Annual Report 2004 - 2005 - Courts · YOuTH COuRT Youth Court, Family Conference Team, Care and Protection unit ... SM. The Associate members of the Council were Justice Sulan, Judge

Annual Report 2004 - 2005

ADELAIDE

Holden Hill

Elizabeth

Christies Beach

�ANNUAL REPORT 04-05

State Courts Administration Council (left to right): Chief Judge Terry Worthington, Chief Justice John Doyle AC (Chairman), Dr Andrew Cannon Deputy Chief Magistrate AM, Chief Magistrate Kelvyn Prescott, Justice John Sulan, Mr Gary Thompson, State Courts Administrator, Judge Andrea Simpson (right front).

31 October 2005

Courts Administration Authority Education Centre 31 Flinders Street Adelaide South Australia 5000

Telephone +61 8 8226 0138 Facsimile +61 8 8226 0111 Internet www.courts.sa.gov.au

This report prepared by the Communications Branch.

Copyright: Courts Administration Authority, South Australia 2005.

For further information please telephone the Communications Branch on +61 8 8204 0403 or by Facsimile +61 8 8204 0441

Email [email protected]

ISSN 1443-0444

Contents

Court Locations inside front cover

Organisational Chart 2

From the Chairman of the State Courts Administration Council 3

From the State Courts Administrator 6

Achieving Strategic Goals 8

Reports from the Courts

Supreme Court 10

District Court 18

Magistrates Court

Specialist Courts 21

Environment, Resources and Development Court 30

Youth Court 33

Coroner’s Court 38

Report from the Sheriff 40

Report on Information Technology 43

Report on Human Resources 44

Financial Statements 49

Appendix A Occupational health, safety and

injury management statistics 80

Contents Contents

COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY�

The Courts Administration Authority is constituted by the Courts Administration Act 1993.

The Authority is a statutory authority independent of the legislative and executive arms of government. It provides administrative support to the State’s Judiciary and the Courts.

The Authority reports independently to Parliament by way of an annual report tabled by 31 October.

STATE COuRTS ADMINISTRATION COuNCIL

Chief Justice Chief Judge Chief Magistrate

Specialist Courts and TribunalsCourt of Disputed ReturnsDental Professional Conduct TribunalLegal Practitioners’ Disciplinary TribunalMedical Practitioners’ Professional Conduct TribunalWarden’s Court

MAGISTRATES COuRT

Civil, Criminal, specialist Magistrates Courts, Library Services, Courts Volunteer Service

SHERIFF’S OFFICE

Jury Management, Court Security, Court Orderly Service, Service and Execution of Processes

COuRT REPORTING

Reporting Services, Magistrates’ Clerks, Audio Recording, Reporting Training

CORPORATE SERVICES

Finance and Accounting, Human Resources Management, Property Management, Administration Services

INFORMATION SERVICES DIVISION

Applications Systems, Technical

Support, user Support

COMMuNICATIONS BRANCH

Court Information, Media Liaison

SuPREME COuRT

Civil, Criminal, Appellate, Probate, Library Services

State Courts Administrator

Executive Management Committee

DISTRICT COuRT

Civil, Criminal, Criminal Injury, Administrative & Disciplinary, Library Services

ENVIRONMENT RESOuRCES & DEVELOPMENT COuRT

Planning and Development, Environment Protection, Water Resources, Native Title

YOuTH COuRT

Youth Court, Family Conference Team, Care and Protection unit

CORONER’S COuRT

Inquests, Investigations, Education

INDuSTRIAL RELATIONS COuRT

Employment Law, Awards and Enterprise Agreements, Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare, Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation, Appellate

COuRTS EDuCATION OFFICER

Education Department Outreach Officer

RESEARCH AND POLICY DIVISION

As from 1/7/05

Organisation ChartOrganisationOrganisation Chart


Report from Chairmanof the State Courts Administration Council

ChairmanChairmanChairmanThe State Courts Administration Council (the Council) is a body corporate established by the Courts Administration Act 1993 (the Act). under the Act the Council is responsible for providing administrative facilities and services for most of the courts of the State. The Council is independent of the Government.

In the year ended 30 June 2005 the Council comprised me as Chief Justice, Chief Judge Worthington of the District Court and the Chief Magistrate, Mr Prescott SM. The Associate members of the Council were Justice Sulan, Judge Simpson and Dr Cannon SM, the Deputy Chief Magistrate.

under the Act the State Courts Administrator is responsible to the Council for the control and management of the Council staff, and for the management of property under the Council’s control. All court staff are staff of the Council. The Council, the Administrator and the staff are together referred to as the Courts Administration Authority.

This is the 12th report of the Council, and deals with the work of the Council in the year ended 30 June 2005.

Finances

The Council discharges its functions using money appropriated by Parliament. The appropriation is proposed to Parliament by the Government, and so the amount appropriated for the purposes of the Council is an amount that the Government approves. That is reflected by section 25 of the Act, which requires the Council to obtain the approval of the Attorney-General to its budget.

In last year’s report, I referred to the fact that over the course of several years the Government has imposed restraints on expenditure. I said this had led to a situation in which the Council was unable to operate within the approved budget, and could do so only by reducing services to the public. This year ending 30 June 2005, the Council again has exceeded the approved expenditure budget. Although the enclosed Financial Statements show a net operating surplus of $335 000, this does not reflect the true position, whereby the Authority exceeded its approved expenditure budget by $1 350 000. The appropriation for the Council this year had included approximately $850 000 for initiatives that were delayed. Had that money been used as expected, the Council would have exceeded its approved budget expenditure by about $2.2 million.

The Government has allowed the Council to exceed the approved expenditure budget. I acknowledge that.

But the Council believes that the past few years have demonstrated that the appropriation proposed to Parliament is not sufficient to cover the Authority’s core business needs. The Council could not provide the range of services to the Courts and to the public that should be provided, if the Council were required to adhere to the approved expenditure budget.

There has been no crisis only because the Government has permitted the Council to exceed the approved budget.

Budgetary constraints also stifle the Council and its staff. The Council wishes to encourage its staff to propose improvements and innovations in the services provided to the Courts and to the public. To do this it needs to have sufficient flexibility in its funding to enable it, on occasions, to provide financial support for improvements. Often the expenditure involved is relatively minor, and is not sufficient to warrant a separate budget submission. But the restrictions on the funds available to the Council tend to discourage innovation, because of the difficulty of finding funds to support innovation.

I have raised this issue with the Attorney-General and with the Treasurer, and our staff have raised it with Treasury Officers. So far, there has been no change.

Supreme Court building

Another year has passed, and there is still no prospect of the Government providing funds for a redevelopment of the Supreme Court site. The public and court staff continue to suffer from inadequate facilities. I can only urge the Government to accept that the facilities at the Supreme Court are inadequate, and that there is a need for a redevelopment.

I refer below, as I have done on other occasions, to the steady decline in the rate at which the Supreme Court and the District Court are disposing of criminal trials. A redevelopment of the Supreme Court would present the opportunity to increase the number of criminal courts by providing courts for criminal trials on the Supreme Court site, or by dealing with some of the civil work of the District Court on the Supreme Court site, and then converting civil courts in the Sir Samuel Way Building to criminal courts. Either approach would involve significant costs. However, the information available to the Council indicates that the Supreme Court and the District Court could list more criminal cases for trial if more courtrooms were available. This would not solve the problem of declining performance standards, but would make some contribution to dealing with it.


Report from Chairmanof the State Courts Administration Council

Port Augusta redevelopment

I am pleased to record that construction of a new building at Port Augusta for use by all courts of the State will proceed. I expect that the building will be complete by the end of 2006. The project has taken longer than it should have. I hope that there will be no further delay. When completed, the new building will provide a major improvement in the facilities available to those who have business before the courts at Port Augusta.

Country courts

I am pleased to record that new court buildings will be provided, in conjunction with new facilities for SA Police at Port Lincoln, Port Pirie, Berri and Victor Harbor. At the time of writing I anticipate that the new buildings at Berri and Port Pirie will be available for use by April 2006, the new building at Victor Harbor by about April 2006, and the new building at Port Lincoln by December 2006. These projects also will result in a real improvement in the facilities at these towns.

Courts and the community

The Council, through its staff and through the judiciary, continues to commit a lot of time and effort to informing the community about their courts and about how justice is administered. We encourage the community to inform the Council about community wishes and needs. The relationship between the Courts and the community, and between the Council and the community, is an important one.

The Council has an active Community Relations Committee. Its members include members of the Judiciary and of Council staff. During the year the Committee established a Community Reference Group, comprising community representatives who have an interest or involvement in the work of the Courts. The Group is a consultative group. Its function is to make suggestions to the Community Relations Committee on the Committee’s public information strategies and projects, and about the administrative and support services, and business processes of the various courts. The Group will also give the Community Relations Committee its view on how the Committee can provide opportunities for the public to learn about the work of the Courts.

During the year the Council established a Courts Aboriginal Reference Group. At 30 June 2005 that Group had not met for the first time. The function of the Group is to provide advice and feedback to the Council in respect of matters involving or affecting Aboriginal people, with the aim of providing improved court services to them. The Group will advise the Council, proposing initiatives that are worth pursuing.

In considering whether it should establish the Group, the Council was aware of the risk of duplicating the work of existing bodies, but in the end decided that the proposal was worthwhile. The Council intends to review the position after two years.

Criminal cases

The Annual Report of the Supreme Court demonstrates in some detail a slowing, over a period of several years, in the rate at which criminal cases are dealt with by the Supreme Court and by the District Court. The Courts are not meeting their own time standards. As best the Council can tell, the increase in the time between lodgment and hearing is attributable mainly to the fact that the prosecution and the defence are taking longer to get cases ready for trial. The practice of the Courts has been not to list cases for trial until the parties can give an assurance that the case is ready, or an assurance that it will be ready within a short time. The advice available to the Chief Justice and to the Chief Judge indicates that the increase in the time taken to list cases for trial is not due in any significant way to any practice of the Court, and by and large is beyond the control of the Courts.

As is explained above, the number of courts in which criminal trials can be conducted is making some contribution to the problem. The Supreme Court and the District Court could make additional judges available to conduct criminal trials. This would result in some improvement in the listing rate, although it would not solve the problem of delay. But there are insufficient suitable courtrooms for the Courts to be able to achieve anything significant in this respect.

Authority staff

Despite the funding restrictions, and the unsatisfactory standard of some of our buildings, our staff continue to provide a high standard of service to the people of South Australia through the Court Registries, and in other ways. It is encouraging to know, and to be able to report, that our staff continue to look for ways to improve the standard of service, despite the impact of budgetary restraints on the Council.

Attorney-General

The Attorney-General is the point of contact between the Council and the Government, and between the heads of jurisdiction and the Government. Section 13 of the Act requires that this report be provided to the Attorney-General. Section 13(1)(b) requires the Council to report on “changes to the law and procedures of the participating courts that may be necessary or desirable to improve the administration of justice …”.


ChairmanIn practice these proposals are made, as required, by the relevant heads of jurisdiction. None of those proposals are of sufficient importance to warrant a specific mention here. However, I record that the Supreme Court Rules regulating the civil jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and of the District Court have been completely rewritten over several years. This has been a very substantial exercise. I expect that the new Rules will come into operation early in 2006.

During the year, as in the past, I have met monthly with the Attorney-General to discuss matters affecting the Council, the Authority, the Courts of the State and the Supreme Court in particular. The Chief Judge of the District Court and the Chief Magistrate also met regularly with the Attorney-General to deal with matters affecting their Courts in particular. I take this opportunity to thank the Attorney-General for the time that he commits to this. I also thank the Attorney-General and his Chief Executive Officer, Mr Mark Johns, for their cooperation and assistance during the year.

The Honourable John Doyle AC

Chief Justice of South Australia Chairman, State Courts Administration Council


This has been a year of reformation and achievement for the Courts Administration Authority against a backdrop of continued financial constraint.

The Authority maintained its commitment to providing the best possible service to the community whilst beginning a major review of its workforce and its administrative and business operations.

Effort has been directed to analyse existing strategy for every Participating Court and associated administrative support service.

Initiatives have included adding depth to the Business and Financial Services Branch, expanding its membership significantly, with professionals skilled in business development.

This additional strength in the management of finances is needed to deal with shortfalls in budget expenditure.

The Chief Justice has already referred to the ongoing funding shortfall experienced by the Authority. There has been reference to funding shortfalls from the very establishment of the Authority in 1993. In the first Annual Report 1993–94 LJ King AC, Chief Justice at that time, commented that the only way the Authority could avoid “serious impairment of the operation of the system of justice and the services provided to the public” was to access its Reserves Fund “in order to maintain a system of justice at an adequate level”.

In 2000–2001 changes to protocols concerning government funding resulted in the Authority being unable to access its Reserves unless separate expenditure authority was provided. The change meant the budget for the Authority was fixed relative to known expenditure levels rather than known expenditure levels plus reserves for unpredictable but inevitable costs. This situation continues.

A review has commenced in collaboration with the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) to examine:

• Future capital requirements of the Authority,

• Debt management functions and organisational structure of the Fines Payment unit, and;

• Trends in Court workloads and potential measures to manage significant over-expenditure on unavoidable services provided by the courts (for example, circuits, costs of medical reports required for sentencing)

This review is welcomed and our staff are committed to working with the DTF review team.

Another noteworthy move this year has been to bolster skills within the Executive Management Committee through management coaching and development,

equipping our Executives further to manage changes that must occur if we are to chart a true course for the future.

A newly created Research and Policy Division has initiated processes to refine information generated by the Authority daily. High on the agenda of this group’s work is revision of data that can be used internally, within South Australia’s justice portfolio and nationally, for good governance of Courts.

This year, we also created a new position of Aboriginal Initiatives Policy Officer, whose task is to advise and assist the Authority develop and promote equitable, effective and efficient services for Aboriginal people who come into contact with the Courts. This is a very wide job description and presents significant challenges. I believe that we have been very fortunate to have attracted and appointed a person with significant experience in this area to assist the Authority on its journey. Since the appointment, there is a much greater awareness of, and focus on, Aboriginal initiatives in the Authority.

Our members of staff are our most valuable asset and they continue to provide service of a high quality in a challenging environment. Sound understanding of our workforce is an important tool in the development of a new operational strategy for the Authority for the future. With maximum leadership from the Council and support from every level of management, the Authority has begun workforce planning, an activity that will assist us to develop a sustainable operational strategy. The Authority faces the same workforce challenges as the private and public sectors, including an expected labour shortage in the future, heightened competition for skilled people and an aging workforce. Our challenge is to attract, motivate and retain skilled employees and develop a flexible workforce capable of meeting ever-changing demands.

The Courts Open Day was once again an extremely successful event, with more than 1 400 people taking the opportunity to visit and explore the courts in the Sir Samuel Way Building during the day. A mock Family Conference proved to be a very successful addition to the programme this year, allowing people to see first-hand an alternative way of dealing with juvenile criminal offending behaviour.

Information Services Division this year completed a comprehensive review of our Information Technology environment, including existing use of technology and the status of our software applications and computing hardware. A Committee comprising representatives from the Judiciary and the administration is considering the resultant report with the intention of providing advice to the Council on the priority of topics and associated strategies required to manage the issues raised by the review.

Report from the State Courts Administrator


AdministratorThe Care and Protection unit celebrated its 10th year this year. The unit deals with child protection matters referred to it by the Children, Youth and Family Services branch of the Department of Families and Communities and the Youth Court. It convenes Family Care Meetings to provide families with the opportunity to try to come up with their own plan to ensure the safety and protection of the children concerned. Since inception this unit has convened approximately 3000 family care meetings involving over 4000 children.

The Authority’s innovations and steadfast level of commitment to the delivery of service to the community are evidenced in the remainder of this report.

As the Authority prepares to enter its 13th year of existence it is time to reflect with confidence on what has been done best and how performance on a limited budget can be improved. Many initiatives set in place over the year in review should begin to deliver results in 2005–2006.

Gary Thompson



The Authority’s three-year Strategic Plan expires next year. Through restructuring important areas within the organization, the Authority has positioned itself to develop a new strategy, from 2006.

Meanwhile, the State Courts Administration Council, directly and through the efforts of staff and volunteers of the Authority aims to:

• Improve court facilities and means of dealing with the Courts

• Foster an environment and a management framework within which judicial officers, staff and volunteers can contribute to improved performance of the Courts

• Keep up to date with technological developments and apply those that are appropriate to improve the performance of the Courts

• Cooperate with other parts of the justice system to improve the performance of the justice system overall.

This strategy underpins the administration of the Courts, and is covered by reports from each of the Courts contained in this document.

Achieving Strategic Goals

Highlights

In the year under review, the Authority:

• Began a major review of its workforce and its administrative, business and information technology operations

• Expanded its Business and Financial Services areas with professionals skilled in business development

• Restructured its information technology services

• Established a Research and Policy Division to analyse data that is generated daily by the Courts, to provide information for the good governance of courts

• Reviewed the strategic plan for every State Court and associated administrative support services, in preparation for the development of a new corporate strategic plan

• Continued development for a new courts complex at Port Augusta, which will improve the facilities available to those who have business before the courts at Port Augusta

• Prepared for e-filing in civil matters heard in the higher courts (Supreme and District Courts), which is due to commence in July 2005

• Made available its expertise, locally and internationally, in family conferencing in the field of juvenile justice and care and protection of children

• Contributed to changing Rules of the Magistrates Court to enable improved debt collection from debtors in civil cases

• Participated in a Government Public Private Partnership involving premises at Port Pirie, Port Lincoln, Berri and Victor Harbor

• Established a Community Reference Group, to provide suggestions to the Authority’s Community Relations Committee in informing the community about the work of the Courts

• Established a Courts Aboriginal Reference Group, to inform the Council about matters concerning Aboriginal people who have contact with the Courts

• Attracted a record 1400 members of the public to the Courts Open Day

• Celebrated 10 years of family conferencing by the Care and Protection unit within the Youth Court

• Developed a program allowing for victims and offenders to meet face-to-face before sentencing, to discuss the harm caused by the crime.

• Established a Court assessment and referral drugs scheme (CARDS) for adults and in the Youth Court

• Introduced video conferencing between the Youth Court and Youth Training Centres

• Prepared for the introduction of a new Coroner’s Act 2003

• Recorded a downward trend in numbers of security incidents in Courthouses, resulting from improved security measures and staff training at city and country courthouses.


ProgressCommunity Relations Committee

The Community Relations Committee reports to the Council monthly. The committee has carriage of the Authority’s Community Involvement Plan 2005 (CIP) and in the period under review accomplished the following:

• Established a Community Reference Group, comprising representatives of the community to provide comment on the effectiveness of the CIP and opportunities to enable the Courts to engage with members of the community

• Arranged jointly with the Council of the Ageing and the SA Country Womens Association two public sentencing seminars

• Hosted an information session for Members of Parliament and their electoral staff

• Initiated and supported the Courts Education Officer in the creation and distribution of a “Courts Challenge” series of activities designed for primary school children across the State

• Supported the Courts Education Officer on roadshows to regional areas of the State, involving mock courts and information sessions with teachers, students, parents and communities

• Supported the Courts Education Officer with professional development for Legal Studies teachers and students, and with mock trials, information session and workshops. The Education Officer this year held workshops and court tours for more than 10,000 school students

• Hosted two media forums, allowing frank discussion with media routinely covering the Courts

• Provided a range of guest speakers for community groups and media interviews, as well as regular material for monthly newspaper columns and for specialist publications.

The Communications Branch coordinated visits and presentations about the courts to more than 750 members of community groups.

Aboriginal Initiatives

The activities of the Judicial Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Committee for this year appear in the report from the Supreme Court in this document.

In addition, the Authority participates in other initiatives involving Aboriginal people.

National Aboriginal Islander Day Observance Committee (NAIDOC)

Adelaide hosted NAIDOC 2005 and the Authority participated in the observance for the second time. In July, an event was arranged to acknowledge and celebrate the valuable contributions of Aboriginal elders and members of the Authority’s staff.

The event was held at Adelaide Magistrates Court. Paintings by Aboriginal prisoners for use by Port Augusta and Murray Bridge Magistrates Courts were displayed and presented. Seven Aboriginal people were presented certificates of appreciation for commitment to the establishment and continued operations of the Nunga Court at Port Adelaide, and Aboriginal Courts at other locations. An honour board, with names of present and past Aboriginal elders and respected persons who have served on the Nunga Court, was presented, for display at the Nunga Court. An inaugural Courts Aboriginal Employee of the Year Award was presented to Ms Colleen Welch, one of three original Aboriginal Justice Officers appointed in 1999 to assist members of the Aboriginal community on matters involving Courts and fines enforcement.

Aboriginal Initiatives Policy Officer

An Aboriginal Initiatives Policy Officer was appointed in November 2004 to advise the Council on the provision of effective services for Aboriginal people who come into contact with the Courts, and to provide specialist advice to all parts of the Authority. The officer is the executive to the Courts Aboriginal Reference Group (CARG) and assists in general development of policy and planning within the Authority.

COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY�0

Role and Function

The Supreme Court is the superior court in South Australia. The court deals with large civil claims and serious criminal charges. It is also the highest Court for appeals in South Australia. under the Administration and Probate Act the Supreme Court’s Probate Registry grants probate of a will or administration of the estate of a deceased person. The Supreme Court sits in Adelaide and at Mount Gambier and Port Augusta (called circuit hearings).

