magistrates court annual report 2014 - 2015€¦ · web viewmagistrates court annual report 2014...

Magistrates Court Annual

Report

2014 - 2015

Table of Contents

AIM OF THE COURT......................................................................................................................... 5

OVERVIEW OF THE COURT............................................................................................................... 7

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...................................................................................................................... 8

COURT LOCATIONS.......................................................................................................................... 9

MAGISTRATES................................................................................................................................. 9

COURT STAFF................................................................................................................................. 10

BENCH JUSTICES............................................................................................................................ 10

THE COURT’S NATIONAL INVOLVEMENT........................................................................................11

CASELOAD..................................................................................................................................... 12

PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS.......................................................................................................... 13

SPECIALIST YOUTH JUSTICE COURT PILOT.......................................................................................16

COURT USER GROUPS.................................................................................................................... 17

CRIMINAL & GENERAL DIVISION LEGISLATION...............................................................................18

IT & TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS......................................................................................................... 19

LEGAL EDUCATION INITIATIVES......................................................................................................19

DISABILITY ACCESS TO SERVICES....................................................................................................21

COURT SUPPORT SERVICES............................................................................................................ 21

CORONIAL DIVISION...................................................................................................................... 24

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL..................................................................................................27

COURT STATISTICS......................................................................................................................... 33

COURT FINANCES........................................................................................................................... 46

MAGISTRATES CHAMBERS

GPO Box 354

Hobart Tasmania 7000

The Honourable Vanessa Goodwin MLCAttorney-GeneralParliament House HOBART TAS 7000

Dear Attorney-General

MAGISTRATES COURT ANNUAL REPORT 2014-2015

I take pleasure in enclosing a volume that contains my Annual Report with regard to the Magistrates Court as required by the:

Magistrates Court Act 1987, section 17C; and

Coroners Act 1995 section 69.

Yours sincerely

Michael HillCHIEF MAGISTRATE

13 October 2015

Aim of the CourtThe aim of the Magistrates Court is for a fair, just and safe Tasmania. We serve the

community by providing access to an accountable, independent and impartial system

of justice administered according to law.

PurposeThe purpose of the Magistrates Court of Tasmania is to provide an open, transparent

and accessible system of justice, to apply the Rule of Law, and to protect and respect

individuals’ rights.

Values We value judicial independence and we act independently from Government in

the exercise of our judicial functions.

Our staff behave with integrity and respect, are accountable, cooperative, act without bias and in accordance with the State Service Code of Conduct.

For more detailed information relating to the Court’s strategic plan and its day-to-day operations (services, locations, decisions, court lists) readers should access the Court’s website at www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au

Aim of the Court

http://www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/

Overview of the Court

Overview of the CourtThe Magistrates Court of Tasmania is a statutory body created as a Court of record

by the Magistrates Court Act 1987 section 3A that comprises the Chief Magistrate,

the Deputy Chief Magistrate and the Magistrates.

Magistrates have jurisdiction to hear and determine a broad range of legal matters.

Magistrates sitting in Courts of Petty Sessions hear and determine simple offences,

crimes triable summarily under State and Commonwealth legislation, breaches of

duty, applications under various State and Commonwealth statutes, and exercise a

wide range of appellate and review functions. Magistrates also hear simple and

indictable offences in the Youth Justice Division as well as exercising child protection

responsibilities.

Magistrates in the Civil Division hear and determine civil matters to a value of

$50,000 or an unlimited amount with the consent of the parties. Matters up to a

value of $5,000 are dealt with as Minor Civil Claims and undergo simplified

procedures prior to, and at hearing.

Statutory provision is also made for the Court to sit in the following Divisions:

Civil Division

Coronial Division

Youth Justice Division

Children’s Division

Administrative Appeals Division

Mining Division

Magistrates also sit as Coroners to conduct Inquests into sudden deaths, fires and

explosions.

Magistrates also sit as chairpersons of various statutory tribunals, including the Anti-

Discrimination Tribunal, the Motor Accidents Compensation Tribunal, and the Mining

Tribunal.

AcknowledgmentsThe Court acknowledges the constructive working relationship that the Court enjoyed

with the Attorney-General of Tasmania, the Honourable Vanessa Goodwin MLC,

during the reporting period.

Further, I express my appreciation to the Secretary of the Department of Justice, Mr

Simon Overland, for his assistance and support. I extend that same acknowledgment

and appreciation to all officers of the central office of the Department of Justice.

In addition, I express my appreciation to the Court volunteers for the support services

they provide to litigants, witnesses and others involved in proceedings before the

Court. The Tasmanian community is indebted to them for their service which is

valuable and selfless.

Magistrate Michael Daly is Deputy Chief Magistrate. I express my appreciation to

him for his support throughout the reporting period. I also express my appreciation to

all Magistrates, the Administrator of Courts, Wayne Johnson, and all Court staff, for

their dedication and professionalism throughout the reporting period and during my

time as a Magistrate and Chief Magistrate.

Court LocationsDuring the reporting year, Magistrates constituted courts of petty sessions under the

Justices Act 1959, and sat in the various Divisions of the Magistrates Court at the

following locations around the State:

daily court sittings at Hobart, Launceston, Devonport, and Burnie;

circuit court sittings at Queenstown, Smithton, Currie, Whitemark, Scottsdale, St Helens, and Huonville.

MagistratesIn July and August of this year long serving Magistrate Don Jones retired. I take this

opportunity to thank him for his service to the Court and in particular to the

community of the North West Coast.

Another long serving Magistrate, my brother Magistrate Tim Hill, retired in August

after in excess of 20 years service in the Devonport and Launceston Courts, and it is

with great personal sadness that I acknowledge his passing in March 2015. Tim was

a most popular and well regarded Magistrate who gave splendid service to the

community over an extended period of time. I express my condolences to his wife

Sue, children Rob and Georgina, and grandson Archie.

This year also saw the appointment of two new Magistrates. Magistrate Andrew

McKee was appointed to Devonport, and Magistrate Sharon Cure was appointed to

Launceston after previously serving as a Magistrate in Victoria. I take this

opportunity to formally welcome both to the Tasmanian Magistrates Court.

In recent times the Court has come under intense budgetary pressures and while I

acknowledge that the Court cannot be insulated against these, I must say the

resources are at the present time in my view inappropriately stretched. Magistrates

need an appropriate level of administrative support to properly deliver justice to the

Tasmanian community and decisions need to be made with that objective in mind. In

my view the quality of justice cannot be measured by a budget bottom line only. I

trust that those in the highest levels of government making these decisions may bear

these comments in mind.

It was also with a note of sadness that earlier this year I advised Her Excellency, the

Governor, that I would be retiring on 21 October 2015. I was appointed as Magistrate

Special Commissioner for the Small Claims Court on 16 July 1985, moved to the

Criminal Bench on 1 January 1988, and was appointed Chief Magistrate on 3 August

2009. I have been very fortunate to serve the Tasmanian community over that time

and have very much enjoyed the roles. I take this opportunity to thank my colleagues,

court staff, legal practitioners, prosecutors and others who have appeared before me

and have supported me in my role. Whilst Magistrates are a very visible and key part

of the judicial process it takes many people performing a range of important roles to

ensure that our judicial system operates fairly and in accordance with the rule of law.

