Legal Status of Indigenous Courts

Articles about diversion of certain matters to indigenous courts or acceptance by the criminal justice system of decisions made there.

Victoria’s Neighbourhood Justice Centre: from the paper prepared by Courts and Tribunals Unit, Department of Justice, Victoria for the Indigenous Justice Clearinghouse: Community Justice Centres are neighbourhood-focused centres that seek to enhance community participation in the justice system, address local problems, and enhance the quality of local community life....Centres often vary in their model and focus but generally share a motivation to address crime and safety concerns locally, by developing effective relationships and links with the local community. Community justice centres challenge traditional methods of the criminal justice system. Rather than focusing on responding to crime after it has occurred, they seek to develop new relationships, both within the justice system and with stakeholders from the wider community, and to trial new and innovative approaches to community safety... A feature common to the various kinds of centres around the world is that they seek to respond in innovative ways to issues that may be otherwise considered negligible in the traditional criminal justice system.
Dan Van Ness: Indigenous dispute resolution and restorative justice: It is common to link restorative justice and customary principles and traditional practices of justice. The argument is that the underlying beliefs of customary justice are that justice should repair harm and that the parties themselves should participate in deciding how that is done. These are principles shared by restorative justice. However, there is a dark side to this relationship.
Livingston, Michael and Hayes, Hennessey and Palk, George and Livingston, Michael and Stewart, Anna and Hayes, Hennessey. Youth Justice Conferencing and Indigenous Over-Representation in the Queensland Juvenile Justice System: A Micro-Simulation Case Study.: Research suggests that rather than focusing on criminal justice responses, more progress in reducing Aboriginal overrepresentation might be made if the focus was shifted to the underlying causes of Aboriginal crime: substance abuse, family violence, poor school performance, and unemployment. Further development of initiatives to address the underlying causes of offending by indigenous young people, as well as use of effective criminal justice responses, such as youth justice conferencing, likely will be more effective in reducing the overrepresentation of young indigenous people in the juvenile justice system. The results of the simulations indicate that youth justice conferencing is unlikely to contribute significantly to the targets set by the Justice Agreement. While conferencing has the potential to reduce the number of young people reoffending overall, this impact may be more apparent for non-indigenous young offenders, resulting in an increase in the disparity in the ratio of indigenous to non-indigenous young offenders. While youth justice conferencing is only one of a range of criminal justice interventions identified in the Justice Agreement as strategies for reaching the identified goals, it is the only diversionary option that has been empirically shown to reduce rates of reoffending. However, there is a deep need for more rigorous evaluations of the impact of youth justice conferencing on reoffending; simulation modeling is only as good as the estimates that are used as parameters in the models. (Abstract courtesy of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, www.ncjrs.gov).
Whonnock, Karen and Savarese, Josephine. Aboriginal courts for New Brunswick.: Over the last several decades, the Canadian criminal justice system has been encouraged to implement policies and programs that better correspond with the ideals and values of Aboriginal justice. Numerous commissions and task forces have pointed to the unequal treatment of indigenous peoples by police, courts, and corrections. Innovative approaches to remedying the limitations of the justice system's response are varied. They include the creation of Aboriginal court worker positions, the implementation of restorative justice measures, Aboriginal policing programs, and the development of correctional programming that seeks to be culturally appropriate. While often acclaimed, these initiatives have not stemmed the over-representation of Aboriginal peoples in Canadian prisons and they have failed to promote the rehabilitation and restoration required. As a result, governments have intensified their efforts to develop programs within all facets of the justice system. The establishment of specialized courts dedicated to serving Aboriginal clients is a recent initiative. These courts work to ensure that the charges against Aboriginal accused are heard in a forum where cultural sensitivity and respect are incorporated into the criminal justice process. Four Canadian provinces--Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and Ontario--have established Aboriginal courts. Operating since 2000, the courts have nearly a decade of experience to share with other regions in Canada. To date, there has been limited consideration of the Aboriginal court model in the Atlantic region. I will examine the arguments for an Aboriginal court for the Province of New Brunswick (excerpt)