Judiciary

The Chief Justice is the principal judicial officer of the court and is responsible for its administration. He is also the Chairman of the State Courts Administration Council. There are 13 Justices and two Masters of the Supreme Court. The Court reduced the number of Masters by one during the year.

Justice Mullighan resigned on 2 December 2004. The vacancy was filled by the appointment of Justice Layton on 2 March 2005. All three Masters of the Court retired during the year – Master Burley on 21 February 2005, Master Bowen Pain on 23 March 2005, and Master Kelly on 1 June 2005. They were replaced by Master Withers, who was appointed on 29 November 2004 and Master Lunn, appointed on 3 December 2004.

Registrar and Court Staff

The Registrar is the principal administrative officer of the court and a member of the Authority’s Executive Management Committee. The Registrar manages the provision of registry and judicial support services to ensure that the needs of the court and the public are met. She is supported by the Deputy Registrar, branch

managers, registry staff, judicial support staff, and library staff. Associates, all of whom are legally qualified, and some of whom are admitted barristers and solicitors, assist Judges of the Court with research and in-court duties. A Business Analyst has been appointed to support the Registrars of the District and Supreme Courts in the areas of financial management and statistical reporting.

Higher Courts

To increase efficiency and best use limited resources, the Supreme Court and District Court have combined some operational functions, such as the Combined Criminal Registry, established some years ago. Two others are the shared Business Analyst and Manager, Judicial Support positions.

Court Reportsfrom the participating courts of the Authority

Supreme Court

AtAGlance 2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Number of Judges 14/13 13 13

Number of Masters 3 3 3/2

Staff Numbers 71 69 69

Total civil lodgments 1 662 1 534 1 548

Land and Valuation division lodgments+ 48 28 32

Probate grants of representation 4 754 4 997 4 605

Total criminal lodgments (combined registry) 2 140 2 140 2 306

Single judge appeals instituted+ 216 242 248

Full Court appeals instituted+ 84 91 79

Criminal appeals instituted 132 146 143

+ Included in total civil lodgments

��ANNUAL REPORT 04-05

Courts

Appellate performance standards

Appeals are listed monthly. The Supreme Court lists appeals in the month after parties are ready to proceed, except on a few occasions when a party asks for the hearing to be deferred.

Criminal jurisdiction performance standards

For criminal cases that are committed for trial the standard is that 80% of cases will be disposed of within 180 days, and 100% will be disposed of within 365 days from first arraignment in the Higher Courts. For criminal cases that are committed for sentence, ie the person has pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court, the standard is that 85% of cases will be disposed of within 90 days, and 100% will be disposed of within 120 days from first arraignment in the Higher Courts.

The performance against those standards is reasonable for cases committed for sentence, allowing for cases in which the parties are not ready to proceed.

For cases committed for trial, performance against the 180-day and 365-day standards has continued to

deteriorate. Factors such as increased lodgments due to legislative changes, the increased length of trials, the limited number of courtrooms available, and delay by the parties in preparing for trial, have played a part. It seems unlikely that the 180-day standard will be met in the foreseeable future, even if the 365-day standard can be met by increased procedural efficiencies. If more courtrooms were available the Courts could improve the performance by listing more cases. The number of courtrooms is limiting the Courts’ ability to improve performance.

It is likely that lodgments will increase generally, even if there are no legislative changes that result in increased lodgments. As the number of lodgments already exceeds the number that the Court can finalise, the backlog will inevitably increase.

It is anticipated that during the year to 30 June 2006 the number of trials disposed of within one year will drop from the present 61% to about 20%. The number will be even less the following year. Over-listing of trials has assisted in dealing with some of the overload, but it is

Supreme Court performance standards

The time standard for appeals to the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal is that cases are listed in the month after an appeal is ready to proceed. The standard for civil actions is that 60% are disposed of within one year of commencement. The standards referred to in this report are not the same as those reported nationally.

Standards Target Actual Actual Actual 2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Appellate

Full Court One month 100% 100% 100%

Court of Criminal Appeal One month 100% 100% 100%

Appeals to a single judge of the Supreme Court One month 100% 100% 100%

Criminal (combined jurisdiction)

Cases committed for trial disposed of or tried within 365 days of first arraignment 100% 92% 88% 61%

Cases committed for trial disposed of or tried within 180 days of first arraignment 80% 29% 17% 4%

Cases committed for sentence disposed of within 120 days of first arraignment 100% 75% 73% 73%

Cases committed for sentence disposed of within 90 days 85% 63% 58% 59%

Civil

Civil actions disposed of or come to trial within 365 days of commencement of proceedings 60% 42% 31% 40%

The table below shows the performance against the standard for the Supreme Court appellate, combined Supreme and District Court criminal jurisdiction, and Supreme Court civil jurisdiction.

COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY��


not sufficient to solve the inability of the Courts to deal with the caseload with the current number of criminal courtrooms.

Combined criminal jurisdiction statistics 2004–2005

The Courts use three measures, developed by the NSW Attorney-General’s Department, to indicate overall efficiency. These measures are described as key performance indicators (KPIs)

The KPIs are: Backlog, which measures whether the court is meeting its time standards; Overload, which records the number of cases on hand in excess of the number the court can be expected to process within its own time standards; and Clearance Ratio, which is the ratio of lodgments to finalisations over the reporting period.

The Backlog and Overload indicate whether the court is heading for, keeping out of, or getting out of trouble in terms of meeting its time standards in the future. Each indicator is calculated monthly against its target,

and the target figure is 0%, that is, all matters disposed of within the time periods fixed for that type of action. If the number is a negative figure, it shows that the court is bettering the required performance. A positive figure can show current or future problems or could prove that the target is unrealistic.

The Clearance Ratio should be 100% or more. Less than that number shows the court is not disposing of matters at the rate at which new matters are being received.

In previous years this report has covered all three measures. This year, errors were found in the formulae calculating overload. Accordingly, the overload indicator has been removed from this year’s report.

Figures 1 and 2 show the Backlog for criminal matters committed for sentence and trial in the Higher Courts. Figure 3 shows the Clearance Ratio.

Over the last year each of these indicators has remained in the 15% to 20% band. The backlog is slightly lower that it was four to five years ago. To the end of calendar year 2002 there was a steady reduction to the 12% and 15% marks from the highs of 2001. Since the January 2003 spike there has been a repeat of this general improvement and a return of both lines to less than 20%.

Figure 1 Backlog – committed for sentence


Courts

Civil jurisdiction performance standards

Although civil lodgments increased slightly, the Supreme Court achieved a better than 30% improvement in performance. The final result is still less than the standard.

The backlog indicator in relation to the 180 day standard has risen from 40% at January 2000 to 60% at December 2002 to 75% at June 2005.

The backlog indicator in relation to the 365-day standard was between 10% and 15% from January 2000 until January 2003 when it began to rise to about 20%. From February 2004 it rose above 20%. Early in

the year under review the line approached, and then remained near, the 30% mark.

This deterioration reflects the matters referred to earlier.

The deterioration in the backlog indicator reflects the substantial increase in criminal lodgments in 2001–2002 (see figure 4 – Combined Criminal Lodgments).

Figure 2 Backlog – committed for trial

Two factors influence this ratio. First, the rate at which the court clears cases. Second, the number of lodgments. An increase in lodgments during a period in which the number of dispositions is constant will result in a reduction in the clearance ratio. This graph therefore reflects court efficiency and court workload. Although at times the clearance ratio has gone over 100%, the fact that for significant periods it has been under 100% has resulted in the growing backlog (see figure 2).

Figure 3 Clearance ratio


Supreme Court Workload

Appellate Workload

APPEALS 2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Full Court Appeals and applications to Full Court 84 91 79 Disposal by hearing 73 70 61 Setting down* to hearing (average days) 54 46 40 Hearing to judgment (average days) 57 73 74

Single Judge** Appeals to a single judge 216 242 248 Disposal by hearing 226 192 201

Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) Applications for leave to appeal 124 143 141 Appeals and applications not requiring

leave to appeal 8 3 2

Total criminal appeals 132 146 143

Application for leave, or appeal, abandoned 20 13 29 Leave refused by CCA or single judge 40 13 29 Disposal by CCA hearing 85 89 95

Total disposals 145 115 153

Leave granted to hearing by CCA (days) 51 63 60 Hearing to judgment (days) 62 42 54

* A matter is ‘set down’ by the parties when it is ready to be heard

** Includes civil and criminal appeals from Magistrates

The number of appeals instituted and disposed of by the Full Court has decreased slightly compared with previous years.

The number of Single Judge Appeals instituted has increased slightly compared with the previous year, with a similar rise in numbers heard.


Combined criminal jurisdiction workload

2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Total criminal lodgments 2 140 2 140 2 306 inc circuit work+ 155 295 428

Criminal matters disposed of by trial 369 361 376

Criminal matters disposed of (other than by trial) 1 953 1 753 1 813

Criminal trials listed but not heard as at 30 June 187 231 307

Trials longer than ten days awaiting hearing as at 30 June* 12 13 28

Average length of criminal trials (includes Cat 1 trials) 7 days 8 days 9 days

Category one trials~ 19 18 15

Average length of Cat 1 trials only~ 14 days 24 days 33 days

+ Matters committed to circuit trial * Supreme Court long trials only ~ A class of cases for which the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction

The number of criminal appeals instituted has hardly changed. The number withdrawn and disposed of by a refusal of leave to appeal, as well as the number heard by the Court has increased. This has resulted in the number of cases awaiting hearing at the end of the year being reduced by over 30% during this year.


CourtsThis year’s lodgments increased to a total of 2 306 with an increase in circuit matters to 428. Over three years, circuit work has increased by more than 175%.

Over the past five years lodgments have increased by more than 80%. Another significant factor has been the increase in length of trials from an average of four days to nine days. During this time judicial resources for the Higher Courts as a whole decreased by 3% (33 judges and 4.5 Masters to 31 judges and five Masters).

Lodgments are one of the main components in workload measurement (the other being trial length). Over the past year there has been a minor increase (8%) in criminal lodgments. However, since early 2000, lodgments have increased by about 80%, and have remained at that level. Over the last few years circuit work has increased at a far higher rate than metropolitan work. Over the last three years circuit lodgments have increased from 155 to 428 (175% increase).

Civil Jurisdiction Workload

2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Civil Lodgments 1 662 1 534 1 548

Masters’ jurisdiction Hearings in court 692 865 504 Hearings in chambers* 2 353 2 038 2 341 urgent and other applications 155 161 204

Civil trials

Number of civil cases fixed for trial** 49 39 44 Cases disposed of by trial ~ ** 25 26 23 Trials commenced as a percentage of cases fixed for trial 51 67 52 Cases settled after being listed for trial 28 18 18 Civil cases awaiting trial as at 30 June 27 18 7 Number of civil cases finalised 814 863 763

Average length of trials (days) (not including C#)

Average for cases that proceed to judgment only 3 4.3 4.4 Average for cases that settled 1 2.8 1.5

Long and complex cases

Average trial length for cases that proceeded to judgment 33 0 14 Judge sitting days during year 115 0 27 Average sitting time for cases (days) 29 0 14 New matters lodged 10 10 5 Trials listed 4 6 9

Cases awaiting trial at 30 June 18 18 17

* Includes possession applications ~ Includes matters setting after trial commences** Includes Supreme Court circuit trials C# Long and complex cases

Figure 4 Combined criminal lodgments


During the year the number of Masters was reduced from three to two. Whilst the number of civil lodgments increased only slightly (by 1%), the average number of hearings by each Master has increased substantially (by 18%).

A ‘long and complex’ case is a case estimated to require more than 15 sitting days. These cases are referred to a Judge for case management. Although there are only 17 cases in this category, it is estimated that managing these cases occupies the equivalent of 2.4 judges annually; that is, 18.5% of the judges available to the Supreme Court.

Probate Registry

Most of the work of the Probate Registry concerns the issue (in non-contentious cases) of grants of probate or administration in respect of the estate of a deceased person. In such grants the Registrar of Probates exercises the powers of the Court.

In the year under review, there were 4 605 grants of representation, compared with 4 997 in the previous year. In addition, there were 38 interstate grants sealed in South Australia, compared with 44 in the year before.

Continuing Judicial Education

At the direction of the Chief Justice a committee was formed comprising representatives from the various State Courts, together with nominees from the State’s Law Schools, the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration and the Australian Law Council, to provide professional development programs for the State’s Judges and Magistrates.

On 25 February 2005 the committee conducted a conference at which over 45 members of the State’s judiciary attended.

The feedback from the conference was very positive and reflects the growing recognition from within and outside of the judiciary that such programs are necessary to maintain the judiciary as a skilled and informed professional body.

The conference commenced with an incisive presentation by Professor John Keeler about changes to the Law of Torts and the reforms recommended by the Ipp Report. This was followed by a presentation by Professor David Wiesbrott, Chair of the Australian Law Reform Commission, about some of the legal implications of DNA. It concluded with a lively and informative interactive discussion about judicial conduct, in and out of court. This session was presented by the National Judicial College of Australia and was led by Justices Kellam and Cummins from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The committee is formulating a draft program for 2006. In recognition of the expertise that the National Judicial

College can provide, it intends working with the College more in the future.

Legal Practitioners’ Education and Admission Council

The Legal Practitioners Education and Admission Council (LPEAC) is established by s 14B of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 and LPEAC prescribes the qualifications for admission of a person as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court, and the qualifications for the issue and renewal of practising certificates.

In exercising this function LPEAC sets the standard for academic and practical legal training for persons seeking admission to practice in South Australia.

The Chief Justice chairs LPEAC, which comprises judges of the Supreme Court and of the Federal Court, the Attorney-General, the Deans of Law at Adelaide university and Flinders university, members of the legal profession and a law student.

LPEAC considered the implications of the trend for providers of practical training in other States to offer courses able to be undertaken wholly or in part by distance education. LPEAC is awaiting the outcome of a proposal by the Australian Professional Legal Education Council to develop an accreditation system that will take account of courses offered by distance education. During the year LPEAC considered several changes to the LPEAC Rules, but as at 30 June 2005 had not made the proposed changes. LPEAC anticipates that during the coming year it will undertake a review of the courses in law offered by Adelaide university and Flinders university.

Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (LPDT) 2003–2005

The LPDT comprises legal practitioners appointed by the Attorney-General to hear and determine charges brought against lawyers by the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board. There are 13 members who sit on a part-time basis. Officers of the Supreme Court provide secretariat services to the LPDT.

Work has commenced to place LPDT decisions on-line to improve access for LPDT members and members of the public.

Workload Statistics: 2003–2005

Year* 2003 2004 2005

Matters instituted 5 12 4

Proceeded to hearing 4 10 1

Dismissed at hearing 7 1

S 23AA Applications+ 0 2 0

* 2005 half calendar year

+ Applications by disqualified persons for employment



CourtsJudicial Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Committee

Justice Sulan is Chairperson of the Authority’s Judicial Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Committee. The first meeting of the committee for this year was in February 2005. The committee meets monthly and incorporates acknowledgment of the Kaurna people and their traditional lands in the committee’s meeting protocols.

The committee intends to run activities in 2005–2006. These include convening two Aboriginal community meetings with judicial members. The first meeting is proposed for November 2005 in Adelaide, and the second at Koonibba Aboriginal Community (West Coast) in the last week of May 2006. Judicial members will visit surrounding Aboriginal communities such as Oak Valley, Maralinga and Yalata.

Higher Courts Libraries

A new manager will be recruited during the first quarter of the 2005–2006 financial year. This position will replace the two existing management positions and will have as a priority meeting budget targets.

TotalStock 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

Supreme Court Library 109 669 111 443 112 885

Sir Samuel Way Library 63 717 64 600 65 188

Supreme Court Library

The Supreme Court Library is a public library providing a comprehensive legal reference and research service to judges, court staff, lawyers, litigants-in-person, government agencies, interstate courts, law students and members of the public.

The main collection is housed in the Supreme Court Library Building. Additional collections are in judges’ chambers. The Court of Criminal Appeal also keeps a collection in the Sir Samuel Way Building for its use. The library currently holds more than 112 800 books. use of library facilities remains steady with an average of 216 telephone calls and 511 inquiries at the reference desk per month. The average number of people entering the library has exceeded 2 200 per month.

Sir Samuel Way Library

The Sir Samuel Way Library provides a comprehensive library and information service to judicial officers and staff of the Authority. A limited service is also provided to the legal profession, government agencies, other libraries and the general community.

The Library holds more than 65 100 items, approximately half of which are kept in the Sir Samuel Way Building. The remainder are located in satellite collections in city, suburban and country courts, judicial chambers, and Authority offices.

The Sir Samuel Way Library generates revenue by the publication of the District Court Judgment Index, which is available on annual subscription to law firms and libraries.


District Court

AtAGlance 2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Number of Judges 19–18 18 19

Number of Masters 2 2 3

Number of staff 71 72 73

Civil lodgments 1 750 2 105 1 967*

Criminal Injuries lodgments 919 769 621

Administrative & Disciplinary lodgments 599 383 270**

Lodgments (other courts and tribunals) N/a 300 258

Reviews of Minor Civil Claims 84 93 57

Criminal lodgments 1 997 2 002* 2 148*

Number of criminal circuit lodgments 155+ 280+ 424+

* Includes matters heard on circuit in 03–04; 04–05** Administrative & Disciplinary figures split to reflect other courts and tribunals serviced by the District Court Civil Registry.+ Information not previously recorded

Role and Function

The District Court is the principal trial court in South Australia. The Court has four Divisions: Criminal, Civil, Administrative and Disciplinary, and Criminal Injuries.

Except for Probate, Admiralty, Judicial Review and areas that come under specified statutes, the civil jurisdiction of the 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 such as the Guardianship and Administration Act, the Mental Health Act, the Building Work Contractors Act and the Land Agents Act. In some of these cases, a judge sits with assessors who have expertise in the field. Judges of the Court also hear matters in the Medical Practitioners Professional Conduct Tribunal and the Equal Opportunity Tribunal.

The Court sits in Adelaide and conducts civil circuits regularly at Mount Gambier and Berri, and at Port Pirie, Whyalla and Port Lincoln as required. It also conducts circuits at Mount Gambier and Port Augusta for criminal matters.

This year, the Court expanded its Civil Registry opening hours (from 4.30pm to 5pm) to meet the needs of clients of the Court.

Judiciary

Currently, the District Court comprises 19 judges, including the Chief Judge, and three Masters. Judges sit in all of the divisions and Masters hear matters in


the civil, criminal injuries and administrative and disciplinary divisions.

until his retirement in May 2005, Judge Brian Kelly, a master of the Supreme Court, was the Licensing Court Judge, but for the future, the Chief Judge has agreed to provide judges to sit in that court. Thus, the Chief Justice has not filled the vacancy caused by Judge Kelly’s retirement as a master and that position has been transferred to the District Court. That has permitted the appointment of another judge to provide the resources necessary to cover the Licensing Court and to compensate for loss of the assistance given to the District Court by Judge Burley when he was a master of the Supreme Court.

During the year, Judge Bishop and Judge Bright retired. Judge Lunn transferred from the District Court to the Supreme Court as a master. Judge Millsteed, Judge Boylan, Judge Beazley, Judge Barrett, Judge Chivell, Judge Shaw, Judge Tilmouth and Master Bampton were all appointed during the year.

Registrar and other court staff

The Registrar manages the provision of executive, registry, judicial and other support services to ensure that Court is administered in the most efficient and effective manner. The Registrar is supported by Deputy Registrars, registry staff, judicial support staff and librarians in the Sir Samuel Way Library. A Business Analyst has been appointed for the Supreme and District Courts (Higher Courts), to support the Registrars of both Courts in financial management and statistical reporting.

Judges of the District Court are assigned a judicial support officer permanently and an associate on a rotational basis for the purpose of legal research and in-court assistance.


CourtsOverview of workload

The District Court measures its performance against timeliness standards. The Supreme Court and District Court criminal jurisdictions are managed on a combined basis, and the relevant standards and performance are set out in the report on the Supreme Court.

Criminal

For the District Court alone, the number of lodgments including circuit matters increased marginally, with 2 148 matters lodged, compared with 2 002 in 2003–2004. However, since 2001–2002, when there were 1 721 lodgments, there has been an overall increase of almost one quarter (25%).

Most of the increased workload this year has come in circuit matters where there has been an increase of more than 34% in lodgments in 2004–2005, compared with 2003–2004.

Civil

The civil jurisdiction time standards and achievement against the standards are set out below.

Standards Target2002-2003 2003-20042004-2005

Civil

Defended cases to be disposed of or come to trial within 365 days of the issue of proceedings 65% 38.4% 36.4% 34.5%

Civil lodgments decreased by 6.4% to 1 967 in 2004–2005 compared with 2 105 in the previous year and 1 750 in 2002–2003. It was noted last year that there had been a decrease in the number of long trials listed as at 30 June, from 47 to 30, but this year there was an increase to 46.

The average length of long trials has increased from 12.1 days in 2003–2004 to 23.2 days in 2004–2005, an increase of 47%.

