Court diversion in perspective.

Court diversion schemes have been running for a decade in New Zealand and are increasing in number in Australia. This paper aims to give an international and historical context to these developments, by reference to psychiatric initiatives at courts in the US and in England and Wales. From a review of the specialist literature, an account is given of three forms of psychiatric intervention in courts over the last 90 years: court psychiatric clinics and mental health courts in the US, and court diversion schemes in England and Wales. High levels of psychiatric morbidity among prisoners, coupled with a continuing increase in prisoner numbers, demonstrate the need for systems for dealing with mentally ill people who come before the courts. Court diversion in England and Wales developed as part of a system where the mentally ill who are found guilty are sent to hospital in lieu of any other sentence. Its focus is on a form of psychiatric triage, and its ethos is the health of the patient. Court psychiatric clinics in the US grew up as an alternative to assessment in prison. Their focus has been on full psychiatric evaluation in an insanity and incompetence jurisdiction. The ethos has been that of serving the court. Mental health courts are heavily influenced by ideas of therapeutic jurisprudence, and their emphasis has been on a judge holding minor offenders in community care through the threat of judicial sanction. Experience in England and Wales has shown that court diversion can be a powerful and effective intervention. In order for it to function properly, those running court schemes need direct admission rights to psychiatric beds, both open and locked. Court diversion schemes are best as part of a spectrum of services to police stations, courts and prisons, which involved both general and forensic psychiatrists.