Fitzgerald, Jacqueline. Does Circle Sentencing Reduce Aboriginal Offending?: This paper examines whether Aboriginal offenders who participate in circle sentencing show a reduction in the frequency of their offending, take longer to reoffend, and/or reduce the seriousness of their offending. Taken as a whole, the evidence presented suggests that circle sentencing has no effect on the frequency, timing or seriousness of offending. The results suggest that such direct involvement is not enough, by itself, to produce a reduction in reoffending. It is recommended that the combining of circle sentencing with other programs that have been shown to alter the risk factors for further offending be considered. Circle sentencing is an alternative sentencing process for adult Aboriginal offenders in New South Wales (NSW). It takes the sentencing process out of the traditional court setting and allows the involvement of the offender's community. In a circle sentence, the offender, magistrate, community elders and, sometimes, the victim and support people for the offender and/or victim sit in a circle to discuss the circumstances and impact of the offense and determine a sentence tailored to the offender. The circle sentencing process in NSW was adapted from a program that originated in Canada in the 1990s. The aim of this study was to determine whether Aboriginal offenders who participated in circle sentencing in NSW (1) showed a reduction in the frequency of their offending, (2) took longer to reoffend, and/or (3) reduced the seriousness of their offending, relative to Aboriginal defendants who proceeded through a conventional court process.(abstract courtesy of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, www.ncjrs.gov).
Snowball, Lucy. Diversion of indigenous juvenile offenders: Conferencing and cautioning are used as diversionary alternatives in the juvenile justice system and there is evidence to suggest they reduce reoffending. As Indigenous young people are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system, an important question is whether they are as likely to be diverted as non-Indigenous young people. This study used modelled data to examine juveniles’ contact with the police and courts, and the differences in juvenile diversionary rates for Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders in New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia in 2005. For all states, Indigenous young offenders were more likely than non-Indigenous offenders to be referred to court, non-Indigenous offenders were more likely to receive a police caution, and males and older offenders were more likely to be diverted. The number of prior contacts was similar for all states, with more contacts reducing the likelihood of diversion and with less likelihood of diversion for offenders committing offences against a person. As Indigenous young offenders are more likely to have multiple prior contacts with the system, including detention, further research is needed into the reasons for their high reoffending rates. (excerpt)
. Victoria's neighbourhood justice centre.: Experience with community justice centres suggests that they can have a significant effect on the quality of local community life (Berman 1998). Indigenous communities, being particularly conscious of a community sense of justice, may find the approaches used in community justice centres particularly appropriate. In the context of a growing array of approaches to Indigenous justice (including Indigenous courts) in Australia, community justice centres would seem to have considerable potential for improving the life of Indigenous communities. This paper provides the global context for the establishment of the Victorian Neighbourhood Justice Centre (NJC) and details its rationale, operation, and results. (excerpt)
. The appropriate place of Indigenous Sentencing Courts in the Australian criminal justice system.: In light of their great potential, Indigenous sentencing courts have been established in most Australian jurisdictions but many controversies and uncertainties still surround their operation. One such controversy is whether Indigenous sentencing courts are suited to dealing with all offences. Sexual offences are excluded from the mandate of most of the courts, with justifications for this decision varying between jurisdictions. Another issue that constantly surfaces each time the use of Indigenous sentencing courts is widened is the concern that Indigenous sentencing courts distinguish defendants based on their race, and thus violate the principle of equality before the law. As use of these courts becomes more widespread, it is important that fundamental questions such as these are considered, to ensure that the courts take their appropriate place in the Australian criminal justice system. (excerpt).
