JUSTICE REINVESTMENT - PORT ADELAIDE PROJECT - JUSTICE SYSTEM REVIEW 2018
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
JUSTICE REINVESTMENT –
PORT ADELAIDE PROJECT
JUSTICE SYSTEM REVIEW
Understanding the underlying factors which contribute to offending
pathways and potential solutions
2018
Contents
1. PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT ........................................................................................................ 3
2. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 4
Adult corrections system, SA ....................................................................................................... 5
Youth justice system, SA .............................................................................................................. 9
3. PORT ADELAIDE COURTS ............................................................................................................... 16
4. SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF CRIME – AN AUSTRALIAN PERSPECTIVE ............................................. 27
A: Involvement with the child protection system .................................................................... 27
B. Intergenerational incarceration ........................................................................................... 31
C: Drug and alcohol misuse ...................................................................................................... 33
D: Unemployment, low income and poverty ........................................................................... 37
E: Low educational attainment ................................................................................................ 39
F: Homelessness ....................................................................................................................... 40
G: Cognitive disability and mental-ill health ............................................................................ 41
5. JUSTICE SYSTEM REFORM .............................................................................................................. 43
Justice related legislation and policy, SA ................................................................................... 43
Courts and problem-solving Justice ........................................................................................... 47
Policing practices and over-policing .......................................................................................... 49
Overcoming barriers to rehabilitation, employment and successful return to community ..... 51
6. BASELINE INDICATORS .................................................................................................................. 52
7. APPENDIX 1: FLOWS THROUGH THE ADULT AND YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEMS .................................. 54
8. APPENDIX 2: SA OFFENDER AND FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES ....................................................... 56
9. APPENDIX 3: CASE STUDIES ........................................................................................................... 59
10. APPENDIX 4: HOW DOES SENTENCING FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS WORK IN SA? ............................ 67
11. APPENDIX 5: JUSTICE CAMPAIGNS IN AUSTRALIA ......................................................................... 70
12. APPENDIX 6: POTENTIAL DATA INDICATORS FOR YOUTH AT RISK OF OFFENDING ........................ 72
13. APPENDIX 7: REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 74
This resource is for Justice Reinvestment-Port Adelaide project purposes only 2
1. Purpose of this document
This resource has been compiled to provide Justice Reinvestment SA (JRSA)
members and the Port Adelaide Justice Reinvestment Aboriginal Leadership
Group with background information about aspects of the justice system, justice
system reform opportunities and the factors which contribute to criminogenic
behaviours.
This resource is not intended to be a definitive source of all aspects of the justice
system. It is hoped that the resource will provide some pointers and stimulate
discussion about the justice system, areas of policy reform and legislation and
underlying causes of crime to support further planning and implementation of a
community-led justice reinvestment approach in Port Adelaide.
Wherever possible, snapshots of information and data specific to Port Adelaide
or South Australia have been included. Where localised data is not readily
available, Australian data is provided as a broad indicator of rates or trends. In
some cases, questions for further consideration and/or data gaps are identified.
More comprehensive data to support the Port Adelaide justice reinvestment
project is available in the Port Adelaide Enfield, Population and Justice Profile
and the Port Adelaide Enfield: Young Offenders (10-17) Data Analysis which
have also been developed by the project.
The project will continue to build on information provided in these documents in
the form of summary, infographic or other resources as requested by JRSA and
the Port Adelaide Justice Reinvestment Aboriginal Leadership Group.
3
2. Introduction
In order to improve justice outcomes for the community, we need not only to look at the prison
system, but also the range of connected systems such as courts, policing and community
corrections, and the underlying causal factors and social determinants which underpin an
increase in prison numbers.
It is important to acknowledge the complexities of the justice system when considering the
need and implications of ‘doing justice differently’ or justice systems reform. Crime rates in
South Australia are not growing and yet incarceration rates are increasing. At the same time
there are indications that the public confidence in the justice system is declining and the
perception that the community needs to be ‘tough on crime’ is increasing (Australian Red Cross,
2017).
The social risk factors that contribute to a person’s likelihood of entering the justice system
need to be considered, alongside opportunities for effective community based services which
a) prevent people from entering the justice system, and b) improve outcomes for people
already in contact with the justice system from their first point of contact, while they are in
custody, and when they leave prison and re-enter community and family life.
There is an established link between criminal activity and social and economic factors such as
poverty, substance abuse, unemployment and low levels of social and community cohesion.
There is also a direct link between the demand on justice services and changes in legislative and
policy environments introduced in response to public concerns about the levels of crime and
fear of crime. It is often those experiencing disadvantage who are most impacted by these
changes, leading to the criminalisation of poverty in Australia’s most vulnerable communities.
This has significant financial and social costs for the community.
Data on its own does not give an accurate account of the issues for those in the system. For this
reason it is essential to consider individuals’ personal narratives and the impact of policy and
legislation on their interactions with the justice system. For example, high rates of reoffending
may indicate increasing rates of crime and antisocial behaviours. However this data alone does
not provide details of the nature of the re-offence. For example, a return to prison for a traffic
offence is counted in the same manner as a return for a more serious offence such as homicide.
It is well understood that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander1 people at all ages are
substantially over-represented within the justice system. Although the majority of Aboriginal
people do not have contact with justice systems over the course of their lives, for those who do,
the justice system can perpetuate a complex cycle of incarceration. The overrepresentation of
Aboriginal people in the justice system is a result of a complex interplay of disadvantage,
institutional bias, inflexible justice system and sentencing options, systemic racism, history of
dispossession and family and intergenerational trauma (Snowball and Weatherburn 2007).
1
For the purposes of this paper, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people may be referred to as Aboriginal
people
This resource is for Justice Reinvestment-Port Adelaide project purposes only 4
It is also well documented that particular areas and communities carry a greater financial
burden as a result of higher numbers of chronic offenders living in those locations; and these
communities will receive the most benefit from improved justice system and service responses,
including redirected savings from reduced prison numbers, particularly when redirected into
early intervention initiatives.
