2015–16 - courts · 2 courts administration authority annual report 2015–16 executive summary...

1

2015–16

STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATION COUNCIL

Chief JusticeChief Judge

Executive Officer

Chief Magistrate

Principal Legal Officer Registrar of Probate

Executive Director Principal Registrar Higher Courts

Executive Director Principal Registrar Court Services

Executive Director Strategy and Court Operations

Manager Human Resources

Manager Finance / CFO

Manager Facilities

Sheriff Sheriff’s Office

Supreme Court

District Court

ERD Court

Magistrates Court

Youth Court

Coroners Court

Manager Information Technology Services

Manager Media and Communications

Manager Court Transcription Services

Manager Library Services

Director Strategic Reform

Director ECMS Project

Manager Contact Centre

COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ORGANISATIONAL CHART

State Courts Administrator / Chief Executive

1

CONTENTS

Executive Summary 2

Report from the Chairman,

State Courts Administration Council 3

Report from the State Courts Administrator 6

Looking Forward 8

Making Changes 10

The Courts 12

Supporting the Courts 37

Governance and Collaboration 42

Financial Overview 44

Financial statements and notes 46

Glossary 106

2 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The CAA this year has made many changes to its structure

and operations, in preparation for fundamental change

to how the courts will operate in the foreseeable future.

Considerable resources were re-allocated within the CAA

during the year to prepare for the procurement of new

information technology infrastructure, the effect of which

will be to make the courts accessible at any time and from

any place. The $23.2 million Electronic Court Management

System (ECMS) project is the most significant reform

undertaken by the CAA. It will sweep away risks associated

with legacy systems and lay foundations for the digital

transformation of the courts. Concurrent with preparations

for ECMS, the CAA has mapped court processes to

determine what improvements can be made in the short

and medium term, and which processes are, or are likely to,

become redundant as the change to greater online services

takes hold.

Throughout the year, most courts have encountered

changes in demand for services.

The Supreme Court has experienced an overall increase

in lodgments across all jurisdictions with clearance rates

above 100 per cent this period. In some jurisdictions,

allocated judicial resources have not been required for

the full period rostered and have been redirected by the

Chief Justice to assist in other jurisdictions of the court.

The reallocation of judicial resources, use of audio-visual

links from non-custodial courtrooms, more sitting sessions

and a higher number of criminal court matters have

contributed to clearance rates being above 100 per cent.

In 2015–16 the District Court criminal workload continued

to experience delays with a number of factors affecting the

smooth progress of matters. These included a shortfall in a

sufficient number of judicial officers available for rostering,

the availability of courtrooms, increased complexity of

cases, the availability of specialist reports to the court and

decisions by defendants to change pleas to guilty shortly before

or on the day of trial. The District Court civil workload continues

to see a reduction in total lodgments. Although there has been

an increase in civil claims and Victims of Crime Division matters,

there has been a decrease in the number of Administrative

and Disciplinary Division matters as a result of some jurisdictions

moving to the South Australian Civil and Administrative

Tribunal (SACAT).

This year has presented challenges for the Magistrates Court,

because of a growth in lodgments, due, in part, to an increase

in defendants charged with family violence offences and

intervention order matters. Extra lists have been added to

accommodate this increase and more magistrates would assist

the Court to deal with the volume and complexity of this work.

There has also been an increase in overnight arrests, contributing

to larger lists, longer days sitting in court, and requiring registry

staff to process work after court has finished. The increase in

defendants being unable to obtain bail following arrest is likely

to be partly due to the increase in defendants charged with

domestic violence offences, particularly if they are ‘prescribed

applicants’. The increased number of prescribed applicants

for bail has resulted in more difficult bail hearings and more

adjournments for consideration of home detention. An increase

in matters in the family violence court where a defendant requires

several adjournments if completing an abuse prevention program

has contributed to the increase in numbers of adjournments

to finalisation.

In the Magistrates Court, despite fewer civil lodgments, the

workload of the Civil Magistrates has increased. The increase in

the limit of the general jurisdiction has resulted in much of the

work previously heard in the District Court now being heard in

the Magistrates Court. As a result, there has been a large number

of contested interlocutory applications requiring written reasons,

longer and more complex trials and written judgments. A large

proportion of defended minor civil actions now proceed to trial,

such actions often involving difficult legal issues despite being

of limited monetary value. The percentage of minor civil actions

proceeding to trial has increased. These trials are conducted in an

inquisitorial manner by the Magistrate who is required to elicit all

relevant information from the unrepresented parties to determine

the dispute. This is often a time consuming and difficult exercise.

In the Youth Court, this year has been characterised by a

significant focus and increase in the Care and Protection

workload. The Adelaide Youth Court and Conferencing Unit (Care

and Protection) have had a significant increase in applications

and referrals. The increase in workload in this area has caused

the court to change listing practices to accommodate the higher

demand. The Conferencing Unit has rearranged staff resources to

meet the high demand in this area.

3

CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

State Courts Administration

Council

FROM THE CHAIRMAN, STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATION COUNCIL

This is the 23rd annual report of the State Courts

Administration Council. It reports on the work of the Courts

Administration Authority (‘the Authority’) and the work of

the participating courts. They are the courts for which the

Authority provides administrative facilities and services.

The Council

The Council is established by the Courts Administration Act

1993 (SA). It is a statutory authority, independent of control

by the Executive Government. The function of the Council

is to provide administrative facilities and services for the

proper administration of justice by the courts of the State.

By section 17 of the Act, the State Courts Administrator is

responsible, subject to control and direction by the Council,

for the control and management of the Council’s staff and

the management of property that is under the Council’s

care, control and management.

At the commencement of this financial year, Council

comprised me as Chief Justice, Chief Judge Muecke

of the District Court and the Chief Magistrate, Judge

Bolton. The Associate Members of the Council were

Justice Stanley, Judge Chivell and the Deputy Chief

Magistrate, Dr Cannon AM. In October 2015, the Chief

Magistrate resigned due to on-going ill-health and Judge

Mary-Louise Hribal was appointed as Chief Magistrate.

I wish to record Council’s appreciation for the valuable

contributions to the work of the Council made by Judge

Bolton. As Chief Magistrate, Judge Bolton also initiated

and drove significant fundamental changes to enhance

efficiency and the management of the Magistrates Court’s

considerable workload.

Mr Brian Morris, a forensic accountant who has been

retained by Council as a consultant, attended meetings

of the Council. The State Courts Administrator is

Ms Julie-Anne Burgess.

State Courts Administration Council (L – R) Mr Brian Morris, consultant forensic accountant; Ms Julie-Anne Burgess, State Courts Administrator; His Honour Judge Wayne Chivell, District Court and Associate Member for the Chief Judge; His Honour Chief Judge Geoff Muecke, Chief Judge of the District Court; The Honourable Chris Kourakis, Chief Justice of South Australia and Chairman, State Courts Administration Council; Her Honour Judge Mary-Louise Hribal, Chief Magistrate; The Honourable Justice Tim Stanley, Supreme Court of SA and Associate Member for the Chief Justice and Dr Andrew Cannon AM, Deputy Chief Magistrate and Associate Member for the Chief Magistrate.


CHAIRMAN’S REPORT STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATION COUNCIL

Budget

Council has achieved a balanced budget outcome and met

its savings target of $2m for this year. Savings continued

to be achieved through innovation in work processes

and staffing arrangements. The appointment of a single

Registrar for both the Supreme Court and District Court has

facilitated an integration of registry and other functions and

has allowed more coherent planning across both courts.

Information Technology

The Electronic Court Management System (ECMS) project

is the most significant reform being undertaken by the

Authority. This $23.2 million (excluding GST) investment

by the State Government addresses risks associated with

legacy computer systems and lays foundations for the

digital transformation of the courts, making them accessible

from any location at any time. The project is overseen by

the Council’s Information Technology Committee (ITC)

which comprises Council members, administrative staff

and external consultants. The project is progressing well.

The request for proposals was issued in January and there

were 13 tender responses received by the closing date

in February 2016. These were further shortlisted to four

vendors for presentations in the new financial year. The

project remains on track for submission to Cabinet for

execution of a contract with the preferred vendor in the

third quarter of next financial year.

Operations

Council has approved a new Strategic Plan Towards 2020,

with themes of Putting People First, Modern Courts,

Smarter Services and Exemplary Performance. The plan

will guide the Authority to meet the changing needs of the

Judiciary, the legal profession, justice agencies and the

public into the future.

In the year under review, the Authority has been

preparing for fundamental change. Under its Business

Process Re-engineering Plan, existing court processes

across jurisdictions have been mapped. A ‘lean thinking’

business analysis tool has been applied, looking for ways

to maximise benefits while eliminating waste. Processes

targeted are those that duplicate, are inconsistent across

jurisdictions and potentially redundant when considered

in the context of a digital environment. Results of the

mapping are being fed into the ECMS project and other

business plans of the Authority.

A new Court Transcription Management System (CTMS) has

been implemented. This fully-searchable electronic system

is a credit to the Authority’s Court Transcription Services

and Information Technology Services who developed it

largely in-house.

This year, the Magistrates Court trialled online

adjournments and has laid foundations for online guilty

pleas. An automated exchange of Intervention Order

information between South Australia Police (SAPOL) and

CAA was successfully implemented in December 2015.

This has allowed for a more timely and reliable exchange

of information about the protection of victims of domestic

violence and other forms of abuse.

Audio-visual linking has become commonplace across all

jurisdictions, continuing to generate efficiencies.

Facilities

The poor building condition of many of our courthouses

continues to be a serious concern. Storm rain breached

fragile, old box guttering and flooded two chambers on

two levels of the Supreme Court, forcing judicial officers

and staff to evacuate. A subsequent investigation of the

roofing led to the discovery of a sizeable pocket of pigeon

waste in the roof space. Pigeon waste poses health risks

equivalent to asbestos exposure. It required immediate

removal. Scaffolding has stood at the front and side of

the Sir Samuel Way Building for months this year to allow

workers to stabilise its crumbling façade.

Collaboration

The Authority continues to actively participate in the

Criminal Justice Sector Reform Council, collaborating with

other justice agencies to introduce administrative reforms.

The Authority is also working with other agencies on a

project to allow declarations and other evidence to be filed

electronically when serious criminal matters are prosecuted

in the Magistrates Court and then committed to the

District and Supreme Courts. This cross-agency initiative

is in keeping with Council’s vision for efficiencies through

greater and reliable online service and the handling of

much less paper.

Innovation through technology and evaluation of changes

to court processes are among projects being considered

under an agreement signed this year between the

Authority and University of Adelaide. The memorandum of

5

understanding covers collaboration on research projects

focused on litigation practices and court operations. It is

expected to yield useful objective information.

Following the success of the first year of the Step Up to

the Bar program, the program will be expanded from

12 months to 18 months. This is a joint initiative of the

Judiciary, the Authority and SA Bar Association aimed at

tackling gender imbalance in the independent Bar and

judiciary. Recruitment and selection for the 2017 program

has begun.

Towards 3%

A recent report about grossly disproportionate

representation of indigenous youth in incarceration

prompted the Authority to arrange a day-long conference

(Towards 3%) to explore with indigenous and non-

indigenous groups and State Government departments

approaches to bring the rate down. It was a successful

and emotional event, resulting in several commitments

to better share information and fund certain activities.

One of the first initiatives to come out of the day will be a

forum to engage Aboriginal youths, so they have a voice

in addressing this issue. The Authority is planning a Court

Forum with the Aboriginal community next financial year to

follow through on the second portion of Recommendation

96 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in

Custody which was: that persons [judicial officers and

persons who work in the court service] should, wherever

possible, participate in discussion with members of the

Aboriginal community in an informal way in order to

improve cross-cultural understanding.

Our Staff

The ECMS project has made great demands on the

Authority’s staff. I have been very impressed by the

commitment, hard work and intelligent analysis of the staff

who were taken offline to work on the project. I am as

impressed with the way in which the remainder of our staff

have shouldered the burden of the additional workloads.

I thank the staff of the Authority for demonstrating

commitment to change while servicing the daily demands

of the courts. I thank the State Courts Administrator for her

sound leadership in these times of great change.

THE HONOURABLE CHRIS KOURAKIS

CHIEF JUSTICE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

CHAIRMAN, STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATION COUNCIL


This year has been marked by significant change

processes across the organisation, moving towards a

future that will be quite different in the way we do our

day-to-day business.

Last year, we began by restructuring the Executive

leadership of the organisation; giving emphasis to

expertise in managing resources while initiating innovation

and delivering change. The restructure is complete and

yielding results. I welcome Ms Megan Webster Bradman

as Executive Director, Strategy and Court Operations. This

small division of the Authority is a powerhouse for the

development of the CAA Strategic Plan, Electronic Court

Management System (ECMS), court process mapping and

other reform activities and complements the other divisions

in their performance of relentless daily tasks.