. Defendants in the Circle: Nowra Circle Court, the presence and impact of Elders, and re-Offending.: The first Indigenous sentencing court was established in 1999 in South Australia, and as of mid-year 2008, about 40 adult courts are operating around Australia. A growing literature has mapped jurisdictional variation, analysed the courts’ processes and outcomes, and attempted to estimate differences in re-offending compared to conventional courts. This Report presents the first qualitative study of how Indigenous offenders view the court process and the role of Indigenous Elders, with reference to the Nowra Circle Court in New South Wales, established in 2002. (excerpt)
. Indigenous Sentencing Courts.: This brief focuses on Indigenous sentencing courts, which operate in all Australian states and territories except Tasmania. These courts have been established according to protocols and practices, and can be distinguished from more informal practices that occur in remote areas where judicial officers travel on circuit. The first court was established in Port Adelaide on 1 June 1999. Indigenous sentencing courts do not practise or adopt Indigenous customary laws. Rather, they use Australian criminal laws and procedures to sentence Indigenous offenders who have either pleaded guilty or been found guilty, but they allow Indigenous Elders and Respected Persons to participate in the process, thereby creating a more culturally appropriate forum for sentencing Indigenous offenders (Auty 2004). (excerpt)
Dwyer, Peggy. Sentencing Aboriginal Offenders: The Future of Indigenous Justice Models.: At the end of the 20th century, Australia’s first Aboriginal court was established to sentence indigenous offenders. Over the last 6 years, a number of different courts, in most of our States and Territories, have become operational. While their style and set up differs to accommodate the interests of the local community, the broader aims are the same - to create a distinct culturally appropriate tribunal in which to sentence indigenous offenders, that will increase the involvement of the offender and the local community in the decision making process. The primary purpose of this paper is to explore two existing indigenous justice models - Aboriginal Courts and circle sentencing courts - and to suggest ways in which they may be expanded in the future, both geographically and in scope. (excerpt)
Dewhurst, Dale. Parallel Justice Systems, or a Tale of Two Spiders.: Recently, attempts have been made to modify or create systems of justice to respond to Aboriginal rights and values. One such attempt is the establishment of Canada’s first Aboriginal Court, the Tsuu T’ina First Nation Court. Staunch advocates of the adversarial system of justice may complain that the First nations Court gives Aboriginal people too much power; or, they may complain that it breaches fundamental principles of justice by providing separate justice systems for Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals. However, it is my position that where the court model is weak, it is because Aboriginal people have too little control. My concern is that attempts to introduce Aboriginal justice systems into the “adversarial system” (the term used to designate the current Canadian justice system) are prone to fail where the two systems have differing levels of authority. If Aboriginal systems are considered to be alternative, preliminary, of lower authority, or unofficial, their opponents will resort to the more “final” or “official” adversarial system in controversial cases. Instead, Aboriginal justice systems must be designed as authoritative and parallel models of justice. To discover some of the principles necessary to achieve this end, I will critically examine the rationale and structure of the Tsuu T’ina First Nation Court and I will draw out three useful comparative points from the historical development of the courts of common law and equity. This critique and comparison will show how we may take further steps toward achieving truly authoritative and parallel Aboriginal justice models. But first of all, for those who want a shorter route the problem and its solution are revealed in the tale of the two spiders. (excerpt)
Briggs, Daniel and Auty, Kate. Koori Court Victoria – Magistrates Court (Koori Court) Act 2002.: The introduction of Koori Courts in Victoria pursuant to the Magistrates Court (Koori Court) Act 2002 has not been without its detractors and like all change, is attended by controversies. Steps which attempt to ‘move the law along’ (as if she were an old bag lady), are often seen as a threat to the legitimacy of the legal system. Before we even commenced sitting at Shepparton by the Bayunga or Koriella river, known to non-Aboriginal people as the Goulburn, our regional Koori court was the subject of criticism with members of the legal profession commenting that Aboriginal people would not be able to find their way to the court, or that they would ‘go walkabout’ on the day of the hearing (Herald Sun 6/5/2002). This early criticism was met by much positive commentary (The Age October 2002). Nevertheless criticism continued, when a senior member of the Victorian bar, citing the establishing Act incorrectly, suggested that the Koori Court ‘tipped the scales’ and provided ‘luxury’ or ‘special’ courts and some ill-defined special regime of sentencing options (Galbally, Herald Sun 13/3/2003). He also contrasted the banning of Father Christmas from child-minding centres with the Koori Court initiative. The Victorian Attorney General, Rob Hulls criticised the ‘impaired logic’ which underpinned this commentary (Herald Sun 14/3/2003). It is timely to put the controversy and distractions to one side and start seriously considering what we do in the Koori Court in Victoria. (excerpt)