Justice reinvestment aims to work with communities to reduce the cost of crime and
victimisation through prevention and protection measures proven to strengthen public safety
and social cohesion over the long term for future generations. Justice reinvestment is a
transformative approach that addresses the root causes of crime based on the knowledge that a
significant proportion of prisoners and offenders come from, and return to, a small number of
communities. In Australia, justice reinvestment has been advocated as an approach for
addressing the over-representation of Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system.
Advocacy for the benefits of a justice reinvestment approach in Australia gained momentum
with the release of the Social Justice Report (2009) in which the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Social Justice Commissioner recommended justice reinvestment as a priority including
implementation of pilot projects in targeted communities. In 2013, the Senate Inquiry into the
’Value of a justice reinvestment approach to the criminal justice system in Australia’ was
undertaken resulting in nine core recommendations. Similarly, the Australian Human Rights
Commission has recognised in several Social Justice reports the potential of justice reinvestment
in addressing the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the criminal
justice system, given its emphasis on community-led approaches. Justice reinvestment offers a
strong approach for rethinking and transforming Australia’s justice systems.
In the Social Justice and Native Title Report (2014), Mick Gooda states:
‘There are persuasive arguments for trialing a justice reinvestment approach in Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander contexts given the high levels of over-representation and
disadvantage faced by these communities. The principles of a justice reinvestment approach
include localism, community control and better cooperation between local services. These
also align with what we know about human rights-based practice in Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander service delivery’ (AHRC, 2014).
Adult corrections system, SA
Over the past decade, South Australia has experienced growth in prison numbers by almost
81%. As of 30 June 2017, the number of adult prisoners in SA prisons was 3,032, an increase of
3% (84 prisoners) since 2016 (ABS, 2017b). This is the second highest growth rate in Australia
over the same period (behind the Northern Territory). This prolonged growth has resulted in the
SA correctional system operating at 157 per cent of its designed capacity. At the current rate, it
is estimated that this will continue to grow to 250 per cent of its capacity by 2025 (Productivity
Commission, 2018a).
In SA, it costs approximately $105,033 annually, inclusive of capital costs, to keep an adult in
prison and approximately $6,333 in community corrections (approximately 6% of the cost of
5
prison). SA has 8 Government and 1 privately operated prisons (Productivity Commission,
2018a).
In 2016-17, the number of adult prisoners on an average day in SA was 2,998 and of these,
699 (23%) identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. 93% were male. During the same
period, adults serving community corrections orders was 6,374 on an average day and 1,076
(17%) identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. 82% were male.
In 2016-17 in SA, 36% of adults who had been released from prison, returned to prison or
corrective services with a new sentence within 2 years. 45% returned to corrective services with
a new correctional sanction within two years.
In SA, 11% of adults discharged from community corrections orders in 2014-15, returned to
community corrections within 2 years. 21% returned to a prison sentence or community
corrections order within 2 years (Productivity Commission, 2018a). .
Table 1 provides a comparison between the SA and Australian populations who are in custody,
unsentenced, sentenced, under community-based orders and Indigenous status at September
2017 (ABS, 2017a).
Table 1: Baseline for adult prison population and adults on community-based orders, SA
Sept quarter 2017
Aust. (rate per
SA (Average SA (rate per 100,000
Indicator Demographic 100,000
daily number) population)
population)
Adult prison All – in full time custody 3020 222 216
population
(18 years and Males – in full time
2811 422 405
over) custody
Females – in full time
208 31 34
custody
Indigenous – in full time
698 2651 2424
custody
Unsentenced 1120 83 68
Sentenced 1919 142 148
Community-based
5399 403 363
corrections
Source: ABS, 2017a
This resource is for Justice Reinvestment-Port Adelaide project purposes only 6
Table 2 provides a snapshot of the characteristics of adults who entered the prison system in SA
(and Australia) in 2015.
Table 2: Characteristics of adults in full-time custody in South Australia and Australia
Characteristics SA Aust
Prisoner number (ABS, 2017b) 3,032 41,202
Male (%) 95 92
Aboriginal (%) 25 24
Median age (years) 30 32
Age range (years) 19-76 18-76
Been in juvenile detention (%) 24 21
Been in prison before (%) 69 66
Been in prison in previous 12 months (%) 40 40
Currently on remand (%) 83 56
Length of most recent prison stay less than 3 months
49 36
(% by discharged prisoner)
Length of most recent prison stay more than 2 years
7 9
(% by discharged prisoner)
Unsentenced (%) (ABS, 2017b) 38 31
Median time on remand for unsentenced prisoners
2.4 3.3
(Months) (ABS, 2017b)
Source: AIHW, 2015a and ABS, 2017b
7
PORT ADELAIDE - ADULT CORRECTIONS
During 2015-17, 92 individual adult offenders from the Port Adelaide Enfield
(PAE) area received a prison sentence.
In the decade to 2017, 2671 adult offenders from PAE received a prison sentence
on a minimum of one occasion. 23% identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander.
Of the 2671 adult offenders discharged from prison during 2007-17,
83% had served 1-2 periods in prison, 15%, 3-5 periods and
2%, more than 6 periods.
Of all offenders discharged from prison during 2007-17, one-quarter had served
a total period of 30 days or less, one-half had served a total period of more than
one year.
The most common ‘offence descriptions’ served included; ‘offences against
justice procedures’ (26%) ‘assaults’ (18%), ‘deal or traffic drugs’ (13%), ‘break
and enter’ (8%), and ‘fraud’ (8%).
Reasons for discharge from prison for offenders discharged during 2007-17
comprised one-third (32%) paroled, one-quarter (28%) to bail, one-fifth (19%)
released off court and one-fifth (18%) released with sentence served.
Offences recorded by Police are higher in the PAE region across all offence types
when compared with metropolitan SA. In 2013, the Port Adelaide Enfield rate
per 1,000 population was 157 (for total offences), compared with 110 for
metropolitan SA.
Source: Department for Correctional Services (localised data extracted for the project, 2017)
and Office of Crime Statistics and Research
This resource is for Justice Reinvestment-Port Adelaide project purposes only 8Youth justice system, SA
The set of processes and practices for managing children and young people who have
committed, or allegedly committed, an offence is known as the youth justice system. Young
people can be charged with a criminal offence if they are aged 10 and older. The upper age limit
for treatment as a young person is 17 although some young people aged 18 and older are also
involved in the youth justice system. This may be due to the offence being committed when the
young person was aged 17 or younger, the continuation of supervision once they turn 18, or in
some cases because of vulnerability or immaturity.
