NGOs and government organisations do not reach the youth on the street sufficiently
Multiple services may surround offenders in Alice Springs: a case manager in an NGO; a bed and a case worker at ASYASS; a youth outreach worker at YORET; a
domestic violence worker with Tangentyere Council, and a substance misuse worker at DASA; St Joe’s College may try to pick them up sometimes; they may be in a diversion program with The Gap Youth Centre; they may have a psychologist at Congress, and have a Territory Families Child Protection Case Worker. Still, weeks can go by in which any does not see them of these people because they are often highly transient, and it is difficult to locate
them. Young people in foster care are obliged to go to school or be home at a certain hour – but who stops them if they skip school or walk out of the door in the middle of the night? Policymakers do not consider this enough. They do not know that their programs are not reaching the offender. More CCTV cameras and a curfew have proven to be ineffective at reducing crime overall.(Chlanda, R 2020, 'How our most troubled young people are falling through the cracks … and some possible answers', Alice Springs News, 28 November.)
(Vicarious) trauma in lawyers and Judges
In the early 1990s, Michael Kirby was famously the first to speak about the taboo of burnout, depression and suicide among lawyers and magistrates.
An Australian study in 2008 found that criminal lawyers experience significantly higher levels of subjective distress, vicarious trauma, depression and stress than non-criminal lawyers. This lends weight to the possibility that cases involving disadvantage, violence and vulnerability are more likely to give rise to stress. A more recent study confirms that judicial officers have a stress problem manifesting as non-specific psychological distress, burnout, secondary traumatic stress and alcohol use.
Research also suggests that occupational burnout is a foreseeable consequence of judicial working conditions.
Vicarious trauma features prominently in the academic literature on judicial stress and points to the frequent exposure to violence, abuse and misery, coupled with the requirement to remain stoic. 83.6% of judicial officers report experiencing at least one symptom of secondary traumatic stress, and almost one-third scored in the range for PTSD. 30% reported risky levels of alcohol use, similar to Australian lawyers, and almost double that within the general population.
Kozarov v Victoria
Until very recently, it was difficult to hold workplaces accountable for the results of trauma in their workers because too much onus was placed on workers to prove their mental health condition. The recent Kozarov case may lead to a long overdue change. Solicitor Kozarov
started a new job in Victoria in 2009. The subject matter of her cases was often extremely volatile. After two years in the job, she became mentally unwell and had to stop working. She was diagnosed with PTSD and argued that the work had made her sick. The workplace denied this.
A long legal battle, where the Supreme Court initially found no reasonable foreseeability, ended in a High Court decision with hopeful implications regarding who is responsible when there is a psychiatric, rather than a physical, injury at work. In April 2022, two years after
an initial Supreme Court win was overturned at appeal; the High Court found that the employer was responsible for the psychiatric injuries or was negligent. Its vicarious
trauma policy established a duty of care, and the employer hadn't acted in accordance with it. Hence, the High Court ordered a substantial damages payout to Kozarov. This
case has shifted the onus of proof back onto the employer to provide a safe workplace that looks after the mental health of its workers through appropriate policies and procedures. The case also has implications for police officers, prison officers, youth detention centre officers and social workers.
It is recognised that magistrates’ working conditions are markedly more stressful than those of judges. Compared with judges, magistrates are burdened with higher caseloads, more significant time pressure, and both more routinisation and more unpredictability while having few administrative supports, more unrepresented parties, and less prepared counsel. In criminal matters, they carry the burden of deciding both verdict and sentence, whereas
trial judges are responsible only for sentencing, while a jury takes care of the verdict. A combination of these factors translates into higher stress among magistrates.157 Remote
country magistrates may experience additional demands that can cause stress in terms of social isolation, driving time to remote locations, security risks, and complexity of
work. Still, there has, to our knowledge, been no empirical investigation of the association between working location and judicial stress in Australia.
To develop responses and interventions to address the stress experienced by judicial officers, a better understanding of the drivers of this stress – and which judicial officers are experiencing the most stress – is required.
A national study of judicial stress and wellbeing and occupational and wellbeing supports for magistrates and other judicial officers in high-volume, summary jurisdictions such as Alice Springs, in the form of judicial education, seems called for. Comparative research with
other jurisdictions would seem helpful too.
Having PTSD or other trauma-related disorders is still a taboo to be cleared away in the police force and among prison workers. An Australian study found that criminal lawyers also experienced significantly higher levels of subjective distress, vicarious trauma, depression,
and stress than did non-criminal lawyers.
Picture: Getty Images
Comments