The Social Impacts of the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme in South Australia. Part 1

Acknowledgments

The research investigators for the Cannabis Social Impacts Study acknowledge the funding and support provided by the Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services. The contribution of the Commonwealth-convened Steering Committee for the project is also gratefully acknowledged.

The research team would like to thank the following agencies which provided substantial support for the research, through the provision of facilities and staff resources for the day-to-day operation of the study: the Drug and Alcohol Services Council (SA); the National Centre for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse (WA); the National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (SA); and the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NSW).

Finally, thanks go to the numerous agencies and consultants who contributed to the work of the researchers, in particular, the South Australia Police, the Office of Crime Statistics of the South Australian Attorney-General's Department, and the Western Australian Crime Research Centre.

The Research Team for the Cannabis Social Impacts Study

Chief Investigator:
Dr Robert Ali, Director of Clinical Policy & Research
Drug and Alcohol Services Council of South Australia

Co-investigators:
Paul Christie, Senior Research Officer
Drug and Alcohol Services Council of South Australia

David Hawks, Professorial Fellow
Simon Lenton, Research Fellow
National Centre for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse
Curtin University of Western Australia

Dr Wayne Hall, Professor, Director
Neil Donnelly, Research Fellow
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre
University of New South Wales

Research Team: Project Staff and Consultants
Alisen Brooks, Project Officer
Rachel Humeniuk, Project Officer
Drug and Alcohol Services Council of South Australia

Penny Heale, Project Officer
Mike Bennett, Project Officer
National Centre for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse
Curtin University of Western Australia

Dr Adam Sutton, Criminologist
University of Melbourne, Department of Criminology
Libby McMillan
McMillan Management Consulting

Dr Steve Allsop, Associate Professor, Director
Alex Ask, Project Officer
National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction

John Moss, Health Economist, Senior Lecturer
University of Adelaide, Department of Public Health

Executive Summary

This study aimed to compare the social impacts of the two main models found in Australia for dealing with minor cannabis offences: total prohibition, and prohibition with civil penalties. In addition, it sought to evaluate in detail the operation and acceptability of an existing expiation scheme for minor cannabis offences, South Australia's Cannabis Expiation Notice (CEN) scheme. One of the main questions underlying the investigation was whether the reduction in criminal penalties that accompanies an expiation approach might lead to differing social consequences for offenders and for the community as a whole.

Among the key questions for the research to address were:

1. Did the CEN Scheme affect the prevalence, incidence or pattern of cannabis use in South Australia?
2. Did the CEN Scheme reduce or increase law enforcement and/or criminal justice system costs?
3. How did the police go about enforcing the CEN Scheme?
4. What is the adverse impact of a criminal conviction for cannabis use or possession on the employment prospects of the person convicted?
5. Did the CEN Scheme increase the extent to which users grew their own supplies of cannabis?
6. What are the main reasons for the high rate of non-expiation of cannabis expiation notices?
7. What is the level of public understanding of the law concerning cannabis under the CEN scheme?

A numbers of separate research studies were formulated as part of the overall study plan. These were:

1. A statistical analysis of cannabis offences under the Cannabis Expiation Notice scheme in South Australia since 1987
2. A statistical analysis of cannabis offenders in the Western Australian criminal justice system from 1993 to 1995
3. A cannabis offender interview study, comparing the impact of civil penalties for minor cannabis offences in South Australia with the impact of conviction in Western Australia
4. A survey of peak employer groups to compare employment impacts in South Australia and Western Australia
5. A study of the effects of the CEN scheme on levels and patterns of cannabis use in South Australia
6. A population survey of public awareness, knowledge and attitudes regarding the CEN scheme in South Australia
7. A study of costs associated with the operation of the CEN scheme in South Australia
8. A review of law enforcement and other criminal justice attitudes, policies and practices regarding cannabis and cannabis laws in South Australia

The main findings of the study are as follows:

• The establishment of the Cannabis Expiation Notice (CEN) scheme in South Australia in 1987 has resulted in some degree of "net-widening", in that the number of minor cannabis offences detected under the scheme increased about two and a half times between 1987 and 1996. This increase appears to be mainly due the greater ease with which a CEN can be issued under the scheme, compared to the procedures for an arrest and charge that would required for a prosecution.
• Since the introduction of the CEN scheme, the rate of expiation of notices has remained low compared with other types of infringement notices, and has remained fairly stable at approximately 45% for the last few years of operation of the scheme. The reasons for the low rate of expiation of cannabis offences are likely to relate to financial difficulty experienced by a substantial proportion of those detected for minor cannabis offences, as well as poor understanding amongst this group of the actual legal status of minor cannabis offences and the consequences of failure to pay expiation fees.
• Around 90%of those CENs which were forwarded for prosecution between 1991 and 1996 resulted in a conviction being recorded against the offender, because expiation fee payments were not made. This represents about 45% of all CENs issued over that period, and a large number of offenders for whom the conviction would have been avoided had they payed expiation fees on time.
• The rate of expiation of CEN offences may improve following recent changes to the way in which all expiable offences are administered under the Expiation of Offences Act, 1996. The provision to offenders of a range of payment options (eg. instalment payments, community service) which can be specified before an unpaid CEN matter is forwarded for prosecution may result in a higher proportion of CENs being expiated. In addition, the provision of clearer and more detailed information on the consequences (esp. conviction) of failure to pay expiation fees may help to improve expiation rates. Ongoing monitoring will be required to determine whether the new CEN forms and payment provisions bring about such changes.
• Around 5% of CEN matters are withdrawn before payment is made or prosecution is completed, most likely due to inadequate information being available to ensure a successful prosecution in the event of failure to pay expiation fees. A further proportion would be withdrawn or dismissed after court proceedings have been completed, involving cases where the offenders could not be located for follow-up regarding payment of fines.
• National population survey data indicate there has been a national increase in self-reported lifetime cannabis use between 1985 and 1995, with a greater degree of increase in South Australia than in the average of the other Australian states and territories. However, the South Australian increase is unlikely to be due to the CEN system because: (1) similar increases occurred in Tasmania and Victoria, where there was no change in the legal status of cannabis use; (2) there was no differential change in weekly cannabis use in South Australia as compared with the rest of Australia, and (3) there was no greater increase in cannabis use among young adults aged 14 to 29 years in South Australia.
• Many minor cannabis offenders in both South Australia and Western Australia appear to be people who are otherwise law-abiding. Surveys of samples of cannabis offenders in both states found that the majority in both states had respect for police and the law in general. It was also found that their offence apprehension and subsequent arrest (WA) or issuing of a CEN (SA) had no impact on their patterns of cannabis or other drug use.
• Interviews with cannabis offenders found that negative employment consequences arising from a cannabis offence apprehension were more likely to be experienced by offenders in Western Australia compared to South Australia (eg. loss of job, missing out on a job opportunity). Those in the WA system were also more likely to report relationship problems, accommodation problems, and further involvement with the criminal justice system related to their first minor cannabis offence. In terms of impacts upon drug use and travel opportunities, no differences were found between offenders in both states. However, offenders in Western Australia were more likely than those in South Australia to have more less favourable attitudes towards police following their cannabis offence detection.
• No differences were found in the self-reported attitudes of employers in both South Australia and Western Australia towards employing people with prior cannabis offences, there being a general lack of discrimination expressed against such offenders. This is somewhat at odds with the reported experiences of cannabis offenders in the two states. It was clear that cannabis offending is not an important part of employer screening in many employment areas, although employers in both states were concerned about the potential risks associated with cannabis intoxication in the workplace, and the long term effects of cannabis use on work performance.
• While there is a level of acceptance in the South Australian community of personal cannabis use among adults, activities relating to the commercial sale or supply of cannabis are not viewed favourably by the public.
• The general public in South Australia had a reasonable awareness of the CEN scheme in general, but retained a fair degree of confusion about the details of the CEN scheme and the consequences of being detected for various minor cannabis offences. There was also incomplete recognition of the possible health risks associated with long-term or heavy cannabis use. As many people issued with expiation notices are heavy consumers of cannabis, there is an opportunity to deliver health messages with a CEN at the time of issuing.
• Despite the fairly low rate of expiation and the apparent "net-widening" observed under the CEN scheme since its implementation in 1987, it would seem that the scheme is more cost effective for dealing with minor cannabis offences than a prohibition approach based predominantly on prosecution and conviction. It might be expected that greater efficiencies could be achieved if the rate of expiation can be increased in the future, with a corresponding reduction in the number of CEN fee defaulters who receive convictions.
• There is clear and widespread support for the CEN scheme amongst South Australia law enforcement and criminal justice personnel. This support is based largely on the perception that the expiation approach provides a fair and cost-effective way of dealing with minor cannabis offences.
• Concern has been expressed by some South Australian police officers about the potential for exploitation of the CEN scheme by organised criminal syndicates who grow commercial quantities of cannabis in separate locations while operating within the expiable cultivation limit of 10 plants. In order to address this issue, it has been suggested that the CEN scheme be modified to reduce to maximum expiable number of plants under cultivation from ten to three or four.
• In addition to the provision of more payment options for offenders and more detailed information on the financial and legal consequences of non-payment, other suggestions have been put forward for possible changes to the CEN scheme in South Australia, which may be of interest to other jurisdictions considering the adoption of expiation systems for minor cannabis offences. A system involving a more graduated scale of expiation fees, including lesser fees for offences involving very small amounts of cannabis, could result in higher rates of expiation, especially where offences involve young people. Other suggestions which may reduce the extent of net-widening under an expiation approach, should that be deemed desirable, are: inclusion of a provision for some form of cautioning for certain categories of minor cannabis offence; and dropping the offence of possession of equipment for using cannabis, as it is a very common offence under the CEN scheme, and is mostly detected in the context of CENs being issued for other cannabis offences.

Introduction

1. Background
2. Previous Research in Australia on Cannabis Expiation Systems
3. Overall Objectives and Aims of the Study

1. Background

In 1994, the National Task Force on Cannabis presented a series of technical reports on cannabis to the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy. Among the recommendations put forward by the Task Force was a recommendation that consideration be given by jurisdictions to removing criminal penalties for personal cannabis use offences. Furthermore, the Task Force recommended that further research be conducted evaluating the impacts of expiation systems for dealing with minor cannabis offences, as found in South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, and more recently in Northern Territory (Ali & Christie, 1994).