Young people generally first make contact with the youth justice system when police investigate
an alleged crime. Legal action by police may include court actions (the laying of charges to be
answered in court) and non-court actions (such as cautions, conferencing, counselling or
infringement notices). A court may decide to dismiss the charge, divert the young person from
further involvement in the system (for example by referral to mainstream services), or transfer
them to specialist courts or programs. If the matter proceeds and the charge is proven, the
court may hand down any of a number of orders, either supervised or unsupervised
(AIHW, 2017c).
A major feature of the youth justice system is the supervision of young people on legal orders.
They may be supervised in the community or within secure detention facilities. Young people
may be supervised while they are ‘unsentenced’- when they have been charged with an offence
and are awaiting the outcome of their court matter, or when they have been found or have
pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentencing. However, most of those under supervision are
‘sentenced’ - they have been proven guilty in court and sentenced.
Young people may be supervised in the community, or in detention, on both sentenced and
unsentenced legal orders. Unsentenced community-based supervision results from legal orders,
such as supervised or conditional bail (which may include conditions such as curfew or a
monetary bond) and home detention bail. Young people may be in sentenced community-based
supervision if they have been found guilty in a court and have received a sentenced order; this
may include probation and similar (where regular reporting to the youth justice agency and
participation in treatment programs may be required), suspended detention (where the young
person must meet certain conditions or not re-offend within a specified time period), and
parole or supervised release (supervision that follows a period of detention).
Young people in contact with youth justice systems, SA
In SA, the Adelaide Youth Training Centre (AYTC) detention facility, is housed on two campuses
in Cavan. One campus caters for female residents, younger male residents and young people in
overnight remand. The other campus houses older male residents.
In 2016-17, there were 887 total admissions for 388 individual young people of whom half or
more were in remand awaiting trial. Of the 388 young people admitted, at the time of first
admission:
23% were young women
22% were under guardianship orders
9 49% were from Aboriginal backgrounds
(Guardian for Children and Young People, 2017)
Figure 1 demonstrates the age distribution of young people ages 10-20 years at the time of
admission to detention during 2016-17.
Figure 1: The age distribution of young people at the time of admission (2016-17)
Source: Guardian for Children and Young People, 2017
Table 3 provides baseline data relating to young people 10- 17. Young people 17-18 are not
included due to inconsistency across Australia, with young people in this age range being
treated as either an adult or youth for the purpose of sentencing. Data is based on a rate of per
10,000 of the youth population.
Table 3: Baseline for youth in custody, community based order and all supervision,
SA and Australia, 2015-16
SA Aust
Number (all ages) Rate aged 10-17 years Rate aged 10-17 years
(# per 10,000) (# per 10,000)
Average During the Average During the Average During the
day year day year day year
Community All 253 580 14 31 18 37
Aboriginal 119 259 150 329 148 313
Aboriginal /
20
Non-Indigenous rate ratio
Detention All 56 436 3 26 3 19
Aboriginal 32 207 45 284 37 180
Aboriginal /
30
Non-Indigenous rate ratio
All All 307 751 17 41 21 41
supervision
Aboriginal 150 335 195 434 191 351
Aboriginal /
22
Non-Indigenous rate ratio
Source: AIHW, 2017c
This resource is for Justice Reinvestment-Port Adelaide project purposes only 10When all the time spent under supervision during 2015–16 is considered (including periods that
were not completed), young people in SA who were supervised during the year spent a total
average of 149 days (5 months) under supervision.
It costs approximately $1800 per day to provide detention-based supervision, $113 per day for
community-based supervision and $1165 for a (concluded) group conference. In 2016-17, SA
government expenditure on youth justice services (including detention, community and group
conferencing) was more than $45.7M (Productivity Commission, 2018b).
Aboriginal young people
Aboriginal young people in SA comprise 5 per cent the total population aged 10-17 years, but
make up approximately 57 per cent of young people in detention on an average day. In 2015-16,
104 Aboriginal young people received community-based supervision and 32 Aboriginal young
people were in detention on an average day (Productivity Commission, 2018b).
Aboriginal young people in SA are 30 times more likely to be in detention than non-Aboriginal
young people. This level of over-representation is higher for young people than for the adult
population (Aboriginal adults are 17 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Aboriginal
adults) (AIHW, 2017c).
SA has the 2nd highest rate of Aboriginal young people in detention among all states and
territories (459 per 100,000 behind WA at 610 per 100,000 young people), and is well over the
national average (373 per 100,000). In 2015-16, 72% of Aboriginal young people on community-
based orders (and 81% of non-Aboriginal young people) completed them successfully
(Productivity Commission, 2018b).
On average, Aboriginal young people have been shown to have more contacts with the juvenile
system, progress onto more serious contacts (for example onto sentenced detention) and have
a wider variety of pathways through the system than non-Aboriginal young people (AIHW
2017b).
Reoffending
There is evidence that punitive measures such as detention may worsen rates of youth
recidivism. Specifically, the experience of incarceration can create institutionalisation or
dependency, can encourage criminal activity and can leave young people with no knowledge of
basic life skills for reintegration into society. These outcomes may be a result of a lack of
adequate living standards in juvenile detention centres, a lack of case management, limited
family and community contact and a lack of education and training programs (Australian Law
Reform Commission, 1997).
Using Australia-wide data, the majority of young people do not return to sentenced supervision.
Of those aged 10–17 years who were under sentenced youth justice supervision from 2000–01
to 2015–16, 61% received 1 supervised sentence before turning 18. Young people who served
shorter initial sentences were more likely to return to sentenced supervision than those who
served longer initial sentences, regardless of whether their first sentence was community based
11or detention. Young Aboriginal people were 1.7 times as likely as their non-Indigenous
counterparts to return to sentenced supervision before the age of 18 (AIHW, 2017b).
Figure 2 provides a summary of the rate of return - presented as the proportion of young people
who returned, out of all young people who could have returned to sentenced youth justice
supervision.