Council approved a new CAA Strategic Plan this year.

This Plan will guide activities to the year 2020. I thank the

Executive Management Team for their work to develop and

settle the plan. They have become an excellent team and

I am proud of the way in which they have led collaboration

across the Authority.

A key component of the Strategic Plan is delivery of ECMS,

a project which the Chief Justice has mentioned earlier

in this report. A great deal of effort has been made by

judicial officers and staff to ensure this vital project has firm

foundations. ECMS carries with it the imperative to change.

Our aim is for easy access to the courts any time, from

anywhere. ECMS contemplates a single electronic file

that can be added to, amended, used in different ways

by different users as it progresses from inception of a

matter to resolution by the court. Court files will be created

electronically through web-browsers and mobile devices and

through data interchange with justice-related agencies. Once

it is fully functional, parties may no longer be required to

attend a courthouse and queue to submit new information,

to make and respond to enquiries, request adjournments

or enter guilty pleas. They can do all this wherever they are

and whenever they need to, by going online. It represents

a revolution in how justice can be administered to meet

community expectation and it is an exciting part of the

Authority’s work. The ECMS Project is at the end of its

first year and significant progress has been made toward

selecting a suitable vendor.

Concurrent with ECMS, the Authority has been mapping

court processes as part of an overarching plan to re-engineer

our business processes. Subject matter experts have been

used from across the CAA and they have formed strong

bonds while performing these important mapping tasks.

Whilst we are yet to see the full benefits from their work, the

collegiality and cohesiveness of the groups that have been

created for these purposes has already delivered intangible

benefits to the CAA through the sharing of knowledge.

Staff are our most valuable asset and they continue

to provide service of a high quality. High standards of

occupational health and safety practices are very important

to us, as are training and development opportunities for

staff at all levels. Resilience training was made available to

staff over the year in review, with Lunch Bites sessions being

well attended during the year. The year ahead will mark

the start of organisational change management activities

which will ultimately involve all staff. The business process

mapping activities have already identified many areas for

improvement, many of which can be implemented in advance

of ECMS, so we have an environment ready to capitalise on

the changes we are anticipating from the new technology.

The priority of the Executive Management Team continues

to be ensuring our staff are skilled and ready for digital

transformation in the administration of justice.

This year, I was fortunate to be selected into a Transformative

Leadership Program. The program included a week-long

intensive session in Adelaide, and then a further week in

Texas, USA, where the participants were fully immersed in

considering ways in which their leadership practices can

be more productive. Whilst in North America I also visited

other court jurisdictions, tribunals and a prison, looking for

practices which might usefully be translated into the South

Australian context. I thank Council for the opportunity to

continue developing my leadership skills and expanding

the horizons of my thinking, in order to ensure we make the

most of every opportunity to improve the way we administer

our courts.

STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT

7

I thank the Council for their guidance this year, and

especially its commitment to the ECMS Project. We are

all conscious of the significant opportunity this presents

for the CAA. I thank them for their leadership to ensure

we make the most of it. I would also like to thank all

staff of the CAA. The year has delivered many chances

for staff to shine and they have shown how capable and

skilled they are individually and as a team. I am looking

forward to some of the hard work undertaken this year to

start delivering results for the CAA and community in the

coming year.

JULIE-ANNE BURGESS

STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR


LOOKING FORWARD

In the year under review, the CAA created a STRATEGY AND COURT OPERATIONS DIVISION.

The Division delivers strategic solutions and operational

court-focused services and comprises these business units:

• Strategic Reform Unit

• Information Technology Services Branch

• Court Transcription Services

• Library Services

• Media and Communications (including community

relations)

• CAA Contact Centre

The Division is responsible for leading key reform projects,

with a particular focus on the procurement, management

and implementation of a new $23.2m Electronic Court

Management System (ECMS).

A critical part of the role of the Division is developing

and implementing strategies to build the organisational

readiness for change that will be required over the next few

years, to transition to an electronic environment.

CAA STRATEGIC PLAN

In 2015–16 the Strategy and Court Operations Division

led the development of the new CAA Strategic Plan:

Towards 2020

Our vision for the future is to meet the changing needs of

the Courts and the public. To that end the plan is focused

around these themes:

• Putting People First

• Modern Courts, Smarter Services

• Exemplary Performance

Later in 2016, the CAA will finalise high-level business plans

to underpin these themes. Each business plan is expected

to create a line of sight for each member of the CAA, to

link and guide efforts on a daily basis from performance

now to the goals we aim to attain by 2020. Progress made

against the plan will be captured routinely by the Executive

Management Team and reported to the State Courts

Administration Council.

9

ELECTRONIC COURT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

In the 2015–16 State Budget, $23.2 million (excluding

GST, to 2019–20) was allocated to replace existing legacy

systems for managing court processes. This presented an

opportunity for the courts to review and improve existing

processes, and to manage the flow of court documents

in civil and criminal jurisdictions more effectively, from

lodgment to resolution.

On 14 September 2015, the State Procurement Board

approved an acquisition plan for a new Electronic Court

Management System (ECMS) and the CAA prepared a

Request for Proposal (RFP). On 11 January 2016, the RFP

was released to the market, with a response deadline of 26

February 2016. The number of responses from Australian

and international vendors was pleasing.

Evaluation of responses began in March 2016. Teams

of subject matter experts were assembled to focus on

assessing various aspects of each bid. The members

of these teams were selected on the basis of technical

knowledge and extensive experience in the application

of legislation, Regulations and Rules, along with forms

processes and procedures.

A small group of vendors has been shortlisted to present

their products. Further shortlisting and due diligence

assessments will precede contract negotiations, which are

likely to commence later in 2016.

ELECTRONIC BRIEFS (E-BRIEFS)

The CAA is contributing to a project with the Attorney-

General’s Department working on a new information

technology system which will promote efficient, secure

and controlled methods of information sharing required

to prepare major indictable prosecution briefs. A brief is a

summary prepared for a barrister containing all information

and documents relevant to presentation of a case in court.

Since May 2016, the project team has worked with subject

matter experts nominated by the CAA, the Office for

the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) and SAPOL

to document business requirements for creating an

electronic brief.

The next phase of the project will be to seek to buy from

the commercial market a suitable existing “off the shelf

solution”. It is anticipated that a preferred vendor will be

found by late 2016 and that development, training and

introduction of E-Briefs in higher courts will follow.

The E-Brief project is the first jointly funded project of its

kind, involving close collaboration between independent

agencies across the SA criminal justice sector. The CAA,

DPP and SAPOL agreed on a funding model for E-Briefs in

February 2016.


MAKING CHANGES

The CAA has been making changes throughout the year. Several initiatives have either been completed or introduced, with benefits expected to follow in 2017–18 and beyond.

RESTRUCTURE OF THE ORGANISATION

The CAA completed an organisational restructure, to better

prepare for fundamental change. The restructure is shown

at the start of this annual report. A new Strategy and Court

Operations Division was created, with key responsibilities

being to drive and rationalise reform efforts. A Senior

Executive Director was appointed as a single Registrar of

the Supreme and District Courts, facilitating integration

of registry and other court-related functions and enabling

more coherent planning across both courts.

BUSINESS PROCESS RE-ENGINEERING

While evaluation teams have been assessing tender

responses for the Electronic Court Management System

(ECMS) project, other teams within the CAA have brought

a ‘lean thinking’ approach to scrutinise existing court

processes, noting any opportunities for reform.

The first phase of the court process mapping has been

documenting all that is ‘as is’. This means documenting

existing processes used in all court registries and

courtrooms as well as administrative and support areas.

The second phase involves documenting the ‘to be’ state

or desired processes that one would want or expect in

a model court of the future that features less paper and

easier access.

The court process mapping project has progressed well

and is expected to deliver results later in 2016.

ORGANISATIONAL AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

The CAA continued a resilience and change readiness

program, holding lunchtime information sessions about

different aspects of resilience. An updated Human

Resources performance management and development

program was implemented, with a focus on regular

conversations between supervisors and staff about what

constitutes high quality performance.

A leadership competency framework was developed

to underpin the performance development program

and leadership development activities and a leadership

coaching program was introduced.

NEW COURT TRANSCRIPT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CTMS)

The CAA’s Court Transcription Services (CTS) and

Information Technology Services (ITS) business units

collaborated to develop a new transcript management

system to replace older, unsupported software. The new

system will allow judiciary and court users to have direct

access to electronic transcript through the system itself,

with transcript produced and distributed in MS Word

format. The software is expected to be functioning fully

from July 2016, for use by CTS, judiciary and support staff.

The CAA aims to provide online ordering and distribution

of transcript electronically by the end of 2016.

REMOTE CIRCUITS

Transcript services at the Port Augusta and Mount Gambier

circuit courts this year changed; from court reporters

providing an in-court service to use of a fully digital

remote service provided out of Adelaide. Full testing

of the technology and service capability was conducted

throughout 2015–16 with support from IT Services Branch,

the judiciary and judicial support staff and all indications

are that this new way of supporting circuit work will

be successful.

11

DIGITISING LIBRARY SERVICES

In 2015–16, Library Services continued to support the

transition to digital resources by increasing its range of

digital resources and providing judicial officers with training

in using case law and legislation online. The Library has

entered into a cooperative agreement with the High Court,

Federal Court, NSW Law Courts Library and Victorian Law

Library for a shared library management system.

REGISTRY ONLINE

A Registry Online website was upgraded this year to

provide for improved lodging of civil matters in the

Magistrates Court, and to become the basis for further

online services over the next few years for members of the

legal profession and the public.

ONLINE ADJOURNMENTS

An IT system based on the Registry Online website, to

facilitate online applications for hearing adjournments, was

implemented in pilot mode this year to a limited number of

legal practitioners, with a view to expanding this to other

court users.

INTERVENTION ORDERS

An automated system to improve flow of information

related to Intervention Orders between SAPOL and the

courts was developed this year. This system electronically

exchanges Intervention Orders from SAPOL with the

outcome of any hearings conveyed back to SAPOL

electronically, for further action. It is planned to extend

the system to replace the existing manual system of

notification to relevant agencies whenever an Intervention

Order is raised.

TWEETING

The CAA commenced ‘tweeting’ (@CourtsinSA) in

July 2015 for a six-month trial period, to open another

communication channel with the public about the work

of the courts. Following a favourable internal review, the

account will continue to operate.


SUPREME COURT

ROLE AND FUNCTION

The Supreme Court hears complex civil proceedings,

judicial review actions and charges of murder. It is the

highest appellate court of the State. It sits in Adelaide.

Under the Administration and Probate Act 1919, the

Probate Registry grants probate of a will or administration

of the estate of a deceased person and the court hears

disputed testamentary matters. The court also determines

matters in its Land and Valuation jurisdiction.

The Chief Justice is the principal judicial officer and is

responsible for its administration. He is also Chairperson

of the State Courts Administration Council. There are

currently 12 Justices (including the Chief Justice) and two

Masters of the Supreme Court. Justice Parker is also the

President of the South Australian Civil and Administrative

Tribunal (SACAT) and shares his time between the court and

SACAT. During the year, Justices Gray and Sulan retired and

Justices Doyle and Hinton were appointed to the court.

The Principal Registrar Higher Courts also holds the

position of Registrar Supreme Court and is assisted by a

Registrar of Probates, who is also the Principal Legal Officer,

and staff, to provide administrative, registry and judicial

The Supreme Court is the superior court of South Australia.

support services to the court. The staff work collaboratively

with the District Court and Environment, Resources and

Development Court (ERD Court) to provide registry and

judicial support services.

SUMMARY

The Supreme Court has experienced an overall increase in

lodgments across all jurisdictions, with clearance rates above

100 per cent this period. In some jurisdictions, allocated

judicial resources have not been required for the full period

rostered and have been redirected by the Chief Justice to

assist in other jurisdictions of the court. The reallocation

of judicial resources, use of audio-visual links from non-

custodial courtrooms, more sitting sessions and criminal court

numbers have contributed to the clearance rates being above

100 per cent.

WORKLOAD

While lodgments have increased, lodgments in particular kinds

of actions, e.g. possession of property matters, have decreased.

Appellate

The number of civil appeals to the Full Court increased in

2015–16. The Full Court sits in the first two weeks of every

month. At 30 June 2016, there were 30 Full Court appeals

pending, of which 15 had been filed but were yet to be set

down by the parties. The Full Court can list matters in the very

next sittings after the parties are ready. During this reporting

period, Full Court matters have not required the full two weeks

provided for in the judicial roster. Judicial resources in that

period have been redirected to other jurisdictions, mostly in

the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Court of Criminal Appeal lodgments decreased in 2015–16,

but the number of disposals increased. The clearance rate

has increased to 104.0 per cent, in part due to the Court of

Criminal Appeal sitting for longer sessions; use of audio-visual

links from non-custodial courtrooms; and, in some months,

extending the sitting to two weeks instead of a usual one week

per month, as approved by the Chief Justice.