During the current reporting period, ending 30 June 2015, the Magistrates Court was

constituted by the following Magistrates:

Hobart:Chief Magistrate M R Hill

Magistrate S F Mollard

Magistrate O M McTaggart

Magistrate C P Webster

Magistrate G A Hay

Deputy Chief Magistrate M F Daly

Magistrate C J Rheinberger

Magistrate S J Cooper

Launceston:Magistrate T J Hill (retired)

Magistrate R J Marron

Magistrate S J Brown

Magistrate S E Cure

Devonport:Magistrate M B Bartlett

Magistrate M J Brett

Magistrate A R McKee

Burnie:Magistrate D J Jones (retired)

Temporary Magistrates:Magistrate S R Carey

Magistrate R E Chandler

Court StaffAt the end of the reporting period (30 June 2015), the Magistrates Court had an

establishment (excluding Magistrates) of 58.7 full time equivalent staff distributed

across the four permanent court registries in the State (Hobart, Launceston,

Devonport and Burnie). As at 30 June 2014 actual establishment numbers were at

54.26 full time equivalent staff.

Bench JusticesThe Court once again expresses its gratitude for the voluntary contributions of the

Bench Justices who deliver justice to the community by adjudicating in certain traffic

plea courts, preliminary proceedings on indictable offences, and after-hours courts

dealing with urgent applications for bail and family violence orders. The Bench

Justices’ contribution to the criminal justice system in this State is commendable and

invaluable.

The Court’s National Involvement The Court continues its involvement in national and international forums for the

discussion of justice and court administration in a variety of jurisdictions exercised by

the Court. During the reporting year the Court was represented at the following

meetings and conferences:

Judicial Council of Australia Colloquium, 10-12 October 2014

Council of Chief Magistrates Meeting, 22 October 2014

National Judicial Council of Australia Leadership Program, 23-25 October

2014

Asia Pacific Coroners Society Annual Conference, 11-14 November 2014

Judicial College of Australia Governing Council meeting, 28 November 2014

National Judicial College Council Meetings, 7 February and 23 May 2015

Cultural Diversity and the Law Conference, 13-15 March 2015

Council of Chief Magistrates Meeting, 18-19 March 2015

Tasmanian Magistrates Conference The Magistrates professional development program continued with a conference held

in Hobart on 16-17 October 2014 and a one day conference held in Campbell Town

on 24 April 2015.

A range of presentations were delivered by guest presenters and Magistrates. These

combined efforts resulted in most interesting programs at both conferences. Topics

included housing options in Tasmania, sentencing, new advances in forensic

science, the court and forensic disability services, criminal case management,

coronial update, youth justice and mental health lists. I express my gratitude to those

whose presentations have significantly contributed to the ongoing development of the

expertise of the Tasmanian Magistracy.

CaseloadThe Court continues to dispose of its workload in the majority of the traditional areas

within acceptable timeframes.

An overview of the Court’s statistical performance during the 2014-15 reporting year

shows:

Case Lodgements:

o criminal (adult) 20,729

o criminal (youth) 1,464

o civil (minor civil, civil, residential tenancy) 4,509

o miscellaneous applications 1,927

o restraint order applications 1,223

o family violence order applications 909

o coronial cases 542

o child protection applications 659

o administrative appeals 34

o Anti-Discrimination Tribunal 40

o Motor Accidents Compensation Tribunal 24

TOTAL 32,060

Fines, Costs, Fees and Levies imposed:

o Fines 3,312,061

o Criminal court fees 710,504

o Court fees (civil claims, applications etc.) 648,524

o Victims of Crime Compensation levies 263,240

o Appeals Costs Fund levies 28,510

TOTAL $4,962,839

Problem-solving CourtsDuring the reporting year the Court continued its activities in the areas of problem-

solving justice. This approach to justice requires courts to acknowledge that rather

than simply processing cases, the court system should be concerned with taking

approaches in an attempt to address the problems that lead to a person’s

appearance in court, and work to change offender behaviour and improve public

safety where appropriate.

Currently the Court takes this approach in the following:

Court Mandated Drug Diversion (CMD) program;

Diversion List (DL);

Family Violence Lists;

Youth Justice Special List.

The Court continued to work to improve collaboration between participants in these

problem-solving justice approaches over the course of 2014-2015, building on what

has been achieved in previous years.

Court Mandated Drug Diversion ProgramThe Court Mandated Drug Diversion Program (CMD) was introduced in 2007 to

divert people, whose offending behaviour is linked to illicit drug use, into drug

treatment interventions.

The CMD program has capacity for approximately 80 defendants statewide. Referral

to the program under a Drug Treatment Order can involve a range of treatment

options depending on what is most suitable for an offender’s needs, but may include

some or all of the following:

Individual counselling;

Group counselling;

Random illicit drug testing;

Residential rehabilitation;

Case management;

Detoxification (via the State Alcohol and Drug Service).

In the 2011 the Court adjusted the manner in which it dealt with CMD clients by

instituting listing practices whereby on average seven Magistrates across the State

hear and determine CMD matters. This adjustment has allowed the Court to develop

greater expertise in illicit drug cases and improve its internal communication with

respect to CMD clients.

The program was found to be largely successful in achieving the following short-term

outcomes:

Relapse prevention or delay

Offenders addressed criminogenic drug treatment needs

Services worked together effectively

Services achieved best practice

Courts have had more options to respond appropriately to drug using offenders (Evaluation Report, November 2008)

To facilitate the continued success of CMD, the Court has:

modified its listing arrangements to provide offenders with greater access to program staff and legal representation;

modified its information management systems to better reflect case processes;

organised professional development for judicial officers in the area of therapeutic jurisprudence and problem-solving justice;

provided regular feedback to the Department of Justice on the strengths and weaknesses of the program, including the integration and quality of drug treatment services.

CMD has been successful in diverting a large group of offenders away from prison

into community-based treatment and has had some positive impacts on delaying

relapse or a return to crime.

Diversion ListAnother key offender diversion program operated in the Court is the Diversion List

(DL). The pilot program commenced in May 2007 in the Hobart Magistrates Court

and has now become a permanent feature of Court operations. During the reporting

period the DL list was expanded to the Burnie and Devonport Courts. Presently, the

List sits three times a month in Hobart and once a month in Launceston, Burnie and

Devonport, and is presided over by specialist Magistrates (who also preside over

general lists).

During the reporting period the Hobart Diversion List was further expanded to include

persons with acquired brain injuries or cognitive disabilities who commit summary

offences.

The DL is a ‘problem solving court’ program that diverts eligible defendants to mental

health disability and other welfare services to address the underlying issues of their

criminal behaviour. Using provisions within the Bail Act 1994 and the Sentencing Act

1997, the MHDL seeks to provide an alternative to traditional criminal sanctions

where the mental illness is causative of the offending behaviour. Persons charged

with either a summary offence or a minor indictable offence triable summarily are

eligible to enter the List, while persons charged with sexual offences and family

violence offences are ineligible.

Family Violence ListsUpon the commencement of the Family Violence Act 2004, the Court began listing

separate court sessions for family violence matters in order to improve its response

to these matters and co-ordination with relevant support agencies. These designated

family violence court lists are supported by specialist police prosecutors.

The Program was re-launched in April 2011 to incorporate new individual and group-

based interventions. The Court looks forward to working with Police Prosecutions

and Community Corrections over the course of the coming year.

Contest Mention SystemA detailed evaluation of the contest mention system was completed in November

2012.

The evaluation report presented information relating to the effectiveness of the

system as a pre-trial hearing for summary offences or indictable offences triable

summarily which aims to facilitate early guilty pleas and narrow the issues in dispute.

The contest mention mechanism puts in place a process which enables a defendant,

if they are going to plead guilty to an offence heard in the Magistrates Court, to do so

at the earliest possible stage of the pre-trial proceedings.

The report identified areas where improvement, reform or further evaluation of the

scheme would be appropriate.

