2015–16 - courts · 2 courts administration authority annual report 2015–16 executive summary...
TRANSCRIPT
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.
4 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16
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
6 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16
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
8 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16
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.
10 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16
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.
12 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16
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
14 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16
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
Less than one month 8 12
More than one month but less than two months 13 10
More than two months but less than three months 3 4
More than three months but less than six months 6 7
More than six months but less than 12 months 3 5
More than 12 months 0 0
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
Less than one month 0 1
More than one month but less than two months 0 1
More than two months but less than three months 0 0
More than three months but less than six months 0 0
More than six months but less than 12 months 0 0
More than 12 months 0 0
TOTAL VERDICTS OUTSTANDING 0 2
TABLE 5: SUPREME COURT CRIMINAL, RESERVED VERDICTS FOLLOWING A TRIAL BY A JUDGE SITTING ALONE
16 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16
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
18 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16
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. %
More than 12 months old (target ≤ 10%)*
1 449 51.6 1126 48.2 993 44.3
More than 24 months old (target = zero)
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
Less than one month 3 5
More than one month but less than two months 4 2
More than two months but less than three months 1 1
More than three months but less than six months 2 1
More than six months but less than 12 months 3 3
More than 12 months 3 4
TOTAL JUDGMENTS OUTSTANDING 16 16
TABLE 7: DISTRICT COURT CIVIL RESERVED JUDGMENTS FOLLOWING A TRIAL
AGE PROFILE DECISIONS 2014–15
DECISIONS 2015–16
Less than one month 10 5
More than one month but less than two months 0 7
More than two months but less than three months 0 6
More than three months but less than six months 0 0
More than six months but less than 12 months 4 7
More than 12 months 0 1
TOTAL JUDGMENTS OUTSTANDING 14 26
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. %
More than 12 months old (target ≤ 10%)*
273 17.0 340 21.1 340 24.2
More than 24 months old (target = zero)
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
Less than one month 0 2
More than one month but less than two months 0 3
More than two months but less than three months 1 1
More than three months but less than six months 0 4
More than six months but less than 12 months 2 4
More than 12 months 1 0
TOTAL JUDGMENTS OUTSTANDING 4 14
TABLE 10: DISTRICT COURT CRIMINAL, RESERVED VERDICTS FOLLOWING A TRIAL BY A JUDGE SITTING ALONE
20 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16
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
22 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16
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.
24 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16
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.
It is recommended that consideration be given to amending
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.
It is recommended that consideration be given to amending
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.
26 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16
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
to AbusePreventionProgram
226
407
301
520
2015–16Men accepted
to AbusePreventionProgram
2015–16Men referred
to AbusePreventionProgram
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.
28 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16
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.
30 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16
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
32 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16
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.
34 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16
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.
36 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16
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.
38 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16
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.
SUPPORTING THE COURTS
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
40 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 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.
SUPPORTING THE COURTS
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
42 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16
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
45 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
46 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
47 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
48 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
49 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
50 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
51 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
52 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
53 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
54 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
55 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
56 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
57 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
58 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
59 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
60 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
61 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
62 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
63 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
64 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
65 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
66 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
67 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
68 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
69 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
70 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
71 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
72 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
73 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
74 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
75 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
76 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
77 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
78 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
79 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
80 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
81 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
82 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
83 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
84 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
85 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
86 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
87 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
88 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
89 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
90 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
91 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
92 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
93 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
94 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
95 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
96 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
97 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
98 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
99 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
100 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
101 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
102 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
103 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
104 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
105 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16 - FINANCIAL OVERVIEW
106 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 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.
107
108 COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT 2015–16WWW.COURTS.SA.GOV.AU