Civil

Total civil lodgments (non-appeal) have increased by 1.3 per

cent (22 matters) for 2015–16 while the clearance rate remains

high at 102.4 per cent.

Criminal

Cases that are committed for trial to the higher courts (the

Supreme Court and District Court) are divided into four

categories. Category 1 cases are those that can only be tried

13

AT A GLANCE

* Staff numbers shown is the actual full time equivalent for a financial year. The 2014–15 figure has been amended from last year’s annual report, as the establishment figure had been shown instead.

** Includes matters not recorded in the annual Commonwealth Productivity Commission Report on Government Services

*** Total criminal lodgments include committals, bail reviews, transferred files, applications for the fixing of non-parole periods and miscellaneous applications (in Adelaide or on circuit).

^ Included in total civil lodgments

2013 2014

2014 2015

2015 2016

JUDGES 12 12 12

MASTERS 2 2 2

STAFF* 47.8 45.4 46

TOTAL CIVIL LODGMENTS** 1 674 1 642 1 664

LAND AND VALUATION DIVISION LODGMENTS^ 53 60 88

PROBATE GRANT OF REPRESENTATION LODGMENTS

5 643 6 328 5 976

CRIMINAL LODGMENTS (INCLUDING CIRCUITS)*** 221 230 254

SINGLE JUDGE APPEALS INSTITUTED^ 165 136 126

FULL COURT APPEALS INSTITUTED^ 76 78 69

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL APPEALS INSTITUTED

148 176 174


before a judge of the Supreme Court. Categories 2–4

comprise cases that are usually tried before a judge of the

District Court. Some Category 2 cases may be tried before

a judge of the Supreme Court for reasons such as the

complexity of issues of law or of fact. Some Category 3 and

4 cases may be tried before the Supreme Court to assist

with disposition of the case load.

There was an increase of 24 criminal lodgments in

2015–16, compared to 2014–15. Lodgments comprise

cases committed for trial, cases committed for sentence,

breach of bond matters, bail reviews, and applications for

variations of court orders.

The number of matters disposed of by trial has decreased by

two matters, from 17 in 2014–15 to 15 disposals in 2015–16.

There was one more matter disposed of (including by trial)

in this year, of 25 matters compared with 24 in 2014–15.

This difference can be attributed to changes in the types

of matters brought in this jurisdiction. Certain files (e.g.

applications to fix a non-parole period) tend to be finalised

in less than a year, which explains the higher number of

disposals this year.

COURT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

While lodgments in the civil jurisdiction increased this

year, the number of matters listed for trial has decreased.

However, judicial resources allocated to this area have

increased in comparison to last year, so the court is still able

to offer trial dates within two to three months of a matter

being ready to proceed.

Appellate

The court did not meet the national standard target in

all measures of the appellate jurisdiction. However, the

number of pending matters is small. The delay in listing

criminal appeals is due mainly to requests by a party

not to list an appeal in the month following the grant of

permission to appeal.

SUPREME COURT

LODGMENTS NOT FINALISED AT 30 JUNE

NON-APPEAL

APPEAL SINGLE JUDGE

APPEAL FULL COURT

NO. % NO. % NO. %

More than 12 months old (target ≤ 10%)*

208 27.0 3 6.1 7 13.3

More than 24 months old (target = zero)

94 12.2 0 0 1 1.7

TABLE 1: SUPREME COURT CIVIL LODGMENT AGE PROFILE 2015–16

Civil

A total of 28 matters proceeded to trial during the year.

The number of trials commenced, as a percentage of cases

fixed for trial (63), was 44.4 per cent. The time taken to get

matters to trial reflects the complex nature of many matters

in the civil jurisdiction, rather than any listing problem.

AGE PROFILE JUDGMENTS 2014–15

JUDGMENTS 2015–16

Less than one month 0 0

More than one month but less than two months 1 2

More than two months but less than three months 0 2

More than three months but less than six months 2 6

More than six months but less than 12 months 3 4

More than 12 months 0 1

TOTAL JUDGMENTS OUTSTANDING 6 15

TABLE 2: SUPREME COURT CIVIL RESERVED JUDGMENTS FOLLOWING A TRIAL

The Court of Criminal Appeal currently has one file older

than 24 months. This has been caused by the inability to

serve documents on an appellant who has moved interstate.

15

PROBATE REGISTRY

The Probate Registry deals mainly with non-contentious

applications for a grant of probate or letters of

administration. These are collectively referred to as ‘grants

of representation’. The Registrar of Probates is responsible

for the issue of such grants. The Registrar’s authority to

make grants of representation and other orders of the court

is conferred by statute, Rules of Court and legal common

form practice. The function of the Probate Registry, insofar

as it relates to grants of representation, is to determine

what (if any) documents may be taken to be the will of a

deceased person and who is entitled to be constituted the

personal representative of that person.

This year, 5 976 applications for grants of representation

were lodged and 6 290 grants were issued. The Probate

Registry issued 6 017 grants in the previous year.

AGE PROFILE DECISIONS 2014–15

DECISIONS 2015–16







TOTAL DECISIONS OUTSTANDING 33 38

TABLE 3: SUPREME COURT CIVIL, OTHER RESERVED DECISIONS AND APPEALS

Criminal

Total criminal lodgments for 2015–16 in the Supreme

Court increased by 24 defendants (10.4 per cent) from

the previous year, resulting in a clearance figure of 105.5

per cent. This rise in matters and clearance rate includes

the Supreme Court hearing District Court criminal trials,

due to complexity or to assist in disposing of criminal

trial workload, and an increase in sittings to three criminal

courts per week, effective from September 2015.

LODGMENTS NOT FINALISED AT 30 JUNE

NON-APPEAL APPEAL CCA

NO. % NO. %

More than 12 months old (target ≤ 10%)* 12 19.7 2 2.4

More than 24 months old (target = zero) 7 11.5 1 1.2

TABLE 4: CRIMINAL LODGMENT AGE PROFILE 2015–16

*Includes matters greater than 24 months old

AGE PROFILE VERDICTS 2014–15

VERDICTS 2015–16







TOTAL VERDICTS OUTSTANDING 0 2

TABLE 5: SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL, RESERVED VERDICTS FOLLOWING A TRIAL BY A JUDGE SITTING ALONE


DISTRICT COURT

ROLE AND FUNCTION

The District Court sits in Adelaide and conducts civil circuits

regularly at Mount Gambier and as required at Berri,

Port Pirie, Whyalla and Port Lincoln. For criminal matters,

the court conducts regular circuits at Port Augusta and

Mount Gambier.

Except for Probate, Admiralty, judicial review and areas

specified under various statutes, the civil jurisdiction of the

District Court is the same as that of the Supreme Court.

In its criminal jurisdiction, the District Court hears serious

criminal matters, except for offences related to murder

and treason. It also has jurisdiction over criminal injuries

compensation claims.

In its Administrative and Disciplinary Division, the District

Court deals with disciplinary and appeal matters under

many Acts; for example, the Equal Opportunity Act 1984,

the Building Work Contractors Act 1995 and the Land

Agents Act 1994. In some of these cases, a judge sits with

assessors with expertise in the relevant field.

The Chief Judge is the principal judicial officer and is

responsible for its administration. The court comprises

20 judges (including the Chief Judge) and three Masters.

The District Court of South Australia is constituted by the District Court Act 1991 and is the principal trial court in SA. It has four divisions: Criminal, Civil, Administrative and Disciplinary, and Criminal Injuries. One registry services these divisions and is co-located with the Supreme Court and Environment, Resources and Development (ERD) Court registries.

Judge David was appointed in December 2015. One judicial

position remains vacant. Acting Master Keith began in March

2015, replacing Master Rice, who is on extended leave.

The Principal Registrar Higher Courts also holds the

position of Registrar District Court and is assisted by

Deputy Registrars and staff, to provide administrative,

registry and judicial support services.

SUMMARY

In 2015–16 the District Court criminal workload continued to

experience delays. Several factors affected smooth progress

of matters. These included a shortfall in numbers of judicial

officers available for rostering, availability of courtrooms,

increased complexity of cases, availability of specialist

reports to the court and decisions by defendants to change

pleas to guilty shortly before or on the day of trial.

There were fewer lodgments in the court’s civil workload.

Although there has been an increase in civil claims and

Victims of Crime Division matters, there has been a

decrease in the number of Administrative and Disciplinary

Division matters, largely as a result of some jurisdictions

moving to the South Australian Civil and Administrative

Tribunal (SACAT).

WORKLOAD

The criminal workload has seen an increase in the number

of defendants being committed for sentence although

this was expected to decrease following the Statutes

Amendment (Court Efficiencies Reforms) Act 2012.

The following strategies have been introduced to manage

the criminal workload:

• In August 2015, trial callover lists were introduced

to determine readiness to proceed for cases listed

to commence the following month. This measure

has helped reduce the number of trials that do not

proceed on the day of trial, or cases where a plea of

guilty is entered shortly before or on the day of trial.

• From late 2015 the ratio for case listing was reduced

each week, to allow for short matters to be listed on a

Thursday and a Friday.

• Arraignment days were changed to Fridays, to allow

for trials to begin when listed on Mondays.

• The time from committal in the Magistrates Court

to first arraignment in the District Court has been

increased from four weeks to eight weeks to enable

prosecution authorities to better prepare the matters

being committed.

17

AT A GLANCE

* As at 30 June 2014. ** Refer to section below for further details.*** Includes matters heard on circuit.^ Includes matters not recorded in the annual Commonwealth Productivity Commission Report on Government Services (ROGS)~ Administrative and Disciplinary Division figures appear separately, to differentiate from the other courts and tribunals serviced by the Civil Registry.

2013 2014

2014 2015

2015 2016

JUDGES *** 20 20 20

MASTERS 3 3 3

STAFF 66.6 63.8 64.0

CIVIL LODGMENTS*** ^ 1 730 1 467 1 483

CRIMINAL INJURIES LODGMENTS

83 114 133

ADMINISTRATIVE AND DISCIPLINARY LODGMENTS^ ~

139 141 62

LODGMENTS (OTHER COURTS AND TRIBUNALS)

126 158 89

MINOR CIVIL CLAIMS REVIEWS

50 54 62

CRIMINAL LODGMENTS *** ^ 2 877 2 921 2 661

NUMBER OF CRIMINAL CIRCUIT LODGMENTS ^

205 325 292


The number of civil lodgments and finalisations has

reduced this year. The reduction has distorted the

percentage of actions that now fall into the ‘greater than

12 and 24 months of age’ bracket for court performance

standards for timeliness. Although there has been an

increase in civil claims and Victims of Crime Division matters,

there has been a decrease in the number of Administrative

and Disciplinary Division matters, as a result of some

jurisdictions moving to the South Australian Civil and

Administrative Tribunal (SACAT).

The following strategies have been introduced to support

earlier resolution of civil matters:

• Judges case managing all actions that have a civil trial

date set;

• Earlier referral of personal injury matters from settlement

conference stage to Masters, for further action; and,

• Earlier referral of actions to trial.

Criminal

In 2015–16 criminal lodgments and finalisations for the

District Court decreased, while the clearance rate increased

to 101.1 per cent compared to 94.5 per cent in 2014–15.

Average lodgments per month decreased from 243.7

defendants in 2014–15, to 221.8 in 2015–16 while average

monthly finalisations decreased from 229.8 defendants in

2014–15 to 224.3 in 2015–16. A number of external factors

influence the pace at which major indictable matters are

committed to the District Court, which is reflected in the

decrease in lodgments. These factors are out of the control

of the court.

Civil

In 2015–16 total civil lodgments decreased by 105 (5.4 per

cent) from the previous year. Total finalisations decreased by

497 files (20.4 per cent) when compared to the previous year,

yet the clearance rate remains above 100 per cent at 106.3

per cent.

There were 502 civil trial listings in 2015–16 compared to

678 in 2014–15. This is a decrease of 176 trials, or 26 per

cent. Amendments in 2014 to Rules concerning litigation

plans, in particular, for personal injury matters, has resulted in

matters going to a trial listing at a later stage in the litigation

process. The extra time has allowed for resolution of more

matters prior to a trial listing, resulting in earlier availability

of trial dates. The current time to trial is approximately

two months.

As at 30 June 2016, there continues to be a significant

decrease in long trials (duration of 10 or more days) awaiting

hearing, compared to previous years. This has been

achieved by the introduction of judges case-managing civil

actions listed for trial. The judges are presiding over regular

directions hearings for these actions and setting timelines

to try to resolve the matters sooner. This strategy is resulting

in earlier resolution of matters and earlier availability of

trial dates.

