Much of the hallmark Australian research undertaken over the past two decades around ‘Access to Justice’ has focussed on access to public and private legal services for socio-economic disadvantaged groups. However, there has been little research that looks at equity in the administration of the law in regional communities, through courts and tribunals and associated services.

Postcode Justice, a research project undertaken by Deakin University School of Law, responds to this gap and asks the question: are regional communities disadvantaged in the administration of the law, compared with their metropolitan counterparts? Following 62 interviews and 117 survey responses drawing on the views of regional services and organisations participating in the justice system, together with an examination of relevant literature and research, the answer is strongly in the affirmative.

‘Administration of justice’ refers to the justice system services established to administer both criminal and civil laws, largely courts and tribunals, and associated services, programs and legal processes. This research examined and tested issues raised by interviewees. Topics discussed under each of the chapters, including courts, penalties, regional services, practitioner and cross-border issues, and regional engagement, deserve further consideration in their own right. There are also many other issues and factors relating to the administration of justice in regional Victoria not included within the scope of this report, which are deserving of further exploration.

Postcode Justice identifies a myriad of factors and combinations of factors that create disadvantage for people living in rural and regional Victoria when using justice system services. These factors are not universal but will vary across geographic areas, with smaller and more remote population centres generally experiencing greater disadvantage.
Despite improvements to technologies and transportation over the last half century, distance from courts and related services continues to raise a ‘natural barrier’ for many justice system service users and prospective users in Victoria, causing both financial cost and personal hardship. Government response has been inconsistent, creating a form of ‘postcode justice’, where outcomes are determined by the vagaries of where you live, in conjunction with the level of justice system services and programs present in your location. This report identifies issues relating to the physical amenity of regional courts which affects outcomes for users and the likelihood of their attendance, particularly given security, video-conferencing facilities, waiting areas and confidential interview areas are unavailable at many regional and ‘satellite’ courts.

The therapeutic jurisprudence (problem solving courts) model embraced by Victorian courts provides a progressive response to applying justice in criminal courts. However, it relies on a level of court based programs, and local support and rehabilitation services, often not available to smaller rural centres. Limited and inconsistent roll-out of programs such as CISP (Court Integrated Services Program) and Credit Bail; and Specialist Magistrates’ Courts such as the Family Violence Division and the Drug Court, is likely to result in inequitable outcomes for court participants in regional centres not covered by the program. In relation to criminal offences, the sentencing data available provides limited opportunity to examine regional and metropolitan differences. However, it is evident that, where they are available, court programs, local services and specialist courts provide significant benefits to the individual recipients and communities; conversely, those in locations where such programs, services and specialist courts are not available, are disadvantaged.
‘Efficiencies’ in court management within criminal and civil jurisdictions can result in inequitable procedures and levels of service between rural/regional and metropolitan areas. For example, County Court circuit courts give litigants and their counsel no certainty of a hearing date until only a matter of days prior to their hearing.

This system has been designed to ensure the sitting circuit Judge hears a constant flow of cases but it creates an inequity in the ability to prepare and present cases not experienced by participants using the Melbourne County Court.

Postcode Justice investigates the impact of legal and related professional services in rural and regional communities. Disadvantage is experienced as a result of the limited availability of senior barristers and senior Crown Counsel at circuit County Courts. A declining ratio of private law firms to regional populations and demands on Legal Aid services is resulting in an increasing frequency of ‘conflict of interest’ issues. A growing complexity of laws is requiring a greater level of expertise from regional practitioners, who traditionally offer generalist practice services and therefore, are not always able to provide the requisite level of competence to appropriately respond to the specialised assistance required.

The report examines how the lack of local human service agencies in rural and regional areas affects justice system outcomes. Limited availability of mental health services and other human service agencies (such as drug and alcohol services, youth services, disability services, domestic violence services, supervised accommodation services, and counselling services) in rural and regional areas, increases the likelihood of involvement in the criminal justice system, placement in remand and recidivism (re-offending). The research also explores the additional challenges for legal practitioners and local human service agencies based near State borders. Variation in laws and government program policies across borders, compound the difficulties rural and regional services and their clients already face.

Providing an equal level of court and related service to rural and regional communities can be costly and runs contrary to notions of budgetary efficiency. How then do we maintain a balance between cost, on the one hand, and equity of service provision and justice, on the other? The balance must constantly be reviewed. State Governments have introduced measures in response to rural and regional disadvantage but there is little consistency of approach that commits to maintaining mechanisms that recognise and respond to ‘spatial disadvantage’ within the justice system.

Governments must first acknowledge and address the limitations of centralised decision making. They need to establish structures that build an understanding of the impact of laws and justice system policies and programs on rural and regional communities; and which will have meaningful and ongoing engagement with those communities.