Following on from the Task Force's recommendations, the Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services (formerly the Department of Human Services and Health) commissioned the first phase of an investigation which aimed to look in detail at the social impacts of the existing legislative options for cannabis in Australia. This research was coordinated by the Australian Institute of Criminology, and was completed in 1995 (McDonald & Atkinson, 1995). It presented analyses of the range of legislative approaches to minor cannabis offences found in Australia, based on readily available data. The first phase research identified gaps in the available data on minor cannabis offences in Australia, and offered recommendations for more detailed research which would permit more definitive evaluation of the various legislative approaches to minor cannabis offences operating in Australia. Emphasis was given to the importance of assessing the impacts of expiation systems for minor cannabis offences. The South Australian Cannabis Expiation Notice scheme was an obvious choice on which to base an evaluation of the expiation approach, as it was the first such system to be implemented in Australia.

Following the first phase research, the Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services invited tenders for the second phase of the project. The research brief initially called for a national study which looked at the full range of legislative approaches to minor cannabis offences which were operating in Australian jurisdictions, but with a particular focus on the expiation systems operating. With recognition of the substantial resources required to undertake such a broad-based research study, a consultation process ensued, which resulted in the formulation of a more focused research strategy. This involved an investigation which aimed to compare the social impacts of the two main models found in Australia for dealing with minor cannabis offences: total prohibition, and prohibition with civil penalties. Western Australia was chosen as an example of a total prohibition approach to minor cannabis offences, and South Australia, with its Cannabis Expiation Notice (CEN) scheme, was chosen as an example of prohibition with civil penalties. Using Western Australia as a comparison state to South Australia had the advantage of enabling access to high quality criminal justice data through Western Australia's Crime Research Centre. South Australia's CEN scheme is one of three expiation schemes for minor cannabis offences operating in Australia (the others being in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory), and is the longest running such system. While the CEN scheme in South Australia has been the subject of previous research studies (Christie, 1991; Ali & Christie, 1994; Donnelly, Hall & Christie, 1995; McDonald & Atkinson, 1995), none of those studies had involved such detailed investigations as were planned for the second phase of the Social Impacts Study.

The present report represents an overview of the main findings and conclusions arising from the second phase research into the social impacts of the legislative options for dealing with minor cannabis offences in Australia. The emphasis in the study has been on comparing the impacts of the expiation approach in South Australia with those of Western Australia's prohibition model. It is intended that this approach will inform future debate and decision-making regarding the appropriateness of the models represented here, and suggest areas in which either approach can be improved in terms of operational efficiency and minimisation of negative impacts upon individual offenders and upon the community as a whole. The following sections provide a brief overview of previous research which aimed to evaluate aspects of the Cannabis Expiation Notice (CEN) scheme of South Australia, and an outline of the aims of the second phase research as a whole, and of the various research components which were formulated and undertaken by the research team.

2. Previous Research in Australia on Cannabis Expiation Systems

The Cannabis Expiation Notice (CEN) scheme in South Australia was the first infringement notice system for minor cannabis offences to be implemented in Australia, coming into operation in April 1987 (for more information on the cannabis laws in South Australia, and expiable offences under the CEN scheme, see Appendix 1). While it was introduced with no specific plan for evaluation of its effects, an early evaluation was carried out based on the first nine months of operation of the scheme (Sarre, Sutton & Pulsford, 1989). This study found that the introduction of the CEN scheme did not give rise to undue technical difficulties for law enforcement personnel, including potential problems in verifying identity of offenders. The report acknowledged that statistical data on the first nine months of operation of the scheme were not enough to base a definitive evaluation of the scheme on.

An important issue that was highlighted in this research was that a change to an alternative system to formal prosecution may actually lead to an increase in the number of people and the range of behaviours which are subject to some type of social control - "net-widening". This study was not able to identify any such net-widening, as the nine month time period for the study was too short for such a consequence to become apparent. However, the researchers noted that the short time period for the study could not allow a net-widening effect to be ruled out as a longer term consequence. Another finding of this study that was of relevance to future research was that offenders of lower socio-economic status figured disproportionately among those who were prosecuted for failure to pay expiation fees. This was an important preliminary finding, and a suggestive area for investigation in the present study. Finally, the study showed that the CEN system at that time did not appear to have an impact on court workloads for minor cannabis offences. It had been anticipated that the court load of minor cannabis offence prosecutions would be reduced, but a lower than expected rate of expiation resulted in little change in the number of minor cannabis offences appearing before the courts. The emergence of net-widening at a later stage could also contribute to this observation.

In 1991, the Drug and Alcohol Services Council released a report which focused solely on the possible effects of the CEN scheme on prevalence of cannabis use in the South Australian community, through the examination of population survey data (Christie, 1991). National Drug Strategy household surveys and state-based school surveys of drug use provided measures of cannabis use prevalence, from periods before and after the introduction of the CEN system, for South Australia as well as other states. This study found no conclusive evidence for changes in levels or patterns of cannabis use which might have been attributable to the CEN system. Donnelly and Hall (1994) updated and refined this research for the National Task Force on Cannabis, with similar results. A more detailed presentation of this research is to be found in Donnelly, Hall and Christie (1995). For the present study, it was possible to further update this research with more recent population survey data from the 1995 National Drug Household Survey. However, with all of these analyses, the potential problem exists of lack of statistical power to detect trend differences between jurisdictions.