Among the recommendations contained in the report were:

1. Tasmania’s contest mention hearing scheme should continue to operate as a

statewide scheme that ensures equality of access to the process for all

Tasmanians regardless of where they are located.

2. Legislation should be developed – perhaps via the Magistrates Court

(Criminal & General Division) Bill - to provide explicit statutory authority for the

Magistrates Court in summary cases to conduct contest mention hearings

and for Magistrates to indicate the sentence likely to be imposed on a guilty

plea entered at the contest mention stage of the proceedings, and for the

Chief Magistrate to give any directions and make any rules required for this

purpose.

3. The Magistrates Court establish a Contest Mention Working Group, chaired

by a Magistrate and including other Magistrates, and relevant internal and

external stakeholders.

4. Legislative provision should be made for costs orders against either defence

counsel or prosecution agencies, if they fail without reasonable excuse to

comply with procedural obligations.

5. A specific data collection strategy should be established with other relevant

court-based participants in contest mention hearings, such as Tasmania

Police and the Legal Aid Commission, to enable a further evaluation of the

“net benefits” of contest mention hearings by the end of 2015.

A copy of the full evaluation report is available on the Magistrates Court website at:

www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/

Specialist Youth Justice Court PilotIn January 2011 the Magistrates Court in Hobart embarked upon a pilot project to

trial a new approach to dealing with Youth Justice matters that come before it which

has resulted in a Specialised Youth Justice Court Pilot.

In 2013 the Court completed and published an analysis and evaluation of the

Specialised Youth Justice Court to assess whether the aims of the project have been

achieved. A copy of the evaluation including findings and recommendations is

available on the Courts’ website at www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au. The Report is

an invaluable resource and will be useful in guiding continual improvements to better

achieve the original aims of the project.

The Court process involves a single Magistrate hearing all youth justice cases; and

the development of a “specialist list” involving a therapeutic, bail-based approach to

cases involving abuse of alcohol and drugs, mental health problems, or any other

particular problem or combination of problems where the Court might appropriately

intervene. Complex matters are transferred into a “specialist list” in order to receive

more intensive supervision by the Court and appropriate case management by the

relevant agencies.

The purpose of the list is to have one Magistrate dealing with all youth justice matters

to allow for consistency of approach and hopefully more time to address issues that

are relevant to many young offenders such as alcohol and drug use, homelessness,

illiteracy, education problems and many others.

The aims of the pilot were to achieve:

1. Improvement of timeliness to finalisation of cases

2. Encouragement of more consistency in the Court’s decision

3. Development and application of specialist expertise in youth justice matters

4. Better coordination of youth justice services to the Court

5. Increased collaborative approaches between relevant agencies



The Specialised Youth Justice Court Pilot can be seen as consolidating the problem-

solving justice approach in the Court. The Court acknowledges again the assistance

of the Tasmanian Police Service in providing dedicated prosecutors, the Director of

Legal Aid for providing dedicated legal practitioners, and all those government and

non-government bodies who have assisted in building a team approach which should

lead to better outcomes for young offenders.

Court User GroupsThe Court has established a statewide structure of Court User Groups in each of the

permanent court locations in Hobart, Launceston, Devonport and Burnie. The

concept of ‘Court User Groups’ had been discussed at previous Tasmanian

Magistrates Conferences and had received widespread support from Magistrates in

terms of strengthening the Court’s consultative processes with a range of court

users, including the legal profession and a range of court support agencies.

The Court User Groups assist with feedback on the operation of the courts and

provide useful input which can be included in the Court’s strategic planning

processes. Regional and relatively informal consultation processes with key

stakeholders are also likely to improve the Court’s service delivery, and the status

and reputation of the Court within the broader community.

The establishment of the user groups builds on the Court’s goals of community

engagement and continuous improvement.

A wide range of organisations considered major stakeholders of the Court have

accepted positions on the Court User Groups, including the:

Law Society of Tasmania

Tasmanian Bar Association

Tasmania Police

Community Corrections

Legal Aid Commission

Victims Support Service

Disability, Child, Youth and Family Services (DHHS), incorporating Child Protection Services and Youth Justice Services

Statewide Mental Health Services (DHHS)

Aboriginal Legal Service

Community Legal Centres

Tasmanian Council of Social Service (TasCOSS)

Court User Group meetings were held across the State again in this reporting period

and continue to assist in better service provision to court stakeholders.

Criminal & General Division Legislation An internal Steering Committee has continued to develop drafting instructions for a

new suite of legislation governing the procedures applicable to the Court’s criminal

and general jurisdiction.

When enacted, the proposed Magistrates Court (Criminal & General Division)

legislative package will result in:

a new Magistrates Court (Criminal & General Division) Act

a new Magistrates Court (Criminal & General Division) Rules

a new Magistrates Court (Criminal & General Division) Fees Regulations

a new Restraint Orders Act

consequential amendments to the Justices Act 1959, the Magistrates Court Act 1987, the Supreme Court (Civil Procedure) Act 1932 and other court-related legislation

The Court’s ability to manage the resolution of cases in a timely manner is dependent

on the legislative framework governing the Court’s processes. The current

framework is provided by the Justices Act 1959. The proposed new legislation will

help to expedite the criminal litigation process while protecting fundamental rights to

a fair trial.

The proposed Bill includes such things as early prosecution disclosure, earlier entry

of pleas, fewer adjournments, facilitating the summoning of police officers as

witnesses, shorter preliminary proceedings on serious indictable charges, and

straightforward methods of evidence presentation.

The legislative package will propose a number of initiatives, including:

new case management procedures, standards, and sentence indication powers designed to promote the just and efficient determination of matters

a new prosecution and defence disclosure framework for disclosure of prosecution evidence and some defences

a new way of commencing criminal proceedings via a “court attendance notice” instead of a “charge sheet” or Complaint

new contempt of court powers and increased powers for the Court to control its own process

increased property value thresholds for matters that may be dealt with summarily in the Magistrates Court

a clear and contemporary scale of legal costs

Whilst it has been a long running project I am hopeful that a draft Bill will be available

for comment and consultation with stakeholders later this year. When implemented I

am confident that it will deliver a more modern and efficient process in the

Magistrates Court for those who use the Court’s services.

IT & Technology Projects

Video-conferencing facilitiesThe Court’s video-conference facilities increase the community’s access to justice for

witnesses and defendants in custody to attend court by video link from any location in

Tasmania, interstate or overseas. Video-conferencing substantially reduces the cost

of adducing evidence from witnesses residing interstate and overseas. The facilities

use large screens installed for evidence presentation. All persons present in court

are able to see and hear these witnesses. Provision has also been made for

vulnerable witnesses to give their evidence remotely from a protected witness room

in the court building or elsewhere, and the entire video conference system has been

integrated into the Court’s digital audio recording system.

Legal Education InitiativesDuring the reporting year, Magistrates and Court officers were engaged in a range of

legal education programs that are aimed at improving the understanding of the

justice system for a number of groups, such as young lawyers, prosecutors,

probation officers, justices of the peace, legal studies students, and community

groups.

Legal Practice CourseSince 1997, the Hobart Magistrates have been delivering lectures, and supervising

practical courtroom exercises, for university law graduates who are enrolled in the six

month Legal Practice Course. This is conducted between February and August each

year.

The sessions are supervised by the Court’s Criminal Law Practice and Advocacy

unit. Magistrates convene mock courts for two to three hours every week after court

adjourns in the afternoon to introduce law graduates to the courtroom environment in

preparation for when they commence legal practice. The graduates prepare and

deliver applications, make submissions, deliver pleas in mitigation, and conduct

minor contested hearings. The Magistrates provide feedback to the trainees on their

delivery, content, and advocacy skills. The exercises form part of the assessment for

the unit.