Minor Civil Reviews continue to increase slightly due to an

increase in the jurisdictional limit for Minor Civil Claims from

$6 000 to $25 000, from 1 July 2013.

Administrative and Disciplinary Division

A total of 62 matters were lodged this year in this division,

compared with 141 in the previous year, a drop of 56 per

cent. These matters generally resolve within a year. Matters

previously lodged in this jurisdiction relating to Guardianship

and Administration Act appeals and Residential Tenancies

Tribunal appeals are now commenced at SACAT.

Criminal Injuries Division

All applications for compensation under the Criminal Injuries

Compensation Act 1978 and the Victims of Crime Act 2001

are heard in the District Court. In 2015–16, 67 summonses

for compensation were issued, a decrease of 21.2 per cent

from 2014–15 (85 summonses). There were 66 Victims of

Crime recovery matters filed in 2015–16 compared to 29 in

2014–15.

Other Tribunals

The District Court administers files for lodgment in other

courts and tribunals, including the Warden’s Court, Equal

Opportunities Tribunal and Police Disciplinary Tribunal.

There were 89 matters lodged in 2015–16, a decrease of

44 per cent from 2014–15 (158 matters).

DISTRICT COURT

19

COURT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Civil

Pending figures for civil matters in the District Court do not

meet the national standard targets. The strategies for the

civil jurisdiction reported above have been introduced to

target older civil matters.

Criminal

Pending figures for criminal matters in the District Court

do not meet the national standard targets. Although the

District Court criminal lodgments have decreased, there

continues to be a delay in finalising sentencing matters due

to the level of complexity of matters and reduced available

resources.

In particular, the Supreme Court sat regularly in three

courtrooms each week, which reduced the number of

courtrooms available for the District Court. One District

Court judicial position has remained vacant, there have

been extended periods of sick leave for two judges and

one judge has required carer’s leave, with some periods

overlapping. At present, there are 100 matters older than

two years, which is an increase from 88 matters in this

category in the previous reporting period.

CIVIL LODGMENTS NOT FINALISED AS AT 30 JUNE

2013–14 2014–15 2015–16

NO. % NO. % NO. %


1 449 51.6 1126 48.2 993 44.3


590 21.0 592 25.3 479 21.4

TABLE 6: DISTRICT COURT CIVIL LODGMENT AGE PROFILE

* Includes matters greater than 24 months old

AGE PROFILE JUDGMENTS 2014–15

JUDGMENTS 2015–16








TABLE 7: DISTRICT COURT CIVIL RESERVED JUDGMENTS FOLLOWING A TRIAL

AGE PROFILE DECISIONS 2014–15

DECISIONS 2015–16








TABLE 8: DISTRICT COURT CIVIL, OTHER RESERVED DECISIONS

CRIMINAL LODGMENTS NOT FINALISED AS AT 30 JUNE

2013–14 2014–15 2015–16

NO. % NO. % NO. %


273 17.0 340 21.1 340 24.2


45 2.8 88 5.4 100 6.5

TABLE 9: DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL LODGMENT AGE PROFILE

* Includes matters greater than 24 months old

AGE PROFILE VERDICTS 2014–15

VERDICTS 2015–16








TABLE 10: DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL, RESERVED VERDICTS FOLLOWING A TRIAL BY A JUDGE SITTING ALONE


MAGISTRATES COURT

ROLE AND FUNCTION

Civil

The Civil (General Claims) jurisdiction hears claims up to

$100 000. Matters in the Civil (Minor Claims) jurisdiction are

considered with less formality and parties are not entitled

to legal representation at hearings except in special

circumstances. Minor civil claims are disputes involving

amounts up to $25 000 and minor neighbourhood and

fencing disputes. This jurisdiction will be changed by

legislation on 1 August 2016. Claims filed after this date will

involve disputes of less than $12 000.

The Civil (Consumer and Business) jurisdiction hears

disputes over warranty claims for second-hand motor

vehicles, disputes between landlords and tenants involving

shop premises and disputes about domestic buildings.

Criminal

The criminal jurisdiction deals with summary offences and

minor indictable offences. Where all parties consent, a plea

of guilty for certain major indictable matters may be heard

in the Magistrates Court.

The Magistrates Court handles most litigation in the state. All criminal matters begin in the Magistrates Court and the civil jurisdiction hears more than 90 per cent of all civil disputes. The Court has four jurisdictions.

MAGISTRACY

Judge Elizabeth Bolton retired as Chief Magistrate

on 9 October 2015. Magistrate Mary-Louise Hribal

was commissioned as a judge of the District Court on

10 October and was appointed as Chief Magistrate.

This year, Mr Ian White, Ms Alison Adair, Mr Rodney Oates

and Ms Briony Kennewell were appointed as magistrates.

Magistrate Lydia Makiv retired on 3 February 2016.

Magistrate Penny Eldridge was commissioned as a judge

of the District Court on 3 March 2016 and sits as the Senior

Judge of the Youth Court of South Australia.

SUMMARY

This year has presented challenges for the Magistrates

Court because of growth in lodgments, due partly to

an increase in defendants charged with family violence

offences and intervention order matters. Extra lists have

been added to accommodate this increase and more

magistrates would assist the court to deal with the volume

and complexity of this work. There has also been an

increase in overnight arrests, making for larger lists, longer

days sitting in court and for registry staff to process work

after court has finished.

The increase in defendants being unable to obtain

bail following arrest, is likely to be partly due to the

increase in defendants charged with domestic violence

offences, particularly if they are ‘prescribed applicants’.

The increased number of prescribed applicants for bail

has resulted in more difficult bail hearings and more

adjournments for consideration of home detention. An

increase in matters in the family violence court where a

defendant requires several adjournments if completing an

abuse prevention program has contributed to the increase

in numbers of adjournments to finalisation.

Despite fewer civil lodgments, the workload of the Civil

Magistrates has, in practice, increased. The Magistrates

Court has become the primary civil trial court in the

State. The increase in the limit of the general jurisdiction

has resulted in much of the work previously heard in the

District Court now being heard in the Magistrates Court. As

a result, there has been a large number of contested

interlocutory applications requiring written reasons, longer

and more complex trials and written judgments.

A large proportion of defended minor civil actions now

proceed to trial, such actions often involving difficult

legal issues despite being of limited monetary value. The

percentage of minor civil actions proceeding to trial has

increased. These trials are conducted in an inquisitorial

21

AT A GLANCE

* Four magistrates were part-time.** In addition, there are two magistrates in the Youth Court. *** Reduction in staff is a direct result of the cessation of the Fines Payment Unit

2013 2014

2014 2015

2015 2016

MAGISTRATES * **34.8 34.7 * **34.6

STAFF ***226.8 ***184 181.9

CIVIL PRIMARY LODGMENTS (IN PERSON)

9 655 9 039 7 647

CIVIL PRIMARY LODGMENTS (VIA INTERNET)

15 758 14 016 13 189

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT PROCESS

35 842 31 927 29 301

CIVIL APPLICATIONS 3 404 3 956 3 854

CIVIL DEFENCES LODGED 3 076 2 975 2 550

CRIMINAL GENERAL LODGMENTS

62 889 59 886 63 102

CRIMINAL HEARINGS BY MAGISTRATES

215 248 218 077 252 340


manner by the magistrate who is required to elicit all

relevant information from the unrepresented parties to

determine the dispute. This is often a time consuming and

difficult exercise.

WORKLOAD

Civil

Civil lodgments

Magistrates Court Civil lodgments involve general and

minor civil claims, recovery of debts, personal injury claims,

claims relating to motor vehicle property damage, workers’

liens and second-hand vehicle dealer matters, and matters

arising from legislation covering fencing disputes, shop

leases, builders’ works and neighbourhood disputes. They

also include appeals involving provisional licences and

applications concerning registrations of births, deaths

and marriages.

In 2015–16, 20 836 lodgments were recorded, a decrease

of 9.6 per cent from the previous year. The decrease is

attributed partly to an 18.5 per cent decrease in motor

vehicle personal injury lodgments; a direct result of the

legislative amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act 1959

and Civil Liabilities Act 1939, which change the criteria for

making such claims.

Lodgments are made in person or via the internet. In the

year under review, 7 647 lodgments were made over the

counter and 13 189 were lodged electronically. This is a

decrease of 15.4 per cent and six per cent respectively,

compared with 2014–15. The number of finalisations also

decreased by 10.1 per cent, to 21 867. The clearance rate

remained steady at 105 per cent.

Summonses issued for enforcement include summons

to investigate or examine a witness or an absconding

debtor, warrants of arrest/sale/commitment, other

warrants (as specified by the court) and miscellaneous

enforcement matters.

There were 29 301 civil enforcement processes in 2015–16,

a decrease of 8.2 per cent compared with last financial year.

This is attributed to there being fewer civil lodgments.

Civil lodgment age profile

Civil applications heard by a magistrate

Civil applications heard by a magistrate include applications

to set aside a judgment or warrant, applications to decide

matters without formal court appearances (ex parte) and

other (unspecified) applications brought to the court by

parties. In 2015–16, 3 854 applications were heard before a

magistrate, which was a decrease of 2.6 per cent compared

to the previous reporting period.

Civil defences and counterclaims

Defences include those against an originating claim, a

counterclaim and a third party notice to join in an action.

This year, 2 550 civil defences and counterclaims were

lodged, representing a decrease of 14.3 per cent compared

to the previous year. This is due to fewer civil lodgments.

Minor civil directions hearings

In 2015–16, there were 2 709 minor civil directions

hearings heard by magistrates and registrars across the

State, compared with 2 588 in the previous year. Around

one-quarter (25 per cent) of the matters defended in

this jurisdiction proceeded to trial, compared with 33

per cent in 2014–15. In previous annual reports, only

Adelaide Magistrates Court directions hearings have been

reported. Commencing this year, this figure will include

the total number of directions hearings for all Magistrates

Court locations.

MAGISTRATES COURT

CIVIL LODGMENTS

2013–14 2014–15 2015–16

NO. % NO. % NO. %

Pending > than 6 months old** 7 632 46.8 5 703 43.1 5758 46.4

Pending > than 12 months old 2 326 16.2 1 538 11.6 1586 12.8

TABLE 11: CIVIL LODGMENTS NOT FINALISED AS AT 30 JUNE 2016*

* Total percentage of unfinalised matters as at 30 June 2016.** Pending cases greater than six months include cases that are counted in

>12 months figures.

23

Mediation

Magistrates and registrars can refer civil disputes to

mediation. Mediation affords the opportunity to negotiate

a mutually agreeable resolution to a dispute rather than

go to trial. One mediator is based at Adelaide Magistrates

Court and conducts mediations throughout the State. In

2015–16, 238 disputes were referred to mediation, a 38

per cent increase on last year but on par with the numbers

referred in 2013–14. Of those matters referred, 67 per cent

were resolved, compared with 82 per cent in the previous

reporting period.

External mediators

The Principal Registrar keeps a panel of private qualified

mediators, conciliators and arbitrators, and a list of those

willing to provide pro bono services. There are 27 external

mediators. In 2015–16 external mediators mediated 78

matters, with a settlement rate of 69 per cent.

Intervention order mediations

A matter considered to be a civil dispute which has led

to an intervention order being sought by the police or

an individual can be referred to mediation (if considered

suitable). In 2015–16, 16 matters were sent to mediation, of

which 87 per cent were settled.

Pre-lodgment and pro bono mediations

An online pre-lodgment system enables individuals,

businesses and organisations to try to resolve disputes

rather than resort to formal proceedings. The pre-

lodgment system offers a free mediation service through

the Magistrates Court, conducted by volunteer mediators.

Numbers of final notices of claim issued (the first step in the

litigation process, akin to a final letter of demand) resulting

in mediation conferences, and the settlement rates, are

shown below.

Court experts

The Magistrates Court has a panel of independent experts

to call on to assist parties to try to settle disputes, and

to assist the court and parties to prepare for an efficient

trial. This initiative has proven to be a cost effective and

efficient means of dealing with complex technical issues.

The panel comprises four professional, trade and technical

experts. In 2015–16, 183 disputes were referred to a court

expert, a six per cent increase on the previous reporting

period (172 matters referred). Court experts assisted at

trial in 42 matters in 2015–16 compared with 23 in 2014–15

an increase of 82 per cent. This is attributed partly to

an increased number of complex minor civil trials being

conducted, due to an increase of the jurisdictional limit on

1 July 2013.

Criminal

In 2015–16, there were 63 102 criminal lodgments, an

increase of 5.4 per cent compared to 2014–15. In the year

under review, 59 413 criminal lodgments were finalised, a

decrease of 1.7 per cent from the previous reporting period

(finalisations are the number of lodgments completed in a

financial year).

The clearance rate refers to the percentage of matters

finalised by the court in a specified period compared with

number of matters lodged with the court for the same

period. This has decreased from just over 100 per cent in

2014–15 to 94 per cent in 2015–16.

