The term co-morbidity is used when an individual is found to suffer from two or more conditions at the same time. Within the context of the criminal justice system and specialist court intervention programs, the term co-morbidity may refer to the situation where a defendant suffers from drug dependence and mental health problems at the same time.

Empirical research indicates that a reduction in rates of recidivism can occur when certain criminogenic factors associated with criminal behaviour are addressed through intervention that promotes behavioural and attitudinal change. These factors may include: drug dependence, mental health issues, lack of self-control, lack of problem-solving skills, antisocial attitudes, peer group pressure, or lack of employment. Towards this end, specialist court intervention programs generally seek to address such criminogenic factors in order to break the cycle of criminal offending.

Within the context of the criminal justice system the terms diversion and therapeutic intervention can refer to rehabilitation programs offered by courts which address attitudes and behaviours related to criminal offending. Court proceedings may be adjourned to allow a defendant the opportunity to undertake treatment by participating in an intervention program designed to address specific issues or needs. Having completed an intervention program a defendant returns to court for sentencing.

In a broader context the terms diversion and therapeutic intervention can also refer to programs which completely divert offenders away from the criminal justice system, and offer intervention by way of education and counselling, such as the Police Drug Diversion Scheme for low level cannabis users.

This refers to the belief that all problem-solving courts should adopt evidence-based practice. In essence, all decision making, including the selection of specific intervention and treatment programs, should be based upon empirical evidence and reliable research. For example, the assessment procedures adopted by specialist courts should rely upon recognised and empirically valid assessment tools. Likewise, specialist courts should adopt interventions, treatment and other services based upon reliable evidence of the success of such interventions, treatment and other services.

A court intervention program is one which is primarily involved with the supervised provision of programs which individually or in combination deliver treatment, rehabilitation, behaviour management, or access to support services to address behavioural problems associated with substance abuse, gambling addiction or mental impairment [see Bail Act 1985 s 3; Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) s 5 for definition]. Participation in an intervention program is voluntary and a defendant must be willing to give consent to the assessment and monitoring procedures.

Problem-solving courts use the authority invested in them to provide and supervise therapeutic interventions designed to address criminogenic factors which are known to influence criminal behaviour. Problem-solving courts recognise and work collaboratively with other social science disciplines and community service providers in order to address broader social problems through the treatment of individual offenders. The courts aim to address social issues, such as the cost and impact of crime on the community and recidivism rates, through intervention that addresses the underlying causes of crime. This represents a shift from a traditional criminal court approach which focuses on the offence, and punishment of the offender.

Where criminal behaviour is repeated or habitual or where there is a relapse into criminal behaviour.

Restorative justice programs provide for mediated encounters between victims and offenders to allow the victim to address an offender about the impact that the offending has had upon him or her, and also to allow the offender to have an opportunity to take responsibility for his or her criminal behaviour. A further aim is for restoration. This may be achieved through discourse, an apology to the victim, or other means of making amends.

In 2004 the Adelaide Magistrates Court introduced a Restorative Justice Pilot Program as a post-plea and pre-sentence option for defendants. The program has since ceased operation. However, specialist courts such as the Nunga Court (also known as Aboriginal Court Day) still incorporate restorative justice principles.

The concept of therapeutic jurisprudence originated from mental health law research conducted in the United States. The research concluded that the legal system is capable of causing anti-therapeutic or therapeutic outcomes for all participants. Interactions within the legal system impact on the physical, emotional and psychological wellbeing of all participants, and the impact can be either positive or negative. Recognising that a court is uniquely in a position to positively influence the lives of those people who appear before it, proponents of therapeutic jurisprudence are mindful of the wellbeing of all courtroom participants, and advocate for court procedures and processes which are likely to enhance therapeutic outcomes.

The adoption of the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence by members of the legal system has resulted in cooperation between courts and social science disciplines (psychology, psychiatry, criminology and social work) to explore how the reform of courts and court processes can enhance therapeutic outcomes. This has provided the impetus for many innovative court developments, such as drug courts and community courts, and has led to an exploration of more effective sentencing options, including more emphasis on offender rehabilitation.