Marchetti, Elena and Daly, Kathleen. Indigenous Courts and Justice Practices in Australia: Indigenous populations in Australia have been informally contributing to sentencing procedures throughout remote communities for some time. During the late 1990’s, Indigenous participation in justice processes became formalized with the development of Indigenous sentencing and Circle Courts. Related justice practices include the setting aside of certain days in urban courts to sentence Indigenous offenders and the practice of judicial officials traveling on circuit to deal with cases in remote Indigenous communities. Judicial officials who travel on circuit to remote Indigenous communities incorporate the views of the elders or respected members of the local community into their justice practices. The authors review the emergence of Indigenous justice practices, which were necessitated by the relatively large number of Indigenous offenders and the need to establish partnerships between state governments and Aboriginal communities. Jurisdictions vary in their approaches to this liaison between state officials and Aboriginal representatives and are particular to the concerns of the populations of the areas. The similarities in Indigenous justice between jurisdictions include the requirement of an Indigenous offender; cases are usually heard in Magistrates’ Court; and the offense must have occurred in the geographical region under the courts jurisdiction. An important component of Indigenous justice is the presence of Indigenous court workers whose roles and duties vary by jurisdiction. A comparison of two jurisdictions, the New South Wales Circle Sentencing Court and the South Australian Nunga Court, is offered to illustrate differences of approach. Thus, the incorporation of Indigenous justice practices has resulted in a transformation of the Australian justice system involving communication between judicial officers, Aboriginal representatives, and Aboriginal offenders. Abstract courtesy of National Criminal Justice Reference Service, www.ncjrs.org.

Sections

Legal Status of Indigenous Courts

Document Actions

Personal tools


Navigation Court House Judges Prosecutors Defense Lawyers Probation Officers Victims Restorative Justice and Sentencing Restorative Justice for Diversion Kinds of Crimes Statutes and Case Law Due Process Issues Community Justice Legal Status of Indigenous Courts	Info Legal Status of Indigenous Courts Articles about diversion of certain matters to indigenous courts or acceptance by the criminal justice system of decisions made there. Victoria’s Neighbourhood Justice Centre from the paper prepared by Courts and Tribunals Unit, Department of Justice, Victoria for the Indigenous Justice Clearinghouse: Community Justice Centres are neighbourhood-focused centres that seek to enhance community participation in the justice system, address local problems, and enhance the quality of local community life....Centres often vary in their model and focus but generally share a motivation to address crime and safety concerns locally, by developing effective relationships and links with the local community. Community justice centres challenge traditional methods of the criminal justice system. Rather than focusing on responding to crime after it has occurred, they seek to develop new relationships, both within the justice system and with stakeholders from the wider community, and to trial new and innovative approaches to community safety... A feature common to the various kinds of centres around the world is that they seek to respond in innovative ways to issues that may be otherwise considered negligible in the traditional criminal justice system. Dan Van Ness: Indigenous dispute resolution and restorative justice It is common to link restorative justice and customary principles and traditional practices of justice. The argument is that the underlying beliefs of customary justice are that justice should repair harm and that the parties themselves should participate in deciding how that is done. These are principles shared by restorative justice. However, there is a dark side to this relationship. Livingston, Michael and Hayes, Hennessey and Palk, George and Livingston, Michael and Stewart, Anna and Hayes, Hennessey. Youth Justice Conferencing and Indigenous Over-Representation in the Queensland Juvenile Justice System: A Micro-Simulation Case Study. Research suggests that rather than focusing on criminal justice responses, more progress in reducing Aboriginal overrepresentation might be made if the focus was shifted to the underlying causes of Aboriginal crime: substance abuse, family violence, poor school performance, and unemployment. Further development of initiatives to address the underlying causes of offending by indigenous young people, as well as use of effective criminal justice responses, such as youth justice conferencing, likely will be more effective in reducing the overrepresentation of young indigenous