There has been a notable increase in requests for psychiatric reports from District Courts for persons remanded to Ireland’s main remand prison, Cloverhill. We aimed to identify if reports were prepared for persons with severe mental illness and if they led to therapeutic benefits such as diversion to healthcare. Measures of equitability between Cloverhill and other District Courts were explored.

For District Court-requested reports completed by the Prison Inreach and Court Liaison Service (PICLS) at Cloverhill Prison from 2015 to 2017, we recorded clinical variables and therapeutic outcomes such as diversion to inpatient psychiatric settings.

Of 236 cases, over half were diverted to inpatient or outpatient psychiatric care. One-third of remand episodes were admitted to a psychiatric hospital, mainly in non-forensic settings. Nearly two-thirds had major mental illness, mainly schizophrenia and related conditions. Almost half had active psychosis. Cases in Cloverhill District Court and other District Courts were similarly likely to have active psychosis (47% overall) and hospital admission (33% overall). Voluntary reports were more likely to identify active psychosis, with over 90% diverted to inpatient or outpatient community treatment settings.

This is the first large scale study of diversion outcomes following requests for psychiatric advice from District Courts in Ireland. Requests were mainly appropriate. Over half led to diversion from the criminal justice system to healthcare settings. There is a need for a complementary network of diversion initiatives at every stage of the criminal justice system to effectively divert mentally ill individuals to appropriate settings at the earliest possible stage.

With significant numbers of individuals in the criminal justice system having mental health problems, court-based diversion programmes and liaison services have been established to address this problem.

To examine the effectiveness of the New South Wales (Australia) court diversion programme in reducing re-offending among those diagnosed with psychosis by comparing the treatment order group with a comparison group who received a punitive sanction.

Those with psychoses were identified from New South Wales Ministry of Health records between 2001 and 2012 and linked to offending records. Cox regression models were used to identify factors associated with re-offending.

A total of 7743 individuals were identified as diagnosed with a psychotic disorder prior to their court finalisation date for their first principal offence. Overall, 26% of the cohort received a treatment order and 74% received a punitive sanction. The re-offending rate in the treatment order group was 12% lower than the punitive sanction group. ‘Acts intended to cause injury’ was the most common type of the first principal offence for the treatment order group compared with the punitive sanction group (48% v. 27%). Drug-related offences were more likely to be punished with a punitive sanction than a treatment order (12% v. 2%).

Among those with a serious mental illness (i.e. psychosis), receiving a treatment order by the court rather than a punitive sanction was associated with reduced risk for subsequent offending. We further examined actual mental health treatment received and found that receiving no treatment following the first offence was associated with an increased risk of re-offending and, so, highlighting the importance of treatment for those with serious mental illness in the criminal justice system.