The Phase I research which preceded the present study found, in the South Australian component (Christie & Ali, 1995), that there had been a substantial increase in detections of minor cannabis offences since the CEN scheme came into operation, from around 6,500 offences detected under the CEN scheme in 1987/88 to over 14,000 in 1991/92 (with a total offence rate of around 900 minor cannabis offences reported per 100,000 population). This was the net-widening phenomenon predicted by Sarre et al (1989) in their early evaluation report on the first nine months of operation of the CEN scheme. Given that the other studies concerned with trends in prevalence of cannabis use showed no evidence for a comparable increase in population rates of cannabis use in South Australia up until around 1993, the implication was that the increase in detections was related to other factors, such as changes in policing practices.

The Phase I research also showed that Western Australia has a well-developed criminal justice data collection system (Lenton, 1995). Western Australia provides a good example of a jurisdiction with a total prohibition approach to minor cannabis offences, with relatively high levels of enforcement; the offence rate for cannabis possession and use in WA was 271 per 100,000 of population in 1993, the third highest of the Australian jurisdictions having a total prohibition approach, and it had the highest per capita rates for possession and use of a smoking implement at 441 per 100,000 persons in 1993 (McDonald and Atkinson, 1995). Members of the Phase I research team in Western Australia (also part of the present project team) worked closely with the Crime Research Centre in the Phase I research to generate comprehensive profiles of cannabis offences and offenders in that state. The present study builds on that earlier collaboration.

While there has been a fair amount of speculation about the likely impacts of options other than prohibition for minor cannabis offences, there has not been a thorough documentation of the social costs of the current prohibition of cannabis which is in force in the majority of Australian jurisdictions. In addition, there has not been a detailed economic appraisal of the CEN scheme in South Australia which would permit reasonable conclusions to be drawn about the relative costs and efficacy of a prohibition approach. It should be pointed out that the expiation approach for minor cannabis offences in place in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) – the "SCON" system for Simple Cannabis Offence Notices – was originally considered for inclusion in the present research study, but resource limitations meant that the research group needed to confine its investigations to the CEN scheme in South Australia, which was felt to be representative of the "prohibition with civil penalties approach". Further background information on the operation of the expiation system in the ACT can be found in the report of the first phase of research for the Cannabis Social Impacts Study (McDonald & Atkinson, 1995).

The following section outlines the aims of the second phase research study as a whole. This is followed in Section 2 by descriptions of the various research components which made up the second phase of the Social Impacts Study.

3.Overall Objectives and Aims of the Study

The original consultant's brief for the second phase of research for the Cannabis Social Impacts Study identified a number of "questions of central importance" which the proposed research plan should be able to address. These issues were thought to be of particular importance to policy decisions relating to legislative approaches for dealing with cannabis use. The key questions identified in the consultant's brief are primarily related to the operation and effects of the CEN scheme of South Australia, as it had been determined that a study based primarily on an evaluation of the impacts of the CEN scheme would be the most feasible and cost effective way to explore the impacts of an infringement notice approach. Implicit in the research requirements outlined in the brief was the need for a direct comparison of outcomes between the CEN scheme and a representative prohibition approach. The Western Australian system was thought to provide a suitable comparison, particularly because of the availability of detailed criminal justice data from that state.

The Commonwealth steering committee which formulated the project brief and terms of reference recognised that it would not be possible to obtain definitive answers on all issues that are of interest in a policy sense, nor would it be possible to examine all aspects of the social impacts of the various legislative options for cannabis use. While all of the key questions identified were amenable to investigation through the research carried out, they were in a sense indicative of a much wider range of questions which could be asked of the research. As work on the project progressed, numerous other issues emerged as being of potential importance to policy making in the area of cannabis policy, and will be highlighted later in this report. The key questions identified in the original consultant's brief were:

1. Did the CEN Scheme affect the prevalence, incidence or pattern of cannabis use in South Australia?
2. Did the CEN Scheme reduce or increase law enforcement and/or criminal justice system costs?
3. How did the police go about enforcing the CEN Scheme?
4. What is the adverse impact of a criminal conviction for cannabis use or possession on the employment prospects of the person convicted?
5. Did the CEN Scheme increase the extent to which users grew their own supplies of cannabis?
6. What are the main reasons for the high rate of non-expiation of cannabis expiation notices?
7. What is the level of public understanding of the law concerning cannabis under the CEN scheme?

The full terms of reference (see Appendix 2) provide a more detailed outline of the issues identified for exploration in the second phase research project.

Outline of Research Components

In response to the research brief which was developed for the present study, the research team proposed a research design which incorporated a number of separate research investigations, all of which were to contribute to the task of providing a definitive evaluation of the legislative approach to minor cannabis offences found in South Australia in its Cannabis Expiation Notice (CEN) scheme. Important comparisons with a prohibition approach to minor cannabis offences were made possible by including some law enforcement statistics and interview data on cannabis offenders from Western Australia for a number of study components. The study components were as follows:

1. Cannabis Offences Under the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme in South Australia
2. Cannabis Offenders in the Western Australian Criminal Justice System 1993-1995
3. Comparison of the Impact of Civil Penalties for Minor Cannabis Offences With the Impact of Conviction: the Cannabis Offender Interview Study
4. Survey of Peak Employer Groups: Comparison of Impacts of Minor Cannabis Offences on Employment in South Australia and Western Australia
5. Effects of the CEN Scheme on Levels and Patterns of Cannabis Use in South Australia
6. Public Awareness, Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding the CEN Scheme in South Australia
7. Costs Associated with the Operation of the CEN Scheme in South Australia
8. A Review of Law Enforcement and Other Criminal Justice Attitudes, Policies and Practices Regarding Cannabis and Cannabis Laws in South Australia