people in the juvenile justice system. The results of the simulations indicate that youth justice conferencing is unlikely to contribute significantly to the targets set by the Justice Agreement. While conferencing has the potential to reduce the number of young people reoffending overall, this impact may be more apparent for non-indigenous young offenders, resulting in an increase in the disparity in the ratio of indigenous to non-indigenous young offenders. While youth justice conferencing is only one of a range of criminal justice interventions identified in the Justice Agreement as strategies for reaching the identified goals, it is the only diversionary option that has been empirically shown to reduce rates of reoffending. However, there is a deep need for more rigorous evaluations of the impact of youth justice conferencing on reoffending; simulation modeling is only as good as the estimates that are used as parameters in the models. (Abstract courtesy of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, www.ncjrs.gov). Whonnock, Karen and Savarese, Josephine. Aboriginal courts for New Brunswick. Over the last several decades, the Canadian criminal justice system has been encouraged to implement policies and programs that better correspond with the ideals and values of Aboriginal justice. Numerous commissions and task forces have pointed to the unequal treatment of indigenous peoples by police, courts, and corrections. Innovative approaches to remedying the limitations of the justice system's response are varied. They include the creation of Aboriginal court worker positions, the implementation of restorative justice measures, Aboriginal policing programs, and the development of correctional programming that seeks to be culturally appropriate. While often acclaimed, these initiatives have not stemmed the over-representation of Aboriginal peoples in Canadian prisons and they have failed to promote the rehabilitation and restoration required. As a result, governments have intensified their efforts to develop programs within all facets of the justice system. The establishment of specialized courts dedicated to serving Aboriginal clients is a recent initiative. These courts work to ensure that the charges against Aboriginal accused are heard in a forum where cultural sensitivity and respect are incorporated into the criminal justice process. Four Canadian provinces--Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and Ontario--have established Aboriginal courts. Operating since 2000, the courts have nearly a decade of experience to share with other regions in Canada. To date, there has been limited consideration of the Aboriginal court model in the Atlantic region. I will examine the arguments for an Aboriginal court for the Province of New Brunswick (excerpt) Fitzgerald, Jacqueline. Does Circle Sentencing Reduce Aboriginal Offending? This paper examines whether Aboriginal offenders who participate in circle sentencing show a reduction in the frequency of their offending, take longer to reoffend, and/or reduce the seriousness of their offending. Taken as a whole, the evidence presented suggests that circle sentencing has no effect on the frequency, timing or seriousness of offending. The results suggest that such direct involvement is not enough, by itself, to produce a reduction in reoffending. It is recommended that the combining of circle sentencing with other programs that have been shown to alter the risk factors for further offending be considered. Circle sentencing is an alternative sentencing process for adult Aboriginal offenders in New South Wales (NSW). It takes the sentencing process out of the traditional court setting and allows the involvement of the offender's community. In a circle sentence, the offender, magistrate, community elders and, sometimes, the victim and support people for the offender and/or victim sit in a circle to discuss the circumstances and impact of the offense and determine a sentence tailored to the offender. The circle sentencing process in NSW was adapted from a program that originated in Canada in the 1990s. The aim of this study was to determine whether Aboriginal offenders who participated in circle sentencing in NSW (1) showed a reduction in the frequency of their offending, (2) took longer to reoffend, and/or (3) reduced the seriousness of their offending, relative to Aboriginal defendants who proceeded through a conventional court process.(abstract courtesy of the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, www.ncjrs.gov). Snowball, Lucy. Diversion of indigenous juvenile offenders Conferencing and cautioning are used as diversionary alternatives in the juvenile justice system and there is evidence to suggest they reduce reoffending. As Indigenous young people are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system, an important question is whether they are as likely to be diverted as non-Indigenous young people. This study used modelled data to examine juveniles’ contact with the police and courts, and the differences in juvenile diversionary rates for Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders in New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia in 2005. For all states, Indigenous young offenders were more likely than non-Indigenous offenders to be referred to court, non-Indigenous offenders were more likely to receive a police