Based on feedback from course participants, the Criminal Law Practice and

Advocacy unit is considered to be one of the most practical units studied by the

trainees as the Magistrates Court is the jurisdiction in which most junior lawyers are

likely to practice in the early years of their professional life.

CourtWatchAs part of the Legal Practice Course each year, the Magistrates Court host trainees

for a day as part of our CourtWatch program. On a succession of days over a two

week period, small groups of trainees are shown the practices and procedures of the

Court in both its administrative and judicial functions.

Trainees sit in court with the Court Clerks to observe proceedings, and “shadow”

their allocated Magistrate for the day. Trainees are given an opportunity to discuss

issues that have arisen during the day before the Magistrate in court. They are also

given an opportunity to observe how the administrative tasks of the Court are

conducted in the registry, including filing, listing and record-keeping duties.

It is hoped that the trainees will gain a better understanding of the legislative and

administrative requirements of the Magistrates Court, so they will be better equipped

to comply with the challenges of legal practice.

Sentencing WorkshopsSentencing Workshops were originally developed in 2002 as a joint initiative of the

Magistrates Court, the Supreme Court, Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania, Office of

the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Department of Police and Emergency

Management, the Neighbourhood Watch Association, and the Crime Prevention and

Community Safety Council.

Information about the sentencing workshops can be found at:

http://www.courtlists.tas.gov.au/Sentencing/

http://www.courtlists.tas.gov.au/Sentencing/

Over a number of years, Magistrates and officers of the Magistrates Court of

Tasmania have conducted numerous sentencing workshops around the State to

explain the sentencing process and sentencing principles. Participants in the

workshops are then invited to apply the principles to fictitious cases drawn from a

sample that occurs on a daily basis in the Magistrates Court.

Workshops have been organised for Adult Education classes, for school groups, for

members of Parliament, and for relevant occupational groups such as probation

officers and court support workers, and for the public generally during events such as

Seniors’ Week.

The workshops have been very well received, and have resulted in a better

understanding of the complex task of sentencing, including matters taken into

consideration, and the weight to be attached to the wide range of factors relevant to

sentencing. The workshops now form a permanent feature of the Court’s strategic

plan.

Web-Publication of Magistrates’ DecisionsDuring the reporting year, decisions from our criminal jurisdiction were published on

the Magistrates Court website. Magistrates’ decisions are now available on the

internet for access by legal practitioners and other interested persons. The Court now

publishes decisions on its website from the following Divisions of the Court:

Criminal & General Division

Civil Division

Coronial Division

Administrative Appeals Division

Anti-Discrimination Tribunal

(refer to the Magistrates Court website www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/decisions)

Disability Access to ServicesIn January 2011 the Department of Justice launched the Disability Access and

Inclusion Plan Communication Strategy and formed a Disability Working Group with

representatives from each Output, including the Magistrates Court. The object is to

ensure people with any form of disability are able to fully participate, contribute and

http://www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/decisions

achieve their potential, and to exercise self-determination and responsibility as

citizens in Tasmania.

The Magistrates Court is participating in the Disability Working Group, and the

Programs, Services and Accessibility Working Party to examine and improve not only

physical access to court buildings but access via all mediums to programs and

services (such as telephone enquiries, website information resources, court forms

etc.).

Court Support ServicesI acknowledge and thank the range of court support services which are provided, on

a voluntary basis, to assist clients who are having difficulty in understanding the

Court process or accessing legal advice or representation.

Salvation Army - Court and Prison ChaplaincyA Salvation Army Chaplain attends court on a regular basis to offer help and support

through the Court process to offenders, their families, victims, and witnesses. This

service can be important as a referral service to other programs such as:

personal development programs

alcohol and drug programs

housing and homeless services

aged care assistance

women's domestic violence services

financial counselling.

Migrant Resource Centre The Migrant Resource Centre assists humanitarian migrants who have entered

Tasmania in the last five years when they are involved with the Court system.

The Migrant Resource Centre provides the following case management support

services:

support and advocacy for people proceeding through the justice system

point of liaison between Police, Courts, Legal Aid, Department of Justice,

Corrective Services and clients

support for clients to report incidents to the Police and the Office of the Anti-

Discrimination Commissioner

education and awareness raising on legal issues for clients

capacity building for services who work with culturally and linguistically

diverse community members

referrals to relevant agencies within the justice system such as Legal Aid,

Hobart Community Legal Service, Women's Legal Service, etc.

referrals to other relevant government and non-government agencies.

The case management services ensure clients, who are proceeding through the

justice system, understand the information relating to their legal matter and are

treated with cultural sensitivity.

Save the ChildrenThe 'Supporting Young People on Bail' Program commenced in May 2011 in the

Magistrates Court (Youth Justice Division) in Hobart. An initiative of Save the

Children Fund (Australia), the program assists young people, not subject to other

court orders, while they are on bail. This program has helped numerous young

persons while on bail to not reoffend.

Provision has been made for an interview room at the Hobart Magistrates Court for a

Youth Worker from Save the Children to interview the young person and develop a

Bail Support Plan. The plan is designed to identify the recreational, educational and

vocational/employment goals and aspirations of the young person. The Bail Plan is

presented to the Magistrate in court, and progress on the plan is reported at

subsequent appearances.

There are four referral streams to Save the Children - the Specialist Youth Justice

Magistrate, Youth Justice (DHHS), a Youth Worker identifying a young person in

court, or the Police (Early Intervention Unit).

Baptcare and Mission AustraliaOther services that actively engage with the Youth Justice Court are Baptcare and

Mission Australia offering assistance and support to young people with a range of

needs, such as homelessness, alcohol and drug problems, education and training,

family breakdown, and mental illness.

Community Legal ServicesIn each region of the State the Court is assisted by the various Community Legal

Services.

The Hobart Community Legal Service has offices in Hobart and Bridgewater. Along

with the provision of free legal advice, the HCLS operates the Volunteer Court

Support Scheme. In Launceston the Launceston Community Legal Centre provides

free legal advice and referral to Legal Aid and private practitioners. In Burnie and

Devonport the North West Community Legal Centre Inc. provides a similar service.

All these organisations assist the Court greatly in preparing parties on how the Court

process operates and what is expected to happen in the courtroom.

Coronial DivisionThe jurisdiction and operation of the Coronial Division is set out in the Coroners Act

1995, and the Coroners Rules 2006. This report is submitted pursuant to the

Coroners Act 1995 s69.

Coroners have the power to inquire into reportable deaths, fires, and explosions.

The purpose of the coronial jurisdiction is to learn from the circumstances

surrounding deaths, fires and explosions with a view to reducing the likelihood of

these arising again in the future. In addition, coroners undertake the primary

investigation into those deaths where the circumstances appear to be suspicious.

Coroner Olivia McTaggart continued her role as the Chief Magistrate’s delegate and

full-time Coroner, and Coroner Simon Cooper was allocated a full-time coronial case-

load in April. Coroners Rod Chandler and Stephen Carey continued to provide part-

time assistance.