There were 252 340 criminal hearings heard by magistrates

in 2015–16 an increase of 15.7 per cent compared to the

previous reporting period. This may be partly due to an

increase in family violence offences and intervention orders

that may result in a defendant requiring an adjournment for

bail reports and a further adjournment for an assessment

for an abuse prevention program. Finalisation of such

matters may take some time while a defendant completes

the program.

Criminal matters pendingTABLE 12: PRE-LODGMENTS AND MEDIATIONS

2013–14 2014–15 2015–16

Notices issued 3 811 5 513 8 454

Mediation conferences undertaken 11 19 9

Settlement rate (% of mediation conferences)

72 53 77

CRIMINAL LODGMENTS

2013–14 2014–15 2015–16

NO. % NO. % NO. %

Pending > than 6 months old** 5 144 27 4 733 25 5 909 27

Pending >12 months old

2 165 11 1 740 9 2 062 9

TABLE 13: CRIMINAL LODGMENTS NOT FINALISED AS AT 30 JUNE 2016*

* Total percentage of unfinalised matters as at 30 June 2016** Pending cases greater than six months include cases that are counted in greater than

12 months figures.


Aboriginal sentencing conferences

Section 9C of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 allows

any criminal court, with the offender’s consent, to convene

an Aboriginal Sentencing Conference. The conference

provides a culturally responsive forum in which the offender

has the opportunity to better understand the gravity of

the offending and its impact on the victim, families and

community. Victims, Aboriginal Elders and family members

may participate in the Aboriginal Sentencing Conference.

The process may provide additional relevant information

for the judicial officer’s consideration when sentencing.

In 2015–16, 35 Aboriginal Sentencing Conferences were

held: one in the Supreme Court, 22 in the District Court, 12

in the Magistrates Court and one in the Youth Court. This is

six more conferences than were held in 2014–15.

Aboriginal cultural awareness training

The Senior Aboriginal Justice Officer and an AJO deliver

two-day Aboriginal cultural awareness training, which

is mandatory for new CAA staff, covering aspects of

Aboriginal history, society, culture and contemporary

Aboriginal justice issues. Three sessions were held this year,

two more than in 2014–15.

COURT VOLUNTEER SERVICE

Thirty three volunteers provided services at the District and

Magistrates courts at Adelaide, Christies Beach, Elizabeth

and Port Adelaide. Volunteers provide refreshments,

support, information about the court precinct and help

people complete standard forms. In 2015–16, court

volunteers dealt with 39 798 enquiries and served 206

refreshments, compared with 36 377 enquiries and 673

refreshments served in the previous year.

SPECIAL JUSTICES

As at June 2016, 57 Special Justices were appointed

under the Justices of the Peace Act, 2005 with 26

presiding regularly.

MAGISTRATES COURT

NUMBER OF APPEARANCES 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16

Mount Gambier* 8 4 0

Murray Bridge 27 65 38

Port Adelaide 246 188 301

Port Augusta 0** 9 10

Yalata 173 261 92***

TABLE 14: ABORIGINAL SENTENCING COURTS

* Mount Gambier did not have an Aboriginal Sentencing Court this year. ** Port Augusta Aboriginal Sentencing Court recommenced in 2014–15. *** Yalata had fewer Aboriginal Sentencing Court sitting days in 2015–16.

ABORIGINAL PROGRAMS

The CAA employs eight Aboriginal Justice Officers, who

support Aboriginal Sentencing Courts and Conferences at

courts in Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Elizabeth and Port Augusta,

and on circuits within regional and remote areas including

Berri, Ceduna, Coober Pedy, Kadina, Leigh Creek, Maitland,

Murray Bridge, Port Pirie, Port Lincoln, Whyalla, Yalata and the

Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunyatjara (APY) Lands.

These officers provide advice to Judiciary and

staff about Aboriginal culture, communities and Aboriginal-

focused service providers. They assist Aboriginal court

users with any court enquiries and recruit and help

Aboriginal Elders prepare for participation in Aboriginal

Sentencing Courts and Conferences.

Aboriginal sentencing courts

There are Aboriginal Sentencing Courts at Port Adelaide,

Murray Bridge, Yalata and Port Augusta. These courts

allow for matters to be dealt with in a culturally appropriate

manner. A magistrate presides over the court and is

assisted by Aboriginal Elders and/or Respected Persons.

There were 30 registered Elders assisting Aboriginal

Programs in 2015–16, five more than in the previous

year. The Port Adelaide Aboriginal Sentencing Court

collaborates with the CAA’s Treatment Intervention

Programs, enabling those with drug related offences to

access treatment intervention services.

Port Lincoln adult Aboriginal conferencing program

This is a program for adult Aboriginal offenders in a post-

guilty plea, pre-sentence conferencing process, which

allows cultural facets of the incident to be considered and

the victim and offender to meet face-to-face (if the victim

so chooses). Ten conferences were completed in 2015–16,

16 per cent fewer than in the previous year.

25

RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO LEGISLATION

Section 13 of the Courts Administration Act 1993 requires

there is a report on ‘any changes to the law and procedures

of the participating courts that may be necessary or

desirable to improve the administration of justice in

participating courts.’ Some examples appear below.

Bail Regulations 2015 – Regulation 4(3)

Regulation 4(3) of the Bail Regulations 2015 prescribes

a Form 2 - Written Record of Reasons for Refusal of

Bail Application. During 2015 –16, the Chief Magistrate

recommended that this form be limited for use only when

the bail authority is a police officer. The Regulation was

changed on 12 May 2016.

Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 - section 15

Section 15 of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988

empowers the court to discharge a defendant without

penalty on recording a conviction, where the offence is

considered ‘so trifling that it is inappropriate to impose any

penalty’. The limitation of this power to circumstances in

which the offence is considered trifling has been confirmed

in a case heard by the Supreme Court.

It is regularly the case that the court considers it appropriate

to discharge a defendant (either with or without conviction)

without imposing any further penalty, in circumstances where

the offence is not considered trifling; for example, where a

person has spent time in custody for a relatively minor offence

for which ‘time served’ is considered sufficient penalty. In

some circumstances, the imposition of a backdated sentence

to reflect the time in custody may not be appropriate; for

example, where the maximum penalty for the offence is a fine,

or the period of remand is less than a day.

It is recommended that consideration be given to legislative

amendment that would broaden the scope of the power

contained in section 15 of the Act.

Road Traffic Act 1961 - section 471 AA (2)

Section 47I AA (2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 empowers

police to give a defendant charged with various offences

under the Act a notice of immediate licence disqualification

or suspension (immediate loss of licence, ILOL). The charges

that give rise to the ILOL are laid by the police and the

matter comes before the court, often months after the

ILOL was issued. Most of these matters are finalised with

a finding of guilt and the magistrate then determines the

appropriate fine and period of licence disqualification.

In determining the appropriate period of licence

disqualification to be imposed, section 47I AA (9) of the Act

requires the court to take into account the period of licence

disqualification already served on the ILOL. The Act does not

presently authorise the backdating of commencement of a

period of disqualification by the court to commence on the

date the ILOL was served on the defendant. As a result, the

court is required to calculate the months, weeks and days

that have elapsed since the ILOL commenced and deduct

that period from the period of disqualification to be ordered.

It is recommended that consideration be given to amending

the Act to allow backdating of court-imposed licence

disqualifications to the date of commencement of the ILOL.

Summary Procedures Act 1921 - section 27C

Section 27C of the Summary Procedures Act 1921

provides that where a defendant has been served with

a summons and fails to appear in court, the court may

proceed in the absence of the defendant and convict and

fine the defendant. However, the court may not order

compensation unless the defendant is personally served

with a notice. This results in the matter being adjourned

to allow such notification to be made, which causes delays

and inefficiencies.


the Act to allow compensation to be ordered where the

amount of compensation has been specified on the served

summons. This will ensure that the defendant is notified that

they may be ordered to pay compensation and also allows

the court to proceed without delay.

Summary Procedures Act 1921 - section 49(5) and 101(3)

Section 49(5) of the Summary Procedures Act 1921 provides

that a Complaint ‘must be filed in the court as soon as

practicable after it is made’. Section 101(3) makes similar

provision about filing an Information charging an indictable

offence. Further to those provisions, Rules 12.07 and 19.07

of the Magistrates Court (Criminal) Rules 1992 provide that,

where practicable, a Complaint or Information must be filed

in the court within seven days of being made or laid.

Despite these provisions, Complaints and Informations are

regularly filed with the court on the day before the hearing

date even when the defendant was summoned or bailed

weeks prior. The regular delay in filing of Complaints and

Informations by SAPOL creates delays and inefficiencies for

the court and the justice sector.


the Act to set specific timeframes for lodgments and allow

the court and/or Registrar to reject lodgments that do not

comply with these timeframes.


INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

Intervention programs operate within the Magistrates Court

and the Youth Court in metropolitan Adelaide and in some

regional court locations. Intervention programs provide access

to services to address the underlying causes of offending.

Successful participation in an intervention program is taken into

consideration in sentencing.

Treatment Intervention Court

The Treatment Intervention Court (TIC) provides six months’

supervised access to services and programs to address offending

related to mental impairment (including mental health disorders,

intellectual disability and acquired brain injury) and substance

use disorder. Participants are referred to one of three treatment

streams: mental impairment; substance abuse; or co-morbidity

(co-occurring mental health and substance disorder issues).

Further, a 12-month substance abuse treatment stream is

available only at the Adelaide Magistrates Court for defendants

who are facing a term of imprisonment of at least 12 months.

TIC was introduced to the Magistrates Court at Mount Gambier

in January 2016, replacing a Magistrates Court Diversion Program

operating bi-monthly. This is the first time that an intervention

program that also deals with drug-related offending has been

introduced at a regional court.

To be eligible for TIC, participants must plead guilty to the most

serious of the charges, or, if they suffer a mental impairment,

they must agree to the objective facts. The court monitors

the offender’s progress in treatment and compliance with bail

conditions and program requirements by way of regular hearings.

Successful completion of the treatment program is taken into

consideration when sentencing.

Workload

In 2015–16, 58.5 per cent of all matters were finalised by way of

a suspended sentence bond, compared to 51 per cent in the

previous reporting period. The number of matters dismissed

pursuant to Section 19C of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act has

decreased from 12 per cent in 2014–15 to three per cent in 2015–

16. The number of no conviction-penalty sentences has decreased

from 13.5 per cent in 2014–15 to eight per cent in 2015–16.

The number of referrals to TIC has increased in 2015–16 by five

per cent compared to the previous reporting period. Of those

referred, 161 participants were accepted for TIC following a

suitability assessment. The percentage of referred defendants

being accepted has decreased from 58 per cent in 2014–15 to 48

per cent in 2015–16. The reasons for the lower acceptance rate in

2015–16 include choosing not to participate; no nexus between

the underlying problems and the offending and legal reasons

which preluded participation.

6-monthsubstance

abuse stream

12-monthsubstance

abuse stream

226

52

26

4235

6

Co-morbiditystream

Mentalimpairment

stream

Gamblingstream

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

32%

16%26% 22%

4%

FIGURE 1: INTERVENTION PROGRAM STREAMS PARTICIPANTS WERE ACCEPTED INTO 2015–16 (TOTAL 161)

The mental impairment stream has the highest completion rate.

This has increased from 80 per cent in 2014–15 to 88 per cent

in 2015–16. The high completion rate may be attributed to the

mental impairment stream being a lower intensity program with

simple bail requirements which uses existing community-based

mental health services, and services for people with other types of

mental impairment.

Substance abuse disorder is a chronic relapsing condition and this is

reflected in lower completion rates in the substance abuse streams.

The completion rate for the 12-month substance abuse stream

decreased from 30 per cent in 2014–15, to 20 per cent in 2015–16.

The completion rates for the 6-month substance misuse stream

increased from 13 per cent in 2014–15 to 18 per cent in 2015–16.

Participants in the co-morbidity stream have a combination of

mental health and substance abuse problems and the treatment

components of the program are tailored to meet both these issues.

The completion rate has increased significantly, from 33 per cent

in 2014–15 to 65 per cent in 2015–16. One of the reasons for this

increase was the higher median age of defendants in 2015–16,

which was 35 years. Age is a factor in treatment outcomes.

MAGISTRATES COURT

2014–152013–14 2015–160

1020304050607080

37%53%

74%

2014–152013–14 2015–160

20

40

60

80

100

37% 53%

19%

12.5%

74%

Cannabis use

Methamphetamine use

FIGURE 2: DRUGS USED BY PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS

27

The rise in prevalence of methamphetamines as the primary

drug of use over the past three years provides a significant

treatment and retention challenge as this particular drug

is readily available, relatively cheap to purchase and is

highly addictive.

