En Configuración del esquema, se muestran todos los elementos del curso origen. Seleccionar todos los recursos y actividades que quieran importarse y

5.87 Clients were aware of the consequences if they failed to comply with the requirements of their order. One of the greatest concerns to many clients was the potential removal of their medical prescription if they did not maintain negative test results for illicit drugs. One client, commenting about a positive test stated: "She just told me that if I wasn't clean I was getting struck off my order".

5.88 Sheriffs believed that additional sanctions – such as short prison sentences or fines – should be made available to the Drug Court27. As one sheriff commented:

“If it reaches the stage where things are going awry I think the only way to do it is to bring them up sharp and say this has got to stop…If the court was

aware of if things were going awry they could impose 3,4,5 days detention or whatever then it might achieve something.”

5.89 In a similar vein, another sheriff observed:

“Although at the outset of an Order and perhaps for the first six months there is no wish to impose a sanction, after then and in some cases before, failures to attend or, for example, aggression to the drug team or failure to co-operate needs to be addressed. And after warnings are ineffective, a sanction may be appropriate, but without interrupting the order or revoking it.”

5.90 It was also acknowledged that there was currently some scope for flexibility through the use of deferred sentence for concurrent offences or further charges. The imposition of short prison sentences while allowing the order to continue was thought by sheriffs to be a more constructive approach than revoking the order and re-sentencing the offender for the original offence. This was particularly important given the relapsing nature of drug use and the pressures that Drug Court clients could face to resume their use of drug:

“I don’t underestimate how difficult it must be, difficult socially as well because if you’ve been hanging out with the crowd it takes a bit to turn your back on that and I think there’s quite a lot of intimidation goes on and we’ve had to change venues and times and things for people because their dealer or their buddies know they’re going for their review or for their test or whatever. And they start and hang about waiting for them, intimidation not to say violence occurs, it’s not straightforward.”

5.91 Procurators fiscal were of the view that the short sharp prison sentences that were being legislated for in the Criminal Justice Bill were a positive addition to the range of sanctions available to the Drug Court in the event of a client’s non-compliance. One prosecutor voiced concern that the repeated use of partial sentences might fall foul of Human Rights legislation but believed, on balance, that they would be useful in the case of offenders who had little interest in completing a Drug Court Order to demonstrate that the Drug Court has some ‘bite’. There was less support from these respondents for the use of short periods of unpaid work for offenders who were failing to comply. One respondent suggested that there might be an adverse public reaction if it were known that someone who was failing to co- operate with a Drug Court Order was carrying out community service:

“I don’t know if I fancy my granny getting her grass cut by somebody who has breached umpteen drug orders…I don’t know how the public would react to that.”

5.92 Defence agents were of the view that the Drug Court had sufficient sanctions available in the event of an offender’s non-compliance and were sceptical whether sanctions

per se could positively influence a client’s commitment to an order.

5.93 While there were acknowledged to be limited options available to reward good progress on a Drug Court Order, defence agents were doubtful of the value of extending the range of rewards that were available. To do so, they suggested, might undermine the perception of the Drug Court as a punitive option:

“They’ve committed offences and it still should be a form of punishment. I think there should be verbal praise, if it’s merited. But I think that’s probably all there should be.”

5.94 The main rewards open to the Drug Court were perceived by sheriffs to be praise and

encouragement, and the disposal of offences by means of an admonition in the even of an offender on an order doing well. Sheriffs could also amend the frequency of testing, appointments and reviews. As one sheriff indicated, the frequency of court review hearings might be reduced:

“If all attendance over, say, six months took place and negative opiates and benzodiazepine tests were provided. I have not done this yet, but have made reviews bi-monthly, Above all, I would do this if no offending had occurred since the assessment began.”

5.95 Sheriffs in the Glasgow Drug Court had identified the absence of a more fully developed system of rewards as an area that required further attention (Eley et al., 2002b). Sheriffs in Fife agreed that a wider range of rewards might be of some value, though it was not clear what form these rewards might take. There was a concern to avoid the Drug Court being perceived to ‘treat’ offenders and there was, equally, resistance to some of the approaches that have been adopted in other jurisdictions (such as applause) to reward progress on an order.

THE ENFORCEMENT OF DRUG COURT ORDERS