CivilTrials 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

Number of cases listed for trial* 431* 408* 413*

Cases disposed of by trial 57* 80* 57*

Cases settled after being listed for trial 209* 220* 223*

Long trials (more than ten days) 9 8 13

Average sitting time per long trial 14.1 12.1 23.2

Long trials awaiting trial as at 30 June 47 30 46

* Includes circuit trials

District Court civil Lodgments


District Court civil lodgments have decreased by 138 matters, a little over 6%. This is in keeping with the oscillating nature of this graph over the past four years.

Criminal injuries compensation

All applications for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1978, and since January 2003 the Victims of Crime Act 2001, are heard in the District Court. During the reporting period, 621 applications were lodged, a decrease of 19% compared with 769 in 2003–2004, and 919 in 2002–2003. Masters supervise the list for these matters and most matters settle without the need for a trial. A large percentage of matters now settle administratively by way of an offer and acceptance rather than requiring a hearing before a Master. Masters supervise the remaining contentious matters, with most settling without the need for a trial.

Administrative and disciplinary matters

The District Court hears administrative and disciplinary matters brought under various statutes as mentioned earlier. A total of 270 matters were lodged this year compared with 383 last year, a decrease of 29%.

Other Courts and Tribunals

The District Court administers files for lodgments in other Courts and Tribunals, for example the Wardens Court, Equal Opportunity and Medical Practitioners Professional Conduct Tribunals and Police Disciplinary Tribunal. These Courts and Tribunals are presided over by a District Court Judge or by a Magistrate. There were 258 matters in this category lodged for 2004–2005 compared to 300 for 2003–2004.

Sir Samuel Way Library

The Sir Samuel Way Library provides a comprehensive library and information service to judicial officers and staff of the Authority. A limited service is also provided to the legal profession, government agencies, other libraries and the general community. See the Supreme Court report on both the SSW and Supreme Court libraries, for further information.

Other initiatives in support of the Authority’s strategic plan

Preparation took place this year for e-filing in Higher Courts (Supreme and District Courts), which is due to commence in July 2005. This online facility will allow legal firms to file civil documents electronically and pay fees securely by credit card or a direct debit arrangement. The system allows up to 47 different prescribed forms to be filed electronically, therefore saving legal firms significant amounts of time by not having to attend a Registry office.

The District Court this year created a position of Manager, Judicial Support, whose role is to assist Registrars of the Supreme, District and Environment, Resources and Development Courts to manage judicial support staff. Priority has been given to the development and monitoring of training, workforce planning, personnel management and policy, to ensure high quality support to the Judiciary.



CourtsMagistrates Court

AtAGlance 2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Number of Magistrates 36 36 36


Civil primary lodgments 31 790 27 337 23 922

Civil primary lodgments (via Internet) 3 756 5 340 10 755

Civil enforcement process 51 590 47 786 49 823

Civil applications 4 766 4 664 4 519

Civil defences lodged 4 262 3 970 3 890

Criminal general lodgments 84 194 79 641 81 777

Criminal expiation lodgments* 122 158 125 105 131 970

Criminal hearings by Magistrates 242 876 237 492 246 086

* unpaid expiation fines lodged with the court for enforcement.

Role and function

The Magistrates Court handles the greatest proportion of litigation in the State. All criminal matters begin in the Magistrates Court and the civil jurisdiction is important for many citizens.

The Court has four jurisdictions:

Civil (General claims)

This jurisdiction hears claims for damages up to $80 000 for injury arising from motor vehicle accidents and certain other claims (eg recover property) not exceeding $80 000. Mostly, general claims involve amounts greater than $6 000 and less than $40 000. The Supreme Court and District Court deal with higher amounts.

Civil (Minor claims)

Matters in this jurisdiction are considered with less formality and parties are not entitled to legal representation except in special circumstances. Minor civil claims are disputes involving amounts up to $6 000 and minor neighbourhood and fencing disputes.

Civil (Consumer and business)

This jurisdiction hears disputes over warranty claims concerning 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. Summary offences are those that can only be decided by a Magistrate. For example, most offences under the Road Traffic Act are summary offences. Minor indictable offences are

decided in a Magistrates Court unless the defendant chooses to have the charge heard in a higher (District or Supreme) Court. For major indictable offences, the Court, after reviewing the evidence, determines whether there is sufficient evidence to commit the accused person to be tried in the Supreme or District Courts. Major indictable offences are punishable by imprisonment for more than five years.

Magistracy

Mr J Fahey, Mr P Snopek and Mr A Schapel were appointed Stipendiary Magistrates on 21 October 2004, 2 December 2004 and 28 April 2005 respectively.

Overview of workload

Civil jurisdiction

Civil primary lodgments

These lodgments involve general and minor civil claims, recovery of debts, personal injury claims, claims relating to motor vehicle property, worker’s liens, second hand vehicle dealer matters and defacto relationships.

They also include appeals involving provisional licences and firearms, and applications concerning registrations of births, deaths and marriages. Applications arising from legislation covering fencing disputes, shop leases, builders’ works, neighbourhood disputes and second hand vehicle dealers are also included in these lodgments.

This year, 34 677 lodgments were recorded, an increase of six percent compared with 2003–2004.

2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

All civil primary lodgments 35 516 32 677 34 677


Lodgments are made over the counter in court registries or via internet. Civil electronic lodgments have enabled easier access for solicitors and the general public with an almost 100% (5 415) increase in the numbers of lodgments made via internet compared with the previous year, and a decrease of around 13% (3,457) in numbers of documents lodged manually at a court registry.

2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Civil primary lodgments lodged over the counter 31 760 27 337 23 922

Civil electronic lodgments 3 756 5 340 10 755

Civil enforcement processes

Summonses raised under civil enforcement include summons to a witness, absconding debtor, warrants of arrest/sale/commitment, other warrants (as specified by the Court), miscellaneous enforcement matters such signing off a copy of judgment; copy of record; signing judgment in default; signing judgment made by consent between parties; garnishee order nisi (to compel payments) and garnishee order absolute.

There has been a 4% increase in the numbers of civil enforcement processes this year.

2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Civil enforcement processes 51 579 47 786 49 823

Civil applications heard by a Magistrate

There were 3% fewer applications heard by a Magistrate this year. These include

applications to set aside a judgement/warrant, applications to decide matters without formal court appearances (ex-parte) and other (unspecified) applications brought to the Court by parties.

2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Civil applications 4 766 4 664 4 519

Civil defences and counterclaims

A downward trend continues in numbers of civil defences and counterclaims. Defences include those against an originating claim, a counterclaim and third party notice to join in a suit, and other defences such as a counterclaim to an originating claim and counterclaim to a third party notice.

2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Civil defences and counterclaims 4 262 3 970 3 809

Mediation

Three mediators are based in Adelaide Magistrates Court and have commenced conducting mediations in suburban Courts.

Mediations come from two sources: minor civil matters referred from directions hearings and general matters referred by Magistrates. Parties are taking up the opportunity to negotiate a mutually agreeable resolution to a dispute rather than going to trial. This year 245 mediations were entered into compared with 268 in the previous year. Of the mediations conducted this financial year 72% resulted in the dispute being resolved compared to a settlement rate of 64.5% for the previous year.

The Mediations conducted include referrals from all Magistrates Courts (suburban and country).



CourtsDirections hearings

Registrars or their deputies usually hear minor civil directions hearings. At these hearings, parties are given the option to discuss the dispute with or without the assistance of the registrar/deputy registrar to endeavour to reach a settlement of the matter, to list the matter for mediation (both parties must agree to mediation) or list the matter for trial

Statistics show that only 31% (2004–2005) of the matters defended in this jurisdiction proceed to trial.


Pre-Lodgment System and Pro Bono Mediations

A pre-lodgment scheme was introduced in South Australia in July 1999, allowing individuals, businesses and organizations to take a series of steps to resolve disputes themselves rather than resorting to formal proceedings. The Magistrates Court offers to people who have used the pre-lodgment scheme a mediation service, provided by voluntary mediators. The numbers of mediations, Final Notices of Claim issued and numbers of mediation conferences are shown below: (A final notice of claim is akin to a final letter of demand and is the first step in the process).

Numberof Mediation Settlement Notices Conferences Percentage

2002 – 2003 4 622 102 72

2003 – 2004 4 426 105 80

2004 – 2005 4 770 118 61

Adult Restorative Conferencing

The Magistrates Court Mediation unit, in conjunction with the Youth Court’s Family Conferencing Team, developed a program for victims and offenders to meet face-to-face before sentencing, to discuss the harm caused by the crime. The program was known as Adult Restorative Conferencing and was run as a trial scheme for 12 months. The scheme ceased on 30 June 2005, having dealt with 27 individuals.

One of the goals set for the evaluation was to determine parties’ satisfaction with the process and whether conferencing was effective. A total of 14 conferences with victims were held. Flinders university is conducting an evaluation of the trial program, with a report to be completed in 2005–2006. The pilot received a year’s funding from the Justice Portfolio. The Authority was unsuccessful in obtaining on-going funding.

Court experts

The Magistrates Court has developed a panel of experts that can be called on by the Court to provide independent expertise to help the Court. The panel comprises 20 professional, trade and technical experts. These experts are used to help parties to settle their disputes at the outset, to assist the Court and parties prepare for an efficient trial and to assist the Court during hearings. This initiative has proven to be a cost effective and efficient means of dealing with complex technical issues.

The experts were used 147 times for on-site inspections and mediations this year, and assisted the presiding Magistrates in five trials.

Criminal Jurisdiction

Lodgments in the criminal jurisdiction are divided into two categories: general criminal and expiations (fines).

The latter originate from SAPOL or other prosecuting agencies (eg Local councils, Fisheries etc) and do not involve court appearances until such time as an unpaid expiation notice is referred to the court for enforcement. General criminal matters usually originate from a police complaint or charge.

Criminal lodgments

2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Criminal general lodgments 84 194 79 639 81 777

Criminal expiation lodgments 122 158 125 105 131 970

All criminal lodgments 206 352 204 744 213 747

Criminal hearings by Magistrates

There was an increase of 3.6% in hearings before a Magistrate this year of general criminal cases.

2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Criminal hearings 242 876 237 492 246 086

Applications to review orders to pay fines

2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Review enforcement order 10 789 12 916 18 770

Review order for cancelled relief 1 018 1 165 1 324

Enforcement orders are made when an unpaid expiation notice is referred by the issuing authority to the Magistrates Court for enforcement. A person may apply to the Magistrates Court for a Review of an Enforcement Order (Form 51) on grounds that include the expiation notice should not have been given to the person in the first instance, or because procedural requirements of the relevant legislation were not complied with, or the person failed to receive a notice (these grounds are not the only grounds).

Applications for a review of an enforcement order have increased by 45% this financial year, with a resultant increase in the workload within the Magistrates Court.

An application to review an order for cancelled relief (Form 48) is an application by a person who has been granted time to pay on an expiation notice due to hardship and has then failed to comply with the order. The number of these applications has increased slightly.

Fines Payment Unit

The Fines Payment unit manages the recovery of all criminal court monetary penalties and comprises Magistrates Court staff operating from registries in the city and country. There is also a Fines Payment Call Centre that takes payment via credit card and advises callers on options available to deal with fines.



CourtsIn addition, Aboriginal Justice Officers assist indigenous people on all court related matters.

Total revenue collected by the Fines Payment unit for 2004–2005 was $40 078 730 at an average of $3.3 million per month. This equates to an increase of 8% over that collected in the 2003–2004 financial year.

The Courts online fines website provides users with a secure online facility to view and make payments towards outstanding penalties along with the ability to view the financial history for penalties. The online system began in January 2005.

The most popular ways of paying fines has been via over the counter, through direct debit, and arrangements with Centrelink (Centrepay) and Australia Post.

2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Australia Post $3 434 482 $3 721 045 $4 079 759

RLS 782 877 669 955 686 103

CentrePay 1 179 148 5 954 650 7 589 883

Direct Debit 11 446 407 10 605,803 11 034 449

Reculver 0 0 1 246 294

Services SA 0 0 14 371

On-Line Fines 0 0 318 932

Credit Card 2 962 182 2 986 210 3 309 500

Receipt – Other 13 402 531 13 170 271 11 799 440

Total Collection 33 207 627 37 107 934 40 078 730

Magistrates Court contact and call centres

The Magistrates Court and Easy Pay Fines Call Centre operations are managed centrally. The Call Centre continues to develop and improve its level of service delivered. The industry standard for abandoned calls is between 3 to 4%. This financial year, both call centres surpassed this standard.

The Easy Pay Fines Call Centre allows easy access for clients via a Freecall telephone number (1800 659 538) nationally. Clients can arrange for applications and court forms to be sent to them to organise payment of outstanding fines. The centre is also proactive in following up outstanding fines and arrangements, making 43 467 calls outward.

Credit card payments have steadily increased over the year with a total of over $3million, a 10.8% increase on the previous year. Clients contacting the call centre by e-mail has also increased, with 489 e-mails received, a 39.7% increase on the previous year.

Easy Pay Fines Call Centre

2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Inbound calls 140 557 146 490 146 506

Outbound calls 41 320 43 467 44 876

Credit card payments $2 962 182 $2 986 210 $3 309 500

Email n/a 350 489

* Abandoned rate 3.5%* 2.5% 2.4%

* National abandonment rate industry standard is 3 to 4%.

Magistrates Court Call Centre

The Magistrates Court Call Centre operates from 8.30am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday, handling all criminal and civil enquiries and responding to the three electronic mailboxes:

e-response centre: This mailbox is used by clients for any general court query, including the higher courts.

e-registration: This mailbox is used by clients who wish to register for the civil pre-lodgment scheme.

e-lodgment queries: This positional mailbox is used by clients who have a query with the pre-lodgment site, at either point of registration, or once they have registered as a user.

There has been a significant increase in clients contacting the centre through e-mail. The centre received more than 1 000 queries, a 66% increase on the previous year.

The Magistrates Court Division Call Centre handles outcomes of applications for a review of an enforcement order for the Adelaide Magistrates Court, within 24 hours of receipt. This financial year more than 8 000 applications were actioned, almost double the number in 2003–04.

Magistrates Court Call Centre

2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Inbound Calls 110 081 107 206 112 106

E-response centre mailbox n/a 800 1 328

E-registration mailbox n/a 892 808

E-lodgment queries mailbox n/a 450 688

Enforcement order review results n/a 4 266 8 515

* Abandoned rate 3.2% 2.4% 2.0%

* National abandonment rate industry standard is 3 to 4%.


Other Matters

Public Private Partnerships (PPP)

The Authority and SA Police are in partnership with the private sector to develop or refurbish new police and court facilities with a combined capital value of around $40m. These new facilities are at Port Lincoln (co-located court and police station), Victor Harbor (co-located court and police station), Port Pirie (new court to be located next to existing police station), Berri (new court to be located next to existing police station), Mount Barker (stand alone police station) and Gawler (stand alone police station).

The project involves design, construction, maintenance and ownership of the facilities by the private sector. Operations are restricted to building management and ownership of services such as maintenance, utilities, repairs, grounds maintenance, communications, cabling and hard wiring and cleaning.

In February 2005, the Government announced the Preferred Partner as Plenary Justice Pty Ltd. This consortium comprises financial specialists (Plenary Pty Ltd and Deutsch Bank), builders (Hansen Yunken Pty Ltd) and a facilities management group (Advance Building Technologies Group Pty Ltd). The contract was executed in June 2005.

Civil enforcement review – new debt collecting rules

Civil enforcement is creditor driven and it is effective in ensuring that most people pay their debts and most Court judgments are paid. However, creditor driven Court processes are often not effective against a relatively small group of non-performing debtors. Research has shown that more than half of these are also fine defaulters. until the new rules came into effect fine enforcement and civil enforcement against these debtors proceeded without co-ordination. This often resulted in excessive delay and expense to creditors because the Court takes no action on civil debts until the creditor asks it to do so.

The new rules allow the court to declare non performing debtors to be chronic debtors. The effect of that is to refer the debtor to the Fines Payment unit which will collect one sum to be distributed in accordance with the Section 62(2) of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988. Distribution of funds to civil debtors occurs after victims and prosecution costs but before fines. Victims have first claim on monies recovered and the priority is thus: prosecution costs; civil debtors and then fines.

The Court through its Fines Payment unit is proactive in collecting the money, saving creditors the expense. It saves debtors money because costs will be reduced so that a greater proportion of the payments they make will be applied to reduce the original debt rather than costs.

Creditors can access the list of chronic debtors before they commence an action to assess the viability of doing so. The rules do not prevent a creditor who has reason to believe that a chronic debtor has assets from issuing enforcement process against him or her nor from seeking remedies in bankruptcy.

Aboriginal Courts

Aboriginal Courts are designed to recognise the integral role of the family and the community in the lives of indigenous people and to create a venue that is less intimidating for offenders and their families. The Magistrate sits at eye-level with the defendant. An indigenous advisor provides advice and assistance to the Magistrate throughout the proceedings. Defendants sit alongside their legal representatives and police prosecutors at the bar table and family members are encouraged to join them. Processing of court outcomes by the registry is given priority, enabling custody and other matters to be dealt with quickly.

Aboriginal Justice Officers assist indigenous offenders, their families and the court. Advisors assist the Magistrate and play an important role in ensuring the success and acceptance of the court within the indigenous community. Attendance rates by defendants at these courts have remained considerably higher than for indigenous defendants attending other courts.

Aboriginal Sentencing Court Statistics for Port Adelaide, Murray Bridge and Port Augusta are combined. Ceduna did not have any defendants that elected to go before an Aboriginal Court in 2004–2005. The numbers of defendants are counted as individuals and are only counted once per financial year. Each charge has been counted once in each financial year in each court.

Combined Aboriginal Court statistics

2003–2004 2004–2005

Number of defendants n/a 179

Number of files n/a 558

Number of charges n/a 1 738



CourtsCourt Volunteer service

This Service provides a vital link between the court and its clients. The work of volunteers assists the court to function more smoothly by providing help and advice to court users. Volunteers are available to assist any client of the court in any circumstance; as a witness, defendant, plaintiff, victim, lawyer or someone wishing to observe proceedings and learn more about the Courts.

Volunteers provide refreshment and support, an information service (excluding legal advice) on the location of court rooms and court services and facilities, assistance to the Court Education Officer and assistance and support to court users in court. Sixty five volunteers provide services at the District Court (Sir Samuel Way Building), Adelaide Magistrates Court and the metropolitan Magistrates Courts.

This year, the service handled 58 516 enquiries and served 7 136 refreshments, compared with 55 000 inquiries and 9 000 refreshments in the previous year.

Specialist Magistrates Courts

Three other specialist courts operate within the Magistrates Court to provide opportunities for treatment for conditions which underlie or relate to defendants’ offending with the aim of reducing future offending. Specialist Courts have a manager who oversees all the programs and 26 staff. All specialist court programs work closely with government and non-government agencies such as SA Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Department of Correctional Services, Legal Services Commission, the Department of Health, Salvation Army, CentreCare and OARS.

The Drug Court

The Drug Court program aims to reduce future offending behaviour by referring defendants with an illicit drug dependency for rehabilitation and treatment, to Drug and Alcohol SA. Participants’ progress over 12 months is monitored and supervised by a magistrate and by the Drug Court program staff who also provide advice and support. Participants are linked with non-government organisations that provide housing and practical and emotional support to assist participants develop and maintain a functional lifestyle. The Drug Court employs 10 staff, including health professionals and case managers.

The percentage of participants who have completed the 12-month Drug Court program has remained constant over the past two years. The average success rate for the program since 2002 is 27%, which is substantially better than other programs interstate and overseas.

The number of Aboriginal participants in the Drug Court program has remained low despite the implementation

of a number of initiatives. However, barriers to participation have been identified in consultation with Aboriginal organisations and a modified program is being developed for trial in the Aboriginal Court at Port Adelaide later this year.

Shift in primary drug of dependence

The graph above illustrates the primary drug of dependence of those assessed for the Drug Court and the change in patterns of use over the past three years. In addition during the financial year 2003–2004, 73% stated that they had used more than one category of illicit drugs. That includes cannabis.

The Office of Crime Statistics and Research evaluated the effectiveness of the program in preventing further offending. The results suggest that the Program may be having a positive effect in reducing offending levels among those who complete the program.

The Magistrates Court diversion program (MCDP)

This program aims to reduce the offending behaviour of defendants who have a functional impairment, as a result of a mental illness, intellectual disability, acquired brain injury, or neurological disorder and who have committed a minor indictable or summary offence.

The aims of the program are achieved by linking people with relevant treatment and services provided by government and non-government agencies and monitoring their progress over six months. Where necessary the program staff advocate and liaise with these agencies on the defendants behalf, to obtain access to services. Sentencing is deferred to enable participants to complete the program and the Magistrate is kept informed of progress.


2003–2004 2004–2005

Male Female Total ATI* Male Female Total ATI*

Referrals 208 87 295 27 260 82 342 24

Assessed 167 66 233 30** 180 69 249 22

Accepted 126 64 190 18 218 69 287 17

Completions 71 33 104 5 133 68 201 17

* Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander** There may occasionally be assessment waiting periods of up to four weeks. Thus the 2003–2004 figure includes people referred at the end of the

2002–2003 financial year but whom were assessed in the 2003–2004.