In presenting the research components with their main findings in this report, it must be emphasised that the systems for dealing with minor cannabis offences in South Australia and Western Australia represent particular examples of their respective legislative approaches. The CEN scheme in South Australia is only one example of an expiation approach (or "prohibition with civil penalties"), and an important underlying assumption with all of the work undertaken for this project was that the observed impacts of the CEN scheme should be taken as applying to that particular implementation of an expiation approach. Different expiation schemes could well have significantly different outcomes, depending on the operational parameters of the system. A further corollary of this approach is that the observed impacts of an expiation scheme such as the CEN scheme might be amenable to change, given modification of the legislative framework, or the operational and administrative procedures in place under the system.

It was with the above approach in mind that the research team developed the project research plan, comprising the study components listed above. The following sections provide more detail on the aims and methods utilised in each of the separate study components.

Study No. 1: Cannabis Offences Under the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme in South Australia

This study component was an analysis of minor cannabis offences dealt with under the CEN scheme and through the courts, based primarily on CEN and arrest data from South Australian Police, as well as data on offences before courts. Before the present study, only limited summary figures have been published on the operation of the CEN system each year in the South Australia Police Commissioner's Annual Reports. These data have been limited mainly to basic information on numbers of notices expiated in each financial year, in some cases broken down by type of expiable offence. For the first phase of research on the present project, the South Australian Police Statistical Services Section was also able to provide information on the total numbers of CENs issued in each year, allowing determination of expiation rates.

Aims:

• To describe trends in law enforcement activity in relation to minor cannabis offences in South Australia, through the examination of numbers of detections of minor offences under the CEN scheme;
• To examine the types of minor cannabis offences for which CENs have been issued;
• To describe the characteristics of offenders under the CEN scheme, including comparison of offenders who expiated CEN fines with those who failed to expiate;
• To examine the rates of expiation for different minor cannabis offence types;
• To examine the extent of repeat offending under the CEN scheme, and compare rates of repeat offending among expiators and non-expiators;
• To examine the extent to which CEN offences might be withdrawn or cancelled due to incomplete information, and the degree to which non-expiators of CENs might be lost to follow-up through the prosecution process (e.g. through false or incorrect personal ID);
• To compare the penalty outcomes of conviction for minor cannabis offences with those arising from receiving and expiating a CEN for a minor cannabis offence;

Methods:

South Australian Police data on CENs were downloaded and collated for most years of operation of the system. These data were linked with relevant data on prosecutions, so that data on expiation fee defaulters could be analysed, and information on prosecution outcomes could be examined. The data linkages required considerable police time and resources, because expiation offence records are usually kept separate from criminal offence and prosecution outcome data. Detailed analyses were able to be performed on CEN data from the 1991/92 financial year up to the 1995/96 financial year. The Statistical Services section of SA Police conducted the substantial data management tasks, and provided the research team with detailed tables of summary data. Owing to the way in which criminal history data are stored, and the less reliable information relating to proof of identity for CEN offences generally, it was not possible to readily link information on prior criminal history with the CEN offence and prosecution outcome data for the substantial number of minor cannabis offences.

Study No. 2: Cannabis Offenders in The Western Australian Criminal Justice System 1993-1995

This component was formulated as an extension of the previously outlined study, to provide comparison data from Western Australia on minor cannabis offences under their prohibition model. The Western Australian data are presented as a separate study and technical report. Western Australia provided an ideal comparison for South Australia's CEN system, as it is a jurisdiction with a relatively high enforcement rate, and has readily available good quality data on criminal justice activity, through its Crime Research Centre. Data on persons whose first-time arrest was for a minor cannabis offence provide a useful comparison point for the data on CEN offences from South Australia. If found guilty, these first time arrestees receive a criminal record as a result of their conviction.

Aims:

• To describe the extent of offence detection/arrest for minor cannabis offences in Western Australia;
• To analyses offence outcomes and penalties for minor cannabis offence detections in Western Australia;
• To provide a basis for comparison of offence detection loads and offences outcomes between jurisdictions representing a prohibition approach to minor cannabis offences - Western Australia - and a civil penalty approach - South Australia.

Methods:

Criminal justice system data for Western Australia were generated and tabulated for the research team by the Crime Research Centre. Arrest data were organised by individual arrests and distinct persons, where a cannabis offence was the most serious offence.

Information was generated on number of cannabis charges per year and proportion of all drug charges involving cannabis. The demographic characteristics of offenders were examined, and offence type and extent of repeat offending were also analysed.

Study No. 3: Comparison of the Impact of Civil Penalties for Minor Cannabis Offences With the Impact of Conviction: the Cannabis Offender Interview Study

This was a major study component involving in-depth data collection from cannabis offenders in both South Australia and Western Australia. In this report, and in the associated technical papers, the findings are presented in three separate areas:

1. Interviews with South Australian offenders under the CEN scheme;
2. Interviews with Western Australian minor cannabis offenders;
3. Comparison of observed impacts for South Australian and Western Australian minor cannabis offenders.

