Can drug courts combat Scots scourge?

AT THE annual meeting of the Scottish Police Federation last month, rank-and-file officers unanimously backed a call for a Royal Commission into Scotland’s drug plight. They were, by their own admission, struggling to win the fight against drugs.

In the past year, the biggest indication of the authorities’ belief that rehabilitation, not punishment, should be at the centre of the fight against narcotics in Scotland has been the introduction of specialist drug courts in Glasgow, Glenrothes, Paisley and Greenock. It seems certain the network will be expanded nationwide - but is it the right way forward, or does it indicate a worrying "Americanisation" of the system?

Each week in Scotland, drug courts are held in specially designed, non-adversarial courtrooms, offering coercive but supportive treatment rather than imprisonment. For supporters of the scheme, the concept works because it is the antithesis of the traditional court, where the relationship between the perpetrator and the judge is punitive. Drug courts are about human interaction and, according to backers, they provide something rare - a system that is interested in who you are as well as what you have done.

But drug courts are no soft option; those referred undergo a rigorous programme of testing and treatment and can be sent back to court for sentencing if they breach treatment orders by failing to attend rehabilitation programmes or continuing to take drugs.

Similar schemes operate in Canada, Australia and the Republic of Ireland, while 500 courts exist in the United States.

For many drug counsellors, Scotland has been forward-thinking in the fight against addiction - especially compared to England and Wales, where there has been a reluctance to commit to a similar scheme. A review of criminal courts suggested that, despite demand in some areas, drug courts would be expensive and there was "no compelling case" for their creation.

However, while most expert opinion favours drug courts in Scotland, there are concerns. Roger Howard, chief executive of the research charity Drugscope, says: "Drug courts are seen as a US import with a tough-love background. They originated in the States as part of a therapeutic-justice movement and their growth has influenced the creation of other specialist courts. It may be culturally appropriate in the US but is it here?"

Justine Walker, national officer for Scotland’s association of drug action teams, says: "When we set up drug courts in Scotland, there was resistance. I had sheriffs saying, ‘What do you want us to do, hug the offenders’? The perception was it would be like the US. We explained although it originated in the US, it can work outside."

Alistair Ramsay, director of Scotland Against Drugs, backs drug courts: "They have to be the way forward for addicts with real problems - not for dealers but those who are really suffering. It is an excellent set-up and suggesting it undermines traditions is foolhardy."