Figure 2: Return to sentenced youth justice supervision, Australia 2014-15
Source: AIHW, 2017b
Youth rehabilitation and treatment programs
A range of rehabilitation and support programs are offered to young people in SA who are
under the supervision of youth justice in either the community or custody. Examples of
rehabilitation programs currently offered include PLUS+, Changing Habits and Reaching Targets
(CHART) and counselling by the Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia (DASSA) (AIHW,
2017a).
The primary objective of the PLUS+ program is to help young people acquire, develop and apply
a series of social problem-solving, interpersonal, and self-control skills that will enable them to
better manage potential difficulties in their lives, and to avoid future reoffending. Currently, the
program is available to young people serving either remand or detention orders at AYTC, who
are assessed as moderate or high risk of re-offending. CHART uses a skills-oriented approach to
challenge offending behaviour for young people who require a moderate to high level of
intervention to reduce their risk of re-offending. DASSA provide individual counselling for young
people in custody with alcohol and other drug misuse issues.
A range of developmental, health and social integration programs are also available including
Ignition, Step Out and D-Stress. The Ignition program is coordinated by Service to Youth Council
- Helping Young People Achieve (HYPA), and is designed to improve the social and independent
This resource is for Justice Reinvestment-Port Adelaide project purposes only 12living skills of young people. This program can also be a pathway to the Integrated Housing Exits
Program which provides young people with independent accommodation for 12 months with
support from workers from HYPA. Step Out is a mentoring program provided by Red Cross
which aims to support young people who are currently, or who have previously been in custody
to reconnect with their community and to pursue positive lifestyles and personal goals that
minimise future risk of reoffending. Young people involved in the program commence working
with mentors while in custody and continue into the community for up to 12 months.
The D-Stress program is a brief, six session psycho-educational group program designed to assist
young people to improve their ability to manage stressful experiences. It is currently delivered
three times per year during mid-term school holidays, with the girls and young boys units at
AYTC. The Youth Justice Program Review Panel reviews all programs delivered.
Youth Justice Psychology Services (YJPS) provide assessment and rehabilitation for young
offenders, integrated with case management services and supporting training centre
operations. YJPS provides clinical psychological assessments to assist case planning and case
management. YJPS prioritises young people who are at high risk of re-offending, and who have
been convicted of serious offences.
Aboriginal young people and their families are provided with access to a range of cultural
support services. The Circles of Trust engagement tool assists case managers to gather
information about Aboriginal clients, their family, cultural group and community supports.
Metropolitan Aboriginal Youth and Family Services (MAYFS) provide a culturally specific service
and provides community outreach programs, within the community. The Child and Adolescent
Mental Health Service (CAMHS) Journey Home program helps young Aboriginal people and their
families create pathways out of the justice system. The program aims to strengthen the young
person's connection to culture and community, and to connect to local support services in their
community.
Education programs for young people at AYTC and in the community emphasise literacy and
numeracy as base skills, and include a curriculum (from within the Australian Curriculum)
offering life skills, work skills, health, physical education, science, arts, woodwork and
metalwork, accredited by the South Australian Certificate of Education. Accredited vocational
courses are offered and include hospitality/ kitchen operations, building and construction,
horticulture, dry wall construction, automotive (small engines) and music. Case-managed
Innovative Community Action Networks courses and programs are offered to young people
released from AYTC to foster engagement and pathways to employment.
The information in this section has been sourced primarily from AIHW:
https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/youth-justice/youth-justice-in-australia-2015-
16/contents/south-australia).
13PORT ADELAIDE – YOUTH JUSTICE
In 2016, the rate of Police apprehension reports involving young people in the
Port Adelaide Enfield (PAE) area was 238 per 10,000 population, compared with
144 per 10,000 population in metropolitan SA.
Of all Police apprehension reports involving young people during this period,
36% involved Aboriginal young people (compared with 32% in metropolitan SA).
Of all apprehension reports involving Aboriginal young people, the most serious
single offence type for individuals throughout the year was ‘breach of bail’
(31%), followed by ‘unlawful entry with intent/burglary/break and enter’ (8%),
‘serious assault not resulting in injury’ (7%), ‘property damage’ (7%), ‘possession
of illicit drugs’ (6%), and ‘common assault’ (5%).
Of the 182 young people between the ages 10-17 years apprehended in PAE in
2016, 28% were 17 years, 40% were 15-16 years, 22% were 13-14 years and
3% were 10-12 years.
Of the 182 young people apprehended, 20% (37 individuals) identified as
Aboriginal, and 81% were male.
Of all young people apprehended in PAE in 2016, 48% were arrested and 52%
were reported. Of the Aboriginal people apprehended, 57% were arrested and
43% were reported.
Of the Aboriginal young people apprehended in the PAE area in 2016, 27% had
reported one offence during the year, 14%, 2 offences; 24%, 3 offences; 19%, 4
offences and 16%, 5 offences (a similar pattern was shown among Aboriginal
young people apprehended in metropolitan Adelaide).
The most common offence type (by most serious single offence by individual
Aboriginal young offenders during 2016) was ‘serious assault not resulting in
injury’ (19%), ‘unlawful entry with intent/burglary/break and enter’ (11%),
‘Theft except motor vehicle’ (11%), ‘aggravated sexual assault’ (11%), ‘common
assault’ (8%).
58% of Aboriginal young offenders apprehended in 2016, identified a suburb in
PAE as their home address. 11% identified the Salisbury local government area,
8% identified the Playford area and 8% the West Torrens area.
Of all Aboriginal young people apprehended in 2016, 46% attended Court, 24%
attended a family conference, 22% received a formal caution and in 3% of cases
the charge was withdrawn.
Source: Office of Crime Statistics and Research (localised data extracted for the project), 2018.
NOTE: This data is confidential for project purposes only and not for public distribution.
This resource is for Justice Reinvestment-Port Adelaide project purposes only 14QUESTIONS FOR PORT ADELAIDE
? How can we improve our understanding (community narratives) about what
factors influence patterns of offending and positive life choices, from the
perspectives of young people in direct contact with youth justice services
(in detention and community supervision).
? Is there research / evidence about the outcomes of rehabilitation, education
and treatment programs by young people in detention, to better prepare
them for positive lives in the community.
? How can the project align with the justice reinvestment action identified in
SAPOL’s Reconciliation Action Plan 2017-2020, such as increased use of
Police discretionary powers.