Aims

• To explore the social impacts of receiving and expiating a CEN for a minor cannabis offence, and compare these with the impacts of receiving a conviction for a minor cannabis offence, due to failure to expiate a CEN fine, under the South Australian scheme;
• To explore the reasons for failure to expiate CEN fines in South Australia;
• To describe, assess and compare the formal (or official) and informal (or social) effects of arrest and criminal conviction, with particular reference to employment, on individuals arrested for simple cannabis offences in a representative "total prohibition" jurisdiction, Western Australia.

Methods:

An in-depth questionnaire was developed for use in face-to-face interviews with cannabis offenders in South Australia and Western Australia. In South Australia, three groups of cannabis users were recruited for the study, each with about 70 subjects:

1. minor cannabis offenders who were issued with a CEN and paid the expiation fee within the required time period;
2. minor cannabis offenders who have been processed through the court system because of failure to pay expiation fees arising from receipt of a CEN;
3. a group of cannabis users who had never been detected or convicted for a minor cannabis offence (as a control group, to allow examination of the effect of cannabis use itself, or being part of a cannabis-using culture, on social outcomes of interest).

In Western Australia, a group of around 70 subjects was recruited, consisting of convicted minor cannabis offenders. This group allowed comparison of the impacts of different legislative models on key outcomes of interest, particularly the effects of the enforcement strategies and associated penalties on employment status and opportunities.

For this study, subjects were chosen who had cleared their last CEN offence or received their last minor cannabis offence conviction at least 6 months and not more than 10 years prior to the interview date. Subjects were recruited principally through notices in targeted media outlets, flyers and through offenders' personal networks (i.e. "snowballing"). Some mass media recruitment was undertaken in Western Australia. Some matching was done between the groups recruited in South Australia and Western Australia in terms of age, gender, and other possible confounders, but this was limited due to the restraints on available subjects imposed by the recruitment strategies.

Once subjects had been screened for eligibility, appointments for interviews were made, to take place at a location suitable to the subject, eg. research and/or treatment service agencies, public locations. An information sheet was read to subjects, outlining the nature of the project, and their involvement. Issues of confidentiality were explained, and subjects were paid $20 as compensation for their time spent in the interview. Written and or verbal consent for the interview was obtained, and separate written consent was sought to confidentially access interviewees' criminal records to confirm their offending history. Subjects were informed that they could refuse to answer any questions, and terminate the interview at any time.

Interviews of subjects in the "offender" groups (SA and WA) took up to two hours, and included an audio-taped qualitative component. The qualitative component involved a description of the circumstances of the offence for which they received a CEN (SA only) or were charged for a minor cannabis offence (WA), their views on their dealings with the legal system, their experience in court (if relevant), and any examples of how the offence and its outcome (including conviction, if relevant) had affected their lives. Qualitative sections of the interviews were transcribed, and were used to provide illustrative examples of various offence outcomes (included in the full technical documents). The main part of the interview was structured and focused on items such as:

• Current demographic information (gender; date of birth; education; employment; family and living arrangements; income and postcode);
• Circumstances of cannabis offence detection (place, time, & date; what they were doing at the time; who they were with; recent alcohol and drug use at time of offence; reason for police presence; specific cannabis offences for which CENs were issued or arrests made; other concurrent offences; actions and demeanour of police). Subjects were also asked to rate how justly/fairly they believed the laws to be, and how justly/fairly they believed they were treated by police;
• Demographic characteristics at time of cannabis offence detection;
• For SA "expiator" group: offences and expiation fees payable, and whether these were paid within the 60 day expiation period;
• For SA "expiator" group: reasons for paying fines within expiation period;
• For SA "non-expiator" group: reasons for failure to pay fines within expiation period (eg. inability to pay, already required to appear in court for other matter, etc.); whether they chose to respond to summons by pleading guilty in writing, or by appearing in court in person, and reasons for choice;
• For SA and WA "convicted" groups: circumstances of court processing, including date and place of appearance, whether they had legal representation, legal aid or other support in court; subject rating of how justly/fairly they believed the court process was;
• For subjects in SA "expiator" and SA/WA "convicted":
  • attitudes to police, legal system in general, laws relating to cannabis, likelihood of conviction if summonsed to appear in court for cannabis offence, extent to which they regard conviction as a serious and detrimental outcome;
  • impact of expiated offence or conviction on social relationships (family, peers, employer), economic status (including work problems, loss of employment, restrictions on educational enrolment, accommodation, travel or career);
  • drug use history prior to and subsequent to first offence detection (including views on whether changes in use were due to deterrence effects following detection);
  • offending history (including cautions), subsequent offending and arrests;
  • sources of cannabis supply, knowledge and experience of cannabis market, including extent of home cultivation of cannabis plants;
  • knowledge of laws applying to cannabis;
  • self-perception as a criminal, extent to which they believe others perceive them as such and extent to which this may be related to cannabis offence, or other behaviours (including other drug use);
  • perceptions of seriousness of a variety of offences in comparison to cannabis offences.