I also acknowledge the Coronial Division’s continued working relationships with:

the State Forensic Pathologist Dr Chris Lawrence, Forensic Pathologist Dr Don Ritchey, approved Pathologists Dr Terry Brain and Dr Ruchira Fernando, and their dedicated staff;

the Office of the Commissioner of Tasmania Police for the vital work undertaken by coroner’s associates and all Tasmanian police officers in coronial investigations;

Forensic Odontologists Dr Paul Taylor, Dr Patrick Oxbrough and staff;

Forensic Anthropologist Dr Anne-Marie Williams:

Forensic Science Service Tasmania Director Laszlo Szabo and toxicologists and forensic scientists Neil McLachlan-Troup, Miriam Connor, Craig Gardner and their dedicated staff, including forensic technicians Sally Pretyman, Paul Anderson, and Amy Kok;

Forensic biologist Pam Scott and her team and forensic chemists Michael Manthey and Claire Fulton;

Professor Tony Bell, Clinical Medical Adviser, and Clinical Nurse Specialist, Libby Newman;

the General Manager of Workplace Standards Tasmania, Martin Shirley, and his investigative teams; and

the operators of the Mortuary Ambulance Services.

Coronial Findings and RecommendationsAll findings and recommendations considered by Coroners to be of public interest are

published on the Magistrates Court website at:


or

http://www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/decisions/coronial_numeric_index

or

http://www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/decisions/coronial_alphabetical_index

Deaths in Custody As required by s69(2)(a) of the Act, I report that during the reporting period there

were four deaths reported where the deceased died “in custody” (as defined in s3 of

the Coroners Act 1995).

During the reporting period, inquests were conducted and completed into three

deaths in custody, one that occurred in facilities operated by the Tasmanian Prison

Service. The findings of all inquests have been published on the Magistrates Court

website.

Deaths in CareDuring the reporting period there were four deaths reported of persons held “in care”

within the meaning of the Coroners Act 1995. During the reported period one inquest

was completed in relation to deaths in care. The Coroner has published a de-

identified version of the findings on the Magistrates Court website.

http://www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/decisions/coronial_alphabetical_index

http://www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/decisions/coronial_numeric_index


Anti-Discriminati

on Tribunal

Anti-Discrimination TribunalThe Anti-Discrimination Tribunal was created by the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998.

This report covers the 15th full financial year of the Tribunal’s operation. From 1 July

2015 the Tribunal was co-located with the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation

Commission. Therefore this will be the last time the Tribunal’s operations will be

included in this Annual Report.

Membership of the TribunalThe membership of the Tribunal is as follows:

Magistrate Glenn Hay (Chairperson – Hobart)

Magistrate Melanie Bartlett (North-West Coast)

Magistrate Michael Brett (North-West Coast)

Magistrate Catherine Rheinberger (Hobart)

Magistrate Simon Brown (Magistrate) (Launceston)

Professor Margaret Otlowski (Dean of Law School – UTAS) (Hobart)

Mr Steven Bishop (Barrister and Solicitor) (Launceston)

Ms Audrey Mills (Barrister and Solicitor) (Hobart)

Ms Kate Cuthbertson (Barrister-at-law) (Hobart)

Ms Lindi Wall (legal practitioner) (Hobart)

Ms Jennifer Bridge-Wright (non-legal practitioner) (Hobart)

Mr Robert Winter (legal practitioner) (Hobart)

From time to time Ms Cate McKenzie of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal

is appointed to sit on Anti-Discrimination Tribunal cases where conflicts mean that

Tasmanian members are unable to sit.

By s12 of the Act the Chair must be a legal practitioner of no less than seven years

standing, a Magistrate or former Judge.

The Chairperson and panel members carry out their responsibilities on a part-time

sessional basis and non-Magistrate members are remunerated by way of an hourly

rate for sitting time. It is acknowledged that the hourly sessional rate is only a

percentage of what the legally qualified panel members might reasonably expect

from private practice remuneration.

The Chair and panel members who are Magistrates do not receive additional

remuneration for Tribunal matters as they subsume and absorb their panel duties into

their magisterial duties. All current Magistrate panel members were members of the

panel prior to their commissions to sit on the Magistrates Court bench.

All Tribunal Members carry out their responsibilities on a part-time basis.

Jurisdiction of the TribunalThe Tribunal can hear complaints of discrimination on any of the grounds set out in

s16 of the Anti-Discrimination Act.

Further, the Tribunal hears complaints of sexual harassment and also prohibited

conduct (which includes offensive or humiliating conduct: see s17). Other grounds of

complaint are victimisation relating to complaints or proceedings under the Act and

inciting hatred on the ground of race, disability, sexual orientation, lawful sexual

activity, religious belief or affiliation or religious activity.

Location of the TribunalDuring the reporting period, the office (Registry) of the Tribunal was located at the

Magistrates Court, Hobart. Tribunal sittings were arranged in other centres as

required including Burnie, Launceston, and Devonport Magistrates Courts. It has

been the practice for Reviews/Inquiries to be heard in the locality where the

discrimination is alleged to have occurred.

The Tribunal was administratively managed by the Civil Division of the Magistrates

Court. No rental is paid for accommodation provided to the Tribunal and all costs of

the Tribunal are absorbed within the Magistrates Court budget.

Library resources are available to all members in each of the Magistrates Courts

libraries and members have the use of chambers accommodation in the courts when

sitting. Limited typing services are available to members by staff of the Magistrates

Courts. A court staff member is provided to assist in hearings, recording, and

administrative duties.

Members have full web access when sitting or in chambers, including electronic

benchbooks as well as reported and unreported decisions from all Australian and NZ

jurisdictions.

Statutory FunctionsThe main statutory functions of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal are:

conducting Inquiries in relation to complaints referred to the Tribunal by the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner

reviewing decisions made by the Commissioner in either rejecting or dismissing complaints.

ConciliationIt is usual practice to order early conciliation in any matter referred for Inquiry.

Conciliation is an effective tool not only to settle the matter by agreement without

inquiry hearing, but also to limit the time of potential hearings by agreeing issues and

witnesses to be called and documents to be produced.

External conciliators are engaged on a sessional basis and provided with the use of

conference facilities at a Magistrates Court. ADT decisions can be found at:

www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/decisions

Workload and Case ManagementThe Tribunal’s method of calculating workload should be noted. Each complaint or

application received by the Tribunal is recorded as one matter regardless of the

number of respondents involved in the matter. By comparison at the Office of the

ADC, a complaint brought against multiple respondents gives rise to multiple files.

In the reporting year, the Tribunal held a total caseload of 66 matters of which were

finalised (63%). A breakdown of all matters received and finalised in the reporting

year is set out in Table 1.

Table 1 - ADT Lodgements (Reviews and Inquiries) 2010-2015

Description 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Applications: Review of Rejections Review of Dismissals

Inquiries

Other

34

20

84

32

10 7

23

84

44

64

29

1

Total 27 44 40 56 40Source: Civil Registry Management System

As shown in Table 2, the Tribunal has continued to promote conciliation as an

effective and appropriate method of resolving disputes in this jurisdiction.


Table 2 - ADT Flow of Matters 2010–2015

Description 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Matters unfinalised at Start of Period:

27 27 26 24 39

Lodged in period: 27 44 40 56 40

Finalised in period:

Inquiries

Conciliation 3 5 6 9 5

Settlement between the parties

3 5 3 6 2

Hearing 4 4 3 0 3

Dismissed 11 8 15 17 14

Reviews

Hearing 5 3 12 6 2

Dismissed 1 3 3 3 8

Withdrawn - - - 0 3

Other 1

Matters finalised by the end of the period

27 28 42 41 38

Matters unfinalised at end of period

27 26 24 39 41

TimelinessThe timeliness of finalisation of matters by the Tribunal during the reporting year is a

measure of efficiency. Table 3 sets out the age of matters that were finalised during

the reporting year regardless of when they were lodged.