A breakdown in the diagnostic categories clearly shows most cases involve mental illness. A further breakdown by primary diagnosis indicate that almost a quarter of participants suffer from schizophrenia, and slightly fewer have a major depressive illness.

The offence profile for participants assessed for the Magistrates Court Diversion Program has changed only slightly over the past two years as shown in the table below. Larceny and assault offences continue to be the most frequent reason for referral to the program.


Breakdown of Diagnosis by Major Impairment Types 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 Comparison of Mental Health Issues with other categories

Comparison of Primary Offence categories 2003 - 2004


CourtsFor participants who successfully complete the program the most common outcome of cases is the withdrawal of charges by the police. The next most common outcome is that the participant is placed on a bond, either under the supervision of the Department of Correctional Services (21.4%) or unsupervised (10%). Only .05% of participants receive a prison sentence.

Final Court outcomes MCDP 1 July 2004 - June 2005

Court Assessment and Referral Drug Scheme (CARDS)

The State and Commonwealth Governments jointly fund this three year pilot program which aims to direct drug offenders into treatment as part of their bail or bond conditions and therefore reduce the likelihood of future drug related offending.

It is an early intervention program, which aims to reduce illicit drug taking and related criminal behaviour. Participants must agree to attend four treatment sessions within three months run by Drug and Alcohol Services SA.

The scheme began at Port Adelaide Magistrates Court in June 2004 and has since expanded to the Magistrates Courts at Murray Bridge and Mount Barker and currently employs seven staff.

There were 117 people referred to the scheme with 94 being assessed, 65 accepted and 30 people completing the scheme. Fourteen people attended one to three sessions and 21 are yet to commence.

Family violence Court

Family violence courts are held at Adelaide and Elizabeth Magistrates Courts. Operating within these Courts are Violence Intervention Programs, which provide a coordinated approach to keep women and children safe from domestic violence and to help men check violent behaviour. A 12-week “Stopping Violence “ group program is offered to men. Partners and ex-partners are provided with information on restraining orders, court processes, support, safety planning and other options.

The Adelaide FVC works together with the Salvation Army and the Department of Correctional Services. The Family violence Court at Elizabeth works in partnership with the Northern Community Health Service.

While numbers of defendants at the Adelaide Magistrates Court has remained fairly constant over the past three years the number of male defendants in the FVC at Elizabeth have decreased by 31% from 667 to 460.


Environment, Resources and Development Court

AtAGlance 2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Number of Judges 2 2 2

Number of full-time Commissioners 3 3 3

Number of Masters (shared with District Court) 2 2 3

Number of part-time Commissioners 24 26 25


Appeal lodgments 441 448 510

Enforcement applications 19 17 28

Complaints lodged* 22 9 6

Total 482 474 544

* Complaint is an action taken in the court

Role, structure and legislation

The Environment, Resources and Development Court (ERD Court) was established under the Environment, Resources and Development Court Act 1993 and began on 15 January 1994. The ERD has jurisdiction over development, heritage, environment protection, water resources, irrigation, mining, native vegetation and native title matters covered by the following statutes:

• Development Act 1993

• Environment Protection Act 1993

• Water Resources Act 1997

• Heritage Act 1993

• Irrigation Act 1994

• Mining Act 1971

• Native Title (SA) Act 1994

• Land Acquisition Act 1969

• Opal Mining Act 1995

• River Murray Act 2003

• Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary Act 2005

• Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act 2002

• S outh Eastern Waster Conservation and Drainage Act 1992

• Native Vegetation Act 1991

The Natural Resources Management Act 2004 will be implemented on 1 July 2005. This Act will repeal the Water Resources Act 1997 and Soil Conservation and Land Care Act 1989, administered at present by the District Court. In July 2005, the ERD Court will have jurisdiction to hear appeals and criminal proceedings under the new Act.


The Court has two Judges, who are also Judges of the District Court, three Commissioners and 25 part-time Commissioners who sit in various jurisdictions according to their expertise. Judge Michael Bowering and Judge Andrew Wilson were appointed as auxiliary judges, from 1 July 2004 until 30 June 2005.

The ERD Court has a Registrar and 10 members of staff who provide administrative, registry and judicial support to the Court and clients.

Workload

The Court handled a significantly greater workload this year compared with the previous year, with a sharp increase in lodgments, particularly in 2005. This is attributable to a higher level of activity in the development sector, together with the increased jurisdiction of the Court under new legislation.

More than 1 100 conferences were arranged in 2004–2005, compared with 843 in the previous year. The order of increase in the number of hearings was similar. As in previous years, the increase in workload has been accommodated without an increase in the number of judges, with the assistance of part-time Commissioners and Auxiliary Judges, and by changes to listing procedures.

In addition, new procedures, including the offering of a hearing by written submissions together with a view, and the hearing of experts’ evidence concurrently, have been introduced. More time has also been allowed between lodgment and the listing of conferences.

Maintenance of quick turnaround time remains a high priority for the Court. Approximately 85% of matters in the Court are Development Act 1993 appeals, which frequently require quick resolution. The Court will require the appointment of a further full-time commissioner soon to meet time standards, if the current trend of increased lodgments continues.


Courtscourthouse or council chambers. This measure assists parties and saves all involved time and money. However, the Court is regularly asked to split the hearing between city and country in complex larger matters, because of the expense to parties of having expert witnesses travel to the country. This year, the Court travelled to Mount Gambier, Bordertown, Kadina, Kingston, Naracoorte, Maitland, Port Pirie, Kangaroo Island, Port Lincoln, Robe, Port Augusta and Berri.

Time Standards

The Court monitors and manages delay by setting approximate time standards for completion of various stages in the appeal process.

Time Standards

From lodgment to conference four weeks (42% compliance)

Conference to single bench hearing (metro) six weeks (23%)

Conference to single bench hearing (country) eight weeks (50%)

Conference to full bench hearing (metro) eight weeks (0%)

Conference to full bench hearing (country) 12 weeks (0%)

Conferences: The Court aims to progress a matter to conference within four weeks of its lodgment (previously the standard was three weeks). During the year under review 42% of matters were listed for conference within the four week timeframe. Conferences were held within the set time standard in 38% of matters (both metropolitan and country) compared to 15% in both 2003–2004 and 2002–2003. This reflects, in part, requests from parties to adjourn the convening of the conference. Eighty one percent of conferences were metropolitan matters.

Hearings: The Court aims to list hearings within particular timeframes dependent on the constitution of the bench and the location of the hearing. However, the Court is not always able to achieve these standards as the listing of hearings is influenced by a number of factors beyond the control of the Court, such as the availability of counsel and difficulties in the timely provision of complex expert reports. Of the single bench hearings (metropolitan) 23% were listed within six weeks of the last day of conference compared to 33% in 2003–2004 and 16% in 2002–2003.

Judgments: The Court attained the standard of two months from the close of hearing to delivery of the judgment in 80% of matters, compared with 88% in the previous year and 97% in 2002–2003.

The table below provides lodgment figures for the 2004–2005 financial year and comparisons with the previous two years. There was a 15% increase in lodgments for the year under review.

Total Average lodgments permonth

2002–2003 482 40.17

2003–2004 474 39.5

2004–2005 544 45.33

Native Title

The figure above does not include statistics for Native Title cases. Five notices initiating negotiations with Native Title parties were lodged during the year, compared to four in 2003–2004 and 20 in 2002–2003. There were four searches of the State Native Title Register, compared with seven in 2003–2004 and four in 2002–2003. One application for determination was made while no mediations were sought or held.

Conferences

Pursuant to Section 16 of the Environment, Resources and Development Court Act 1993, conferences are held in almost all matters with the exception of criminal proceedings. Of 475 matters finalised during the reporting period, 391 matters were set for conference. This compares with 312 matters finalised and 258 proceeding to conference the previous year. Eighty four matters did not proceed to conference (19 were withdrawn before conference, 65 dispensed with the conference). The settlement rate for conferences has increased slightly, with 181 matters (46%) having settled this year as a result of the conference process, compared with 112 matters (43%) in the previous year.

Hearings

The Court sits primarily in Adelaide, but can sit anywhere in the State. For the year under report, 134 matters proceeded to hearing, compared with 77 in 2003–2004 and 108 in 2002–2003. Of those 134 matters, 13 were hearings by a full bench of the Court comprising a Judge and one or two Commissioners, equal to the previous year. There were 111 matters heard by a single member of the Court, either a Judge or Commissioner sitting alone, 37 more than for 2003–2004. Of the 134 matters, 10 were Building Dispute hearings with a bench comprising two Commissioners.

Country Hearings

The Court generally takes a view of the subject land in the early stages of a hearing. The Court will sit at a location as near as practicable to the location of the land or development, the subject of the dispute. This enables the Court to view the subject land in that location then continue with the hearing of the matter at the nearest


of South Australia. The Court also supports Work Experience programs within educational institutions and the Court has provided secondary and tertiary students with an opportunity to observe all aspects of the Court’s work.

Roles within the client service unit of the ERD and District Court registries have been extended and integrated. The counter service area has been amalgamated between both jurisdictions, with the District Court revising its opening hours to achieve consistency with the ERD and Supreme Courts. This integration and amalgamation has assisted in multi-skilling staff, identifying training needs and providing more learning and training opportunities. Court users also have benefited from streamlined service.

The Court intends to continue its participation in the Authority’s workforce planning exercise, in particular, the Court will re-assess recruitment and measures to retain staff, performance development and a suitable induction process. The Court also intends to continue to ensure that staff possess knowledge across the ERD and District Court jurisdictions, and will be re-developing the District/ERD counter service area.

Achievements and initiatives in support of the Authority’s strategic plan

For the year under review, 51% of appellants appeared unrepresented at the conference stage. At hearings, 29% did not have legal representation. Members of staff of the Court continue to provide comprehensive and detailed procedural advice to assist unrepresented parties with the Court process. In addition, the website is updated when changes to procedures have been made, encouraging greater understanding about the work of the Court. updated “Appeal” and “Application to join” forms and fact sheets have been made available, along with presentations made externally by Judicial Officers of the Court.

Furthermore, the Court is developing an electronic application form for self-represented litigants. Revised ERD Court Practice Directions are expected to encourage the use of this new procedure.

In 2005–2006 the Court intends to update an information flyer for self-represented litigants. Work has also begun on an ERD Court Information Guide that will include statistics, member profiles, jurisdictions, and registry functions, which will be made available to clients and local government councils.

Court 14 in the Sir Samuel Way Building this year was refurbished, to cater for less formal hearings. It has also remained wired to allow for audio recording, thus speeding up provision of transcript as required. Computers have also been installed in Conference Rooms to enhance efficiency in dealing with matters.

Training and exporting knowledge

The Senior Judge has formed a Court Liaison Committee including representatives from the legal profession, to review procedures, to improve ways in which the Court deals with various matters.

Expertise within the Court has been developed this year by the Judges and full-time Commissioners participating in various conferences and by giving presentations.

This year, judges of the Court spoke at meetings and events organised by the Local Government Association, Lawyers Engaged in Alternative Dispute Resolution (LEADR), Rotary and the Planning Education Foundation. Judge Cole continued involvement in courses at the Flinders university Law School and Judge Trenorden again was coordinator of the Environmental Law unit of the Law Society of South Australia’s graduate legal education program. Judge Trenorden was a guest speaker and Commissioner Hodgson co-organised a seminar for the Planning Education Foundation about the ERD Court. Members of the Court gave presentations to participants in Environment Protection Enforcement and Water Resources Investigation and Enforcement Certificate courses run by the university



CourtsYouth Court

AtAGlance 2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Number of judges 2 2 2

Number of magistrates 2 2 2

Staff numbers 32 32 32 **

Criminal matters lodged* 3 600 3 033 2 943

Family conference matters 1 503 1 403 1 315(1)

Youths dealt with at family conference 1 708 1 577 1 463(2)

Child protection applications to the Youth Court 508 544 630

Number of children involved in Care and Protection applications to the Court 702 910 1 057

Child protection referrals to Care and Protection unit 360 394 431(2)

Number of children dealt with by Care and Protection unit 617 666 736(2)

** 32 staff including indigenous cadet equates to 28.6 full time equivalent personnel.* Matters lodged at Adelaide(1) Counting unit for family conference team is derived from electronic data base(2) Manually derived statistic

The Youth Court includes a Registry and two diversion arms of the Court, the Family Conference Team and the Care and Protection unit.

Youth Court

The Youth Court comprises two District Court judges, one of whom is designated as Senior Judge and two magistrates, proclaimed by the Governor as judges and magistrates of the Youth Court.

The Court has criminal jurisdiction for offenders between 10 and 17 years for all charges except murder and manslaughter, and where, because of the gravity of the offence or a pattern of repeated offending, the Court decides that the young person should be dealt with as an adult.

A judge deals with major indictable offences, which are the most serious, and can impose a sentence of up to three years’ detention. A magistrate may sentence a young offender to no more than two years’ detention. In sentencing, the court considers the need for young offenders to be made aware of their obligations under the law, the protection of the community, the deterrent effect of any sanction on the young person, the need to preserve family and cultural relationships and where possible, the provision of compensation or restitution to the victim of an offence. In this way, sentencing differs from adults, where the principle of general deterrence (not individual deterrence) is applied.

The court has civil jurisdiction in applications for the care and protection of children. Orders the court may make include Investigation and Assessment Orders, Care and Protection Orders of up to a year and an order placing

a child under the guardianship of the Minister until the child turns 18 years of age. The court also receives applications for the adoption of children.

Family conferences

under the Young Offenders Act 1993, any offence deemed suitable can be sent to a family conference. Youth justice coordinators convene these meetings.

A family conference allows the offender to meet the victim of the offence and to understand the consequences of the offending behaviour. It also enables the young person to try to make amends, and provides an opportunity to restore relationships between the young offender, people close to him or her and others affected by the offence. Those who attend the conference may include the offender, parents or guardians, the victim, a person to support the victim, a police youth officer and youth justice coordinator. The conference aims to find a suitable outcome for the offence, for example, a caution, community service, payment of compensation, an apology, a promise to work at the site of the damage or to do anything else that might be appropriate in the circumstances.

Family care meetings

The Children’s Protection Act 1993 allows for family care meetings. Care and Protection unit coordinators convene these meetings.

A referral to a family care meeting is made when a child is thought to be at risk or harm and before an application is made to the Court for an order granting custody of a child, or placing a child under the guardianship of a person other than the child’s parents.


Most referrals are made by Children, Youth and Family Services, although the Court may also refer matters to the Care and Protection unit.

The aim is to enable families to participate in decision making for their children, to take responsibility for their care whenever possible, and to maintain family and cultural relationships. As many family members as possible are invited to the meeting, plus professionals who have provided services to the child or family, a Children, Youth and Family Services representative, and a care and protection coordinator. The child’s wishes may be represented by direct participation of the child or through a child advocate. For indigenous children, a cultural representative must also attend.

Overview of workload

The workload of the Court has continued to increase significantly in care and protection. The workload relating to care and protection matters is a direct result of the implementation of recommendations from the Layton Review (Our best investment, a State Plan to protect and advance the interest of children) and the State Government’s child protection reform program (Keeping them safe).

Youth Court

There has been a 16% increase in care and protection applications to the Youth Court this year, resulting in an overall increase of 32% over the past four years. Of particular interest is a significant increase in the numbers of children involved in care and protection applications to the court. There has been an increase of 42% since 2001–2002.

Activity in the criminal jurisdiction however, has decreased slightly compared with last year. The Court again recorded a high disposal rate of 80% of cases within six months of initiation.

Delay in matters awaiting trial continues to concern the Court. At present, the Court is experiencing a delay of 18 weeks for a trial before a Judge and 14 weeks for a matter before a Magistrate. This situation is undesirable in the youth jurisdiction where the most significant impact on a young person’s offending behaviour is to deal with the matter as quickly as possible.

The Court is also concerned with the high number of criminal matters resolving at trial. The impact on the ability of the Court to relist other matters awaiting trial at short notice and the impact on the witnesses, including victims, who sometime must travel long distances to give evidence, is significant. The main reason for this appears to be a failure by parties to negotiate to resolve the matter before trial. This is exacerbated by SA Police policies regarding criteria for prosecution in the first instance, withdrawals and tendering no evidence. An increase in care and protection applications filed with the court, has also impacted on the number of matters proceeding and awaiting trial.

Child Protection Applications

Family Conference Team

The Family Conference Team has had a slight decrease in family conference referrals for this financial year, but has had an increase in victim impact meetings referred directly from the Youth Court. In approximately half of matters, a victim, or a victim’s representative, attended the family conference. Despite having had significant staffing issues throughout 2004–05, the Family Conference Team continues to dispose of 70% of family conference matters within eight weeks of receiving a referral.

undertaking compliance (where the offender complies with the outcome of the conference) remains consistently very high at 90% overall, and individual undertakings such as participating in community service, or paying compensation, are usually complied with.

Undertaking Compliances

JPET*: Job placement & Employment TrainingDASC#: Drug and Alcohol Services Council

MARY Street: Mary Street Adolescent Sexual Abuse Prevention ProgramThese services/agencies accept referrals from Family Conferences for program involvement



CourtsCare and Protection Unit

The Care and Protection unit received 431 referrals in 2004–05, concerning 736 children. This is a 10% increase from the previous financial year. There has been a continuation of a trend over the past six years towards a higher average number of children per family. This places extra demands on Care and Protection coordinators and on child advocates. Approximately

71% of referrals proceeded to a meeting, again reflecting a small decrease from the previous year. The unit convened 331 family care meetings and 74 review meetings. Country referrals remain stable at 34% of all cases. A quarter of all referrals are for aboriginal children which is an increase of approximately 8% from the previous financial year. Since 2001–02 there has been a noticeable increase in the number of aboriginal children referred to the unit.

During this financial year, a significant increase in referrals has contributed to some delays in convening family care meetings within the agreed timelines, and imposed a need to prioritise. Cases where a family care meeting has been held previously have been accorded a lower priority. This may have contributed to the slight decline in the number of families taking up the opportunity for a meeting and also to some failure to convene meetings prior to Court Order expiry dates. Considerable delays in obtaining reports are often experienced during Investigation and Assessment Orders, because of backlogs in other agencies.

Approximately 80% of meetings resulted in “valid decisions” under provisions of the Children’s Provision Act 1993, an increase of 10% from the previous year. A valid decision means that arrangements for the care and protection of the child that satisfy the concerns held by Children, Youth and Family Services have been agreed to by family members and the care and protection coordinator.

Other matters

Select committee juvenile justice

A Parliamentary select committee into juvenile justice is expected to publish its final report in July. The Court made representations to the committee.

Youth justice action committee

An inter-governmental youth justice action committee reports directly to Cabinet about critical juvenile justice matters. The committee considers laws, policies, institutions and practices that determine the manner in which children and young people who have committed or are suspected of committing offences are dealt with in South Australia, and links where relevant at national level. The Youth Court has continued to be represented at this committee. This year, the work has been reviewing over-representation of indigenous youth in the justice system, and the recommendations of the parliamentary select committee into juvenile justice.

Referrals to CPU Children/Families


Child protection review

Recommendations of the Layton Report 2003 have been incorporated in the Government’s Keeping Them Safe child protection reform program. The Justice Portfolio has been given responsibility to ensure delivery of aspects of the program, including promotion of a child and youth friendly environment within the Youth Court. Amendments have also been drafted to the Children’s Protection Act which are expected to give additional powers to the Youth Court.

Care and Protection Unit tenth anniversary

In May the Care and Protection unit marked its tenth anniversary with a function at which a new children’s brochure was promoted. The event gained national media coverage. Guest speaker Justice Robyn Layton commended the unit on its excellent work. A video featuring a parent who had participated in a family care meeting and had been successfully reunited with her children was screened at the event.

Training and exporting knowledge

All areas of the Youth Court contribute to training for Children, Youth and Family Services staff.

South Australia continues to be acknowledged as one of the most prolific conferencing sites in the world, with 11 years experience in conferencing in the juvenile justice and child protection arena. Seven papers were accepted by the International Institute of Restorative Practices for presentation at its international conference held in Canada in November 2004. A delegation of four coordinators travelled to Vancouver to present the papers.

The Family Conference Team maintains a national profile by managing an electronic network for conference convenors. This network allows information sharing with conference coordinators across Australia. There are approximately 40 subscribers to the network.

Youth justice coordinators presented workshops to the National Conference on Juvenile Justice in Sydney in December 2004, and continue to maintain ongoing support and training to coordinators in Queensland on conferencing sexual assault matters.

The Care and Protection unit held two networking sessions for child advocates and one care and protection coordinator presented a paper on family care meetings on Aboriginal Lands at an International Institute of Restorative Practices conference held in New South Wales in March. The senior care and protection coordinator gave a joint presentation with the Family Court to African community members in response to increasing numbers of African refugees being settled in South Australia, as well as a seminar at Global Social Work Conference 2004, which was held in Adelaide.

Family Conference Team members this year delivered numerous public education sessions to the Law Society of South Australia, Flinders university Law School, university of SA School of Psychology and TAFE and training to Victim Support Service volunteers, CYFS youth workers and SA Police.

The Senior Judge of the Youth Court continues to lecture at TAFE to students undertaking Child Protection studies and to university law students in their final years of training.