caution, and males and older offenders were more likely to be diverted. The number of prior contacts was similar for all states, with more contacts reducing the likelihood of diversion and with less likelihood of diversion for offenders committing offences against a person. As Indigenous young offenders are more likely to have multiple prior contacts with the system, including detention, further research is needed into the reasons for their high reoffending rates. (excerpt) . Victoria's neighbourhood justice centre. Experience with community justice centres suggests that they can have a significant effect on the quality of local community life (Berman 1998). Indigenous communities, being particularly conscious of a community sense of justice, may find the approaches used in community justice centres particularly appropriate. In the context of a growing array of approaches to Indigenous justice (including Indigenous courts) in Australia, community justice centres would seem to have considerable potential for improving the life of Indigenous communities. This paper provides the global context for the establishment of the Victorian Neighbourhood Justice Centre (NJC) and details its rationale, operation, and results. (excerpt) . The appropriate place of Indigenous Sentencing Courts in the Australian criminal justice system. In light of their great potential, Indigenous sentencing courts have been established in most Australian jurisdictions but many controversies and uncertainties still surround their operation. One such controversy is whether Indigenous sentencing courts are suited to dealing with all offences. Sexual offences are excluded from the mandate of most of the courts, with justifications for this decision varying between jurisdictions. Another issue that constantly surfaces each time the use of Indigenous sentencing courts is widened is the concern that Indigenous sentencing courts distinguish defendants based on their race, and thus violate the principle of equality before the law. As use of these courts becomes more widespread, it is important that fundamental questions such as these are considered, to ensure that the courts take their appropriate place in the Australian criminal justice system. (excerpt). . Defendants in the Circle: Nowra Circle Court, the presence and impact of Elders, and re-Offending. The first Indigenous sentencing court was established in 1999 in South Australia, and as of mid-year 2008, about 40 adult courts are operating around Australia. A growing literature has mapped jurisdictional variation, analysed the courts’ processes and outcomes, and attempted to estimate differences in re-offending compared to conventional courts. This Report presents the first qualitative study of how Indigenous offenders view the court process and the role of Indigenous Elders, with reference to the Nowra Circle Court in New South Wales, established in 2002. (excerpt) . Indigenous Sentencing Courts. This brief focuses on Indigenous sentencing courts, which operate in all Australian states and territories except Tasmania. These courts have been established according to protocols and practices, and can be distinguished from more informal practices that occur in remote areas where judicial officers travel on circuit. The first court was established in Port Adelaide on 1 June 1999. Indigenous sentencing courts do not practise or adopt Indigenous customary laws. Rather, they use Australian criminal laws and procedures to sentence Indigenous offenders who have either pleaded guilty or been found guilty, but they allow Indigenous Elders and Respected Persons to participate in the process, thereby creating a more culturally appropriate forum for sentencing Indigenous offenders (Auty 2004). (excerpt) Dwyer, Peggy. Sentencing Aboriginal Offenders: The Future of Indigenous Justice Models. At the end of the 20th century, Australia’s first Aboriginal court was established to sentence indigenous offenders. Over the last 6 years, a number of different courts, in most of our States and Territories, have become operational. While their style and set up differs to accommodate the interests of the local community, the broader aims are the same - to create a distinct culturally appropriate tribunal in which to sentence indigenous offenders, that will increase the involvement of the offender and the local community in the decision making process. The primary purpose of this paper is to explore two existing indigenous justice models - Aboriginal Courts and circle sentencing courts - and to suggest ways in which they may be expanded in the future, both geographically and in scope. (excerpt) Dewhurst, Dale. Parallel Justice Systems, or a Tale of Two Spiders. Recently, attempts have been made to modify or create systems of justice to respond to Aboriginal rights and values. One such attempt is the establishment of Canada’s first Aboriginal Court, the Tsuu T’ina First Nation Court. Staunch advocates of the adversarial system of justice may complain that the First nations Court gives Aboriginal people too much power; or, they may complain that it breaches fundamental principles of justice by providing separate justice systems for Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals. However, it is my position that where the court model is weak, it is because Aboriginal people have too little control. My concern is that attempts to