This shows the number of cases that were finalised in the last financial year with a

significant proportion of cases (76 %) finalised in less than 12 months.

Table 3 - ADT Clearance rate (finalisations / lodgements) 2010–2015

Criterion 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

No. No.

Finalised within 6 months 16 25 27 17

Finalised within 12 months 8 6 10 12

Finalised within 18 months - 5 - 1

Finalised > 18 months 4 6 4 8

Total 28 42 41 38Source: Civil Registry Management System

Court Statistics

List of Tables

TABLE 1 - ADT LODGEMENTS (REVIEWS AND INQUIRIES) 2010-2015...............................................................29

TABLE 2 - ADT FLOW OF MATTERS 2010–2015...........................................................................................29

TABLE 3 - ADT CLEARANCE RATE (FINALISATIONS / LODGEMENTS) 2010–2015.................................................30

TABLE 4 - CRIMINAL (ADULTS) - MATTERS LODGED 2011-2015......................................................................33

TABLE 5 - FAMILY VIOLENCE ORDER APPLICATIONS LODGED 2011-2015...........................................................34

TABLE 6 - RESTRAINT ORDER APPLICATIONS LODGED 2011-2015 ...................................................................34

TABLE 7 - CRIMINAL & GENERAL DIVISION - APPLICATIONS - MISCELLANEOUS FILED 2011-2015..........................35

TABLE 8 - CRIMINAL (YOUTH JUSTICE) 1 - MATTERS LODGED 2011-2015..........................................................36

TABLE 9 - CIVIL CASES LODGED 2011-2015.................................................................................................37

TABLE 10 - ENFORCEMENT PROCESS FOR CIVIL DEBT RECOVERY CASES 2011-2015..............................................37

TABLE 12 - CHILD PROTECTION - APPLICATIONS LODGED 2011-20151.............................................................38

TABLE 13 - CORONIAL - SUMMARY OF CORONIAL ACTIVITY 2011-2015............................................................39

TABLE 14 - CORONIAL - INQUESTS & INVESTIGATIONS COMPLETED 2011-2015.................................................39

TABLE 15 - CORONIAL – MOTOR VEHICLE FATALITIES - INQUESTS & INVESTIGATIONS COMPLETED - 2011-2015......39

TABLE 16 - CORONIAL – SELF-INFLICTED DEATHS CLOSED – BY METHOD - 2011-2015........................................40

TABLE 17 - APPLICATIONS RECEIVED 2010-2015..........................................................................................40

TABLE 18 - OUTCOMES OF APPLICATIONS 2010-2015...................................................................................40

TABLE 19 - ACTS GIVING RISE TO APPEALS 2011-2015..................................................................................41

TABLE 20 - MINING TRIBUNAL MATTERS LODGED 2010-2015.........................................................................42

TABLE 21 - MACT - REFERENCES LODGED 2011-2015..................................................................................42

TABLE 23 - BACKLOG INDICATOR, THE NUMBER AND PROPORTION OF PENDING CASELOAD LODGEMENTS IN EXCESS OF

TIMELINESS STANDARDS 2013-2015...................................................................................................43

TABLE 24 - CLEARANCE RATE % (FINALISATIONS/LODGEMENTS)........................................................................44

TABLE 25 - ATTENDANCE INDICATOR 2011-2015.........................................................................................44

TABLE 26 - EXPENDITURE BY OUTLAY - MAGISTRATES COURT SERVICES..............................................................46

Court Statistics

Criminal & General DivisionTable 4 sets out the volume of criminal cases involving adults lodged during the reporting year. The data has been extracted from the Criminal Registry Information Management Enquiry System (CRIMES), and reports by offence category as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Australian Standard Offence Classification (ASOC)1.

Table 4 - Criminal (Adults) - Matters lodged 2011-2015

Principal Offence1, 2 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Homicide and related offences 10 8 14 12

Acts Intended To Cause Injury 2,276 1,817 1,898 1,929

Sexual Assault And Related Offences 107 97 137 111

Dangerous Or Negligent Acts Endangering Persons

705 610 558 563

Abduction, Harassment And Other Offences Against The Person

2 7 2 8

Robbery, Extortion And Related Offences 68 74 54 56

Unlawful Entry With Intent/Burglary, Break And Enter

509 479 428 453

Theft And Related Offences 1,644 1,384 1,390 1,490

Fraud, Deception And Related Offences 341 342 307 369

Illicit Drug Offences 1,283 965 886 1,036

Prohibited And Regulated Weapons And Explosives Offences

207 222 235 252

Property Damage And Environmental Pollution

528 427 405 380

Public Order Offences 1,392 1,005 905 740

Traffic And Vehicle Regulatory Offences 8,819 6,861 6,917 8,057

Offences Against Justice Procedures, Government Security And Government Operations

1,680 1,428 1,350 1,416

Miscellaneous Offences 186 151 153 144

Breaches of bail, suspended sentences, community service orders, probation 3, 4

3,714 3,395 3,279 3,709

TOTAL 23,471 19,272 18,918 20,729

1. The data in this year’s Annual Report is coded according to the Australian & New Zealand Standard Offence Coding system (ANZSOC).

2. The data in this year’s Annual Report adopts the counting rules for the Report on Government Services on criminal lodgements which, in addition to counting single criminal lodgements, also counts as a single unit multiple complaints filed against a single Defendant on the same day. The rationale for such a counting rule is that multiple charges filed on the same day will usually relate to an episode of offending behaviour that is likely to be heard and determined by the Court as a single unit of work.

3. The counting rules for the Report on Government Services on criminal lodgements exclude related applications and complaints lodged for breaches of court orders.

4. A review of the data collected by the Magistrates Court has led to amendments to corresponding data collect in earlier years.

Family Violence OrdersTable 5 shows the number of matters involving family violence orders lodged with the Court during the reporting year. The Table does not include family violence offences, which are included in Table 4 above, and does not include applications for Police Family Violence orders.

Table 5 - Family Violence Order Applications lodged 2011-2015Application Type 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15to extend Police Family Violence Order 5 15 16 10

to revoke Police Family Violence Order 55 43 58 46

to vary Police Family Violence Order 82 77 85 115

for grant of Family Violence Order 602 486 565 532

to extend Family Violence Order 17 25 29 35

to revoke Family Violence Order 29 10 31 22

to vary Family Violence Order 110 93 83 128

to register interstate Family Violence Order 13 7 17 21TOTAL 913 756 887 909

Restraint OrdersTable 6 shows the number of restraint order applications lodged with the Court.

Table 6 - Restraint Order Applications lodged 2011-2015 1 Application Type 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Application for grant of Restraint Order 1,346 1,184 1,057 1,148

Application to extend Restraint Order 19 29 20 21

Application to revoke Restraint Order 22 28 25 24

Application to vary Restraint Order 37 29 31 30

Registration of interstate Restraint Order 1 2 1 0

TOTAL 1,425 1,272 1,134 1,223

1 A review of the data collected for this Table has led to amendments to the data in earlier years to ensure accurate

comparisons

ApplicationsDuring the reporting year, the Court heard a range of applications. Some of the more

frequently made applications are listed in Table 7 below.