Video conferencing

Video conferencing between the Youth Court and Youth Training Centres began in June 2004. In the year under review, 36 children were dealt with by way of videoconference. The Youth Court continues to examine the eligibility criteria to enable more children to access video conferencing.

Aboriginal Youth Court at Port Augusta

A pilot Aboriginal Youth Court at Port Augusta began in July 2003 and continued this financial year. The Court creates a more culturally appropriate environment to meet the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait families in contact with the Court. All summary offences are eligible to be dealt with by this Court. The Justice Portfolio is reviewing the effectiveness of this initiative.

School retention – Advocacy and support for high-risk learners

Advocacy and support for high-risk learners is one of the projects of the SA Social Inclusion Action Plan, which was approved by Cabinet in October 2003. The Youth Court is involved in the project, examining options to improve the flow of information between the Department of Education and Children Services and the Youth Court. A report containing several recommendations has been delivered to the Social Inclusion unit for consideration.

Breaking the cycle – Social Inclusion Board intensive community-based program

This initiative examines therapeutic interventions to break the cycle of repeat offending amongst young people aged 16 – 20 years. The Youth Court is represented on the reference group for this initiative. A proposal seeking funding for a trial program has been submitted to the State Government and a decision is pending.

Youth Court Assessment Referral Drug Scheme (Youth CARDS)

In December 2004, the Australian government directed funds to develop a Youth CARDS program. The aim of Youth CARDS is to provide court and conferencing access to a structured drug and alcohol treatment program; to encourage drug and alcohol users to be



Courtstreated and to reduce the risk of further offending to support drug and alcohol abuse. The Youth Court has been an integral part of a small working group developing a model. Youth CARDS is expected to be operational before December 2005.

Other activities in support of the Authority’s strategic plan

A Youth Court Leadership Group, comprising managers from the three arms of the Youth Court, meet routinely to maintain good communication within the Court, a high standard of service delivery for clients, and to provide an integrated management perspective for staff. In addition administrative staff from across all arms of the Court meet regularly to integrate administration and customer service, ensuring consistency at all counters in the Court.

Court tours and education

The Court has continued to provide tours and education talks for high school students about all arms of the Court. This year, youth workers from Relationships Australia and Children, Youth and Family Services and Vietnamese Womens Association have also requested and used this service.


Coroner’s Court

AtAGlance 2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Staff numbers* 14 (plus 1 trainee) 11 (plus 1 trainee) 12

Number of deaths reported 3 673 3 962 4 024

Number of post mortems 1 232 1 291 1 337

Number of inquest findings delivered 38 37 36

Number of court sitting hours 535** 200 258.28

* Does not include judicial officers** There was a large increase in sitting hours in 2002–03 which is attributable to the lengthy inquest in to the deaths of eight people on 31 May 2000

aboard a Whyalla Airlines flight.

Description

The Coroner’s Court is an independent jurisdiction pursuant to the Coroner’s Act 1975. The State Coroner’s role in the community includes investigation, education and prevention of reportable deaths. The Coroner’s Office undertakes investigations using the expertise and resources of numerous government agencies, and advice from experts in many fields ranging from medicine to engineering. There are five full-time SA Police investigators attached to the Coroner’s Office, with support from operational police officers as required.

This year in review, the Coroner’s Office prepared for the proclamation of a new Coroner’s Act 2003. Changes were made to procedures, forms, court documents, seals and all communication materials and information was presented widely across the community.

The Coroner’s Office received increased funding to prepare for the implementation of the new Act, and engaged a project officer to manage the changes. Funding was also made available to appoint a Deputy State Coroner, Counsel Assisting and support staff. Finalisation of investigations relies on timely receipt of reports from various sources such as Forensic Science SA, SA Police, and Workplace Services. Delays in receiving such specialist reports impede the progress of coronial investigation.

The Coroner’s Office continues to support and work with the National Coronial Information System (NCIS), which has been restructured so that management of the national system now rests with the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine.

Workload

There was a small increase in the number of deaths reported in 2004–2005. There were 11 864 deaths registered with the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Of those 4 024 deaths were reported to the State Coroner representing an increase in reported deaths of 62 or 1.54%.

Numbers of inquests remain the same. However, the number of court sitting hours has increased by 58.28


hours as an inquest into deaths at Riverside Golf Club proved to be more complex than originally anticipated.

A steady increase in numbers of deaths reported to the State Coroner during 2003–2004 and 2004–2005 has continued to have an impact on the ability of staff to deal with the processing and investigation of cases. The impact of the Coroners Act 2003 in terms of numbers of deaths reported is, as yet, not able to be determined. The number and types of reportable deaths will be monitored during the coming year and the impact on the ability of the office to investigate the additional reportable deaths in a timely manner will be scrutinised.

Recommendations

In his inquest findings the State Coroner might also include recommendations that advocate measures to reduce the likelihood of the occurrence of a similar event.

In the year under review, the Coroner heard 32 inquests and delivered 36 findings. Of the inquests heard, 14 were inquiries into deaths in custody.

During the year a number of inquests attracted considerable community interest and the State Coroner made a number of recommendations arising from those inquests. These included:

• “Safe cell” principles to be adopted in prisons throughout South Australia

• For relevant authorities to review speed limits on country roads when approaching a crest

• An automatic 24 hour detention of persons detained by police under the Mental Health Act for psychiatric evaluation

• A scheme to minimize the incidence of over-prescribing medication

• Continuation of improvement to resources to ensure that Emergency Departments in hospitals are appropriate in all circumstances

• A review of levels of training for licensed security officers


Courts• Ensuring sufficient time is allocated to assess the

mental state of prisoners

• Ensuring that patients transferred between mental health facilities are appropriately assessed prior to transfer, to ensure the transfer is appropriate

• Seventeen recommendations associated with the collapse of the roof of the Riverside Golf Club

• Twenty four recommendations concerning deaths on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Lands.

Listing Delays

There are 39 inquests awaiting hearing in the Coroner’s Court, including 11 cases involving a death in custody. There are currently 963 open cases under investigation. These cases are at varying levels of investigation and will progress to review by Counsel Assisting the State Coroner and the SA Police Coronial Investigation Section.


Role and function of the Sheriff

The Sheriff is a statutory officer appointed pursuant to the Sheriff’s Act on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Sheriff’s Office has a range of duties including the:

• Provision and administration of juries

• Service and enforcement of civil and criminal processes; and

• Production of prisoners to the courts. This is done via a contractor Global Solutions Ltd (GSL).

The Sheriff has 128 uniformed officers, who are trained in all aspects of the work of the Sheriff, including the provision of emergency services within courthouses.

Prisoner movement

The South Australian Prisoner Movement and In-Court Management Contract is now in the third year of a five year renewed contract. Representatives from the Justice Portfolio, Sheriff’s Office and other participating government agencies involved in the contract meet monthly, and site compliance audits are done regularly.

Enforcement

The Sheriff is responsible for the service and execution of civil and criminal (pecuniary) enforcement orders across the State. A review in 2003–2004 of civil enforcement processes in the Magistrates Court led to changes in the Rules of Court in November 2004. Changes included merging investigation summons and warrants of sale into a new process designed to streamline enforcement and reduce associated costs. A new schedule of fees for civil enforcement will be introduced on 1 July 2005 and information sessions have been held to inform user groups about the fees. Information also has been disseminated through relevant associations. The new schedule will standardise fees across every jurisdiction.

Electronic reporting on civil processes has been introduced between the Sheriff’s Office and enforcement officers, allowing timely and accurate interaction between the enforcement officers, the Sheriff’s Office and court clients seeking updates on their matter.

Warrants of Sale issued in metropolitan Magistrates Courts continue to be managed centrally by the Sheriff’s Office. Although numbers of processes have decreased from the last reporting period (as shown below), the successful service or execution of the process has continued to increase.

Enforcement 2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Civil summonses issued 16 282 15 750 15 917

Civil summonses successfully served 78% 80% 83%

Civil warrants issued 7 495 8 369 6 985

Civil warrants successfully executed 76% 73% 73%

Order for sale w/arrest issued (FPu)* 1 452 1 543 1 427

Order for sale w/arrest (FPu) successfully executed 64% 66% 73%

* Fines payment unit

A challenge in the new financial year is to overcome the increasing difficulty in having processes served in remote regional areas in a timely manner. This is due to declining numbers of appropriate persons to appoint as enforcement officers in these areas. Alternative recruitment processes are being investigated.

Security

Funds provided in 2004–05 have enabled provision of additional security equipment within all metropolitan courts and for some equipment for country Magistrates Courts.

X-ray units were installed at Holden Hill and Port Adelaide Magistrates Courts as well as the Adelaide Youth Court. Additional hand-held metal detectors were supplied to country locations. Metal walkthrough detectors have been purchased for building

redevelopments at Port Augusta, Port Pirie, Port Lincoln and Berri. A cell within the Sir Samuel Way Building Basement Cells Complex was upgraded for use as a “safe cell” for prisoners at risk.

Certain country courts have been upgraded with intruder, duress and fire detection systems. Mount Barker Magistrates Court will be upgraded in 2005–06. The prisoner dock at Mount Gambier courthouse was upgraded with toughened glass screening.

Operational safety and restraint training for dealing with persons displaying violent and difficult behaviour continues to be delivered to regional Sheriff’s Officers and for contract enforcement officers. An accredited non-violent crisis intervention training program as well as operational safety and restraint refresher training continued to be delivered throughout the year for

Report from the Sheriffof the Authority


Sheriffmetropolitan Sheriff’s Officers. Officers are also required to undertake refresher training and block assignments for two weeks in court security, prisoner security or in-court management every 18 months.

As a result of an incident at Adelaide Magistrates Court in January 2005 a Sheriff’s Officer Trainer will provide training to Specialist Court and Magistrates Court staff in non-violent crisis intervention and break away techniques.

A report will be commissioned in 2005–2006 to review the electronic security system covering Adelaide Magistrates Court, Supreme Court and Adelaide Youth Court complexes.

Below is a chart detailing point of entry search statistics for the year.

Location Numberofsearchesconducted

2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005

Sir Samuel Way Building 361 103 353 322 342 685

Adelaide Magistrates Court 288 010 280 078 278 590

Coroners Court 6 016 3 908 4 943

Adelaide Youth Court 91 977 78 449 84 442

Holden Hill Magistrates Court 108 426 103 094 104 055

Elizabeth Magistrates Court 170 333 164 293 155 784

Port Adelaide Magistrates Court 124 909 117 804 120 833

Christies Beach Magistrates Court 109 053 103 314 106 000

Mount Gambier Magistrates Court 52 823 49 716 50 979

Supreme Court 40 382 64 369 58 635

Total 1 353 032 1 318 347 1 306 946

The total number of weapons/inappropriate items detected through point of entry search is constant compared with the previous year and remains at less than 1% of the total number of searches conducted across all locations.

Location Itemsconfiscated Itemstemporarily Personsleaving removedat courtprecinctprior pointofentry toapointof (A) (B) entrysearch

2003–2004 2004–2005 2003–2004 2004–2005 2003–2004 2004–2005

Sir Samuel Way Building 2 1 859 683 28 24

Adelaide Magistrates Court 3 4 2 133 2 439 38 64

Coroners Court 0 0 0 1 0 0

Adelaide Youth Court 0 1 223 225 5 4

Holden Hill Magistrates Court 6 5 843 624 2 0

Elizabeth Magistrates Court 0 9 1 663 1 406 1 4

Pt Adelaide Magistrates Court 11 7 1 851 1 168 5 0

Christies Beach Magistrates Court 8 3 1 063 712 3 4

Mt Gambier Magistrates Court 0 1 360 297 6 2

Supreme Court 4 227 140 2 3

Total 34 31 9 222 7 695 90 105

(A) and (B) From 1 July 2003, a separate record (A) was kept of those items that were confiscated, generally because they were offensive weapons pursuant to the Summary Offences Act. The items referred to in (B) were retained on search and receipted and held for safekeeping, and then returned to the owner when leaving the court building. These items were generally pocket knives, scissors and other household items or tools of trade.


Incident 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005

Needles found 149 132 236

Bomb threats 2 0 0

Duress alarms* 580 424 326

Escapes 0 0 0

Attempted escapes 0 1 1

Security attendance 712 522 346

Emergency alarms 14 3 17

First aid emergency 30 23 17

Violent encounters 4 2 4

Removal from court 28 34 29

Remand in custody escorts 135 179 98

Prisoner production 98 29 32

Witness protection 31 40 24

Arrest/Report 9 7 4

TOTAL 1 795 1 396 1 134

* A large proportion of duress alarms are accidental, however each alarm requires an officer to attend and investigate.

Comparative statistical data on security attendances, violent encounters and arrest/reports over the past three years continue to indicate a downward trend in the number of incidents. The continued decrease is believed to be as a result of point of entry searches, greater visibility of Sheriff’s Officers at the entry of court facilities and awareness of security issues by Authority staff.

Juries

The Sheriff has been involved with a working group brought together by the Australian Criminology Research Centre to develop a national research project on juror satisfaction. A contractor would investigate and document legislation, policies and operation of the jury systems within Australia as well as survey jurors for their opinions, perceptions and experiences of serving as a juror. A call for tenders will be advertised this year.

Recent amendments have been made to the juror summons to make it less formal. Changes have also been made to Section 70 of the Juries Act allowing payments to be made directly to a juror’s employer when requested by the juror.

Internal surveys of jurors who have completed their service have been undertaken at Adelaide, Port Augusta and Mount Gambier. The surveys measure the usefulness of information provided prior to service, at induction and during service, facilities provided, timeliness of payments and whether, by serving as a juror, participants thought

they had made any contribution to the administration of justice in South Australia.

The surveys showed:

• 75% of Adelaide jurors and 86% of country jurors said the information provided in the juror information and employer brochures was extremely helpful;

• 95% of Adelaide jurors and 96% of country jurors said the induction address and judicial induction video were extremely helpful;

• 71% of Adelaide jurors and 58% of country jurors said the facilities provided were very comfortable;

• 30% of Adelaide jurors and 30% of country jurors said they were out of pocket as a result of jury service.

• 87% of Adelaide jurors and 100% of country jurors said they received payments in a timely manner; and

• 81% of Adelaide jurors and 77% of country jurors said they had made a real contribution to the administration of justice in South Australia.

Responding to comments from the surveys the jury box at Mount Gambier was improved. Ergonomic seating was installed and the area was recarpeted.

Jury Service Information and Employer Information booklets sent out with every jury summons have been upgraded with answers to frequently asked questions and to encourage use of the Authority’s website and phone contact points for more information. A multi-page handout given to jurors on their first day has been upgraded with more information and claims for monetary loss.

The Jury Manager regularly makes himself available to answer any questions from students visiting the Sir Samuel Way Building and to talk generally about the jury system. In addition, students searching the Authority’s website regularly email the Sheriff and Jury Manager for information to assist with research and projects. The Sheriff and Jury Manager make themselves available to community meetings and service clubs as guest speakers.

Report from the Sheriff Sheriff


TechnologyCourt Information Technology (IT)

The Authority’s Information Services Division (ISD) has invested significantly in upgrading the Authority’s IT infrastructure, including servers, desktop hardware, software and network components. These upgrades are ongoing and consume considerable human and financial resources. At present, funds are not available to continue the replacement of capital assets. Without this funding, there is a high risk that the current service to the public will be degraded.

The division was restructured this year and the resultant structure is more aligned to service delivery, rather than grouping members of staff according to the technology they support.

All CAA business units rely on the IT systems and cannot effectively operate effectively without them. Therefore, business continuity plans have been developed for each business unit so that manual processes can provide for short to medium term business continuity.

The division has been developing standards based on best practice for the management of configuration of hardware and software, management of problems, management of changes in emphasis in business and of incidents. In addition, one member of staff achieved a nationally-accredited Certificate in Change Management (IT), which has brought new skills to the area. Another member attended an international conference, returning with useful new information on various aspects of IT.

Other achievements this year included development of online fines payment, enabling clients to inquire about their fine as well as make payments via the Internet, thus reducing the workload on registry staff. Also this year, new technology replaced aged hardware in country and some city court registries. The technology is easier to support, cheaper to tun and quicker to start up. There are now approximately 200 users on the new system.

JuRIS II is a research and information system designed to enable standard creation of judgments and assist the Judiciary to access and print details of South Australian judgments. JuRIS II was implemented in May 2004 and contains judgments delivered from that date. JuRIS II Stage 2 is due to begin in July 2005, servicing 230 users.

The Authority’s CCMS (civil case management system) environment was upgraded, as it was unsupported by the relevant vendors. CrimCase (criminal case data management system) was upgraded to allow input of court outcomes.

Information Technologyof the Authority


Introduction

In 2004, a profile of the Authority’s workforce was compiled using payroll statistics as at the end of June 2004 and a Workforce Planning Report was prepared. The report identified topics for discussion and made several recommendations. In the year under review, each court and division within the Authority was asked to analyse the report and what the information contained in the report meant for their future business.

Areas covered were age and retirement projections, classifications and types of appointment, years of service, absenteeism, gender, separation, recruitment and promotion, flexible working arrangements and cultural diversity.

Workshops for executives and senior managers were held monthly, to encourage frank discussion about common corporate issues. Reports and updates from the workshops were published on the Authority’s intranet. In addition, workforce planning was included as a standing agenda item for all staff meetings. Guest speakers at the workshops provided a global perspective about the changing workforce and labour markets.

An important issue for all organizations is a predicted acute labour shortage as the number of people leaving the workforce will be much higher than those entering. Given the nature of the work in the Authority (very specialised in some areas but with high levels of routine processing work in others) one of the questions senior managers was asked to consider was, “How can the Authority become a competitive employer in the market place?” With this in mind the senior management group determined that recruitment and management capabilities were issues of priority.

Dissection of the workforce plan and recommendations continue.

As reported last year the Human Resources Branch continued to work with the Justice Portfolio on assessing the potential for shared services for the management of injured workers. However, a final report to the Government indicated that a shared service option would not result in savings. A response to this has not yet been received. During the year the Premier declared new targets for injury management and a major effort was made to develop strategies for attaining these targets within the two-year set period.

While a training needs analysis was conducted as part of the workforce plan, further work is required on the strategic direction for organisational training and development.

A consultant was employed to develop a performance management program and to coach seven executives within the Authority. This program will continue on 2005–2006.

Human Resourcesof the Authority

The information below is a relevant extract of a profile of the workforce as required by the Commissioner for Public Employment under the Public Sector Management Act.

Employment

The Authority has 736 members of staff (excluding the Judiciary) representing the equivalent of 668 full-time employees. Of these 35% are male and 65% are female. This year 106 employees left the Authority and 100 were recruited.

All vacancies were advertised internally and/or through the Commissioner for Public Employment’s Notice of Vacancies. Of 139 vacancies, 38 were also advertised outside the public service due to the positions being specialised in nature or based in a country location.

As in previous years, a large percentage of appointments were made from staff already occupying positions within the Authority. Forty-one percent of positions filled by applicants external to the Authority covered a range of classifications, from the Administrative Services Officer Level 1 (ASO1) to ASO8. One reason for the increased percentage of positions filled via applicants external to the Authority has been the delegation given by the Commissioner for Public Employment to the State Courts Administrator to advertise positions within the external media.

The Authority will monitor whether there will be a trend towards external recruitment in line with predicted skills shortages.

Number of employees by salary bracket

SalaryBracket Male Female Total

$0 – $38 000 75 123 198

$38 001 – $49 000 97 203 300

$49 001 – $64 000 65 140 205

$64 001 – $83 000 16 8 24

$83 001+ 5 4 9

Total 258 478 736

In addition, there are six male and two female executives, one of which is on an untenured contract and one of which is on an on-going contract.


HumanLeave management

Average number of days leave taken per full-time equivalent employee

Leave type 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

Sick leave taken 6.6 8.6 8.2

Family carer’s leave taken 0.6 0.1 0.8

Special leave with pay 4 1 0.1

Profile of workforce

Analysis of the ageing of the workforce over the past two years is shown below:

An ageing workforce is an ongoing concern for the Authority, with increasing numbers of employees in the 50+ age groups compared with the South Australian public sector. This area has been identified in the Authority’s workforce planning exercise, particularly in terms of succession planning and knowledge management.

The Authority continues to support Voluntary Flexible Working Arrangements to assist staff in balancing work and family life. All applications for voluntary flexible working arrangements must be given serious consideration by senior management. This has resulted in some Divisions taking flexi-time on board in areas that previously did not feel it appropriate for their area, for example, the Sheriff’s Office.

The Authority has a number of policies, which provide details on the arrangements available and, during this financial year, started using its Human Resource Information System (CHRIS) to record usage of the arrangements.

The figures below reflect up-take of voluntary flexible working arrangements.

Employees using voluntary flexible working arrangements

2003–2003 2004–2005

Purchased Leave 0 0

Flexi-time 390 450

Compressed Weeks 12 10

Part-time 197 190

Working from Home 1 11*

* This figure reflects the inclusion of ad hoc (but formally approved) working from home arrangements. In all of these instances, work-stations at home are examined to ensure compliance with OH and Safety standards.

