ELEVEN of the 21 people admitted to the Montego Bay drug court have been booted from the programme for failure to adhere to its stipulations for their rehabilitation.

This means that the 11 will have to face the Resident Magistrate Court to be tried for their initial offences and could end up serving custodial sentences, if found guilty.

Seven of the 11 offenders have absconded from the programme and warrants have been issued for their arrests. The other four have tested positive for drug use more than the three times allowed if they are to remain in the programme, and one of the four has been charged with a breaking and entering offence.

Acting senior resident magistrate, Paulette Williams, who is in charge of the Montego Bay Drug Court, said of the 10 remaining participants, three “look almost ready for graduation” from the programme.

Since its first sitting on July 19 last year, the court received 31 referrals, but 10 of those were found to be ineligible for the programme. Only persons charged with possession of a small amount of illegal drugs (less than an eighth of an ounce of ganja or a tenth of an ounce of cocaine) and who are over 17 years old and have no mental defect are eligible for the programme.

The drug court programme aims to reduce drug use and dependence by offenders whose crimes are found to be linked to drug dependence, as well as to reduce the level of crime that results from drug abuse and to provide rehabilitation so that offenders can once again function as law abiding citizens.

Offenders who satisfactorily complete the programme avoid having criminal records and also escape incarceration.

Resident Magistrate Williams said although the programme has its share of challenges, the team of workers were undaunted because they recognised its potential to help fight crime.

“It is a programme that I think can go a far way in helping to combat the problem of crime among persons who are drug abusers. (But) there are still a number of areas that we need to work on to get it working as efficiently as we would like it to,” Williams said.

She was speaking at the opening of a two-day workshop put on by the National Council on Drug Abuse and the St James Drug Abuse Prevention Committee.

Among the challenges, Williams said, was the absence of family support and the lack of housing or shelter for homeless participants. She also included the absence of a complementary education or vocational training programme among the list of shortcomings.

“In the initial stages, we had persons who had been deported from various parts of the world who had no family support here in Jamaica… They are wandering our streets, washing cars, selling bottles and buying drugs. So they are caught sniffing these small amounts of crack cocaine,” she said.

“But with nowhere to live, and we do not yet have a in-house programme… we have had to put them out (of the programme). We are not structured to deal with those persons who are basically homeless, living in boats, in cars, living in sheds. We cannot deal with them at this time.”

She added that this was not the case in the US where the drug court programme also exists.

“They have housing units, which they are able to provide for the homeless. They have school programmes… And the graduation exercise for the participants is more than just passing out from the programme… Realising that we cannot get to that stage just now was a bit daunting at first,” she said.

“Fortunately for us the treatment provider is able to provide guidance in certain areas… But to be truly meaningful, the court will need to have that avenue where we can channel the participants into programmes to keep them occupied on a day to day basis… Most of our participants at this time don’t have jobs… so it is difficult at this point without having any other avenue to encourage their rehabilitation.”

Despite the failure of half of the offenders to adhere to the stipulations of the programme, however, Williams said all was not lost.

“There are 10 persons now remaining in the programme and of this 10, three look almost ready for graduation,” she said “The first couple of visits they might look unkempt. They might look bemused. But as you watch them get a grip on their life it is a wonderful feeling actually seeing the change. As a matter of fact, we have had persons who after a while when they come back to court we don’t recognise them. They have cleaned up so much and we give them applause and commend them for the effort they are making,” she said.

“Our oldest participant is 56, a wonderful old man, who makes us all happy. Every Thursday evening he comes in with this big grin on his face when initially, if you saw him, (he was one) of those persons you cross the street and avoid. He is one of the persons who I anticipate graduating soon. His addiction was ganja and he slipped up once or twice… (But) we gave him the benefit of the doubt and he has proven to be a wonderful participant in the programme.

To be admitted to the drug court programme, the offender, when he or she appears before the criminal court, must acknowledge that he or she has a problem and needs help. Once that is done, he or she is required to sign a form consenting to the transfer of the case to the drug court, which sits each Thursday at 2:00 pm.

Once before that court, the programme is explained in more detail and the participant is sent for assessment by one of the two treatment providers who assess suitability.

If the applicant is found suitable, then he is returned to the drug court to sign another form to consent to being a part of the programme.

There is no stipulation on the duration of the programme but Judge Williams said it could last anywhere between six months and a year or beyond, depending on the need of individual participants.

The programme offers individual counselling once or twice weekly in the initial stages but as time passes, counselling takes place in groups.

The court itself is presided over by the resident magistrate and two justices of the peace, one of whom must be a woman.

“In the court system itself, it is much more relaxed than the regular court system because we try to encourage honesty and openness with the participants… We actually commend them… and we encourage the family members to come into the court as well to have conversations with them to find out how it has been going… It’s really a very relaxed open atmosphere but we still try to maintain that level of respect between the participant and the bench,” Williams said.