Table 7 - Criminal & General Division - Applications - Miscellaneous Filed 2011-20152

Application Type Legislation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Application for Bail Bail Act 1994 41 61 129 104

Application to vary Bail Bail Act 1994 425 345 316 280

Preliminary proceedings order by Supreme Court

Justices Rules 2003

107 141 104 101

Application to set aside conviction and penalty

Justices Rules 2003

94 43 25 38

Application to have conviction set aside or total penalty varied

Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005

209 171 126 111

Other applications under Sentencing Act

Sentencing Act 1997

244 230 230 121

Other applications under Youth Justice Act

Youth Justice Act 1997

33 35 54 46

Other miscellaneous applications

501 491 486 467

Drug Treatment Order review

Sentencing Act 1997

87 78 63 55

Restricted Driver Licence Application

Vehicle & Traffic Act 1999

817 623 481 604

TOTAL 2,558 2,218 2,014 1,927

2 A review of the data collected for this Table has led to amendments to the data in earlier years to ensure better and more accurate comparisons

Youth Justice DivisionTable 8 shows the number of criminal matters dealt with in the Court’s Youth Justice

Division during the current and previous reporting years. The Youth Justice Division

has jurisdiction to hear and determine offences alleged to have been committed by a

person aged under 18 years at the date of the offence.

Table 8 - Criminal (Youth Justice) 1 - Matters lodged 2011-2015

Principal Offence 2 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Homicide and related offences 0 0 2 0

Acts Intended To Cause Injury 364 227 226 199

Sexual Assault And Related Offences 20 13 15 7

Dangerous Or Negligent Acts Endangering Persons

104 65 46 45

Abduction, Harassment And Other Offences Against The Person

0 1 1 0

Robbery, Extortion And Related Offences

38 45 13 24

Unlawful Entry With Intent/Burglary, Break And Enter

271 197 174 165

Theft And Related Offences 471 390 326 280

Fraud, Deception And Related Offences

31 25 21 17

Illicit Drug Offences 66 31 28 31

Prohibited And Regulated Weapons And Explosives Offences

18 15 8 18

Property Damage And Environmental Pollution

166 144 74 98

Public Order Offences 174 116 89 85

Traffic And Vehicle Regulatory Offences

271 227 212 202

Offences Against Justice Procedures, Government Security And Government

114 90 65 46

Miscellaneous Offences 34 16 7 16

Breaches of bail, suspended sentences, community service orders, probation 3

785 661 476 231

TOTAL 2,779 2,228 1,783 1,464

1. The data in this year’s Annual Report is coded according to the Australian & New Zealand Standard Offence Coding system (ANZSOC). A review of the data collected for this Table has led to amendments to the data in earlier years to ensure better and more accurate comparisons

2. The data in this year’s Annual Report adopts the counting rules for the Report on Government Services on criminal lodgements which, in addition to counting single criminal lodgements, also counts as a single unit multiple complaints filed against a single Defendant on the same day. The rationale for such a counting rule is that multiple charges filed on the same day will usually relate to an episode of offending behaviour that is likely to be heard and determined by the Court as a single unit of work.

3. The counting rules for the Report on Government Services on criminal lodgements exclude related applications and complaints lodged for breaches of court orders.

Civil Division Table 9 is a comparison of the major types of civil claims lodged with the court.

Table 9 - Civil cases lodged 2011-2015

Nature of Case 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15Minor civil cases (to $5,000) 4,593 4,147 3,540 3,061

Civil cases (to $50,000) 1,222 1,179 1,084 911

Residential tenancy 452 475 461 457

Other 0 4 0 0

Total 6,267 5,805 5,085 4,429Source: Civil Registry Management System

Table 10 sets out the volume of debt recovery matters in which a Judgment Creditor proceeded to enforcement of the Judgment.

Table 10 - Enforcement process for civil debt recovery cases 2011-2015

Enforcement Process 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Warrant to Sell Property 1,215 1,146 1182 938

Garnishees 1,253 1,080 701 615

Judgment Summons 261 142 90 61

Oral Examination 142 120 84 70

Warrant of Possession 50 48 51 56

Total 2,921 2,536 2,108 1,740Source: Civil Registry Management System

Child ProtectionTable 12 - Child Protection - Applications Lodged 2011-20151

Application Type 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Application for Warrant to Take Child to Place of Safety

68 66 27 43

Application for Assessment Order 194 178 109 97

Application for further Assessment Order s22(5)

66 45 39 49

Application for further Assessment Order s22(5)(b)

33 53 10 5

Application for Care & Protection Order (12 months) s42

253 169 157 159

Care and Protection Order granting custody of child to the Secretary s42(4)(b)

50 80 36 33

Application for Care and Protection (Guardianship Order) s42(4)(c)

27 25 11 19

Application for Care & Protection order (until attains 18 years) s42(4)(d)

118 109 72 81

Application for extension of Care & Protection Order s44(1)

78 95 79 56

Application for revocation of a care & protection order

21 26 19 19

Application for variation of a care & protection order

89 83 94 72

Other applications under Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997

46 41 37 26

TOTAL 1,043 970 690 659

Coronial DivisionTable 13 - Coronial - Summary of coronial activity 2011-2015

Description 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Deaths reported to the Coroner 478 555 581 542

Fires/Explosions reported to the Coroner 0 0 0 0

Number of inquests held 9 7 5 10

Number of cases closed 462 450 536 489

Deaths in custody or care 2 4 6 8

Table 14 - Coronial - Inquests & Investigations Completed 2011-2015

Description 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Aircraft 0 0 1 1

Death in Custody/Care 2 5 7 4

Domestic Accident 1 0 3 3

Drowning 5 11 8 13

Drug Overdose 13 19 18 29

Fall 13 12 40 31

Homicide 5 2 4 2

Hospital 17 14 15 17

House Fire 1 2 1 0

Marine Fatality 0 3 1 2

Industrial Accident 3 2 3 2

Natural 270 281 317 242

Other 12 12 19 16

SIDS 1 5 2 4

Suicide 77 49 68 71

Undetermined Causes 31 16 6 17

Vehicle Crash 21 17 23 34

Total 462 450 536 489

Table 15 - Coronial – Motor Vehicle Fatalities - Inquests & Investigations completed - 2011-2015

Description 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Driver 12 10 11 10

Bystander / Pedestrian 5 2 6 1

Passenger 1 2 2 8

Bicycle 0 1 1 3

Motorcycle 3 2 3 12

Motorised Wheel chair 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 21 17 23 34

Table 16 - Coronial – Self-Inflicted Deaths closed – by method - 2011-2015

Description 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Hanging 25 19 25 32

Carbon Monoxide 10 6 6 7

Drug Overdose 9 2 12 11

Burns 1 0 1 0

Gunshot 12 7 8 8

Drowning 6 7 4 2

Jumping 5 1 2 4

Other 9 7 6 7

TOTAL 77 49 64 71

Administrative Appeals DivisionTable 17 is a comparison of applications filed over four reporting periods (2010/11 to

2014/15), and Table 18 shows the outcomes of the applications considered, while the

legislation under which the appeals arose can be seen at:


Table 17 - Applications received 2010-2015

Type of Application 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Review (Appeal) of a reviewable decision - S17

30 38 18 43 33

Declaration of entitlement to reasons for decision – S15(1)

0 0 0 1 0

Extension of time to apply for review of decision - S20

0 4 0 0 1

Other 4 0 0 1 0


Table 18 - Outcomes of applications 2010-2015

Description of Outcome 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Decisions 8 11 8 2 6

Withdrawn 5 1 1 6 4

Pending or listed for Court’s consideration

5 5 1 0 0

Dismissed 5 3 11 5 12

Reserved for decision 0 0 0 0 0

Settled by Agreement 3 2 4 9 3

Adjourned sine die 6 7 5 2 6

Other 2 0 0 0 0



Table 19 - Acts giving rise to appeals 2011-2015

Legislation 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Dog Control Act 2000 8 3 14 8