Age profile of Authority and SA public sector employees


Generally, the most commonly used arrangements are still part-time work and flexi-time. In areas where flexi-time is not available, some employees are offered time off in lieu (TOIL) of overtime as a result of work demands outside normal working hours. The TOIL policy has been reviewed and managers educated about the differences between flexi-time and TOIL. This has resulted in a larger number of employees now being offered access to flexi-time.

The uptake of compressed weeks and purchased leave is generally still very low. However, nine members of staff in Information Services Division now work compressed weeks. In addition to the flexible working arrangements detailed in the table, one division also offers staff the opportunity to negotiate variations in part-time hours.

Indigenous employees

The Authority continued to focus on the recruitment and retention of Aboriginal staff, in line with the State Government plan, and to better serve the Aboriginal Court clients and to comply with recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.

The numbers of Aboriginal employees has remained steady at 21 (cf. 2003–04), representing 2.5% of the Authority’s workforce and comparing favourably with the State’s strategic benchmark of 2% of an agency’s workforce.

The Sheriff’s Office continues to dedicate significant time and effort to recruiting Aboriginal Sheriff’s Officers. There are five Aboriginal Sheriff’s Officers. The Youth Court also has employed a number of Aboriginal employees, including a (social work) cadet, a Youth Justice Co-ordinator and two registry staff. The other significant group is Aboriginal Justice Officers, with seven employees involved in this role. The remaining positions are in mainstream administrative roles (in registries), the Aboriginal Initiatives Policy Officer being the only exception to this rule. Work is also underway on the establishment of the position of Aboriginal Liaison Officer, in the Diversion Court.

Cultural and linguistic diversity

In July 2004, the Human Resources Branch developed a form to capture cultural and linguistic diversity for all new employees. Employees also have the opportunity to update their details directly using KIOSK, which is linked to the payroll system. This information is collected so that the needs of people from diverse cultural backgrounds are included in strategic planning and the Authority’s Human Resource Plan.

In the year under review, the number of employees born overseas totalled 83, or 11.3% of the total workforce, compared to 20.3% in the SA community. In addition, there were 31 employees or 4.5% of the Authority’s workforce, who speak languages other than English at home, compared with 15.5% of the SA community.


The Authority is committed to building good understanding between its members of staff and the clients of the court with different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. In the year under review, members of the Judiciary, senior managers and other members of the staff have participated in lunchtime seminars on African culture, Judaism and Islam.

In September 2004, November 2004, April 2005 and June 2005, workshops on Vietnamese culture and practices were held for staff throughout the Authority. Vietnamese is one of the most frequently requested languages for interpreting in court, mostly at Port Adelaide Magistrates Court, where the first session was held. Other sessions were held at the Supreme Court, District Court and Youth Court. The half-day workshops are run jointly with the Vietnamese Association of Australia (South Australian Chapter) whose involvement is greatly appreciated. Staff feedback has been positive and workshops are being negotiated for the Elizabeth and Holden Hill Courts later in 2005.

The program has been suggested for inclusion in the judiciary and magistracy’s continuing legal education programs.

As in previous years, effort continues on improving access and equity involving Aboriginal people. The Authority offers an Aboriginal Cultural Awareness training course for all staff and managers. It is conducted by Aboriginal Justice Officers, with administrative and other support from the Human Resources Branch. Four courses were conducted in this financial year and 54 employees participated. As at January 2005, the course has been linked with the Authority’s induction program and all new staff are required to attend the program within six months of joining the Authority.

Furthermore, all members of the Human Resource Branch and several managers of Aboriginal staff have participated in “learning circles” designed to share knowledge on recruitment, development, and support issues for Aboriginal employees.

The Authority’s Senior Human Resource Consultant (Equity & Diversity), the manager responsible for Aboriginal staff in the Sheriff’s Office and the Authority’s Aboriginal Initiatives Policy Officer are all participants in the Justice Portfolio’s Indigenous human resource projects working group. Through this group, contributions are made to projects on attracting, recruiting, supporting and maintaining Aboriginal employees.

Disability

The Authority has 13 employees with disabilities requiring workplace adaptation, representing less than 2% of the total workforce.


HumanActivities to support clients with disabilities

Effort this year was directed mainly on building works. In April 2005, Registrars in Magistrates Courts carried out access audits of their courthouses. The Magistrates Court is the largest jurisdiction, with most of the buildings and services. The audits revealed several problems with access. These are yet to be prioritised. However, some improvements were completed.

In June 2005, new automatic entrance doors were installed at Murray Bridge and Mount Barker Magistrates Courts. In April 2005, signs were installed throughout public areas in the Sir Samuel Way Building to direct disabled people to appropriate toilet areas.

In May 2005, the Authority purchased a further five easy listening devices for members of the public with a hearing disability attending courts in city and suburban areas. These supplement several held by the Sheriff’s Office for jurors. This initiative is to be extended to country registries.

The Diversion (Specialists) Courts for mentally impaired clients continues to offer a service that is specifically aimed at making courts more accessible for people with disabilities. This service operates in suburban and regional areas and is promoted via brochures, the Website and through lawyers and other services providers.

Staff working in the Diversion Program deal daily with people with disabilities and are clinically trained professionals. These people continue to upgrade their skills and knowledge as needed. They also provide training to other organizations, for example, SA Police, who have contact with people with a mental disability.

In May 2005, the Authority’s website was audited against W3C guidelines and a number of accessibility problems where detected. A decision was made to defer repairs in favour of a rebuild of the site with W3C guidelines as part of the design specification.

Interpreters from the Deaf Society and Successful Employment for Deaf (SED) were used for interpreting in court and for profoundly deaf staff. In the year in review, interpreters from the Deaf Society were used for 34 court matters and from SED, on nine occasions with staff.

A number of staff, including HR consultants, managers and counter staff have been trained, or been nominated for training, in disability awareness under the State Government’s disability awareness and discrimination training program. As part of the Authority’s induction training, all new members of staff attend a diversity session run by the HR Branch and view a video Providing a good customer service to people with disabilities. Induction training is run four times a year and all new staff must attend.

Since the development of its Disability Action Plan, the Authority continues to prioritise its activities, to provide a better and more accessible service for people with a disability. Steps are taken to accommodate the special needs of people with disabilities, for example, changing venues to suit or placing wheelchair ramps as required. The Authority’s Community Relations Committee also has representation from the organization Disability Action in its newly formed Community Reference Group.

Training and development

The Authority undertook a Training needs analysis (TNA) as part of its workforce planning process, to identify gaps in skills used for day-to-day business, and to increase efficiency and effectiveness within the Courts overall. Executives and senior managers were consulted about these gaps and training requirements within particular jurisdictions and divisions. The results of the TNA highlighted the need to provide more in-house technical training in line with employee roles, as well as training at corporate level in induction, management capabilities (particularly performance management, financial/budget control, awareness of HR processes, policies and procedures, recruitment and selection techniques.

In-house training

This year, emphasis was placed on relevant and practical in-house training for employees. Activities included (but were not limited) to:

• The creation of a training and development committee within the Magistrates Court to improve induction processes and procedure manuals and training packages that are linked to administrative and Fines Payment unit positions

• Performance management/development sessions for managers and supervisors in the Supreme, District and ERD Courts

• Continuation of a peer support program for new Sheriff’s Officers in training. The last two intakes of Sheriff’s Officers have all been paired with a fully multi-skilled Sheriff’s Officer to provide support and guidance;

• A working-with-pharmaceuticals program for Coroner’s Court staff, and

• A specialist Courts conference for professional staff, with guest speakers from professional associations and external clients of these Courts.


Corporate training

As a result of the TNA the following activities took place:

• A corporate information program on organisational structure, occupational health and safety, ethical conduct and terms and conditions of employment and two days of Aboriginal Cultural Awareness attended by 54 people. These will be held quarterly.

• Information Services Division sponsored programs including Word, Excel and managing large documents, with 195 staff attending throughout the year;

• Three Occupational Health and Safety for Managers and Supervisor’s training sessions were delivered during the financial period with 29 staff attending;

• Frontline management forums run by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment, covering performance management, conflict resolution, communication and relationship building and managing change; and

• The continuation of the Authority’s study assistance policy. This year the Authority supported 28 members of staff in accredited vocational and university programs.

Individual performance development plans

Details, by salary ranges, for staff with documented individual performance development plans is not available. However about half (51%) of all staff have negotiated a performance plan in the past year.

Occupational health, safety and injury management (OHS&IM)

A table providing details of OHS&IM statistics appears at Appendix A to this annual report.

Following a review of its employee assistance program, the Authority now engages a single provider to provide a confidential counselling service for work and personal related concerns that affect work performance.

There has been an increase in reported accidents/injuries this year. The Authority will review its occupational health and safety and injury management systems to strengthen its assessments of risk and hazard management and to emphasise employee engagement in the creation of safe working environments.

Rehabilitation

There were 13 rehabilitation cases in 2004–2005. Five cases were closed, following a successful return to pre-injury duties. Of the remaining cases, one is unfit for any work and the remainder have returned to alternative or modified duties at pre-injury hours, and one at graduated hours of work.


Workers compensation

There was an increase of 54.5% of new claims compared with new claims in the previous year. The severity of all claims lodged in the financial year included 17 lost time injuries and 17 cases for medical treatment only.

Sprains and strains of joints and adjacent muscles accounted for most (46%) of injury in new claims, followed by bruising (12%) mental disorders (12%) and disorders of muscle, tendons and other soft tissue (12%), burns (6%) and disorders of the joint (3%), disorders of the spinal vertebra (3%), fractures (3%) and superficial injuries (3%).

Other matters

Equal employment opportunity programs

The Authority continues to participate in EEO strategies such as the SA youth training scheme, Aboriginal recruitment and development strategy and the strategy for the employment of people with disabilities.

Conduct and discipline

During the year under review one employee continued to be suspended with pay pursuant to S59 (1) of the PSM Act (charged with an offence punishable by imprisonment).

Overseas travel

Four employees attended an international conference in Canada. This cost $13 472, although a partial scholarship was awarded to the team to attend.

Human


FinancialFinancial Reports

2004–05 Financial performance

The Authority’s operations for the year ended 30th June 2005 resulted in a net surplus of $0.3 million. This surplus was achieved due to the receipt of additional appropriation funding for several new Justice Portfolio initiatives. The full funding for the Road Safety Reform and Criminal Asset Confiscation initiatives was not required during 2004–05 and effectively offset the Authority’s long standing operational cost pressures that were reflected in previous years significant net operating deficits.

Revenue decreased marginally by $0.1 million in 2004–05. Although revenue from grants, sale of goods and services, regulatory fees and investments increased by $0.2 million, this was more than offset by a decrease of $0.3 million in Targeted Voluntary Separation Package (TVSP) recoups (financial statement Note 6).

Salary and wage related costs were approximately $1.6 million higher than the previous year’s costs, mainly due to leave accrual and national wage increases of $1.2 million, as well as an increase in workers’ compensation liability accruals of $0.7 million.

The above table highlights that the Authority paid 98% of all invoices within 30 days of the invoice date. The variation in the percentage of the value of invoices paid relates to a number of disputed payments of substantial value or where the invoice date is much earlier than the date the invoice was received by the Authority.

Consultancies

Expenditure on consultancies amounted to $22 000 during 2004–05 compared to $122 000 the previous year.

Refer to note 26 to the Financial Statements for more detail.

Contractual Arrangements

One major contractual arrangement to manage services for the Authority’s Courts Case Management System was entered into during 2004–05.

Corporate Governance Statement

In relation to Risk Management and Performance Monitoring the Authority is a member of the Justice Portfolio’s Risk Management Committee, which ensures a portfolio approach to risk management.

These increased costs were offset by a reduction of $0.3 million for TVSP payments.

Goods and services costs decreased during the year when compared to the previous financial year mainly due to reduced minor works expenditure and EDS (information system contract) costs, as well as a reduction in information technology projects undertaken.

Depreciation costs decreased during the year when compared to the previous year mainly due to the Authority’s Courts Case Management System (CCMS) software that was fully amortised during 2004–05.

2005–06 Budget

The activities of the Authority in 2005–06 will again be primarily funded through Parliamentary appropriations. In addition to normal funding requirements, the budget for 2005–06 also provides continuing capital funding for the Port Augusta Courts Development of $5 million.

During 2005–06, costs incurred in relation to the R v Haydon murder case will continue to be subject to a recoup process from the Attorney-General’s Department.

Account Payment Performance

Particulars Numberof Valuein$A accountspaid % ofaccountspaid %

Paid by due date 185 479 90 $48 700 550 81

Paid late & paid < 30 days from due date 16 237 8 $9 659 334 16

Paid late & paid > 30 days from due date 3 893 2 $1 948 857 3

The Authority has developed policies and procedures in accordance with the State Government’s Financial Management Framework (FMF) and has established an Internal Audit Committee. A Risk Management Committee also has been established and has developed a risk management framework consistent with prescribed elements of the FMF.

Asset planning, management and budgeting enable the Authority to meet required service levels, by ensuring staff and court users have access to safe and user friendly work and business environments. The Authority has actively promoted prescribed elements of the Financial Management Framework by holding discussion sessions with the operating divisions of the Authority.

Procurement training has been conducted for divisional heads, managers and personnel involved in the procurement process. A procurement guide has been developed by the Strategic Contracts Branch, Department of Justice and distributed to personnel attending the training sessions.

The guide is in two volumes. Volume 1 covers procurement policies and guidelines. Volume 2 covers procurement instructions and document templates.


Financial Reports

Statement of Financial Performance For the Year Ended 30 June 2005

2005 2004 Note $’000 $’000

Revenuesfromordinaryactivities:

Grants 2 861 736 Saleofgoodsandservices 3 952 1145 Regulatoryfees 4 2964 2803 Proceedsfromdisposalofassets 5 2 – Other 6 616 818

Totalrevenuesfromordinaryactivities 5395 5502

Expensesfromordinaryactivities:

Employees 7 39909 38305 Suppliesandservices 8 23971 25039 Depreciationandamortisation 9 4466 5114 Financelease 1341 1383 Other 10 795 780

Totalexpensesfromordinaryactivities 70482 70621

Netcostofservices (65087) (65119)

RevenuesfromGovernment: 65678 62818

Net(expenses)/revenuesfromwritedownandrecognitionofnoncurrentassets – (10)

PaymentstoGovernment

CashAlignmentPolicytransfer 11 244 –

Netoperatingsurplus(deficit)fromoperatingactivities 347 (2311)

Non-OwnerTransactionchangesinEquity Decreaseinassetrevaluationreserve 20 (3328) –

Totalrevenue,expensesandvaluationadjustmentsrecogniseddirectlyinequity (3328) –

Totalchangesinequityotherthanthoseresultingfrom transactionswiththeStateGovernmentasowner (2981) (2311)

Theabovestatementsshouldbereadinconjunctionwiththeaccompanyingnotes.


FinancialStatement of Financial Position As at 30 June 2005

2005 2004 Note $’000 $’000

CurrentAssets:

Cashonhandandondeposit 12 15113 9957 Receivables 13 404 664 Prepayments 14 175 595 Inventory – –

TotalCurrentAssets 15692 11216

Non-currentAssets:

Property,plantandequipment 15 107251 113780

TotalNon-CurrentAssets 107251 113780

TotalAssets 122943 124996

CurrentLiabilities:

Payables 16 1544 1951 Employeeentitlements 17 3116 3064 Financelease 18 777 735 Other 19 445 369

TotalCurrentLiabilities 5882 6119

Non-currentLiabilities:

Payables 16 780 646 Employeeentitlements 17 6597 5383 Financelease 18 22698 23475 Other 19 2339 1745

TotalNon-CurrentLiabilities 32414 31249

TotalLiabilities 38296 37368

NetAssets 84647 87628

Equity:

Accumulatedsurplus 77278 76931 Assetrevaluationreserve 7369 10697

20 84647 87628

Commitments 21 Contingentassetsandliabilities 28

Theabovestatementsshouldbereadinconjunctionwiththeaccompanyingnotes.


Financial ReportsNotes to and forming part of the Financial Statements

Statement of Cash Flows For the Year Ended 30 June 2005

2005 2004 Inflows Inflows (Outflows) (Outflows) Note $’000 $’000

CashFlowsfromOperatingActivities:

Receipts:

Appropriations 65678 62818 Grants 861 736 Feesforservice 4198 4034 GSTCollected 119 128 GSTreceiptsfromtaxationauthority 2028 2087 Other 594 1053

Totalreceipts 73478 70856

Payments:

Employees (37822) (37351) Suppliesandservices (23946) (24574) GSTpaymentstotaxationauthority (112) (127) GSTPaidonPurchases (2070) (1983) FinanceLease (1340) (1383) Cashalignmentpolicytransfer (244) – Other (790) (825)

Totalpayments (66324) (66243)

Netcashprovidedbyoperatingactivities 22 7154 4613

CashFlowsfromInvestingActivities:

Receipts:

Proceedsfromsalesofproperty,plantandequipment 2 –

Totalreceipts 2 –

Payments:

Purchasesofproperty,plantandequipment (1265) (970)


Netcashusedininvestingactivities (1263) (970)

CashFlowsfromFinancingActivities:

Payments:

Repaymentoffinancelease (735) (698)


Netcashusedinfinancingactivities (735) (698)

Netincreaseincashheld 5156 2945

Cashatthebeginningofthereportingperiod 9957 7012

Cashattheendofthereportingperiod 15113 9957

The above statements should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes.


FinancialProgram Schedule of the Authority’s Revenues and Expenses For the Year Ended 30 June 2005

1 2 3 Total $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Revenuesfromordinaryactivities

Grants 767 94 – 861 Saleofgoodsandservices 929 5 18 952 Regulatoryfees 211 – 2753 2964 Proceedsfromdisposalofassets 2 – – 2 Other 616 – – 616

Totalrevenuesfromordinaryactivities 2525 99 2771 5395

Expensesfromordinaryactivities

Employees 35040 1895 2974 39909 Suppliesandservices 22024 427 1520 23971 Depreciationandamortisation 4446 7 13 4466 Borrowingcosts 1341 – – 1341 Other 688 69 38 795

Totalexpensesfromordinaryactivities 63539 2398 4545 70482

Netcostofservices (61014) (2299) (1774) (65087)

RevenuesfromGovernment 59208 2235 4235 65678

PaymentstoGovernment 216 10 18 244

CashAlignmentPolicytransfer

Netoperatingsurplus/(deficit)fromoperatingactivities (2022) (74) 2443 347

Program1:CourtandTribunalCaseResolutionServices

Theresolutionofcriminal,civil,appellate,coronialandprobatemattersintheState’scourtsandtribunals.

Program2:AlternativeDisputeResolutionServices

Servicesforresolvingdisputesbetweencitizens,anddisputesbetweencitizensandtheState;aswellastheeducation,training,informationandadviceprocesses,whichaimtopreventdisputes.

Program3:PenaltyManagementServices

Themanagementofpenaltiesarisingfromcourtorders,theenforcementofcourtordersaswellastherecoveryofdebts,andtheadministrationandexecutionofwarrants.



Schedule of Administered Revenues and Expenses For the Year Ended 30 June 2005

2005 2004 Note $’000 $’000

Revenuesfromordinaryactivities:

Fines 17844 16399 RevenuesfromGovernment 24683 22953 Courtfees 17185 16027 Transferrevenues 6372 5188 Transcriptfees 1181 1220

Totalrevenuesfromordinaryactivities: 67265 61787

Expensesfromordinaryactivities:

Judicialsalaryandrelatedexpenses 30 24272 23022 Transferexpenses 6372 5181 Otherexpenses 818 917

Totalexpensesfromordinaryactivities: 31462 29120

PaymentstoConsolidatedAccount 36075 33367

Netdecreaseinadministerednetassets (272) (700)

Theabovescheduleshouldbereadinconjunctionwiththeaccompanyingnotes.


FinancialSchedule of Administered Assets and Liabilities As at 30 June 2005

2005 2004 Note $’000 $’000

AdministeredAssets:

Current: Cash 31 11438 10899 Receivables 32 911 772

TotalAdministeredAssets 12349 11671

AdministeredLiabilities:

Current: Payables 33 12996 11763 Judicialentitlements 34 2972 2068

TotalCurrentAdministeredLiabilities 15968 13831

Non-current: Payables 33 564 796 Judicialentitlements 34 3091 4046

TotalNonCurrentAdministeredLiabilities 3655 4842

TotalAdministeredLiabilities 19623 18673

Equity:

Accumulateddeficit 35 (7274) (7002)

TotalEquity (7274) (7002)




Schedule of Administered Cash Flows For the Year Ended 30 June 2005

2005 2004 Inflows Inflows (Outflows) (Outflows) Note $’000 $’000

CashFlowsfromOperatingActivities:

Receipts:

Fines 17844 16399 ReceiptsfromGovernment 24683 22953 Courtfees 17050 15748 Transferreceipts 5938 5159 Transcriptfees 1181 1220

Totalreceipts 66696 61479

Payments:

Judicialsalaryandrelatedpayments (23864) (22036) PaymentstoGovernment (35099) (22952) Transferpayments (6376) (5169) Otherpayments (818) (917)


Netcashprovidedbyoperatingactivities 36 539 10405

Netincreaseincashheld 539 10405

Cashatthebeginningofthereportingperiod 10899 494

Cashattheendofthereportingperiod 11438 10899



FinancialProgram Schedule of Administered Revenues and Expenses For the Year Ended 30 June 2005

1 2 3 Total $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Revenuesfromordinaryactivities

Fines 34 – 17810 17844 RevenuesfromGovernment 24683 – – 24683 Courtfees 8324 – 8861 17185 Transferrevenues 720 – 5652 6372 Transcriptfees 1181 – – 1181

Totalrevenuesfromordinaryactivities 34942 – 32323 67265

Expensesfromordinaryactivities

Judicialsalaryandrelatedexpenses 24272 – – 24272 Transferexpenses 720 – 5652 6372 Otherexpenses 782 – 36 818

Totalexpensesfromordinaryactivities 25774 – 5688 31462

PaymentstoConsolidatedAccount 9474 – 26601 36075

Net(decrease)/increaseinadministerednetassets (306) – 34 (272)

Program1:CourtandTribunalCaseResolutionServices

Theresolutionofcriminal,civil,appellate,coronialandprobatemattersintheState’scourtsandtribunals.