? How can we improve our understanding of Port Adelaide and Youth Court
processes and outcomes for Aboriginal people and their families including
the role of Alternative Sentencing options, Nunga Court, Family Conferencing
and use of 9C.
153. Port Adelaide Courts
The Port Adelaide Court provides access to the following courts and services:
Magistrates Court, Criminal and Civil
Nunga Court (Aboriginal Sentencing Court)
Youth Court
Diversion Court
Family Violence Court.
Other services also operating from the Port Adelaide Court (registry) include:
Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement (ALRM) – provides legal services for Aboriginal clients
on civil, family and criminal law matters. In criminal law matters, ALRM represents clients
from committal stage to appeal. ALRM also plays a role in lobbying for law reform.
Legal Services Commission – focuses on proving legal assistance on criminal law issues to
people without other means of legal support. A review conducted in 2014 indicated that
there have been an increasing number of Aboriginal defendants accessing legal aid
services provided through the Commission (13 per cent of all legal aid matters provided
to Aboriginal people) (Attorney-General’s Department, 2015a).
Aboriginal Justice Officers – refer below
Justice of the Peace
Uni SA Legal Advice Clinic (Fridays)
Taking payments on behalf of the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit.
The Magistrates Court has a criminal and civil jurisdiction. In its criminal jurisdiction, the
Magistrates Court deals with summary offences, which may be dealt with by a fine,
imprisonment of up to two years, community service or a good behaviour bond. In its civil
jurisdiction, it hears matters seeking damages of up to $100,000 for general claims and minor
civil claims which are up to $25,000. Magistrates Courts in SA handle the greatest proportion of
litigation in the State. All criminal matters begin in the Magistrates Court and the civil
jurisdiction hears approximately 90% of all disputes within the State. In 2016-17, there were
approximately 45,000 criminal cases finalised in magistrates courts (excluding youth courts) and
3,000 cases finalised in youth courts in SA. The proportion of criminal court finalisations
involving Aboriginal people in SA magistrates courts (excluding youth courts) was 13% and in
youth courts was 37% (Productivity Commission, 2018a).
The Nunga (Aboriginal Sentencing) Court was first established in the Port Adelaide Magistrates
Court in South Australia in 1993 and currently operates fortnightly on a Tuesday. Additional
Nunga Courts have also been established across the state. These courts are a special case court
specifically available for people of Aboriginal descent. Defendants will need to be assessed by an
Aboriginal Justice Officer (AJO) to determine if the person meets assessment criteria and they
are of Aboriginal descent (in accordance of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA)). The
defendant will need to have pleaded guilty, or found to be guilty of a crime which can only be
heard and decided by a magistrate in the magistrates court (summary offence). In general,
summary offences are less serious than indictable offences and the penalties are not as great.
The defendant will need to elect to have the sentence heard at the Nunga Court. Nunga Court is
only accessible if the offence happened in the geographical area covered by that court.
This resource is for Justice Reinvestment-Port Adelaide project purposes only 16The Youth Court of SA was established under the Youth Court Act (SA) 1993. The current Youth
Court is a specialist court which deals with young offenders from the ages of 10 to 17. All major
indictable trials, for example, aggravated serious criminal trespass, endangering life, etc, must
be presided over by a judge. Minor indictable offences, for example; non-aggravated serious
criminal trespass, damage property, graffiti etc are presided over by a magistrate. Youth court
hearings are held at the Port Adelaide Magistrates Court (and Elizabeth, Christies Beach and
regional courts). Similar to matters heard for adults, youth court is only accessible if the offence
happened in the geographical area covered by that court.
If a young person pleads guilty to an offence, they may receive a formal caution or be referred
to family conferencing. These options are dependent on the crime and / or the situation of the
offender. If the offender denies the allegations, then they will likely have their case taken to the
youth court.
Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement (ALRM) legal officers are notified if a young person identifies
as Aboriginal. An Aboriginal Field Officer can assist at the time of interview including
coordination with family members and/or other Departments in contact with the young person
(such as Child Protection, DCSI Youth Justice, and Education). ALRM or Legal Services
Commission may provide legal representation.
The court may ask for a report to aid them in sentencing or to provide information about a
young person’s progress while on the court order. Youth Justice (Department for Communities
and Social Inclusion (DCSI)), is responsible for completing: Section 32 (S32) pre-sentence
background reports in addition to bail, home detention, progress, psychological and Training
Centre Review Board progress reports. Youth Justice will complete the report using direct
information from the young person, their parents, guardians or caregivers, other support people
and previous youth justice history.
Aboriginal Justice Officers (AJOs) provide support to young people and adults attending court.
There are 2 AJOs located specifically at the Port Adelaide Court. Should a young person require
attendance at the Adelaide Youth Court, Aboriginal Youth Justice Officers will provide direct
support to the young person.
The role of AJOs include:
assisting with Aboriginal sentencing courts/conferences
providing advice to Aboriginal court users re procedures, fines, payment options and
Justice of the Peace services
providing advice to Judicial Officers re Aboriginal culture and communities
recruiting, training and supporting Elders
assisting with family conferences for young people. The AJOs located at Port Adelaide
court support families in the Western and Northern areas.
The Diversion Court Program provides an opportunity for eligible individuals who have been
charged with minor indictable or summary offences to voluntarily address their mental health
and/or disability needs and offending behaviours, while legal proceedings are adjourned for
17approximately 6 months. During this time the program staff link the individual to relevant
services in the community and monitors their progress. By facilitating the involvement of
community based service providers in addressing the behaviours arising from impaired
intellectual or mental functioning. The person’s involvement and progress is reported back to
the court and the magistrate, police and lawyers may use this information in dealing further
with the case. The magistrate reviews the individual every two months to reinforce and reward
compliance with treatment programs and lifestyle changes and to take alternative action if the
interventions are not working. At the final hearing, the magistrate makes a determination taking
into account the participant’s involvement in the program. Depending on the nature of the
offences, the magistrate may dismiss the matter or convict without penalty.
