Co-operation Group to Combat Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking in Drugs

Strasbourg, 5 February 2007 P-PG/CJ (2007) 1 EN

MEETING OF THE

EXPERT FORUM ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE

16 and 17 January 2007

Council of Europe, Palais de l’Europe, Strasbourg

Room 3

REPORT

http://www.coe.int/pompidou

1. Opening of the meeting, adoption of the agenda and introduction of the objective of the meeting

The Co-ordinator of the platform, Ms Lidija VUGRINEC (Croatia), opened the meeting and welcomed the participants (the list of participants is set out in Appendix I). The participants, many of whom were newcomers to the Criminal Justice platform, presented themselves briefly during a tour de table.

The agenda was adopted as set out in Appendix II.

Mr Chris LUCKETT, Executive Secretary of the Pompidou Group, gave an overview of the results of the Conference on inter-agency cooperation organised by the Finnish EU Presidency, which took place in Turku in September 2006. He also informed the participants of the decision taken at the Pompidou Group Ministerial Conference, held in November 2006 in Strasbourg, to revise of the focus of some of the platforms, including the Criminal Justice platform. Under the new work programme, the Criminal Justice platform would be asked to concentrate its work on legislative measures aiming at supply reduction and on effective responses to penal policy problems such as i.a. overpopulation in prisons.

Mr Luckett also underlined the dual aim of the Criminal Justice meeting: Firstly, to explore the subject of drug treatment courts and magistrates and the possibility of organising a conference under the auspices of the Criminal Justice platform. Secondly, it constituted a planning meeting for the future activities of the Criminal Justice platform.

2. “Quasi-coerced treatment in Europe - Employing early interventions and alternatives to imprisonment” – Tim McSweeney (King’s College London, Institute for Criminal Policy Research)

Mr Tim McSWEENEY presented a comparative study on various systems of quasi-coerced treatment in some European countries. In its findings, the study suggests that “coerced” treatment options can be effective in reducing substance use, risk and offending behaviours and improving social integration through employment. The results also suggest that “coerced” treatment can be as effective as “voluntary” treatment. The crucial points for attention are: referral and assessment processes, the appropriateness of treatment options, the consistency of procedures and reviews as well as effective aftercare and reintegration arrangements. The ensuing debate highlighted some of the difficulties encountered in practice (problems in standardising different approaches, treatment places taken up by cannabis users, ways of exploring and analysing the basic motivation for opening alternatives to imprisonment, etc.)

3. “Diversionary arrangements for drug dependent offenders in six European countries – comparative overview on different experiences” – Harald Spirig

(Austrian ENDIPP Coordinator)

Mr Harald SPIRIG presented a comparison of different referral systems in Europe. The discussion showed that regular court reviews and drug testing do not improve the treatment success rate. High quality of treatment seems to be a precondition, either in special or in general facilities. As concerns the running costs for residential treatment: after an initial investment, they seem to be lower that the cost of imprisonment of drug users.

4. “Special drug treatment magistrates in France” – Chantal FONTAINE (Magistrate, MILDT)

Ms Chantal FONTAINE (France) suggested a change in title of her presentation and made an in-depth analysis of the judicial treatment of drug users according to French legislation. She first presented the general framework of alternatives to incarceration and then described the various possibilities in the French judicial system to order treatment. She also referred to the principle of opportunity.

5. Drug Courts: the Norwegian experience in Oslo and Bergen – Ingunn Seim and Hans-Gunnar Stey (drug co-ordinators)

Ms Ingunn SEIM and Mr Hans-Gunnar STEY presented the Norwegian drug treatment programme supervised by the Oslo and Bergen courts. The system is led by a multidisciplinary drug court team and is supervised by the drug court judges. In each case, it is adapted to the individual concerned. In the ensuing debate, participants enquired about the special training of drug court judges, the hierarchical structure of the drug court team within each respective administration and the funding of the system.

6. Early intervention measures and alternatives to imprisonment from a global penal policy perspective: aims and objectives of alternative measures, different approaches and methods, evaluation methods, etc.

In a general debate, participants exchanged their views on recent developments with regard to quasi-coerced treatment versus imprisonment. Participants highlighted the following points:

- the majority of participants consider treatment of drug users in general terms a better option than imprisonment;

- one human right (the right to health) is to be given access to treatment in order to quit a drug use habit;

- how can the cost of imprisonment and the cost of residential treatment be compared rationally? The comparison must include collateral risks of imprisonment, e.g. risk of contamination or of starting drug use in prison;

- there seems to be an established political consensus concerning the need for alternatives to imprisonment. How can the obstacles be overcome to put this consensus into practice?

- consequences of repeat offending by drug users are particularly “expensive” for the judicial system and the community as such;

- a comparison of treatment inside and outside prison and of residential and outpatient treatment is needed;

- in drug-free prison wings, drug testing is part of the pressure to abstain from use;

- there is a need to clarify definitions: what do we understand exactly by “quasi-coerced treatment”? What kind of delinquent behaviours could be referred to treatment? Which not?

- what court reaction is needed when treatment fails?

- after almost twenty years of diversion programmes, the main focus today is the quality of aftercare; in particular in the light of the fact that many drug addicts also suffer from severe mental health problems;

- the objectives of alternatives to sanctions need to be clarified.

In her summary, the Coordinator underlined the following points which could be retained for further exploration:

- the difficulty in clarifying ways of calculating the cost of the various treatment options;

- the need to elaborate on certain problem areas: rehabilitation, effect on crime reduction, aftercare, etc.

- the variety of national diversion practices required exploring and determining comparable components;

- the need to define client groups, types of intervention and types of actor in the process.