Program2:AlternativeDisputeResolutionServices

Servicesforresolvingdisputesbetweencitizens,anddisputesbetweencitizensandtheState;aswellastheeducation,training,informationandadviceprocesses,whichaimtopreventdisputes.

Program3:PenaltyManagementServices

Themanagementofpenaltiesarisingfromcourtorders,theenforcementofcourtordersaswellastherecoveryofdebts,andtheadministrationandexecutionofwarrants.



Note 1: Summary of significant accounting policies

1.1 Objectives and funding

The Authority operates within the Courts Administration Act 1993.

Its principal objective is to provide quality administration to the Judiciary and to ensure an effective and accessible courts system.

Currently, the major priorities of the Authority and the State Courts Administration Council are to:

• increase the community’s understanding of the operations of the courts and provide new and increased avenues for community feedback into the operations of the courts;

• improve court facilities and other aspects of dealing with the courts;

• foster an environment and a management framework wherein judicial officers, staff and volunteers can contribute to improved performance of the courts system;

• keep up to date with technological developments and apply those that are appropriate to the improved performance of the courts system;

• cooperate with other parts of the justice system to improve access to justice and to improve performance of the justice system overall.

Financial arrangements

The Authority is predominantly funded by Parliamentary appropriations. However, some services are provided on a fee for service basis. The major activities conducted on a fee for service basis include:

• Sheriff’s officer fees;

• reminder fees;

• sale of electronic information.

The financial activities of the Authority are primarily conducted through a Deposit Account with the Department of Treasury and Finance pursuant to section 21 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987. The Deposit Account is used for funds provided by Parliamentary appropriation together with revenues from fees for service.

Refer to Notes 1.16 and 1.17 for accounting arrangements relating to Administered Items.

1.2 Basis of accounting

The general purpose financial report has been prepared in accordance with:

• Treasurer’s Instructions and Accounting Policy Statements promulgated under the provision of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987;

• Applicable Australian Accounting Standards;

• Other mandatory professional reporting requirements in Australia.

The Statement of Financial Performance and the Statement of Financial Position have been prepared on an accrual basis and are in accordance with historical cost convention, except for certain assets, which, as noted, are at valuation. No allowance is made for the effect of changing prices on the results or the financial position.

Assets and liabilities are recognised in the Statement of Financial Position when and only when it is probable that future economic benefits embodied in the asset, or sacrifices, will eventuate and the amounts of the assets or liabilities can be reliably measured. Assets and liabilities arising under agreements equally proportionately unperformed are not recognised unless required by an Accounting Standard. Liabilities, which are unrecognised, are reported as commitments in Note 21.

Revenues and expenses are recognised in the Statement of Financial Performance when and only when the flows or consumptions or loss of economic benefits has occurred and can be reliably measured. Some revenues are recognised when cash is received because only at this time can the Authority be certain about the amounts to be collected. These items include administered revenues such as fines, revenues received on behalf of other Government agencies and the Authority’s fee for service revenue such as reminder notice fees attached to fine penalty notices.

The continued existence of the Authority in its present form, and with its present programs, is dependent on Government policy and on continuing appropriations by Parliament to fund the Authority’s administration and programs.

The Schedules of Administered revenues and expenses, Assets and liabilities and Cash flows are prepared on the same basis and using the same policies as for operating items, except where otherwise stated at Notes 1.16 and 1.17.

1.3 Changes in accounting policy

Impact of adopting Australian equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards (AIFRS)

Australia will be adopting Australian equivalents to international financial reporting Standards (AIFRS) for reporting periods commencing on or after 1 January 2005. The Authority will adopt these standards for the first time in the published financial report for the year 2005–2006.

AASB 1047 Disclosing the Impacts of Adopting Australian Equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards, requires disclosure of any key differences in accounting policies, and known or


Financialreliably estimable information about the impact on this financial report had this report been prepared using the Australian equivalents to the IFRS.

The Authority has assessed the significance of the adoption of the standards for the purpose of their implementation. This has involved assessment of accounting policy and topics in existing Australian Accounting Standards and Australian equivalents to IFRS to determine any key differences and significant financial impacts.

The assessment that has been undertaken identified AASB 119 Employee Benefits as the only standard to be effected by the change to IFRS. The Authority will adjust employee benefits payable later than 12 months (currently measured at nominal amounts) to present value in future years. However, as this amount is immaterial, no disclosure has been made in these accounts.

1.4 Revenue

The revenues described in this Note are revenues relating to the core operating activities of the Authority.

(a) Revenue from Government agency appropriations

Control over appropriations and grants is normally obtained upon their receipt.

(b) Other revenue

The Authority provides some services on a fee for service basis. The major activities conducted on a fee for service basis include:

• Sheriff’s Officer fees;

• reminder fees;

• sale of electronic information.

The Authority also recovers the costs of Goods and Services incurred where appropriate.

Most of this revenue is recognised at the time the cash is received because only at this time can the Authority be certain about the amounts to be collected. Examples of this include fee for service revenue such as reminder notice fees attached to fine penalty notices and Sheriff’s officer fees. However, some revenues, such as sale of electronic information, are recognised at the time the service is provided.

1.5 Employee entitlements

(a) Leave

A provision is raised at the end of the reporting period to reflect employee entitlements when payment is expected to be made for annual leave and long service leave. Where leave loadings are paid, they are included in the calculation.

In calculating long service leave entitlements the Authority takes into account, as a benchmark, an

actuarial assessment prepared by the Department of Treasury and Finance based on a significant sample of employees throughout the South Australian public sector. The benchmark is currently seven years.

The Authority’s employees’ entitlement to sick leave is non-vesting. Sick leave is only recognised as a liability at reporting date to the extent it is probable that sick leave expected to be taken in future periods will be greater than entitlements which are expected to accrue in those future periods.

Employment on-costs relating to employee entitlements owing, are recognised as liabilities in the Statement of Financial Position. Employee entitlements and employment on-costs accruing during the reporting period are treated as an expense in the Statement of Financial Performance.

(b) Superannuation

The Authority made contributions of $8.7 million ($6.8 million) to Employer Contribution Accounts administered by the South Australian Superannuation Board, in respect of future superannuation liabilities.

(c) Workers Compensation

A liability has been reported to reflect workers compensation claims. The workers compensation liability, which was based on an actuarial assessment, was provided by the Public Sector Workforce Relations Branch of the Department for Administrative and Information Services.

The workers compensation provision is based on an actuarial assessment prepared by Taylor Fry Consulting Actuaries. For the 2005 valuation, the Justice, DETE, DHS and all other portfolios have been analysed separately. The Authority’s liability is an allocation of the Justice Portfolio’s total assessment.

1.6 Leases

The Authority has entered into a number of operating lease agreements for the provision of photocopiers and some office and IT equipment where the lessors effectively retain all of the risks and benefits incidental to ownership of these items. Equal instalments of the lease payments are charged to the Statement of Financial Performance over the lease term, as this is representative of the pattern of benefits to be derived from the leased property. Details of commitments under non-cancellable operating leases are disclosed in Note 21.

The Authority’s rights and obligations under finance leases, which are leases that effectively transfer to the Authority substantially all of the risks and benefits incidental to ownership of the leased items, are initially recognised as assets and liabilities equal in amount to the present value of the minimum lease payments. The assets are disclosed as ‘Building under finance



lease’, and are amortised to the Statement of Financial Performance over the period during which the Authority is expected to benefit from the use of the leased assets.

Minimum lease payments are allocated between interest expenses and reduction of the lease liability, according to the interest rate implicit in the lease. Details of finance leases are disclosed in Note 18.

1.7 Cash

Cash comprises deposit accounts with the Department of Treasury and Finance as well as cash on hand.

1.8 Financial instruments

Accounting policies for financial instruments are stated at Notes 29 and 37.

1.9 Acquisitions of assets

Assets are recorded at cost on acquisition except as stated below. The cost of acquisition includes the fair value of assets transferred in exchange and liabilities undertaken.

1.10 Property (land and buildings), plant and equipment

Asset recognition threshold

Purchases of property, plant and equipment are recognised initially at cost in the Statement of Financial Position, except for purchases with an individual value of less than $5 000, which are expensed in the Statement of Financial Performance at the time they are acquired.

Revaluations

Land, buildings and improvements controlled by the Authority are recorded at amounts based on valuation and cost. Licensed valuers Colliers Jardine prepare the valuations. Land, buildings and improvements are re-valued every three years, with the current valuations reflecting valuations performed as at 30 June 2003.

The Authority has applied the Accounting Standard AASB1041 “Revaluation of Non-Current Assets” for the valuation of land, buildings and improvements at fair value.

Licensed valuers Theodore Bruce Auctions Pty Ltd performed valuations of works of art and collections. Works of art and collections are measured at their market value and are not depreciated. The valuations currently brought to account for works of art and collections were made as at 30 June 1996. Heritage assets are not disclosed by a specific heritage type but form part of the aggregate value of property, plant and equipment and are included within the category ‘Works of art and collections’.

The balance brought to account for library collections represents the fair value as at 30 June 2002 based on information provided by Michael Treloar, licensed valuer.

Depreciation and amortisation

All non-current assets, with the exception of land, works of art and collections and library collections – loose leaf, have a limited useful life and are systematically depreciated in a manner which reflects the consumption of service potential. The depreciation rates are reviewed annually. The major asset categories are subject to straight-line depreciation over the following periods:

Years

Buildings and Improvements 30–60

Computing 3–10

Office furniture and equipment 10

Library collections – other 20

Leasehold improvements Life of lease

In-house developed computer software 10

Other (general equipment) 5–10

1.11 Goods and Services Tax

In accordance with the requirements of uIG Abstract 31 “Accounting for the Goods and Services Tax (GST)”, revenues, expenses and assets are recognised net of the amount of GST except that:

• the amount of GST incurred by the Authority as a purchaser that is not recoverable from the Australian Taxation Office is recognised as part of the cost of acquisition of an asset or as part of an item of expense; and

• receivables and payables are stated with the amount of GST included.

The net GST receivable from the Australian Taxation Office has been recognised in the Statement of Financial Position.

GST will not apply to the finance lease liability of the Authority until 2005–2006.

Cash flows are reported on a gross basis in the Statement of Cash Flows. The GST component of the cash flows arising from investing or financing activities, which are recoverable from, or payable to, the Australian Taxation Office have however been classified as operating cash flows.


Financial1.12 Foreign currency

Transactions denominated in a foreign currency are converted at the exchange rate at the date of the transaction. No foreign currency receivables and payables existed as at balance date.

1.13 Insurance

The Authority has insured for risks through the South Australian Government Captive Insurance Corporation (SAICORP). These risks include property and public liability as well as professional indemnity.

1.14 Comparative figures

Where applicable, comparative figures have been adjusted to conform to changes in the current year.

1.15 Rounding

Amounts have been rounded to the nearest $1 000.

1.16 Administered revenue

All revenues described in this Note are revenues relating to the operating activities performed by the Agency on behalf of the Government and other Government agencies. Fines revenue, a significant proportion of court fees revenue, and amounts received on behalf of other agencies is recognised at the time cash is received due to the uncertainty in the amounts to be collected.

(a) Revenue from Government-administered appropriations

Appropriations for administered expenses represents funding required to meet Judicial expenses and are recognised upon their receipt.

(b) Fines

The Authority receives revenue from infringement notices issued to offenders committing offences under various acts and regulations, principally the Road Traffic Act 1961.

(c) Court Fees

The Authority processes revenue from fees charged under regulations to various Acts. Examples of these fees include lodgement fees in the various jurisdictions and sales of transcript and evidence.

(d) Revenue received on behalf of/for other Government agencies

The Authority receives revenue on behalf of other Government agencies, which it forwards to them regularly. An example of this is revenue received by way of a Victims of Crime levy, which is paid to the Attorney-General’s Department.

The administered funds receivable balance, recorded in the Schedule of administered assets and liabilities, includes amounts due for sales of transcript and certain

court fees. The remaining administered receivables are not recorded in the Schedule of administered assets and liabilities, as there is significant uncertainty as to the amount that will be collected. Total administered receivables owing to the Authority, but not recognised were $100.5 million ($90.1 million in 2004–2005).

In addition, the Authority receives reimbursements from other Government agencies for items such as witness expenses, which it receives from the Attorney-General’s Department.

1.17 Administered Expenses

(a) Payments to consolidated account

Administered fees and fines collected by the Authority are paid directly to the consolidated account.

(b) Judicial expenses

The Authority makes payments pursuant to the Remuneration Act 1990 for members of the judiciary. These expenses include judicial salaries and related on-costs, judicial vehicle expenses and Fringe Benefits Tax.

The Authority is dependent on support from the Crown to meet accruing entitlement obligations recognised in the financial statements.



2005 2004 $’000 $’000

Note 2: Grants

Grantsforthereportingperiodcomprised: HaydenMatter 409 459 DrugCourt 230 89 Other 222 188

Total 861 736

Note 3: Sale of Goods and Services

Feesandchargesforthereportingperiodcomprised: Saleofelectronicinformation 295 351 Recoupsforservices 170 298 Rentrecoups 177 264 Otherrevenue 310 232

Total 952 1145

Note 4: Regulatory Fees

Licencedisqualificationandreminderfees 1759 1761 Sheriff’sofficerfees 994 818 Photocopying 105 121 Otherregulatoryfees 106 103

Total 2964 2803

Note 5: Proceeds and Expenses from Disposal of Assets

Plant&Equipment Proceedsfromdisposal 2 –

Total 2 –

Note 6: Other Revenues

Otherrevenuesforthereportingperiodcomprised: InvestmentRevenue 616 483 TVSPRecoup – 335

Total 616 818

Note 7: Employee Expenses

Employeeexpensesforthereportingperiodcomprised: Salariesandwages 31954 31043 Payrolltaxandsuperannuationexpenses 5526 5382 Longserviceleaveexpenses 1435 1355 TargetedVoluntarySeparationPackages – 335 Other 994 190

Total 39909 38305


Financial 2005 2004 $’000 $’000

Note 8: Supplies and Services Expenses

Suppliesandservicesexpensesforthereportingperiodcomprised: Accommodationexpenses 8493 9050 Administrationexpenses–NonSAGovt 7453 7805 Administrationexpenses–SAGovt 255 267 Computingandcommunications 3141 3521 CoronialCharges 2526 2509 Jurors’expenses 1348 1215 Bailifffeereimbursements 755 672

Total* 23971 25039

*ThetotalincludesotherexpensespaidorpayabletoSAGovernmententitieswheretheamountpaidorpayabletotheSAGovernmentwaslessthan$100K.Expensesover$100Kareseparatelydisclosed.

Note 9: Depreciation and Amortisation

Depreciationandamortisationexpensesforthereportingperiodwerechargedinrespectof: Buildingsandimprovements 1847 1797 In-housedevelopedcomputersoftware 1058 1647 Computing 365 621 Financeleaseonbuilding 830 830 Officefurnitureandequipment 92 118 Librarycollections 172 – Leaseholdimprovements 102 101

Total 4466 5114

Note 10: Other Expenses

Otherexpensesforthereportingperiodcomprised: Operatingleasepayments 518 502 Other 277 278

Total* 795 780

*ThetotalincludesotherexpensespaidorpayabletoSAGovernmententitieswheretheamountpaidorpayabletotheSAGovernmentwaslessthan$100K.

Note 11: Cash Alignment Policy Transfer

CashSurplusTransfertoGovt Cashtransfer* 244 –

Total 244 –

*ThisisanewpolicyandreflectssurpluscashholdingsinCAAbanka/ctransferredtotheConsolidatedAccount.

Note 12: Cash on hand and on deposit

Cashonhandandondepositcomprised: DepositaccountswithDepartmentofTreasuryandFinance* 15083 9914 Cashonhand(includingpettycash) 30 43

Total 15113 9957

* Includes accrual appropriation of $10.98m ($7.0m)



2005 2004 $’000 $’000

Note 13: Receivables

Receivablescomprised: GSTreceivable 55 406 Feesforservice 327 258 InterestReceivable 22 –

Total* 404 664


Note 14: Prepayments

Prepaymentscomprised: FinanceLease – 402 SuppliesandServices 175 193

Total 175 595

Note 15: Property, Plant and Equipment

(a): Summary of balances 2005 Accumulated Written Cost/ Depreciation/ Down Valuation Amortisation Value $’000 $’000 $’000

Landatfairvalue 15913 – 15913 Buildingsandimprovementsatfairvalue 104398 (35606) 68792 Buildingsandimprovementsatcost – – – Buildingunderconstructionatcost 891 – 891 Buildingunderfinanceleaseatfairvalue 33191 (18255) 14936 Leaseholdimprovementsatcost 1033 (421) 612 Computingatcost 5068 (4432) 636 Officefurnitureandequipmentatcost 1484 (1052) 432 In-housedevelopedcomputersoftwareatcost 7688 (7688) – Librarycollectionsatfairvalue 4713 (172) 4541 Worksofartandcollectionsatfairvalue 498 – 498

Total 174877 (67626) 107251 2004 Accumulated Written Cost/ Depreciation/ Down Valuation Amortisation Value $’000 $’000 $’000

Land 15913 – 15913 Buildingsandimprovements 104354 (33759) 70595 Buildingunderconstruction 3727 – 3727 Buildingunderfinancelease 33191 (17425) 15766 Leaseholdimprovements 1033 (319) 714 Computing 5048 (4212) 836 Officefurnitureandequipment 1417 (960) 457 In-housedevelopedcomputersoftware 7688 (6630) 1058 Librarycollections 4216 – 4216 Worksofartandcollections 498 – 498

Total 177085 (63305) 113780


FinancialNote 15

(b): Analysis of Property, Plant and Equipment In-house Buildings& Building Building Buildings- Total Office Developed Works TotalPlant,Item Improvements Under Under Leasehold Land& Furniture& Computer Library ofArt& Equipment& Land FinanceLease Construction Improvements Buildings Computing Equipment Software Collections Collections Collections Total

$’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Gross value as at 1 July 2004 15 913 104 354 33 191 3 727 1 033 158 218 5 048 1 417 7 688 4 216 498 18 867 177 085

Additions: Purchases of assets – 44 – 561 – 605 165 111 – 497 – 773 1 378

Adj Prior Year balances – – – – (44) – – (44) (44)

Disposals/stocktake write-offs – – – (3 397) – (3 397) (145) – – – – (145) (3 542)

Gross value as at 30 June 2005 15 913 104 398 33 191 891 1 033 155 426 5 068 1 484 7 688 4 713 498 19 451 174 877

Accumulated Depreciation/

Amortisation as at 30 June 2004 – (33 759) (17 425) – (319) (51 503) (4 212) (960) (6 630) – – (11 802) (63 305)

Depreciation/Amortisation for year n/a (1 847) (830) – (102) (2 779) (390) (109) (1 058) (172) – (1 729) (4 508)

Depreciation over/under expensed previous years n/a – – – – – 25 17 – – – 42 42

Disposals/stocktake write-offs n/a – – – – – 145 – – – – 145 145

Accumulated Depreciation/ Amortisation as at 30 June 2005 – (35 606) (18 255) – (421) (54 282) (4 432) (1 052) (7 688) (172) – (13 344) (67 626)

Net book values as at 30 June 2005 15 913 68 792 14 936 891 612 101 144 636 432 – 4 541 498 6 107 107 251

Net book values as at 30 June 2004 15 913 70 595 15 766 3 727 714 106 715 836 457 1 058 4 216 498 7 065 113 780

2005 2004 $’000 $’000

Note 16: Payables

Current: Creditorsandaccruals 1052 1475 On-costsonprovisionforemployeeentitlements 492 476

Total* 1544 1951

Non-Current: On-costsonprovisionforemployeeentitlements 780 646

Total* 780 646


Note 17

(a): Employee Entitlements

Current: AccruedSalariesandWages 505 349 Longserviceleave 533 812 Annualleave 2078 1903

Total 3116 3064

Non-Current: Longserviceleave 6359 5178 AnnualLeave 238 205

Total 6597 5383



2005 2004 $’000 $’000

Note 17

(b): Employee entitlements and related on-costs liabilities

AccruedSalariesandWages OncostsincludedinPayables–Current(Note16) 83 59 ProvisionforEmployeeEntitlements–Current(Note17a) 505 349

588 408

AnnualLeave OncostsincludedinPayables–Current(Note16) 347 321 ProvisionforEmployeeEntitlements–Current(Note17a) 2078 1903

2425 2224

OncostsincludedinPayables–NonCurrent(Note16) 40 33 ProvisionforEmployeeEntitlements–NonCurrent(Note17a) 238 205

278 238

LongServiceLeave OncostsincludedinPayables–Current(Note16) 62 96 ProvisionforEmployeeEntitlements–Current(Note17a) 533 812

595 908

OncostsincludedinPayables–NonCurrent(Note16) 740 613 ProvisionforEmployeeEntitlements–NonCurrent(Note17a) 6359 5178

7099 5791

Aggregateemployeeentitlementsandrelatedon-costliabilities 10985 9569

2005 2004 Number Number

Averagenumberofemployeesduringtheyear 667.7 669.6

Note 18: Finance Lease

2005 2004 $’000 $’000

FinanceLeasecommitments: Payablenolaterthanoneyear 5029 4922

Payablelaterthanoneyearandnotlaterthanfiveyears 20115 19688Payablelaterthanfiveyears 65372 68908

Minimumleasepayments 90516 93518Less:Futurefinancechargesandcontingentrentals 67041 69308

LeaseLiability 23475 24210

Classifiedas: Current 777 735 Non-Current 22698 23475

23475 24210

AfinanceleaseexistsinrelationtotheSirSamuelWaybuilding.Theleaseisnon-cancellableforatermof40years.