The Youth Court Treatment Intervention Program commenced at the end of 2011 and replaced
the Youth Court Assessment and Referral Drug Scheme (Youth CARDS) and the Youth Court
Diversion Program (YCDP). The program integrates assessment and treatment of young
offenders with mental impairment and/or substance dependence. The approach has been
adopted because the incidence of mental illness co-occurring with substance dependence is
high and better outcomes can be achieved if these issues are addressed in an integrated way.
The program targets youth who may not be eligible for a referral for a family conference due to
the nature of their offending. Treatment is accessed from private psychologists.
Defendants appearing in the Port Adelaide Nunga Court who have underlying illicit substance
abuse problems are offered the option of deferring sentencing for 6 months so they can
participate in the Port Adelaide Nunga Court Treatment Program. This is a voluntary program
under the provisions of the Bail Act. When a defendant agrees to participate in the program
they are linked in with counselling and relapse prevention groups and are required to submit to
random drug testing twice a week. Table 4 provides an overview of participants in the Port
Adelaide Nunga Court Treatment Program between 2015-17.
Table 4: All participants in the Port Adelaide Nunga Court Treatment Program accepted between
01/01/15 – 31/07/17
Acceptances Completions Removals Active
Age M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total
18-25 3 2 5 0 0 0 3 2 5 0 0 0
26-30 5 3 8 3 2 5 1 0 1 1 1 2
31-35 4 1 5 2 0 2 2 1 3 0 0 0
36-40 3 0 3 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1
41-45 2 1 3 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
46-50 3 1 4 2 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0
50+ 1 4 5 1 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 21 12 33 11 7 18 8 4 12 2 1 3
Source: Courts Administration Authority – Port Adelaide Magistrates Court data provided for the project
The Family Violence Court (FVC) is a special list where matters related to intervention order
applications and related criminal charges are heard. The intervention program that operates in
the Family Violence Court is called the Abuse Prevention Program. This program was established
for male defendants who have been issued with an intervention order and who are facing
charges for domestic violence related offences. Men can also be referred to the program under
This resource is for Justice Reinvestment-Port Adelaide project purposes only 18the Bail Act as an alternative to the court making participation a condition of the Intervention
Order. A defendant has to agree to a referral under the Bail Act.
The Abuse Prevention Program provides the assessment, referral, supervision and monitoring
components for the FVC and the actual treatment/behaviour change programs are delivered by
non-government organisations including OARS-Community Transitions and Kornar Winmil Yunti
(KWY), under contract to the Courts Administration Authority. There are approximately 110 to
120 men participating in a DV Prevention Program at any time in SA.
Section 9C Sentencing of Aboriginal defendants (Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988)
Section 9C outlines alternative options for Aboriginal defendants. A Sentencing Conference can
be organised by magistrate and youth courts with assistance from an AJO. The defendant will
need to give consent for the sentencing conference to take place. To be eligible for Section 9C
sentencing, the person will need to be assessed to determine if they are of Aboriginal descent.
The sentencing conference must comprise of:
The defendant (and if the defendant is a child, the defendant’s parent or guardian)
The defendant’s legal representative
The prosecutor
The victim (if they choose to be present and if they are a child, the victim’s parent or
guardian).
The sentencing conference may also include an Aboriginal Elder and/or a person that is qualified
to provide cultural advice that is relevant to the sentence. Others allowed to be involved in the
proceedings are a member of the family, a person who has provided counselling or support and
any other person as requested by the defendant. The legislation outlines that if the defendant is
a child their parent or guardian can be present, therefore this section of the legislation indicates
that it is also available to Aboriginal youth.
Figure 3 provides a summary of the flow through the Port Adelaide Magistrates Court system for
adult defendants.
For more information refer to:
Appendix 1: Flows through the adult and youth justice systems
(indicative only and not specific to the South Australian or Port Adelaide Magistrates Courts).
Appendix 2: SA offender and family support programs available for Aboriginal families
in the Port Adelaide Enfield area, including the emphasis of the program from prevention
through to post-release support.
19NOTES
Figure 3: Flow through the Port Adelaide Magistrates a) Police notifies Aboriginal Legal Rights
Court system (adult) Movement (ALRM) at the time of arrest of
Aboriginal offenders.
b) Police officer in charge sets bail conditions.
POLICE Factors considered in relation to suitability for
APPREHENSION
bail include seriousness of offence, criminal
history, likelihood of reoffending. A court date
will be set within approximately one-month.
c) If remanded in custody, attendance at court
CHARGED will take place no later than the afternoon of the
following court sitting day. Individuals may be
remanded at the Adelaide Remand Centre, or
depending on bed availability, at any prison in SA.
POLICE BAIL REMANDED IN CUSTODY
d) When a person attends court (the court
nearest to where the offending took place), their
bail arrangement moves from Police Bail to Court
Bail.
[COURT BAIL] ATTEND COURT
e) If a Guilty plea is made, the person is referred
to the Aboriginal Sentencing (Nunga) Court.
Nunga Court is less formal and provides an
GUILTY PLEA NOT-GUILTY PLEA opportunity for the defendant to speak directly
to the Magistrate. Elders sit with the Magistrate
and may comment on the character of the
individual and/or their individual and family
circumstances to assist the Magistrate to
consider all relevant factors. Family members
ABORIGINAL LISTED FOR PRE-TRIAL and support agencies are encouraged to attend.
SENTENCING COURT CONFERENCE
(NUNGA COURT) – f) If a not-guilty plea is made, the defendant is
Port Adelaide listed for a pre-trial conference. The purpose of
(Tuesdays, fortnightly) the pre-trial conference is to determine which
facts or legal aspects are in dispute and to
explore the possibility of dealing with the charge
other than by way of trial. If the case can be
settled by pre-trial conference, a trial date will be
set.
g) Defendants appearing in the Port Adelaide
Nunga Court who have underlying illicit
substance abuse problems are offered the option
SENTENCING of deferring sentencing for 6 months so they can
participate in the (voluntary) treatment program.
h) (Note - if an Aboriginal Sentencing Court is not
ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING CUSTODIAL SENTENCE available at the relevant Court, the matter can be
Community services order Summary offences: heard under Section 9C of the Criminal Law Act
Good behaviour bond 2 years or less which operates in a similar style. The Judicial
Home-D Officer attends with Elders, defendant,
Minor indictable offences: prosecution and lawyer. The Aboriginal Liaison
Licence disqualification 7 years maximum term Officer assists with convening the conference.