A new strategy to address the problem of retaining

participants in the substance abuse treatment streams

was introduced in this reporting period and comprises a

three-session group program delivered by Offender Aid

and Rehabilitation Services-Community Transitions, which

focuses on treatment readiness and motivation to change.

Participants who were not making good progress and were

at risk of program termination were referred to this program

and early indications suggest this strategy has made a

positive impact for the participants involved. In addition, a

collaboration with Deakin University School of Psychology

resulted in development of a case management feedback

survey which participants complete at various stages of their

involvement on the program and which highlights areas of

concern for the participant, including low motivation. The

feedback provides the case manager with a clear focus

for supervision and goal setting with the participants. An

evaluation of the survey will be done in 2017 by Honours

Psychology students to fulfil their course requirements.

Gambling Intervention Program Pilot

A gambling intervention program began in TIC at the

Adelaide Magistrates Court on 1 July 2015 and is the first

program of its kind in any Australian jurisdiction. It is a

12-month pilot, in a joint initiative with the (Department of

Community and Social Inclusion, Office) Office for Problem

Gambling, using funds from the Gambling Rehabilitation

Fund. The aim of the program is to provide a diversion into

treatment that will give defendants a chance to overcome

problem gambling and to restore control over their lives,

reduce the likelihood of reoffending and provide grounds for

a non-custodial sentence.

Six defendants were referred to the program in 2015–16,

as a result of gambling related offending. Four participants

successfully completed the program. As the target number

of participants was not reached, the pilot has been extended

for a further year. The Office of Crime Statistics and Research

in the Attorney-General’s Department will evaluate the

program and a report is expected in early 2017.

Magistrates Court Diversion Program

The Magistrates Court Diversion Program targets offenders

with mental impairment. It is available at Whyalla, Port

Augusta, Port Pirie and Murray Bridge Magistrates Courts.

Ten referrals were made in 2015–16, a decrease of 70

per cent. It is unknown why referral to the program has

decreased. A number of factors influence whether legal

representatives refer clients.

Abuse Prevention Program

Family violence courts operate in the metropolitan

Magistrates Courts, Port Augusta and since January 2016

also at Murray Bridge and Mount Gambier. Men who have

been issued an Intervention Order, or are on bail for abuse/

violence towards a female partner or ex-partner, can be

referred to the Abuse Prevention Program for assessment.

The magistrate has the discretion to require the men to be

assessed as to their suitability to participate in a domestic

violence prevention program. Participation in these

programs is monitored and the police and/or the court is

notified of failures to comply with the terms of the order.

In 2015–16, 520 men were referred to the Abuse Prevention

Program. Of those, 349 were referred as a condition of an

intervention order and 171 were referred as a condition

of bail. This increase may be attributed to an increase in

intervention order applications. Last year 407 men were

referred as a condition of an intervention order and 84 were

referred as a bail condition. Overall the increase was six per

cent compared to the previous year.

Of 520 men referred in 2015–16, 419 attended for a suitability

assessment. Three hundred and one men (72 per cent) were

accepted to the program, a 33 per cent increase from the

previous year (226). Last year’s figures did not include the

21 men accepted in Port Augusta and when this number is

taken into account the increase is only 18 per cent. This is in

line with the increase in referrals. A total of 134 men (44 per

cent) completed the program in 2015–16.

2014–15Men referred

to AbusePreventionProgram

2014–15Men accepted


226

407

301

520

2015–16Men accepted


2015–16Men referred


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

FIGURE 3: ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAM

Twenty two defendants identified as Aboriginal or Torres

Strait Islander, were referred to the Abuse Prevention

Program as a condition of an intervention order this year, an

increase of 22 per cent since last year. Forty four defendants

that identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander were

referred as a condition of bail, an increase of 82 per cent.

This is largely the result of the pilot program at Port Augusta

continuing. Of the 66 defendants, 60 were assessed and 58

were accepted into the program.


ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COURTThe Environment, Resources and Development Court (ERD Court) is established under the Environment, Resources and Development Court Act 1993.

ROLE AND FUNCTION

The ERD Court has jurisdiction over development,

environment protection, natural resources, mining, native

vegetation and native title matters. These fall into the

categories of appeals against decisions and notices

or orders issued by a local authority and certain State

Government entities; applications for enforcement orders;

compensation and damages; criminal charges; appeals

from the Warden’s Court; and native title applications. The

ERD Court sits primarily in Adelaide but can sit anywhere in

the State.

The two judges of the ERD Court are also judges of the

District Court and deputy presiding members of the

Equal Opportunity Tribunal. Senior Judge Cole is head

of jurisdiction and also Deputy President of the South

Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) and

shares her time between the courts and SACAT.

There are three full-time and one part-time commissioners,

with qualifications and skills in planning, architecture

and development. This year, there were 22 sessional

commissioners appointed to the court, with expertise in

various fields. The Principal Registrar Higher Courts also

holds the position of Registrar ERD Court and is assisted by

a Deputy Registrar ERD and staff, to provide administrative,

registry and judicial support services.

WORKLOAD

There were 274 matters lodged in the ERD Court this year,

32.8 per cent fewer than the 364 matters lodged in 2014–

15. The clearance rate for 2015–16 this year was 116.4 per

cent, an efficient turnover.

The court spends a significant amount of time conducting

court-supervised conferences. Parties are encouraged

to explore possible resolution of matters to avoid a

formal hearing. In the year under review, 400 conciliation

conferences were convened, compared with 454 in

2014–15, and 254 preliminary conferences were convened,

a decrease of 15.6 per cent from 301 in 2014–15. During

the reporting period, 80.3 per cent of Development Act

1993 matters finalised by the court either settled or were

withdrawn before or during the conference stage without

requiring a formal hearing.

29

AT A GLANCE

2013 2014

2014 2015

2015 2016

JUDGES 2 2 2

COMMISSIONERS 3.2 3.2 3.2

MASTERS (SHARED WITH DISTRICT COURT)

3 3 3

SESSIONAL COMMISSIONERS 27 26 22

STAFF 8.2 8.6 8.2

APPEALS 288 284 222

ENFORCEMENT APPLICATIONS

21 24 13

PROSECUTIONS 23 29 24

SECTION 86(1)(F) DEVELOPMENT ACT APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW

21 21 13

OTHER CATEGORIES* 15 6 2

TOTAL LODGED 368 364 274

TOTAL FINALISED 330 378 319

TOTAL FINALISED (%) 89.6 103.8 116.4

* Includes native title applications, Warden’s Court appeals, contempt and miscellaneous applications lodged pursuant to the Development Act 1993.


YOUTH COURTThe Youth Court of South Australia incorporates Adelaide Youth Court and all suburban and regional Youth Courts as well as a Conferencing Unit, which convenes conferences for care and protection and juvenile justice matters. The Court comprises one District Court judge (designated as senior judge) and three magistrates.

ROLE AND FUNCTION

The court administers several Acts including Young

Offenders Act 1993, Adoption Act 1988, Youth Court

Act 1993, Children’s Protection Act 1993 and Statutes

Amendment (Surrogacy) Act 2009. It exercises a criminal

jurisdiction for offenders aged from 10 to 17 years for

all charges except murder and manslaughter or where,

because of the gravity of the offence or a pattern of

repeated offending, the court determines that the young

person should be dealt with as an adult, or when the Office

of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) exercises the

power to charge the youth as an adult.

The court exercises a civil jurisdiction in applications for

the care and protection of children. The court may make

investigation and assessment orders for up to six weeks,

with possible extension for up to four more weeks; and care

and protection orders for up to a year, and, in some cases,

until a child attains the age of 18. The court also hears

applications for adoption and for surrogacy orders.

The Youth Court has regular meetings with groups working

in the field, to ensure strategic and operational matters are

managed. The groups include government child agencies,

Aboriginal specialist workers and SAPOL community

program managers. The court also does considerable

educative work by speaking to professional and community

groups and training professionals in the field.

CONFERENCING UNIT

The Conferencing Unit conducts family conferences,

family care meetings, victim impact meetings and

Aboriginal conferences (at Port Lincoln Magistrates Court).

Family conferences and family care meetings are held in

metropolitan and regional areas.

Family conferences

Under the Young Offenders Act 1993, any offence meeting

criteria for diversion under the Act may be referred

to a family conference. Family Conferences provide

opportunities for a young person who has committed an

offence to meet the victim of the offence, make reparation

for the offence and better understand the consequences of

offending behaviour. Youth Justice Coordinators convene

these meetings and referrals are usually made by the court

or SAPOL.

Family care meetings

The Children’s Protection Act 1993 provides for family care

meetings. These meetings enable families to participate in

decision-making for the children, to take responsibility for

their care wherever possible, and to maintain family and

cultural relationships. Care and Protection Coordinators

convene these meetings and most referrals are made by

Families SA.

SUMMARY

This year has been characterised by a significant focus and

increase in the Care and Protection workload. The Adelaide

Youth Court and Conferencing Unit (Care and Protection)

have had a significant increase in applications and referrals.

The increase in workload in this area has caused the court

to change listing practices to accommodate the higher

demand. The Conferencing Unit has rearranged staff

resources to meet the high demand in this area.

31

AT A GLANCE2013 2014

2014 2015

2015 2016

JUDGES 1.5 1* 1

MAGISTRATES 2 3* 3

STAFF (FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT) 33.1 31.8 32.8

CRIMINAL

CRIMINAL LODGMENTS 6 454 6 194 6 702

CRIMINAL LODGMENTS FINALISATIONS

768 6 848 6 603

CRIMINAL LODGMENTS NOT FINALISED > SIX MONTHS**

274 232 239

CRIMINAL LODGMENTS NOT FINALISED > 12 MONTHS**

81 77 56

YOUTH COURT CRIMINAL LODGMENT CLEARANCE RATE

104.9% 104.7% 98.5%

CARE AND PROTECTION

CARE AND PROTECTION (NUMBER OF CHILDREN) LODGMENTS

649 794 1093

INVESTIGATION AND ASSESSMENT LODGMENTS

397 721 936

CONFERENCING UNIT

FAMILY CARE MEETING REFERRALS (FAMILIES)

414 499 655

FAMILY CARE MEETING NUMBER OF CHILDREN REFERRED

701 910 1 223

FAMILY CONFERENCE REFERRALS 1 646 1 391 1 240

FAMILY CONFERENCE FINALISATIONS

1 734 1 374 1 244

FAMILY CONFERENCE LODGMENTS PENDING > SIX MONTHS

45 38 28

FAMILY CONFERENCE LODGMENTS PENDING > 12 MONTHS

12 15 14

FAMILY CONFERENCE LODGMENT CLEARANCE RATE

105.4% 98.8% 100.3

CHILD ADOPTIONS 4 9 5

SURROGACY 1 2 3

* In April 2015 the Youth Court judicial membership changed to one District Court judge and three magistrates after a significant period of the court operating with one judge and two magistrates only. ** Includes warrants of apprehension; Griffiths (conditional) remands; or lengthy adjournments for specialist court finalisations


WORKLOAD

The Youth Court strives for prompt and efficient resolution

of all matters concerning juveniles. When criminal matters

are ready for listing, the court offers a trial date within three

to six weeks. It expects a matter, if defended, to be listed

for a pre-trial conference at its third court date. If the matter

does not resolve, it is listed for trial.

For care and protection trials, the relevant legislation

requires a contested application to be listed for trial within

10 weeks of the filing of the application. Compliance with

this statutory provision has continued.

In 2015–16, the number of criminal lodgments across the

State increased by eight per cent, compared to 2014–15.

The court recorded a high disposal rate of 98 per cent of

cases within a year of initiation.

A care and protection or investigation and assessment

application may include more than one child. Lodgments

for 2015–16 involved 2 029 children, 25 per cent more than

in the previous year. It is significant that since 2013–14 there

has been an 81 per cent increase in children who are the

subject of care and protection proceedings.

Conferencing Unit

Family Conference

The Conferencing Unit (Family Conference) received 1 240

referrals during 2015 –16. This is a 10 per cent decrease on

the previous year. During this period, 1 244 (100 per cent) of

matters were finalised.

For approximately 29 per cent of family conference

matters a victim, or a victim’s representative, attended

the conference. Around 55 per cent of family conference

matters were finalised within eight weeks of receiving the

referral. Compliance with undertakings remains very high,

at 90 per cent overall, including compliance with individual

undertakings such as participating in community service or

paying compensation.

Care and protection

In 2015–16, 655 referrals for family care meetings were

received, involving 1 223 children. This is a 35 per cent

increase compared to the previous year. About 69 per cent

of referrals progressed to a meeting within eight weeks.

The unit finalised 664 matters during this year.

There were 376 family care meetings and 30 reviews this

year. Around 61 per cent of meetings resulted in ‘valid

decisions’ as defined under the Children’s Protection Act

1993 (a valid decision occurs where arrangements for the

care and protection of the child satisfy the concerns held by

Families SA and have been agreed to by family members

and the Care and Protection Coordinator).