7. Preparation of a conference on experience with quasi-coerced treatment and other alternatives to imprisonment to be organised by the Criminal Justice Platform in 2007

On the basis of the exchange of views held under item 6, participants made a number of comments on subject areas that could be covered by the conference. They made i.a. the following contributions:

- the history and different stages of diversion programmes;

- aftercare as such is a question outside the main scope of the conference; nevertheless some aspects should be explored, e.g. data collection with regard to aftercare;

- classification of groups of “clients” is needed;

- “last chance” referral criteria should be clarified;

- preconditions for successful rehabilitation; conditions for the rehabilitation of certain marginalised groups;

- best practice examples are needed; the efficiency of certain measures has to be demonstrated according to figures and objective evaluation; an EMCDDA analysis exists on alternatives to prison which identifies strengths and weaknesses;

- how to involve non-EU countries via a step-by-step approach to drug courts; the conference should take into consideration their specific practical needs and the fact that in some cases judicial systems have to be set up from scratch;

- the conference should focus on the differences between national judicial systems, expected results from QCT and means of getting evidence and evaluating success;

- in certain countries, offenders have a legal right to treatment;

- cooperation and common training of the judiciary and health services is needed; what other kinds of partner have to be brought together?

- specific guidelines for the training of judges and for sentencing should be developed, i.a. ways of defining “quantities for personal use”.

Finally, the Coordinator synthesised all these comments. The platform considered that the following avenues of reflection should be further explored by a preparatory group with a view to devising a detailed and coherent concept for the conference:

- The conference should have a broad scope on diversion programmes in general and on alternative measures to imprisonment; the target group should be policy makers and practitioners from the judiciary and from social/health services;

- There should be a short historical overview on the evolution of the different diversion systems, their approaches, philosophies and objectives;

- The conference should work on defining different categories of client suitable for classified types of interventions;

- Cost/cost effectiveness of these programmes should be compared;

- Preconditions for the implementation of QCT on a national level and ways to evaluate these programmes should be examined.

The preparatory group would consist of the Coordinator and the participants from Croatia, Iceland, Norway and Romania. Mr Tim McSweeney would assist the group as a consultant.

The representative of Romania extended an invitation to host the conference in his country. Concrete dates in September 2007 and other details will be proposed by the Secretariat in cooperation with the Romanian hosts at a later stage in writing.

8. Activities to be organised with a view to further exploring the area of alternative measures to imprisonment with regard to drug dependent offenders and other themes to be dealt with by the platform in the framework of the new PG work programme

The platform held an exchange of views on the theme of its future activities outlined in the work programme 2007-2010. Three subjects received detailed consideration:

Several participants underlined their interest in exploring the legal basis and successful working methods of Joint (and/or Common) Investigation Teams. The representative of EMCDDA drew the participants’ attention to Europol/Eurojust activities in the field with regard to trafficking on the Balkan route.

As concerns the subject of trafficking in precursors and medical products, participants agreed that, due to the heavy EU involvement in regulatory aspects of field, the PG’s scope of activities should focus on coordination issues among national agencies and on currently uncontrolled chemical precursors/medical substances and their status while in transit. Information exchange systems among national agencies and the private sector could be examined. Furthermore, it would also be interesting to explore the difficulty for judges to get evidence and to sentence precursor trafficking. Finally, it was suggested that the European Commission and the INCB be invited to participate in the activity. Details of a CJ platform activity with regard to precursors and certain medical products should be devised at the next CJ platform meeting in November, possibly with the assistance of additional technical experts from the represented countries.

As a third subject, the issue of public awareness and perception with regard to QCT and other alternatives to imprisonment was retained.

9. Any other business

The representative of EMCDDA presented a fresh study on treatment alternatives to prison/punishment: a view of national legislations across the EU.

10. Date of the next meeting of the Criminal Justice Platform

Participants agreed to hold their next meeting on 13/14 November 2007 in Strasbourg.

APPENDIX I

AGENDA

1. Opening of the meeting, adoption of the agenda and introduction of the objective of the meeting

Introduction of the participants

Information given by the Co-ordinator and the Secretariat

2. “Quasi-coerced treatment in Europe - Employing early interventions and alternatives to imprisonment” – Tim Mc Sweeney (King’s College London, Institute for Criminal Policy Research)

Presentation of results and debate

4. “Diversionary arrangements for drug dependent offenders in six European countries – comparative overview on different experiences” – Harald Spirig

(Austrian ENDIPP Coordinator)

Presentation of findings and debate

4. “Special drug treatment magistrates in France” – Chantal Fontaine (Magistrate, MILDT)

Presentation and debate

5. Drug Courts: the Norwegian experience in Oslo and Bergen – Ingunn Seim and Hans-Gunnar Stey (drug co-ordinators) – Presentation and debate

General reflection, in particular on the basis of the presentations made

7. Preparation of a conference on experience with quasi-coerced treatment and other alternatives to imprisonment to be organised by the Criminal Justice Platform in 2007

Exchange of views

9. Any other business

10. Date of the next meeting of the Criminal Justice Platform

APPENDIX II

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Platform Co-ordinator / Coordonateur de plateform

Mrs Lidija VUGRINEC

Head of National Focal Point and International Relations

Office for Combating Narcotic Drugs Abuse

Preobrazenska 4/II

10000 ZAGREB

Tel: +385 1 48 78 128

Fax: +385 1 48 78 120

Mr Philippe QUAINE
Mr Christopher TYCZKA
Mme Josette YOESLE

16 and 17 January 2007

Council of Europe, Palais de l’Europe, Strasbourg

E

E

E

E

E

E

E

[email protected]

Pompidou Group / Groupe Pompidou

Interpreters / Interpretes