Suspended sentence bond The victim is invited. Family members and
Major indictable offence
Part imprisonment / part bond (s.38) (District Court: up to life support agencies are encouraged to attend. It is
Long adjournment (Griffiths Remand) sentence generally held in a conference room - not a court
Intervention Program (such as drug room).
treatment, psychiatric support) to
address the underlying causes of
crime This resource is for Justice Reinvestment-Port Adelaide project purposes only 20Port Adelaide Magistrates Court and Youth Court Data
The following tables provide an overview of Port Adelaide Magistrates and Youth Court activity, with a particular focus on people from Aboriginal backgrounds.
Table 5: All defendants lodged at the Port Adelaide Magistrates Court, 2016-17
First Sitting Place Aboriginal Group MCSA YCSA Total Defts
Port Adelaide Aboriginal 837 131 968
Non-Aboriginal 5795 235 6030
Total 6632 366 6998
MCSA = Magistrates Court of SA / YCSA = Youth Court of SA
Source: Courts Administration Authority – Port Adelaide Magistrates Court data provided for the project
Table 6: All defendants lodged by demographics, 2016-17
Aboriginal Group / Sex MCSA YCSA
No Age Total Total
14-17 18-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-59 60+Table 7: Case lodgement type by Aboriginal defendants at Magistrates Court and Youth Court, 2016-17
Case Lodge Doc Desc – Aboriginal persons MCSA Case Lodge Doc Desc – Aboriginal persons YCSA
Complaint 404 Complaint (Young Offenders Act) 67
Complaint And Summons Thereon
Complaint And Summons 166 32
(Young Offenders Act)
Information For An Indictable Offence
Information For An Indictable Offence 129 22
(Young Offenders Act)
APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION ORDER 52 Report Of Non-Compliance With CSO 2
Application For Enforcement Of A Breached Bond 42 Application To Enforce Community Service Order 2
Information For An Indictable Offence And Summons Information For An Indictable Offence And Summons
14 2
Thereon (Young Offenders Act)
Application For An Order Of The Court 10 Complaint And Summons 1
APPLICATION TO VARY OR REVOKE INTERVENTION
7 APPLICATION FOR INTERVENTION ORDER 1
ORDER
Report Of Non-Compliance With CSO 4 Application For Enforcement Of A Breached Bond 1
APPL TO COURT FOR APPEAL OF ENF DET 3 Application To Vary/revoke Community Service Order 1
Complaint & Summons With Endorsements & Form
3 Total 131
Pleading Guilty
Application To Vary Or Discharge A Bond 1
Application To Vary/revoke Community Service Order 1
INTERVENTION ORDER CLS ACT 1988 SECTION 19A 1
Total 837
Source: Courts Administration Authority – Port Adelaide Magistrates Court data provided for the project
This resource is for Justice Reinvestment-Port Adelaide project purposes only 22Table 8: Top 20 offences lodged by Aboriginal defendants and offence description at Magistrates Court and Youth Court, 2016-17
Offence Description – Aboriginal persons MCSA Offence Description – Aboriginal persons YCSA
FAIL TO COMPLY WITH BAIL AGREEMENT 190 FAIL TO COMPLY WITH BAIL AGREEMENT 26
BASIC OFFENCE: DISHONESTLY TAKE PROPERTY WITHOUT CONSENT 75 BASIC OFFENCE: DISHONESTLY TAKE PROPERTY WITHOUT CONSENT 18
APPLICATION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF A BREACHED BOND 53 DRIVE OR USE MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT CONSENT 9
ISSUANCE OF INTERIM INTERVENTION ORDER - DOMESTIC ABUSE 43 POSSESS CANNABIS, CANNABIS RESIN OR CANNABIS OIL 9
DRIVE UNDER DISQUALIFICATION OR SUSPENSION 33 COMMIT ASSAULT - BASIC OFFENCE 7
DAMAGE BUILDING OR MOTOR VEHICLE (NOT GRAFFITI OR UNKNOWN) 32 DAMAGE BUILDING OR MOTOR VEHICLE (NOT GRAFFITI OR UNKNOWN) 6
DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR 28 SERIOUS CRIMINAL TRESPASS-NON-RESIDENTIAL-AGGRAVATED OFFENCE 5
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT (NO WEAPON) AGAINST CHILD OR SPOUSE 25 BREACH OF COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDER 4
CONTRAVENE TERM OF INTERVENTION ORDER- OTHER THAN PROGRAMS 23 UNLAWFUL POSSESSION 4
UNAUTHORISED PERSON DRIVE MOTOR VEHICLE ON ROAD 22 UNLAWFULLY ON PREMISES 4
UNLAWFUL POSSESSION 22 COMMIT ASSAULT - AGGRAVATED OFFENCE OTHER - NO WEAPON 3
CARRY AN OFFENSIVE WEAPON 19 COMMIT ASSAULT AGGRAVATED OTHER BY USE OF OFFENSIVE WEAPON 3
COMMIT ASSAULT - BASIC OFFENCE 18 DAMAGE PROPERTY NOT BUILDING OR M/V (NOT GRAFFITI OR FIRE) 3
DAMAGE PROPERTY NOT BUILDING OR M/V (NOT GRAFFITI OR FIRE) 13 FAIL TO COMPLY WITH BOND OBLIGATION 3
POSSESS CONTROLLED DRUG (NOT CANNABIS) 13 ASSAULT POLICE 2
POSSESS EQUIPMENT TO USE WITH CONTROLLED DRUG (NOT CANNABIS) 11 CARRY AN OFFENSIVE WEAPON 2
COMMIT ASSAULT - AGGRAVATED OFFENCE OTHER - NO WEAPON 10 DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR 2
RESIST POLICE 10 INTERFERE WITH MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT CONSENT 2
SERIOUS CRIMINAL TRESPASS-RESIDENCE OCCUPIED-AGGRAVATED 10 SERIOUS CRIMINAL TRESPASS-RESIDENTIAL-BASIC OFFENCE 2
DRIVE OR USE MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT CONSENT 9 UNAUTHORISED PERSON DRIVE MOTOR VEHICLE ON ROAD 2
Source: Courts Administration Authority – Port Adelaide Magistrates Court data provided for the project
23Table 9: Aboriginal defendants finalised by offence description at Magistrates Court and Youth Court, 2016-17
Outcome Description – Aboriginal persons MCSA Outcome Description – Aboriginal persons YCSA
CONSOLIDATED 247 BY CONSENT 19
DISCHARGE WITHOUT PENALTY 181 DISMISSED WITHOUT PENALTY 15
FINE 98 OBLIGATION 12
WITHDRAWN 86 WITHDRAWN 11
IMPRISONMENT 69 COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDER 6
GOOD BEHAVIOUR BOND 61 FORFEITURE ORDER 4