YOUTH COURT

33

CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEMS ROYAL COMMISSION

The Honourable Jay Weatherill announced a Child

Protection Systems Royal Commission in August 2014, to

investigate the effectiveness of child protection systems.

In 2016, the Senior Judge was invited to meet the

Commissioner. The Commission’s report is expected to be

available later in 2016.

REBOOT – INTENSIVE INTERVENTION TRIAL

The Youth Court has worked closely with the Attorney-

General’s Department on a Reboot Intensive Intervention

Trial, which began in August 2015. Reboot aims to reduce

reoffending behaviours in young people by providing

tailored support for each individual. The trial targets 15 to

17 year-olds who have committed a second or subsequent

offence and who are at risk of further offending. The

model includes an evaluation in which the Youth Court will

participate in August 2016.

Statue Amendments (Youth Court) Bill 2016

The Statute Amendments (Youth Court) Bill 2016 was

introduced to Parliament in March 2015 as part of the

Attorney-General’s Transforming Criminal Justice reform

agenda. The Bill largely addresses the composition of the

Youth Court and the jurisdictional powers of magistrates.

The Bill was passed by Parliament in June 2016 and is

expected to be proclaimed early in 2017.

Youth Court Rules

During 2015–16, the Youth Court updated its Rules of

Court. These are expected to be gazetted later in 2016.

YOUTH TREATMENT INTERVENTION COURT

The Youth Treatment Intervention Court (YTIC) deals

with young offenders facing imprisonment and who are

not eligible for a family conference. The YTIC provides

a supervised intervention program to address offending

behaviour related to mental impairment and/or substance

misuse. The program diverts from traditional sentencing.

All participants who have completed the program have

received a non-custodial sentence.

Participation numbers are not high because most young

offenders are referred to a family conference. In 2015–16

there were six participants, all male. In 2014–15 there were

nine participants, of which two were female, compared to

2013–14, where there were six participants, of which one

was a female and one male identified as Aboriginal/Torres

Strait Islander.

Five of six participants in 2015–16 were in the co-morbidity

stream for substance misuse and mental impairment/

mental health issues, and one participant was in the mental

impairment stream.


CORONERS COURT

The Coroners Court is responsible for investigating deaths that are reportable pursuant to the Coroners Act 2003.

ROLE AND FUNCTION

Reportable deaths include those occurring from

unexpected, unnatural, violent or unknown cause, within

24 hours of surgical and certain other medical procedures,

within 24 hours of discharge from an emergency

department or hospital, whilst a person is in custody or

detained under any other Act, and of protected persons.

Mr Mark Johns is the State Coroner and Mr Tony Schapel

is the Deputy State Coroner. The Coroners are supported

by two Senior Counsels Assisting. During the year under

review there was one full-time Senior Counsel Assisting.

Two Senior Counsels Assisting worked part-time due to a

parental leave arrangement.

WORKLOAD

South Australia registered 13 300 deaths during

2015–16 (source: Registrar Births, Deaths and

Marriages) with 2 430 of these deaths being reported

to the State Coroner.

The court heard 62 inquests, 47 of which were death

in custody matters. The significant increase in the

number of inquests this year has been a result of an

increase in mandatory death-in-custody inquests where

the deceased was the subject of orders under the

Guardianship and Administration Act 1993 requiring

the deceased to be, or remain at, a residential facility

specified by a guardian. With the ageing of the

population it is expected that this trend will continue.

The remaining inquests covered a range of issues

including child protection, timely and accurate medical

diagnosis and mental health management. Of particular

note was an inquest into the traumatic death of Ebony

Simone Napier, an infant living with her young parents.

This infant was found to have multiple fractures and

injuries which were old and recent. The Deputy State

Coroner made 19 recommendations concerning

protection of at-risk babies and children.

Another inquest of note concerned the death of a young

mother of two children who was 23 weeks pregnant with

her third child. Her cause of death was ‘ruptured splenic

artery aneurysm’. In this matter the Deputy State Coroner

made recommendations to a number of persons and

medical associations that education and professional

strategies be directed to the medical profession about

the diagnosis of ruptured splenic artery aneurysm.

In addition to the 62 inquests, the court finalised four

matters that were part-heard at the end of the previous

financial year. There were 10 matters which were part-

heard as at 30 June 2016. In total, the court sat for 318.5

hours, produced 8 584 pages of transcript and delivered

29 findings.

During the year under review, one inquest was held in

regional South Australia (Mount Gambier).

35

AT A GLANCE

2013 2014

2014 2015

2015 2016

CORONERS 2 2 2

STAFF 16.5 16.2 16.7*

DEATHS REPORTED 2 248 2 290 2 430

POST-MORTEMS 1 339 1 683 1 391

INQUEST MATTERS HEARD (# DEATHS)

32 15 62

INQUEST FINDINGS DELIVERED

35 21 29

COURT SITTING HOURS 421.5 373.5 318.5

* From 2015–16, staffing numbers are based on AFTE (Average Full Time Equivalent) which includes vacancies and locum social workers. Staffing establishment has not changed.


LISTING DELAYS

As at 30 June 2016, the court had 54 matters awaiting

inquest, with 48 of these involving a death in custody. This

is slightly fewer than in the previous year.

As at 30 June 2016, there were 1 723 open cases pending

inquiry, which is an increase compared to the previous

year. However, given the slight increase in the number of

deaths reported, this figure is comparable to the previous

year. These open cases are at varying levels of investigation

within the coronial process.

The number of cases under investigation by the Coronial

Investigation Section (a unit with SAPOL which undertakes

specific investigations to assist the Coroner in determining

the need for an inquest) is seven. This is slightly higher than

in the previous reporting period.

Senior Counsels Assisting had a combined total of 55

matters awaiting review as at 30 June 2016.

The Coroners Court works to identify system efficiencies,

however the impact of delays in receipt of reports from

other agencies, the volume of work and the resources to

manage the progression of cases, negatively impacts on

the timeliness of coronial services.

OTHER MATTERS

The State Coroner, Deputy State Coroner and senior staff

continued to provide information and education about

requirements under the Coroners Act 2003 to medical

practitioners, nurses, funeral directors, police, the legal

profession and the wider community through meetings,

presentations and recommendations made in inquest

findings. Strategic meetings with Forensic Science SA

continued to occur quarterly.

Of note this year, the State Coroner, Deputy State Coroner,

both Senior Counsels Assisting, the Coroners Court

Manager and Senior Research Officer (Domestic Violence)

attended an Asia-Pacific Coroners Society Conference in

Hobart in November. Planning has begun in anticipation of

Adelaide hosting the Conference in 2017.

CORONERS COURT

37

SUPPORTING THE COURTS

CAA CONTACT CENTRE

From 1 July 2015, the CAA introduced a Registry Online

to manage electronic lodgment of documents in the

civil jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. This led to the

closure this year of an e-registration mailbox monitored

by the Magistrates Court Contact Centre.

In the year under review, there were 26 926 mailbox

enquiries to the Contact Centre, a 37 per cent increase

compared to the previous year (19 711). There were

101 329 in-bound calls, a four per cent increase on

2014–15 (97 242).

TABLE 15: CONTACT CENTRE CONTACTS

2013 2014

2014 2015

2015 2016

INBOUND CALLS 98 493 97 242 101 329

E-RESPONSE CENTRE MAILBOX

19 488 19 711 26 926

E-REGISTRATION MAILBOX

846 960 N/A

ABANDONMENT RATE (%)

7.9 2.8 8.57

COURT TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES

Court Transcription Services (CTS) is responsible for the

provision of quality reporting and transcription services

to the participating courts of the CAA and its users.

In 2015–16, the branch had an average of 46 full-time-

equivalent staff, comprising court reporters (Court Reporter

Services (CRS)) and audio recorders (Audio Transcription

Services (ATS)).

Units within CAA Divisions support the work of the courts. Some initiatives by these units this year have been noted

earlier in this report. What follows are accounts of performance in the

year under review.2013–14 2014–15 2015–16

CRS ATS CRS ATS CRS ATS

In-court hours * 8 241 2 605 8 303 2 281 8 159 2 890

Pages of transcript produced

202 263 70 426 203 756 75 157 199 118 73 532

TABLE 16: SUPPORT PROVIDED BY CTS

* In-court hours for ATS include both in-court and remote monitoring hours. LIBRARY SERVICES

In 2015–16, the Library responded to 3 219 enquiries,

including 1 388 ready reference and 458 research requests

and published 612 Supreme Court and District Court

judgments on the CAA website to provide access for legal

practitioners and the broader community.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES

Information Technology Services (ITS) provides support and

development services, along with records management

services in the use of information technology in the

courtroom, including audio-visual linking, and elsewhere

in the CAA. The branch also manages third-party

service providers.

AUDIO-VISUAL LINKING (AVL)

The CAA’s use of AVL has increased for prisoner

appearances, giving of evidence by vulnerable and remote

witnesses, and for the presentation of evidence in courts.

In addition to using the AVL facilities, some Adelaide-based

magistrates were this year able to hear circuit matters in

regional centres, and some legal practitioners were also

able to appear via link. These measures were reflected in a

significant increase in the use of AVL during the year.


JURISDICTION 2013–14 2014–15 2015–16

Magistrates Court 11 732 15 350 21 451

Youth Court 331 339 466

Higher Courts 2 240 2 769 3 201

Total 14 303 18 458 25 118

TABLE 17: AVL USE BY COURT

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

The Facilities Management branch ensures the provision of

buildings and infrastructure for the CAA to operate.

This past financial year, the branch successfully delivered

104 capital and minor works projects costing more than

$1.7m and managed more than 5 000 maintenance jobs.

Following successful bilateral funding of $970 000 for full

documentation of repairs to the Sir Samuel Way building

façade, indications are that $10m will be needed to restore

the building façade to an adequate standard. Urgent

rectification works have commenced and are expected to

be complete by November 2016.

SHERIFF’S OFFICE

The Sheriff is a statutory officer appointed pursuant to the

Sheriff’s Act 1978 on the recommendation of the Chief

Justice of the Supreme Court. The Sheriff administers the

Juries Act 1927, and provides an in-court support service,

court security service, prisoner security service and the

service and execution of civil and criminal processes.


The Sheriff has 127 full-time equivalent (FTE) members of

staff, incorporating uniformed officers trained in provision

of emergency services, precinct security, prisoner security

and in-court support. There are also administrative support

officers located within the Sheriff’s Office. A further 90

enforcement officers are contracted to serve and execute

documents and orders throughout SA.

Enforcement

There were 3 306 civil warrants and 11 076 civil summons

issued to the Sheriff for service and execution in 2015–16,

slightly fewer than in the previous year. This may be

because of fewer lodgments in the Magistrates Court and/

or parties using alternative dispute resolution to satisfy and

resolve civil judgments. The success rate to execute and

serve these orders was consistent with the previous year,

with 59 per cent of warrants successfully executed and

64 per cent of summonses served (unsuccessful warrants

and summonses are those where there were no goods to

seize or persons have left addresses or whose whereabouts

are not known).

Security

There were 978 063 court users who submitted to a point-

of-entry search in 2015–16, almost 50 000 fewer than in

previous year (1 028 057). This can be attributed to it being

the first full year since fines payment was moved away from

courts, resulting in less traffic into the buildings. Sheriff’s

Officers confiscated nine items and temporarily removed

6 181 items after point-of-entry searches. Items temporarily

removed included scissors, (diabetic use) syringes and

motorbike helmets.

0

200 000

400 000

600 000

800 000

1 000 000

1 200 000

Total number of court users

2014–15 2015–16

Male

Female

FIGURE 4: TOTAL NUMBER OF COURT USERS

39

Prisoner movement

The CAA is a party to the South Australian Prisoner

Movement and In-Court Management Contract, which

covers prisoner movement and in-court management for

most courts in South Australia. G4S Custodial Services Pty

Ltd, as the contractor, is responsible for prisoner movement

and in-court management for all courts in SA, except in the

Supreme Court (sitting in the Sir Samuel Way Building) and

District Court, where the Sheriff manages prisoners. The

contract has been renewed for a further five years.

In 2015–16, 6 739 Correctional Services’ prisoners were

transported to courts around the State, with G4S providing

in-court management for 3 564 prisoners. Sheriff’s Officers

provided in-court management for 3 175 prisoners

within the Sir Samuel Way Building. G4S transported and

managed 1 291 young offenders at Youth Court sittings.

Juries

A total of 2 235 people served as jurors in 2015–16, of which

1 891 served in Adelaide, 233 in Port Augusta and 111 in

Mount Gambier.

A juror website was launched during the year and has

proven to be very successful. The website allows jurors to

pre-register details, apply to be excused or to defer service,

and to obtain information.