The interviews with SA cannabis users with no history of involvement with the law were somewhat shorter in duration, covering:

• Current demographic information (gender; date of birth; education; employment; family and living arrangements; income and postcode);
• Drug use history, including cannabis, alcohol and other drugs;
• Sources of cannabis supply, knowledge and experience of cannabis market, including extent of home cultivation of cannabis plants;
• Knowledge of laws applying to cannabis;
• Perceptions of seriousness of a variety of offences in comparison to cannabis offences;
• Perceptions on whether their cannabis use has affected education and/or employment options, interpersonal relationships, financial status, or any other social/personal areas.

Study No. 4: Survey of Peak Employer Groups: Comparison of Employment Impacts in South Australia and Western Australia

This study component was conceptualised as an extension of the interview study of cannabis offenders, in that it explored in greater detail the potential negative consequences on employment arising from being detected for a minor cannabis offence, and in particular receiving a conviction for a minor cannabis offence. It was formulated to complement the information from the interview study, by gathering information on the attitudes, knowledge and practices of employers in relation to cannabis use and cannabis offending.

Aims:

• To explore and compare the attitudes and practices of representative employers in South Australia and Western Australia with regard to employment of cannabis offenders;
• To examine whether employers might discriminate against prospective employees who might have had a prior cannabis offence - resulting in either conviction (WA) or expiation notice (SA).

Methods:

This study involved a telephone survey of about 50 peak employer groups in both South Australia and Western Australia. The interview sought information on:

• The range of attitudes and practices within different industry sectors towards minor cannabis offences, among representative samples of employers;
• Whether employers routinely asked job applicants about cannabis convictions or expiated minor cannabis offences;
• Whether employers conducted checks of prospective employees for prior cannabis offences;
• Whether employers would discriminate between applicants of equal competence on the basis of a cannabis offence history.

Study No. 5: Effects of the CEN Scheme on Levels and Patterns of Cannabis Use in South Australia

This research component entailed a comprehensive update on the possible effects of the CEN scheme on levels and patterns of cannabis use in South Australia, based on existing population drug use survey data. The study represents the most recent update of earlier work conducted by Christie (1991) for the Drug and Alcohol Services Council (SA), Donnelly and Hall (1994) for the National Task Force on Cannabis, and Donnelly, Hall and Christie (1995).

Aims:

• To examine the possible effects of the introduction of the CEN scheme in South Australia on prevalence of cannabis use in that state, in terms of the proportions of the population who have tried cannabis, and who use cannabis on a weekly basis.

Methods:

As mentioned, this research component updates earlier work on trends in cannabis prevalence, by comparing rates of use in South Australia with rates observed in other Australian jurisdictions. The present analysis builds on earlier ones through the addition of population survey data from the 1995 National Drug Household Survey, thereby extending the total period of trend analysis from 1985 to 1995, covering five separate national surveys. The analysis of these data involved a comparison of self-reported cannabis use rates (ever and weekly use) in South Australia with those of other states, with particular attention given to examining possible differences in cannabis use trends between the jurisdictions. Thus, observed trends in cannabis use in South Australia are placed in context by comparison with trends elsewhere.

Aspects of cannabis use relating to intensity, amount, duration, acceptance and circumstances of use were not amenable to examination through this study component, due to the lack of relevant detailed information collected in population drug use surveys.

Multivariate statistical methods used in this research have been developed through the work on the earlier published studies of cannabis prevalence, and have been further enhanced for the present study. Logistic regression was used to test for trends in use, controlling for age and gender.

Study No. 6: Public Awareness, Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding the CEN scheme in South Australia

Australian data on cannabis use and related attitudes have been collected from the 1970's up until the 1990's. Questions regarding attitudes to cannabis use and legislative approaches to cannabis have been included in the National Drug Household Surveys conducted for the National Drug Strategy. In 1993, an Australia-wide telephone survey which focused on public opinion regarding cannabis legislation was undertaken for the National Task Force on Cannabis (Bowman and Sanson-Fisher, 1994).

Being national surveys, these earlier investigations did not provide the opportunity to ask specific questions on knowledge and attitudes pertaining to the CEN system in South Australia. The present study was formulated to allow a more thorough investigation to be undertaken, based solely on a South Australian population sample.

Aims:

• To review and summarise the existing data pertaining to the social impacts of the CEN system, in terms of relevant indicators of public awareness, knowledge and attitudes regarding the cannabis laws in South Australia, with particular reference to observable changes over time;
• To add to existing information on public awareness of cannabis issues in South Australia, including knowledge and attitudes regarding cannabis laws, cannabis use, the safety of cannabis use, and the impact of the cannabis laws on youth, via the conduct of a telephone survey of the general public.

Methods:

A key component of the study was the conduct of a literature review of the data which already exists on the impact of the CEN system on levels of cannabis use, and on community attitudes and knowledge relating to cannabis use and legislative approaches in different Australian jurisdictions.

The main part of this study component involved the collection of new data from a sample of 605 members of the general public in South Australia aged between 14 to 70 years. A telephone survey methodology was adopted, as it offered an efficient and cost-effective means of collecting these data from the desired sample. The sample was drawn from a random selection of telephone numbers using electronic white pages. The sample was designed to be representative of the general population in terms of gender and age. However, it included an over -representation of respondents from non-metropolitan areas, so that there was sufficient statistical power to permit comparison of urban and non-urban responses. Up to three call backs were made to make contact with each household, and five to get a respondent identified by the nearest birthday method. Eligible respondents had to be permanent residents at that address. A gender ratio 50:50 was set. All calls were made after hours and on the weekends. Refusals were not replaced by another subject from the same household. A 90% response rate was achieved among those whose eligibility could be determined.

