professionals. Drug Court dialogues were typically encouraging on the part of sheriffs, aimed at recognising and reinforcing the progress made by participants and motivating then to maintain and build upon their achievements to date, while participants were generally responsive to the positive feedback they received from the sheriffs as their orders progressed. Interactions within the Scottish Drug Courts reflect key features of procedural justice (Tyler, 1990), including ethicality, efforts to be fair and representation. By contributing to enhanced perceptions of procedural justice, Drug Court dialogues may, it is argued, increase the perceived legitimacy of the court and by so doing encourage increased compliance with treatment and desistance from crime

Changing practices: The specialised domestic violence court process

Specialised domestic violence courts, initially developed in the United States of America, have been recognised by other jurisdictions including Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom. This article presents a case study of K Court in Toronto, drawing upon documentary evidence, direct observations and interviews with key informants. It is argued that the specialised domestic violence court process includes changing practices of some of the key stakeholders. Learning lessons from abroad can offer jurisdictions insights that can steer implementation of appropriate practices in the field

Adversarialism in informal, collaborative, and 'soft' inquisitorial settings : lawyer roles in child welfare legal environments

This article explores the challenges and benefits of increased legal representation in child welfare hearings, with reference to the Scottish Children’s Hearings System. We look at the role and impact of adversarial behaviours within legal environments intended to follow an informal, collaborative approach. We analyse the views of 66 individuals involved in the Hearings System, including reporters, social workers, panel members and lawyers, collected through four focus groups and 12 interviews held in 2015. We place this analysis in the context of previous research. Our findings identify concern about adversarialism, inter-professional tensions and various challenges associated with burgeoning legal representation. Difficulties stem from disparate professional values and perceived threats to the ethos of hearings. We conclude it is difficult, but possible, to incorporate an adversarial element into such forums. Doing so may help to protect rights and potentially improve decision-making for children and families. The article concludes by considering implications for the practice of lawyers and others