Juror surveys are conducted in the Adelaide, Port Augusta

and Mount Gambier jury districts each sitting month to

measure juror experiences. The Sheriff reviews responses,

which are used to assist with meeting the needs of jurors.

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

TotalJurors

MountGambier

PortAugusta

Adelaide

Jurors are asked if they feel that they have performed a valuable service to the community. In the past year, 72% of jurors felt they had.

HUMAN RESOURCES BRANCH

The Human Resources branch provides governance of

employment of public officers; ensuring compliance with

relevant legislation, directions and determinations from

the Commissioner for Public Employment, and other

applicable whole-of-government policies. The branch

provides centralised organisational development, advisory

and consultancy services, industrial relations management,

work health and safety and injury management and

payroll services.

Employment opportunity programs

Jobs4Youth

In support of public sector youth employment initiatives,

the CAA participated in a Jobs4Youth initiative, placing

a law graduate for 12 months within the Probate Registry

from December 2015.

Work experience

A new work experience policy and student program

was put into effect in time for the 2016 school year. This

involved launching a centralised online application process

and student learning portal. A total of 30 university and

secondary students were placed across courts, chambers

and business units.

Work Health Safety and Injury Management (WHS&IM)

The CAA internal online WHS system document structure

was simplified this year, for easier access to information by

managers and staff.

WHS Internal audit program

All sites audited in 2015 conformed to relevant standards.

Recommendations arising from the internal audit findings

generally ranged from low to moderate risk ratings.

Continuous improvement initiatives have been developed

and have been implemented accordingly. A comprehensive

internal audit program four-year cycle was developed and

began in January 2016.

FIGURE 5: NUMBER OF PEOPLE SERVED AS JURORS IN 2015–16


2014-15 FY

2015-16 FY

$0

$100 000

$200 000

$300 000

$400 000

$500 000

Trav

el

Reha

bilit

atio

n

Regi

ster

ed m

edic

al

Rede

mpt

ion

Oth

er

Lum

p su

m

Lega

l exp

ense

s

Inve

stig

atio

n

Inco

me

mai

nten

ance

Hos

pita

l

FIGURE 6: GROSS WORKERS COMPENSATION EXPENDITURE FOR 2015–16 COMPARED WITH 2014–15

FIGURE 7:OVERVIEW OF CAA STAFF BY GENDER

Workforce statistics

Workforce diversity

The median age of CAA staff as at June 2016 is 47.

FIGURE 8: OVERVIEW OF CAA STAFF BY GENDER

Overview of CAA staff by gender

0100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

FTE'sTotal

% FTE'sby gender

PersonsTotal

% Personsby gender

Male32.75%

Female67.25%

Female66.37%

Male33.63%

701625

Male FemaleTotal

0

50

100

150

200

250

65+60 - 64

55 - 5950 - 54

45 - 4940 - 44

35 - 3930 - 34

25 - 2920 - 24

15 -19

Courts Wellbeing program

In addition to an Employee Assistance Program (EAP), a

Courts Wellbeing program was developed and began as

a trial program in May 2016. The program reflects Tristan

Jepson Memorial Foundation Best Practice Guidelines (an

organisation which works to foreground issues of mental

illness in legal students, lawyers and judges). The program

provides for a Registered Psychologist to be on-site each

fortnight for wellbeing counselling and support to the

Judiciary and staff in the Adelaide CBD.

In the year under review, there were two notifiable

incidents pursuant to Work, Health and Safety Act 2012

(WHS Act) Part 3 and no notices or prosecutions or

enforceable undertakings.


Indigenous employees

The number of employees identifying as being of

Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander has decreased to 22 in

the 2015–16 period. This represents 3.14 per cent of the

CAA workforce.

41

Executives

FIGURE 11: NUMBER OF EXECUTIVES BY GENDER, CLASSIFICATION, AND TENURE STATUS

Leave There were 19 employees on leave without pay as at

30 June 2016.

FIGURE 12: TOTAL DAYS LEAVE TAKEN

Disability

FIGURE 9: TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WITH DISABILITIES (COMMONWEALTH DDA DEFINITION)

FIGURE 10: DISABILITY TYPE (WHERE SPECIFIED)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

EXEC0CEXEC0BEXEC0A

Male 3Female 0

Male 2Female 2

Male 0Female 1

EXEC0CFemale 1

EXEC0BFemale 2

EXEC0BMale 2

EXEC0AMale 3

Ho

urs

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

MiscellaneousSpecial Leave

FamilyCarer's Leave

SickLeave

8.68Days/FTE

1.29Days/FTE 0.74

Days/FTE

0

2

4

6

8

10

Male Female Total

4

6

10

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Psyc

holo

gica

l/psy

chia

tric

0

% o

f CA

A

Sens

ory

0.9%

of C

AA

Inte

llect

ual

0

% o

f CA

A

Phys

ical

0.4%

of C

AA

Disa

bilit

y re

quiri

ng

wor

kpla

ce a

dapt

atio

n

1.4

% o

f CA

A

Mal

e 6

Mal

e 1

Mal

e 3Fe

mal

e 4

Fem

ale

2

Fem

ale

3

Mal

e 0

Fem

ale

0

Mal

e 0

Fem

ale

0


GOVERNANCE AND COLLABORATION

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE STATEMENT

The Council has worked to ensure that there is a framework

in place to promote good governance that encourages and

promotes sound management practices.

The CAA’s Audit and Risk Management Committee (ARM

Committee), which is supported by an internal audit

function, assists the Council and State Courts Administrator

in meeting these governance objectives.

The ARM Committee provides independent assurance

and assistance on the CAA’s risk, control and compliance

framework, ethics, efficiency and effectiveness of business

policies and practices and its internal and external

accountability responsibilities. The committee also updates

the Council and Executive Management Team on the status

of the CAA’s governance framework.

No instances of fraud were reported or detected in the

reporting period.

COMPLAINTS

During 2015–16, the CAA received nine complaints from

the public. Two were process-related, a category that

reflects a general misunderstanding by the complainant

about the processes undertaken to reach a final result

within the courts. Seven complaints were related to the

delivery of service. This category includes staff errors/

omissions, provision of incorrect information and staff

behaviour. Four of those related to the behaviour of

Sheriff’s Officers. When investigated, it was found that the

Sheriff’s Officers had acted reasonably in all circumstances.

Two complaints related to errors made by staff with them

being reminded of the need to ensure provision of accurate

information. The final complaint, from a legal firm, noted

that brochures for courtroom coaching services were in

a public area of the courts. These were removed and the

business responsible was contacted and advised that

advertising paraphernalia is not permitted within court

facilities without appropriate approval.

The CAA at times receives public complaints about

decisions of and/or behaviour of judicial officers. When

received, these are forwarded to the relevant head of

jurisdiction, as the CAA is not in a position to comment on

these issues.

COLLABORATION

The CAA leads or participates in numerous ways within the

justice sector of South Australia.

Through its Joint Rules Advisory Committee, judicial

officers and members of the legal profession meet regularly

to review and amend Rules of Court across all jurisdictions.

The senior members of the State Courts Administration

Council are observers on the Attorney-General’s Criminal

Justice Sector Reform Council (CJSRC), overseeing

strategic reform within the criminal justice sector.

Projects in which the CAA is an active contributor to the

CJSRC include:

• E-Briefs (mentioned earlier in this annual report).

• Intervention Order data interchange – which involves

agencies transferring from and to intervention orders to

simplify and create and up-to-date consistent record.

The bulk of the work in this project is expected to occur

in 2016–17.

43

• Country committals – which involves the Office of

the Director of Public Prosecutions taking over the

committal process from SAPOL, to assess at an earlier

stage those matters to proceed to committal. The bulk

of this work took place this past financial year.

Guest speaking engagements and school activities

The CAA maintains active links with the community

through a Community Reference Group (CRG), comprising

15 community-based associations, which meets three times

a year to comment on community-oriented activities run by

the CAA (e.g. guest speaking, mock public sentencings).

The CAA also contributes to the funding of a Department

of Education and Child Development Outreach teacher,

who is based at Adelaide Magistrates Court and runs

curriculum-linked activities for students and teachers

throughout SA. At present, the Courts Education Manager

position is being reviewed.

This year, there were slightly fewer visits compared to

the previous year. Numbers shown are indicative, as

not all professional speaking engagements (e.g. panel

appearances at conferences) are counted.

From 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016, two judicial officers

spoke to community groups comprising approximately

70 individuals. In addition, judicial officers spoke to 10

professional groups (e.g. SAPOL, Department of Health)

comprising 790 individuals and four groups totalling

310 tertiary students. The Chief Justice addressed

23 conferences and events. From 1 July 2015 to 30 June

2016, CAA staff hosted three tours by community groups

involving 85 visitors, and visited one community group

comprising 30 people. CAA staff spoke to six professional

groups, totalling 140 individuals, and to two tertiary student

groups comprising 50 individuals. This year, the Courts

Education Manager had direct contact with 7 100 school

children and ran professional development programs for

more than 310 teachers.

2015–16 FINANCIAL OVERVIEW

The CAA's operations for the year ended 30 June 2016 resulted in a net surplus of $1.8 million.

Total expenses increased by $1.1 million in 2015–16,

mainly due to increase in employee benefits expenses

from previous non-filled vacancies, offset by reduction

in workers’ compensation expenses.

Total income decreased by $0.4 million in 2015–16,

mainly due to reduced recovery from the Attorney-

General’s Department since the transfer of the Fines

Payment Unit in 2014.

ACCOUNT PAYMENT PERFORMANCE

Information on account payment performance is now

published on the Department of Treasury and Finance

http://www.treasury.sa.gov.au/our-department/

services/services.

44 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW

CONSULTANT PURPOSE OF CONSULTANCY NUMBER TOTAL $

Value below $10 000

Various Various

Sub-total 4 25 000

Value $10 000 - $50 000

DPTI Feasibility study and structural review on building sites 30 000

Mercer Consulting

Executive restructure and reclassification review 14 000

Galpins WHS&IM audit 25 000

Sub-total 3 69 000

Total 7 94 000

DESTINATIONS REASONS FOR TRAVEL NUMBER OF OFFICERS

TOTAL COST TO CAA $

Judicial - Singapore Speaker at international conference 1 4 273

Judicial - New Zealand Australasian Chief Judges Meeting 1 4 591

Judicial - Washington, USA International Association of Women Judges Conference 2 11 281

Non-judicial - USA/Canada Transformative Leadership Conference/Review court technology 1* 7 700

Non-judicial - New Zealand Court Administrators Conference 1* 1 125

Non-judicial - USA Court Technology Conference/Review court technology 2 19 504

* same officer (1)

CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT

Information of contractual arrangement can be found on the South

Australian Tenders and Contracts website https://www.tenders.sa.gov.

au/tenders/contract/list.do?showSearch=false&action=contract-search-

submit&issuingBusinessId=169.

CONSULTANCIES

Expenditure on consultancies amounted to $94 000 during 2015–16.

TABLE 18:EXPENDITURE ON CONSULTANCIES 2015–16

OVERSEAS TRAVEL

In 2015–16, four judicial officers and three non-judicial officers travelled overseas.

TABLE 19:OVERSEAS TRAVEL 2015–16



GLOSSARY1

Appeal

To take a case to a higher court (or other relevant decision

making body) in order to challenge a decision. The person

or organisation who appeals is the appellant.

Application

A spoken or written request or appeal2.

Burden of proof

The obligation to prove what is alleged. In criminal cases,

this obligation rests on the prosecution, which must prove

its case beyond reasonable doubt. In civil cases, it rests on

the plaintiff, who must prove his or her case on the balance

of probabilities. Sometimes, however, this burden shifts, for

example, where the defendant raises particular defences.

Civil

Law which is not criminal, that is, law between individuals.

Complaint

The way to initiate a prosecution for a summary offence in

criminal proceedings.

Indictable offence

A serious crime for which a person may be tried by a judge

and jury.

Information

The way to initiate a prosecution for an indictable offence.

Jurisdiction

The authority of a court to decide matters brought before it.

Also the geographical limits within which a court order can be

enforced.

pro bono

‘For the public good’, denoting legal work undertaken without

charge, especially for a client on low income.

Summary offences

A minor offence heard and decided in a Magistrates Court and

not sent for trial before a judge and/or jury.

Summons

An order to appear at court.

Warrants

In criminal law, a legal document that gives authority to a police

officer to take the action set out in the warrant. The Sheriff

executes civil warrants such as warrants of possession and sale of

goods seized.

1 Source: The SA Legal Services Commission Law Handbook. http://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ (2016) and Legal Services Commission Law Handbook 4th edition 1999.

2 Source: Macquarie Dictionary 3rd edition 2001.

108 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16WWW.COURTS.SA.GOV.AU

2015–16 - courts · 2 courts administration authority annual report 2015–16 executive summary...

Documents