FreibergArie, ‘Australian Drug Courts’ (2000) 24Criminal Law Journal213, p.219.
2.
FreibergArie, ‘Drug courts: Sentencing responses to drug use and drug-related crime’ (2002) 7Alternative Law Journal284.
3.
BelenkoSteven, Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review, The Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, June 1998, p.13; SwainMarie, The Illicit Drug Problem: Drug Courts and Other Alternative Approaches, Briefing Paper No 4/99, NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service, p.35.
4.
Freiberg, above, ref 2, p.285.
5.
Swain, above, ref 3, p.35.
6.
Freiberg, above, ref 1, pp.220–21.
7.
Freiberg, above, ref 1, p.221.
8.
See Freiberg, above, ref 1, p.231, and PopovicJ.McLachlanS., Court Referral Evaluation and Drug Intervention and Treatment (CREDIT), paper presented at the Australian Drug Court Workshop, Department of Criminology, the University of Melbourne, February 2000.
9.
TauberJeffery, American Drug Courts: A Common Sense Approach to the Drug-using Offender, paper given at the Australasian Conference on Drug Strategy in Adelaide on the 27th of April 1999. Tauber is an American drug court judge and a member of the American National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
10.
MakkaiToni, ‘Drug Courts: Issues and Prospects’, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No. 95, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, 1998, pp.3 and 7.
11.
See Freiberg, above, ref 1, p.231. Freiberg also makes the point that this can bring a drug court into disfavour when replacement appointments eliminate an earlier trend towards leniency.
12.
FoxRichardFreibergArie, Sentencing, State and Federal Law in Victoria, 2nd edn, 1999, p.91; see also VinsonT.HomerR., ‘Legal Representation and Outcome’ (1973) 47ALJ132.
13.
This is all the more so given, as Fox and Freiberg point out (at p.92) that the failure to allow counsel or indeed the defendant to be heard constitutes a reviewable denial of natural justice see Ex parte Kelly; Re Teece [1966] 2NSWR674.
14.
FoxRichard, ‘The Compulsion of Voluntary Treatment in Sentencing’ (1996) 16Crim LJ37, at 38.
15.
FoxRichard, above, ref 14, pp.44–7.
16.
FoxRichard, above, ref 14, p.39.
17.
Makkai, above, ref 10, p.4.
18.
Fox, above, ref 14, p.39.
19.
Swain, above, ref 3, p.42.
20.
FoxRichard, Victorian Criminal Procedure, State and Federal Law, Monash Law Book Co-op Ltd, Melbourne, 2000, p.79.