Journal
PSYCHIATRY PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW
Volume 24, Issue 6, Pages 888-898Publisher
ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2017.1327305
Keywords
court diversion; court liaison; fitness to plead; mental health defence; mental health legislation; problem-solving court
Funding
- NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Offender Health [1057492]
- National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1057492] Funding Source: NHMRC
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Mental health and criminal justice legislation must provide the appropriate mechanisms for ensuring the assessment and care of mentally ill individuals. It must also balance the right to justice of these individuals with the rights of the community. In Australia, each jurisdiction has its own legislative provisions related to mental health, criminal legislation and sentencing, with variation in the mental health diversion options that are available. This article uses a national survey of court liaison services and mental health courts in Australia and a review of the relevant legislative frameworks to compare jurisdictional approaches to mental health diversion. Despite calls from the National Mental Health Commission for consistency, the Australian approach to the provision of mental health services to people in the criminal justice system is heterogeneous and piecemeal. Variation in the diversion pathways available to individuals with mental illness exists across Australia. The presence of problem-solving courts in some, but not all, jurisdictions results in differences in access to legal and treatment options.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available