introduce Aboriginal justice systems into the “adversarial system” (the term used to designate the current Canadian justice system) are prone to fail where the two systems have differing levels of authority. If Aboriginal systems are considered to be alternative, preliminary, of lower authority, or unofficial, their opponents will resort to the more “final” or “official” adversarial system in controversial cases. Instead, Aboriginal justice systems must be designed as authoritative and parallel models of justice. To discover some of the principles necessary to achieve this end, I will critically examine the rationale and structure of the Tsuu T’ina First Nation Court and I will draw out three useful comparative points from the historical development of the courts of common law and equity. This critique and comparison will show how we may take further steps toward achieving truly authoritative and parallel Aboriginal justice models. But first of all, for those who want a shorter route the problem and its solution are revealed in the tale of the two spiders. (excerpt) Briggs, Daniel and Auty, Kate. Koori Court Victoria – Magistrates Court (Koori Court) Act 2002. The introduction of Koori Courts in Victoria pursuant to the Magistrates Court (Koori Court) Act 2002 has not been without its detractors and like all change, is attended by controversies. Steps which attempt to ‘move the law along’ (as if she were an old bag lady), are often seen as a threat to the legitimacy of the legal system. Before we even commenced sitting at Shepparton by the Bayunga or Koriella river, known to non-Aboriginal people as the Goulburn, our regional Koori court was the subject of criticism with members of the legal profession commenting that Aboriginal people would not be able to find their way to the court, or that they would ‘go walkabout’ on the day of the hearing (Herald Sun 6/5/2002). This early criticism was met by much positive commentary (The Age October 2002). Nevertheless criticism continued, when a senior member of the Victorian bar, citing the establishing Act incorrectly, suggested that the Koori Court ‘tipped the scales’ and provided ‘luxury’ or ‘special’ courts and some ill-defined special regime of sentencing options (Galbally, Herald Sun 13/3/2003). He also contrasted the banning of Father Christmas from child-minding centres with the Koori Court initiative. The Victorian Attorney General, Rob Hulls criticised the ‘impaired logic’ which underpinned this commentary (Herald Sun 14/3/2003). It is timely to put the controversy and distractions to one side and start seriously considering what we do in the Koori Court in Victoria. (excerpt) Marchetti, Elena and Daly, Kathleen. Indigenous Courts and Justice Practices in Australia Indigenous populations in Australia have been informally contributing to sentencing procedures throughout remote communities for some time. During the late 1990’s, Indigenous participation in justice processes became formalized with the development of Indigenous sentencing and Circle Courts. Related justice practices include the setting aside of certain days in urban courts to sentence Indigenous offenders and the practice of judicial officials traveling on circuit to deal with cases in remote Indigenous communities. Judicial officials who travel on circuit to remote Indigenous communities incorporate the views of the elders or respected members of the local community into their justice practices. The authors review the emergence of Indigenous justice practices, which were necessitated by the relatively large number of Indigenous offenders and the need to establish partnerships between state governments and Aboriginal communities. Jurisdictions vary in their approaches to this liaison between state officials and Aboriginal representatives and are particular to the concerns of the populations of the areas. The similarities in Indigenous justice between jurisdictions include the requirement of an Indigenous offender; cases are usually heard in Magistrates’ Court; and the offense must have occurred in the geographical region under the courts jurisdiction. An important component of Indigenous justice is the presence of Indigenous court workers whose roles and duties vary by jurisdiction. A comparison of two jurisdictions, the New South Wales Circle Sentencing Court and the South Australian Nunga Court, is offered to illustrate differences of approach. Thus, the incorporation of Indigenous justice practices has resulted in a transformation of the Australian justice system involving communication between judicial officers, Aboriginal representatives, and Aboriginal offenders. Abstract courtesy of National Criminal Justice Reference Service, www.ncjrs.org. Document Actions RSS feed Send this Print this	Africa Asia Europe Latin America Middle East North America and Caribbean Pacific Search 9932 publications on restorative justice Recent RJOB Comments Oakland as a RJ city? Jul 29, 2010 Trauma Jul 29, 2010 Psych Reports to BPT board Jul 29, 2010 More… Slide Show: What is Restorative Justice Click to view a slideshow discussing the definition of restorative justice. Jul 21, 2010 Promoting Restorative Justice in Panama Jul 28, 2010 Raising Community Awareness in Swaziland Jul 28, 2010 Exploring alternatives in Finland Jul 28, 2010 PF Rwanda Receives Grant for Reconciliation Work Jun 27, 2010 Restorative Justice in the Community.