The questionnaire was designed by the research team, and converted to the Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system by a market research company which undertook the actual data collection. Closed questions with comprehensive response options were used where possible. Non-technical terms were used where possible, and explanations provided of special terms such as decriminalisation and legalisation. A number of the questions asked were derived from earlier surveys, so as to permit comparison with their conclusions.

Among the key areas covered by the telephone survey were:

• Prevalence and patterns of cannabis and other drug use (eg. frequency, intensity, amounts used, duration and circumstances of use);
• Attitudes towards cannabis and other drugs use (including relative acceptability of other drugs);
• Awareness of the laws regarding cannabis use (legality of possession, risk of detection for possession, and probable legal consequences of receiving a CEN);
• Attitudes towards the cannabis laws and knowledge of the laws (including the deterrence value of the CEN system, and impact of law enforcement on civil liberties);
• Demographic information.

Feedback on the pilot instrument was sought from key informants, including drug workers, police and researchers. Additionally, the questionnaire was shown to three people with strong views for or against cannabis to check for potential bias. The finalised CATI version of the instrument was piloted by the market research company prior to full data collection.

Study No. 7: Costs Associated with the Operation of the CEN Scheme in South Australia

Aims:

• To explore the economic costs associated with the operation of the CEN scheme in South Australia, including examination of the unit costs of detecting and processing offenders under the CEN scheme as compared to dealing with them through the courts.

Methods:

This study component utilised information from a number of sources to try and estimate the costs associated with the operation of the CEN scheme in South Australia. A unit cost approach to dealing with CEN offences was adopted. Priority was given to estimating the cost of the present system, as it was expected that currently available information would be more reliable than earlier data. From statistical information on numbers of offences for which CENs have been issued, expiated and prosecuted over the years, and from a variety of published and key informant sources, it was possible to derive estimates for the unit costs of dealing with minor cannabis offences under the CEN scheme, including those which are cleared by being expiated, and those which are not expiated and result in prosecution before the courts.

Among the outcome pathways for minor cannabis offenders that were considered important to estimate unit costs for were: (1) CEN offenders who expiated; (2) CEN offenders who failed to expiate and subsequently appeared in court; (3) CEN offenders who failed to expiate, pleaded guilty in writing, and did not appear in court, and (4) minor cannabis offenders who are charged with non-expiable offences (e.g. under 18 years of age, offences in public) and were dealt with via the courts. Furthermore, it was of interest to estimate the unit cost of imprisonment for those few offenders who might repeatedly fail to pay court-imposed fines relating to a minor cannabis offence, as well as other possible penalty management outcomes involving community services and payment by instalments.

It was assumed from experience with other relevant contemporary data sets that insufficient information would have survived from prior to the introduction of the CEN scheme in 1987 on which to project forward to the present day the costs under the former legislative arrangements. A rough costing of a prosecution approach to dealing with minor cannabis offences was considered important for comparison, and was estimated by applying current information on the unit cost of processing a minor cannabis offender solely through the court system (e.g for a non-expiable minor offence) to an estimate of the expected number of offences which might have been detected in South Australia up until the present time, had the previous prohibition system remained in place.

The study aimed to distinguish costs from expenditures where possible, and take account of factors such as revenue from expiation fine payments. Consideration was also given to some of the intangible costs associated with the operation of the CEN scheme.

The analyses of unit costs focused on costing offences from the time of issue of a CEN. No attempt was made to account for the costs of police activity in detecting cannabis offences, as it was felt that there would be many factors which would make such costing unreliable (e.g. the extent to which police actively seek out minor cannabis offenders, vs degree of opportunistic detection of minor cannabis offences). Some analysis was conducted of the likely cost changes which would occur under the CEN scheme given increased rates of expiation of CEN fees.

Study No. 8: A Review of Law Enforcement and Other Criminal Justice Attitudes, Policies and Practices Regarding Cannabis and Cannabis Laws in South Australia

As an adjunct to the information provided by the other study components in the Cannabis Social Impacts Study, it was viewed as of key importance to enable police and other criminal justice professionals to provide input and advice on the ways in which the CEN system has been operating.

Aims:

• To examine attitudes, policies and practices regarding cannabis and the cannabis laws within the police/law enforcement sector, and within the magistracy and judiciary in South Australia.

Methods:

This study component involved two approaches:

1. Qualitative face-to-face interviews with key informants in the law enforcement, court and other relevant sectors in South Australia, to explore their attitudes and experience in relation to the operation of the cannabis laws and the CEN scheme in particular;
2. Focus group discussions with officials involved in the administration of the CEN scheme in South Australia.

Among the key issues identified for discussion in interviews and focus groups were:

• whether the CEN scheme was working effectively, or whether South Australia should revert to prosecuting minor cannabis offenders;
• whether the CEN scheme had resulted in outcomes not anticipated when the relevant legislation was enacted in 1987;
• respondents awareness or perceptions of cannabis market dynamics, and whether these had changed during the period of operation of the CEN scheme in South Australia;
• whether aspects of the CEN scheme legislation, regulations and operational procedures now needed to be amended or updated; and
• whether police, other criminal justice personnel and the public had adequate understanding of the CEN scheme.
  
  

  | Part 2