Financial 2005 2004 $’000 $’000

Note 19: Other Liabilities

WorkerscompensationliabilitiesadvisedbythePublicSectorWorkforceRelationsBranchoftheDepartmentforAdministrativeandInformationServices,comprised:

Current: Incomemaintenance 310 260 Other 135 109

Total 445 369

Non-Current: Incomemaintenance 1660 1266 Other 679 479

Total 2339 1745

Accumulated Accumulated surplus revaluationreserve TotalEquity

2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Note 20: Equity

Balanceat1July 76931 79242 10697 10697 87628 89939

Netsurplus(deficit)fromoperatingactivities 347 (2311) – – 347 (2311)

Adjustmenttoprioryearsrevaluation increment(consistingof): RevaluationdecrementtoBuildings – – (3328) – (3328) –

Balanceat30June 77278 76931 7369 10697 84647 87628

Whenpreparingthefinancialstatementsfortheyearending30June2005itwasnotedthatanerrorwasmadewhenthecalculationswerepreparedfortherevaluationofthebuildingsasthevaluesrecordeddidnotincludetheamountsintheWIPaccount.

Theerrorwasnotjudgedtobe‘fundamental’anditwasdecidednottoamendandreissuethefinancialstatementsfortheprioryearsasthemovementwasbetweenWIPandtheAssetrevaluationreservenottheactualvalueoftheasset.



2005 2004 $’000 $’000

Note 21: Commitments

ByType

CapitalCommitments Landandbuildings(1) 10845 12590

Totalcapitalcommitments 10845 12590

OtherCommitments Operatingleases(2) 688 920 Miscellaneous 4 10

Totalothercommitments 692 930

Netcommitments 11537 13520

ByMaturity

Allnetcommitments Oneyearorless 5242 1023 Fromonetofiveyears 6295 12497

Netcommitments 11537 13520

Operatingleaseandmiscellaneouscommitments Oneyearorless 242 363 Fromonetofiveyears 450 567

Totaloperatingleaseandmiscellaneouscommitments 692 930

CommitmentsareGSTinclusivewhererelevant

(1)Outstandingcontractualarrangementsforbuildingunderconstruction.

(2)Operatingleasesareeffectivelynon-cancellableandrelatetophotocopiers,IT,andotherleasedequipmentusedbytheAuthority.

Rentalispayablemonthlyinarrearsgenerallyforafouryeartermwithanoptiontorenewattheendoftheterm.

Note 22: Cash Flow Reconciliation

ReconciliationofCashperStatementofFinancialPositiontoStatementofCashFlows CashatyearendperStatementofCashFlows 15113 9957 StatementofFinancialPositionitemcomprisingabovecash:‘Cashonhandandondeposit’ 15113 9957

Reconciliationofnetoperatingsurplustonetcashprovidedbyoperatingactivities:Netsurplus/(deficit) 347 (2311)Depreciation/Amortisation 4466 5114Netrevenuefromwrite-downandrecognitionofnon-currentassets/Assetadjustment – (35)Profitondisposalofassets (2) –Decrease/(Increase)inreceivables 260 426Decrease/(Increase)inprepayments 420 (162)Increaseinemployeeentitlements 1266 1010(Decrease)/Increaseinpayables (273) 627Increase/(Decrease)inotherliabilities 670 (56)

Netcashprovidedbyoperatingactivities 7154 4613


Financial 2005 2004* Numberof Numberof Employees Employees

Note 23: Employee and Judicial Remuneration

Remunerationofemployees

Remunerationincludessalaryandnon-monetarybenefits.

Thenumberofemployeeswhoseremunerationreceivedorreceivablefellwithinthefollowingbandswere:

RecurrentSalaries

$100000to$109999 2 –$110000to$119999 3 3$120000to$129999 2 3$130000to$139999 – 1$140000to$149999 1 1$210000to$219999 1 3$220000to$229999 3 –$270000to$279999 – 1$290000to$299999 1 –

TotalNumberofEmployeesintheseBands 13 12

Theaggregateremunerationforalltheemployeesreferredtoabovewas$2.1million($1.9million)

*amended



2005 2004* Numberof Numberof Judicial Judicial Officers Officers

Remunerationofjudiciary

Remunerationincludessalaryandnonmonetarybenefits:

Thenumberofjudicialofficerswhoseremunerationreceivedorreceivablefellwithinthefollowingbandswere:

SpecialActs$110000to$119999 – 1$120000to$129999 1 –$140000to$149999 3 –$150000to$159999 1 –$160000to$169999 1 1$170000to$179999 1 –$180000to$189999 – 1$190000to$199999 1 1$200000to$209999 – 5$210000to$219999 4 14$220000to$229999 6 5$230000to$239999 12 8$240000to$249999 6 4$250000to$259999 5 3$260000to$269999 2 –$270000to$279999 1 1$290000to$299999 1 –$300000to$309999 1 1$310000to$319999 1 21$320000to$329999 3 –$330000to$339999 16 1$340000to$349999 – 1$350000to$359999 1 9$360000to$369999 2 1$370000to$379999 10 –$390000to$399999 – 1$410000to$419999 1 –$430000to$439999 1 –

TotalNumberofJudiciaryintheseBands 81 79

Theaggregateremunerationforallthejudicialofficersreferredtoabovewas$22.8million($21.3million)

*amended


Financial 2005 2004 $’000 $’000

Note 24: Targeted Voluntary Separation Packages

TVSPspaidtoemployeesduringthereportingperiodwere: TVSPpayments – 335 RecoveryfromtheDepartmentofthePremierandCabinetinrespectofTVSPs – 335 Annualandlongserviceleaveaccruedovertheperiodofemployment paidtoemployeeswhoreceivedTVSPs – 89

2005 2004 Numberof Numberof Employees Employees

The number of employees who received TVSPs. – 6

Note 25: Related Party Disclosures

No transactions have been entered into by the Authority with any board/staff member of a business in which a board/staff member has either a direct or indirect pecuniary interest.

2005 2004 $’000 $’000

Note 26: Consultancies

Total expenditure on consultancies amounted to $22,000 ($122,000).

Individualconsultanciescostingmorethan$50,000 – 72

Individualconsultanciescostingbetween$10,000and$50,000

Project Consultant PerformanceManagementToolforExecutives McPheeAndrewarthaPtyLtd 10 38

Individualconsultanciescostinglessthan$10,000

4consultancies 12 12

Note 27: Remuneration of Auditors

Auditfeespaid/payabletotheAuditor-General 81 126 InternalAuditfunction 65 77

146 203

NootherserviceswereprovidedbytheAuditor-General.

Note 28: Contingent Assets and Liabilities

TheAuthorityhasnomaterialcontingentassetsorliabilitiesasat30June2005.



Note 29: Financial Instruments

a)Terms,conditionsandaccountingpolicies

FinancialInstrument Note AccountingPoliciesandMethods(including Natureofunderlyinginstrument(including recognitioncriteriaandmeasurementbasis) significanttermsandconditionsaffectingthe amount,timingandcertaintyofcashflows)

FinancialAssets Financialassetsarerecognisedwhencontrol overfutureeconomicbenefitsisestablished andtheamountofthebenefitcanbe reliablymeasured.

Cash 12 Depositsarerecognisedattheirnominal CashcomprisesDepositAccountsatthe amounts.Interestiscreditedasitaccrues. DepartmentofTreasuryandFinance. Interestisearnedontheaveragedailybalance basedontheaverageofthe90daybankbill.

Theaverage90dayBankBillrateforthe yearended30June2005was5.6%.

Receivables 13 Thesereceivablesarerecognisedattheir Credittermsarenet30days. nominalamountslessanyprovisionfor doubtfuldebts.

FinancialLiabilities Financialliabilitiesarerecognisedwhena presentobligationtoanotherpartyis enteredintoandtheamountoftheliability canbereliablymeasured.

Financeleaseliabilities 18 Liabilitiesarerecognisedatthepresent Atthereportingdate,theAuthorityhadavalueoftheminimumleasepayments financeleasewitha40yeartermwhichexpireattheinceptionofthelease. on30June2023.Thediscountrateusedwasanestimateof Theinterestrateimplicitintheleasetheinterestrateimplicitinthelease. atitsinceptionwas5.61%. Rentalpaymentsundertheleasearrangements

areindexedbytheConsumerPriceIndex.Rentalpaymentsfor2004–05equateto14.8%ofthevalueoftheleaseatitsinception.

Payables 16 Creditorsandaccrualsarerecognisedat Settlementisnormallymadenet30days.theirnominalamounts,beingtheamountsatwhichtheliabilitieswillbesettled.Liabilitiesarerecognisedtotheextentthatthegoodsorserviceshavebeenreceived.


Financial b)InterestRateRiskFinancialInstrument Note FloatingInterestRate Non-Interest Total WeightedAverage 1yearorless 1to2years 2to5years >5years Bearing Effective InterestRate 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 % %

FinancialAssets

Cash 12 15083 9914 – – – – – – 30 43 15,113 9,957 5.6% 4.6%Receivables 13 – – – – – – – – 404 664 404 664 n/a n/a

TotalFinancialAssets 15083 9914 – – – – – – 434 707 15517 10621

TotalAssets 122943 124996

FinancialLiabilities

Financelease 18 777 735 1599 777 2761 2611 19115 20087 – – 23475 24210 5.6%* 5.6%*Payables 16 – – – – – – – – 1052 1475 1052 1475 n/a n/a

TotalFinancialLiabilities 777 735 1599 777 2761 2611 19115 20087 1052 1475 24527 25685

TotalLiabilities 38296 37368

Note 28

(c): Net Fair Values of Financial Assets and Liabilities

FinancialAssets

Thenetfairvaluesofcashandnon-interestbearingmonetaryfinancialassetsapproximatetheircarryingamounts.


Thenetfairvaluefortradecreditorsisapproximatedbytheircarryingvalues.

*Thenetfairvalueofthefinanceleaseat30June2005was$67.0m($69.3m).ThisreflectstheindexationoftherentalpaymentsbytheCPIandasat30June2005theinterestrateimplicitintheleaseishigherthanatitsinception.

Note 28

(d): Credit Risk Exposures

TheAuthority’smaximumexposuretocreditriskatthereportingdateinrelationtoeachclassofrecognisedfinancialassetsisthecarryingamountofthoseassetsasindicatedintheStatementofFinancialPosition.

TheAuthorityhasnosignificantexposurestoanyconcentrationsofcreditrisk.

2005 2004 $’000 $’000

Note 30: Judicial Salary Related Expenses

Judicialsalaryrelatedexpensescomprised:

Salariesandwages 17598 16670 Payrolltaxandsuperannuationexpenses 5094 4919 Longserviceleaveexpenses 953 783 Other 627 650

Total 24272 23022

Note 31: Administered Cash

Administeredcashcomprised:

DepositaccountwiththeDepartmentofTreasuryandFinance 11438 10899



2005 2004 $’000 $’000

Note 32: Administered Receivables

Current:

Debtorsandaccruals 808 673 Transferexpensesyettobeclaimed 96 74 GSTreceivable 7 25

Total 911 772

Note 33: Administered Payables

Current:

NettransferspayabletoConsolidatedAccount 11392 10415 Creditorsandaccruals 621 194 Transferrevenuereceivedandnotforwarded 336 662 On-costsonprovisionforjudicialentitlements 647 492

Total 12996 11763

Non-Current:

On-costsonprovisionforjudicialentitlements 564 796

Note 34

(a): Judicial Entitlements

Current:

AccruedSalariesandWages 436 185 Longserviceleave 1540 1006 Annualleave 996 877

Total 2972 2068

Non-Current:

Longserviceleave 2836 3802 Annualleave 255 244

Total 3091 4046


Financial 2005 2004 $’000 $’000

Note 34

(b): Judicial Entitlements and related on-costs liabilities

AccruedSalariesandWages

On-costsincludedinpayables–Current(Note33) 91 58 ProvisionforJudicialEntitlements–Current(Note34a) 436 185

527 243

AnnualLeave


1277 1117

On-costsincludedinpayables–NonCurrent(Note33) 59 62 ProvisionforJudicialEntitlements–NonCurrent(Note34a) 255 244

314 306

LongServiceLeave


1815 1200

On-costsincludedinpayablesNon–Current(Note33) 505 734 ProvisionforJudicialEntitlements–NonCurrent(Note34a) 2836 3802

3341 4536

AggregateJudicialentitlementsandrelatedoncostsliabilities 7274 7402

2005 2004 Number Number

AveragenumberofJudiciaryduringtheyear 79.2 78.6

2005 2004 $’000 $’000

Note 35: Administered Equity

Balanceat1July (7002) (6302) Netdecreaseinadministerednetassets (272) (700)

Balanceat30June (7274) (7002)

Note 36: Administered Cash Flow Reconciliation

ReconciliationofCashperStatementofFinancialPositiontoStatementofCashFlows

CashatyearendperStatementofCashFlows 11438 10899 StatementofFinancialPositionitemcomprisingabovecash:‘Cash’ 11438 10899

Reconciliationofnetdecreaseinadministerednetassetstonetcashprovidedbyadministeredactivities:

NetDecreaseinadministerednetassets (272) (700) Increaseinreceivables (139) (267) (Decrease)/Increaseinjudicialentitlements (51) 726 Increaseinpayables 1001 10646

Netcashprovidedbyadministeredactivities 539 10405



Note 37: Administered Financial Instruments

(a)Terms,conditionsandaccountingpolicies

FinancialInstrument Note AccountingPoliciesandMethods Natureofunderlyinginstrument(including (includingrecognitioncriteriaand significanttermsandconditionsaffectingthe measurementbasis) amount,timingandcertaintyofcashflows)

FinancialAssets Financialassetsarerecognisedwhencontrol overfutureeconomicbenefitsisestablished andtheamountofthebenefitcanbe reliablymeasured.

Cash 30 Depositsarerecognisedattheir CashcomprisesaDepositAccountatthe nominalamounts. DepartmentofTreasuryandFinance. Theadministeredcashbalanceis non-interestbearing.

Receivables 31 Thesereceivablesarerecognisedattheir Credittermsarenet30days. nominalamountslessanyprovisionfor doubtfuldebts.

FinancialLiabilities Financialliabilitiesarerecognisedwhena presentobligationtoanotherpartyisentered intoandtheamountoftheliabilitycanbe reliablymeasured.

Payables 32 Creditorsandaccrualsarerecognisedattheir Settlementisnormallymadenet30days. nominalamounts,beingtheamountsat whichtheliabilitieswillbesettled.Liabilities arerecognisedtotheextentthatthegoods orserviceshavebeenreceived.

(b)InterestRateRisk

Floating FixedInterestRate Non-Interest WeightedAverage InterestRate 1yearorless 1to2years 2to5years >5years Bearing Total EffectiveInterestRate 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004FinancialInstrument Note $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 % %

FinancialAssets

Cash 31 – – – – – – – – – – 11 438 10 899 11 438 10 899 n/a n/a Receivables 32 – – – – – – – – – – 911 772 911 772 n/a n/a

Total Financial Assets – – – – – – – – – – 12 349 11 671 12 349 11 671

Total Assets 12 349 11 671


Payables 33 – – – – – – – – – – 12 349 11 271 12 349 11 271 n/a n/a

Total Financial Liabilities – – – – – – – – – – 12 349 11 271 12 349 11 271

Total Liabilities 19 623 18 673


FinancialNote 37

(c): Net Fair Values of Financial Assets and Liabilities

FinancialAssets

Thenetfairvaluesofcashandnon-interestbearingmonetaryfinancialassetsapproximatetheircarryingamounts.


Thenetfairvaluesforthetradecreditorsareapproximatedbytheircarryingvalues.

Note 38: Trust Monies

Inaddition,theAuthorityholdsmoniespendingtheoutcomeofcourtdecisions.ThesemoniesareexcludedfromthefinancialstatementsastheAuthoritycannotusethemfortheachievementofitsobjectives.Thefollowingisasummaryofthetransactionsinthejurisdictions’trustaccounts.

2005 2004 $’000 $’000

SupremeCourtSuitorAccount

Balanceat1July 22952 23154 Receipts 2706 3890

25658 27044

Less:Payments 18327 4092

Balanceat30June 7331 22952

DistrictCourtSuitorAccount


2809 2676



Sheriff’sOfficeTrustAccount


1331 1061



Magistrates’CourtsSuitorAccounts


13997 12919




CertificateCertificate of Financial Report

We certify that:

– the attached financial statements are in accordance with the accounts and records of the Courts Administration Authority and give an accurate indication of the financial transactions of the Authority for the year ended 30 June 2005;

– the financial statements for the Authority present fairly, in accordance with the Treasurer’s Instructions promulgated under the provisions of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987, applicable Australian Accounting Standards and other mandatory professional reporting requirements, in South Australia, the financial position of the Authority as at the reporting date and the result of its operations and its cash flows for the year ended 30 June 2005;

– internal controls over the financial reporting have been effective throughout the reporting period.

Gary Thompson


Date: 11 August 2005

Trevor O’Rourke

Director, Corporate Services

Date: 11 August 2005


AuditIndependent Audit Report


Appendix A AppendixOccupational Health, Safety and Injury Management

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05

1 OHSlegislativerequirementsandinjuries

NumberofnotifiableoccurrencesandinjuriespursuanttoOHS&W RegulationsDivision6.6,andnumberofnotifiableinjuriespursuantto OHS&WRegulationsDivision6.6 0 0 0

2 Injurymanagementlegislativerequirements

Totalnumberofemployeeswhoparticipatedintherehabilitationprogram 6 4 13

Totalnumberofemployeesrehabilitatedandreassignedtoalternativeduties 3 0 7

Totalnumberofemployeesrehabilitatedbacktowork 3 4 5

3 WorkCoveractionlimits

Numberofopenclaimsasat30June 44 33 40

Percentageofworkerscompensationexpenditureovergrossannualremuneration 1.16% 0.79% 0.83%

4 Numberofclaims

Numberofnewworkerscompensationclaims 26 19 34

Numberoffatalities,medicaltreatmentonly,losttimeinjuries (F) 0 0 0 (MTO) 13 12 17 (LTI) 13 7 17

Totalnumberofwholeworkingdayslost 61 135 134

5 Costofworkerscompensation

Costofnewclaims 29966 39998 51111

Costofallclaimsexcludinglumpsumpayments 311412 447926 413536

Amountpaidforlumpsumpayments–South Australian Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act,1986 s42 135499 Nil 8000 s43 46111 Nil 0 s44 Nil Nil 0

Totalamountrecoveredfromexternalsources 0 0 0

Budgetallocationforworkerscompensation 271000 280000 283560

6 Trends

Injuryfrequencyratefornewlost-timeinjury/diseaseforeachmillionhoursworked 11.02 6.79 13.05

Mostfrequentcause(mechanism)ofinjury Body Body Body Stressing Stressing Stressing

Mostexpensivecause(mechanism)ofinjury Body Body Body Stressing Stressing Stressing

7 Meetingtheorganisation’sstrategictargets

(Targetsandresultsfromtheorganisation’sactionplan TheOHS&W, TheOHS&W, TheOHS&W,

areenteredhere) IMPlan2002/2004 IMPlan2002/2004 IMPlan2004/2006 contains contains contains performance performance performance measuresinthe measuresinthe measuresinthe areasofinjury areasofinjury areasofinjury andhazard andhazard andhazard management management management

Level 14Education Centre

31 Flinders Street AdelaideSouth Australia 5000

Telephone +61 8 8226 0138Facsimile +61 8 8226 0111

Internet www.courts.sa.gov.au

Documents

Annual Report 2004 - 2005 - Courts · YOuTH COuRT Youth Court, Family Conference Team, Care and Protection unit ... SM. The Associate members of the Council were Justice Sulan, Judge