Legacy - AAD 0 0 0 0

Firearms Act 1996 4 5 11 5

Security and Investigations Agents Act 2001 2 0 2 0

Local Government Act 1993 13 2 3 0

Vehicle and Traffic Review of Decisions Regulations 2010

2 1 1 0

Property Agents & Land Transactions Act 2005 0 0 1 0

Building Act 2000 1 4 2 1

Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 2 - 5 1

Adoption Act 1 0 0 0

Crown Lands (Shack Sites) Act 1997 0 0 2 0

Plumbers and Gas-fitters Registration Act 1951 0 0 0 0

Local Government (Highways) Act 1982 1 0 0 0

Dangerous Substance (Safe Handling) Act 0 0 0 0

Tasmanian Qualifications Authority Act 2003 1 0 0 0

Births Deaths and Marriages Act 1999 1 0 0 0

Taxation Administration Act 1997 2 0 0 1

Youth Justice Act 1997 0 0 0 0

Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 1 0 0 0

Teachers Registration Act 2000 2 0 0 0

Explosives Act 2012 0 1 0 4

Food Act 1998 2

Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act 2013

1

Veterinary Surgeons Act 1987 1

Local Government Act 1993 5

Other 1 0 0 5

Total 42 18 45 34Source: Civil Registry Management System

Mining TribunalTable 20 shows the volume of matters lodged with the Tribunal from 2010 to 2015.

Table 20 - Mining Tribunal matters lodged 2010-2015

Description of Outcome 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Referred to Tribunal for hearing 6 3 2 3 1

Motor Accidents Compensation TribunalTable 21 shows the number of references lodged with the Tribunal over the last four

reporting years.

Table 21 - MACT - References lodged 2011-2015

Description 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

References Lodged 30 26 41 24

Performance IndicatorsThe measures used to assess the performance of the Magistrates Court are:

Backlog Indicator - a measure of effectiveness in relation to timeliness and delay

Clearance Rate - an efficiency measure of the inputs per output unit

Attendance Indicator - an effectiveness measure of timeliness and delay.

These measures should be treated as indicative rather than definitive, as the Court

does not have total control over the process for adjudicating criminal matters,

resolving civil disputes and investigating coronial matters, and consequently other

parties may introduce delays.

Backlog IndicatorThis indicator is a measure of case processing timeliness. This measure has been

developed on a national basis as a means of determining the performance of a

Court.

In the criminal jurisdiction, those defendants who have bench warrants associated

with them have been excluded from the count, and in the civil jurisdiction those

lodgements that have not been acted upon in the last 12 months have been

excluded. The aim has been to focus on those matters that are part of an ‘active

pending’ population.

Similarly, the indicator recognises that case processing must take some time and that

such time does not necessarily equal delay. Timeliness can be affected by delays

caused by factors other than those related to the workload of the Court (for example,

a witness, a party, or counsel not being available or ready to proceed).

The backlog indicator measures the Court’s pending caseload against timeliness

standards and the Court’s performance is set out in Table 23.

Table 23 - Backlog indicator, the number and proportion of pending caseload lodgements in excess of timeliness standards 2013-2015

Jurisdictions 2013-14 2014-15

Number % Number %

Criminal (Adult)

Pending caseload (no.) 5,938 7,312

Cases < 6 mths. 4,340 73.1 4,952 67.7

Cases > 6 mths < 12 mths. 897 15.1 1,353 18.5

Cases > 12 mths. 694 11.8 1,007 13.8

Youth Justice

Pending caseload (no.) 412 438

Cases < 6 mths. 321 77.9 316 72.1

Cases > 6 mths < 12 mths. 48 11.7 69 15.8

Cases > 12 mths. 43 10.4 53 12.1

Child Protection


Cases < 6 mths. 60 55.0 38 84.4

Cases > 6 mths < 12 mths. 23 21.1 3 6.7

Cases > 12 mths. 26 23.9 4 8.9

Coroners


Cases < 12 mths. 305 63.6 346 66.8

Cases > 12 mths < 24 mths. 112 23.4 107 20.7

Cases > 24 mths. 62 12.9 65 12.5

Civil

Pending caseload (no.) 4,130 3,729

Cases < 6 mths. 2,365 57.3 2,092 57.1

Cases > 6 mths < 12 mths. 1,306 31.6 1,177 31.7

Cases > 12 mths. 459 11.1 460 11.2

Clearance RateThe clearance rate is an indicator of efficiency in processing the inflow of cases

through the Court and has been agreed nationally as a measure of whether a Court

is keeping up with its workload. The Court’s performance against this measure is set

out in Table 24.

The clearance rate is the number of finalisations in the reporting period divided by the

number of lodgements in the same period (multiplied by 100 to convert to a

percentage).

The following should assist in understanding the clearance rate:

A figure of 100 per cent indicates that, during the reporting period, the Court

finalised as many cases as were lodged

A figure greater than 100 per cent means that the pending caseload of the

Court is decreasing

A figure less than 100 per cent means that the pending caseload of the Court

is increasing

It should be noted that the clearance rate can be affected by external factors, such as

the readiness of parties, changes in legislation, and the Court’s case management

practices.

Table 24 - Clearance rate % (finalisations/lodgements)

Jurisdictions 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Magistrates (Adult)

Criminal 97.3 102.1 94.3 90.4

Civil 100.9 104.5 108.9 106.8

All matters (civil & criminal) 98.4 103.3 98.9 96.0

Children’s

Criminal 94.8 105.7 97.6 98.9

Civil 96.3 112.7 97.5 121.2

All matters (civil & criminal) 95.1 107.2 97.6 103.2

Coroners 96.7 81.1 92.3 90.2

Attendance indexThe Attendance index is based upon the number of Court attendances required to

resolve a matter has been identified nationally as an appropriate effectiveness

measure. At present, this measure is only available in the coronial and criminal

jurisdictions and Table 25 shows the Court’s performance against this measure.

The number of attendances is the number of times that parties or their

representatives were required to be present in Court to be heard by a judicial officer

or mediator/arbitrator (including appointments which were adjourned or rescheduled).

This year’s Report presents the total number of finalisations during the year and the

number of attendances associated with these matters (no matter when the

attendance occurred). This approach simply represents an average number of

attendances per finalisation.

In the context of the attendance indicator, it is important to note that Alternative

Dispute Resolution (ADR) can resolve matters out of Court and reduce Court

attendances.

Table 25 - Attendance indicator 2011-2015

Average listings - per case

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15

Criminal:

- Magistrates (Adult) 4.0 4.3 4.0 4.0

- Children’s (Youth Justice) 5.2 5.7 5.8 5.4

Coroners: 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Court Finances

Court FinancesThe Magistrates Court contributes to the Department of Justice output entitled

‘Administration of Justice’ and the Court’s funding is set out in Table 26 below.

Table 26 - Expenditure by outlay - Magistrates Court Services

2011-12Actual

2012-13Actual

2013-14 Actual

2014-15 Actual

$'000 $’000 $,000 $,000

511 - Salaries and Wages 8457 8427 8585 8589

512 - Other Employee Related Expenses 162 224 182 225

522 - Information Technology 233 230 250 280

523 - Materials Supplies & Equipment 176 142 102 105

524 - Travel and Transport 353 288 291 268

525 - Property Expenses 1592 1583 1567 1565

528 – Other Expenditure 1366 1094 762 374

529 - Consultants 2 11 4 8

TOTAL 12,343 11,999 11,743 11,414The totals include expenditure from both the Consolidated Revenue Fund and revenue retained by the Court.

magistrates court annual report 2014 - 2015€¦ · web viewmagistrates court annual report 2014...

Documents