International Journal of Therapeutic Jurisprudence, 2018, 3(1): 49-80

Family violence is a major social problem in New Zealand. It has the highest prevalence of partner assault among westernised countries, and nearly half of all homicides and reported violent crimes are related to family violence (Ministry of Justice, 2015). Family Violence Courts (hereinafter "FVCs") were first established in New Zealand in 2001 and have been conceptualised as broadly based on the principles of Therapeutic Jurisprudence (hereinafter "TJ") (Knaggs, Leahy, Soboleva, & Ong, 2008a). The aim of FVCs is to improve efficiency in the processing of family violence cases whilst ensuring offender accountability and the safety of victims (Ministry of Justice, 2008). Drawing on existing literature and observations of FVCs in New Zealand, this paper aims to explore the tensions that may arise between achieving these goals. Specifically, this paper considers early guilty pleas and the need to expedite the court process; the quality of judicial monitoring and limited information-sharing between agencies; the questionable efficacy of offender treatment programmes; and, the promotion of victim safety. It also examines the granting of Section 106, "discharge without conviction," for offenders who submit an early guilty plea, and complete an offender treatment programme. Although this may help to expedite cases, this paper explores how this may also risk sending a message to victims that family violence is not taken seriously and may potentially endanger their safety, particularly where the efficacy of such treatment programmes is unknown. Overall, the paper questions whether such courts can be described as "therapeutic" in their current form, and it outlines an agenda for further research in this area. (Authors' abstract). Record #6004