SUSPENDED SENTENCE BOND 58 CONSOLIDATED 3
INTERVENTION ORDER 46 DISCHARGE WITHOUT PENALTY 3
NOT PROCEEDED WITH 24 FORMAL CAUTION 2
COMPENSATION 23 NO FURTHER BRCH PNLTY/ORD 2
NO FURTHER BRCH PNLTY/ORD 23 NO FURTHER PENALTY 2
APPLICATION DISMISSED 16 APPLICATION DISMISSED 1
FORFEITURE ORDER 16 COSTS ONLY 1
DISMISSED WANT OF PROSEC. 15 WEAPONS ORDER 1
DRIVERS LICENCE DISQUAL 13
COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDER 12
SECTION 38(2A) 12
NO ACTION TAKEN 10
VEHICLE IMPOUNDING COSTS 9
WEAPONS ORDER 7
Source: Courts Administration Authority – Port Adelaide Magistrates Court data provided for the project
This resource is for Justice Reinvestment-Port Adelaide project purposes only 24Table 10: All defendants finalised in Aboriginal sentencing courts, 2016-17
Outcome Description MCSA
CONSOLIDATED 96
DISCHARGE WITHOUT PENALTY 28
IMPRISONMENT 27
SUSPENDED SENTENCE BOND 24
GOOD BEHAVIOUR BOND 21
COMPENSATION 9
NO ACTION TAKEN 7
VEHICLE IMPOUNDING COSTS 6
FINE 4
NO FURTHER BRCH PNLTY/ORD 4
SECTION 38(2A) 4
COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDER 3
DRIVERS LICENCE DISQUAL 3
FORFEITURE ORDER 2
WITHDRAWN 2
APPLICATION DISMISSED 1
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN 1
COSTS ONLY 1
GOOD BEHAV BOND VARIED 1
INTERVENTION ORDER 1
SUSP SENT BOND VARIED 1
TOTAL 246
Source: Courts Administration Authority – Port Adelaide Magistrates Court data provided for the project
25PORT ADELAIDE MAGISTRATES AND YOUTH COURTS
In 2016-17, 837 lodgements by Aboriginal people were made at the Port
Adelaide Magistrates Court.
In 2016-17, 131 lodgements by Aboriginal young people were made at the Port
Adelaide Youth Court.
More than one-quarter (28%) of lodgements made by Aboriginal young people
at Port Adelaide Youth Court, were by Aboriginal young people under the age
of 14 years.
For young Aboriginal people appearing in Youth Court, the top 5 outcomes were
‘by consent’, ‘dismissed without penalty’, ‘obligation’, ‘withdrawn’, and
‘community service order’.
One-quarter (23%) of Aboriginal adult defendants and one-fifth (20%) of young
Aboriginal defendants attended court in 2016-17 due to failure to comply with
bail agreement.
The 2nd most common reason for attending court for Aboriginal adults and
young people was: ‘Basic offence – dishonestly take property without consent’.
For all defendants finalised in the Aboriginal Sentencing Court (2016-17), 40%
involved consolidation of proceedings (where several connected matters were
pending), 11% were discharged without penalty, 11% were imprisoned, 10%
received a suspended sentence with bond, and 9% received a good behaviour
bond.
QUESTIONS FOR PORT ADELAIDE
? How can we improve our understanding of Port Adelaide Magistrates Court
and Youth Court processes and outcomes for Aboriginal people, young people
and their families including the role of Alternative Sentencing options, Nunga
Court, Family Conferencing and use of 9C.
? Is there research / evidence about the outcomes of diversion and treatment
intervention programs on reducing reoffending and improving long term
health outcomes for individuals.
This resource is for Justice Reinvestment-Port Adelaide project purposes only 264. Social determinants of crime – an Australian perspective
It is important for policy makers and those working in the social services system to have a
comprehensive understanding of the role that social issues play in contributing to incarceration.
Many of the reasons people end up in prison are socially determined, that is, they are a result of
the circumstances in which people are born, grow, live and learn which are often a result of the
unequal distribution of power, money and other resources (Marmot and Wilkinson, 2003).
Some factors such as unemployment, homelessness, mental ill-health, drug and alcohol misuse
and poverty are both a cause and a consequence of incarceration. This pattern shows the
reinforcing cycle and intergenerational impact of imprisonment. The continuation of these
factors in people’s lives beyond their release indicates that the time in prison does little to
improve the health and social outcomes for people from this extremely vulnerable group
(Kinner et al., 2014).
The main social determinants of crime that lead young people and adults to have a greater
likelihood of interaction with the justice system are:
involvement with the child protection system and family violence
intergenerational incarceration
experience within youth detention
previous incarceration during adulthood (recidivism)
homelessness
cognitive disability and mental ill-health
drug and alcohol misuse
unemployment, low income and poverty
low educational attainment
living in an area of concentrated disadvantage and poverty (Australian Red Cross, 2017).
In the following section of this resource, the factors contributing to risk factors are briefly
explained, followed by a snapshot of South Australian or Port Adelaide data. Where this data is
not readily available, Australian data may be provided as an indicator of trends only. In some
cases additional questions and comments on data gaps are identified.
A: Involvement with the child protection system
Bringing Them Home
‘When the Bringing Them Home report into the Stolen Generations was released in 1997,
mainstream Australia was shocked to learn that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children represented 20 per cent of children living in out-of-home care (HREOC, 1997).
Now, in 2016, that rate has increased to see Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
represent over 35 per cent of children living in out-of-home care’ (SNAICC, 2017, p. 5).
27You can also read
