annual report - courts · 2011-06-30 · annual report 2008–09 3 this is the 16th report of the...

Level 14 Education Centre

31 Flinders Street Adelaide SA 5000

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

Internet: www.courts.sa.gov.au

Courts A

dministration A

uthority Annual Report 2008–2009

Annual ReportANNUAL REPORT 2008–09

MT BARKER MURRAYBRIDGE

VICTOR HARBOR

CLARE

PORT AUGUSTA

CEDUNA

YALATA

COOBER PEDY

AMATAPIPALYATJARA

ERNABELLA (Pukatja)

FREGON(Kaltjiti)

INDULKANA(Iwantja)

MARLA

BERRI

TANUNDA

WAIKERIE

PORT PIRE

KADINA

MAITLAND

KINGSCOTE

WHYALLA PETERBOROUGH

LEIGH CREEKROXBY DOWNS

PORT LINCOLN

MT GAMBIER

MILLICENT

BORDERTOWN

NARACOORTE

ADELAIDE

ELIZABETH

HOLDEN HILL

PORT ADELAIDE

CHRISTIES BEACH

ADELAIDE

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

ADELAIDE METRO

Supreme Court

Magistrates Court

District Court

Environment, Resources and Development Court

Coroner’s Court

Youth Court

S

M

M M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

M

MD M

D M

D M

D M

M

M

M M

M

M

M

M

M

M

MM

D M S

M

M

S M D E C Y

M

M

M

D

E

C

Y

D M S

The Environment, Resources and Development Court sits primarily in Adelaide, but can sit anywhere in the State.

Specialist courts within the Magistrates Court jurisdiction sit at many of these sites.

The Coroner’s Court hears most inquests in Adelaide and can hear inquests at other sites.

The Youth Court hears cases in Adelaide but youth matters can also be heard at most locations shown above. Care and Protection and Family Conference coordinators can convene meetings at court locations but prefer to meet at a neutral sites.

ORGANISATIONAL CHART

COURT SITTING LOCATIONS

Annual Report 2008–09 ■ 1

CONTENTS

State Courts Administration Council1. The Honourable John Doyle AC, Chief Justice of South Australia and Chairman of the State Courts Administration Council 2. His Honour Terry Worthington, Chief Judge of the District Court 3. Ms Elizabeth Bolton, Chief Magistrate 4. The Honourable Justice Christopher Kourakis, Supreme Court of South Australia and Associate Member for the Chief Justice to the Council 5. Judge Barry Beazley of the District Court and Associate Member for the Chief Judge to the Council 6. Dr Andrew Cannon AM, Deputy Chief Magistrate and Associate Member for the Chief Magistrate to the Council 7. Mr Gary Thompson, State Courts Administrator

Court sitting locations

Contents 1

Chart depicting organisation 2

Report from the Chairman, State Courts Administration Council 3

Report from the State Courts Administrator 5

Strategic plan and Community Relations Committee 7

Higher Courts Services 9

Supreme Court 11

District Court 19

Magistrates Court (including Specialist Courts) 24

Environment, Resources and Development Court 38

Youth Court 42

Coroner’s Court 47

Sheriff ’s Office 49

Library Service 53

Court Transcription Services 54

Human Resources 55

Information Technology Services 58

Greening of government operations 59

Freedom of information report 60

Financial overview 61

Financial reports 68

Financial certification statement 105

Auditor General’s certificate 106

Appendix A Courts Administration Authority Strategic Plan 2006–09 107

Appendix B Community Involvement Plan 108October 2009 Courts Administration Authority

Education Centre 31 Flinders Street Adelaide South Australia 5000

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

Report prepared by the Communications Branch, CAA. For more information please contact the Communications Branch on telephone +61 8 8204 0403 or facsimile +61 8 8204 0441 or Email to [email protected]

Copyright: Courts Administration Authority, South Australia, September 2009.

ISSN 1443–0444

Courts Administration Authority Annual Report 2008–09

1 2 3 4

5 6 7

2 ■ Courts Administration Authority

ORGANISATIONAL CHARTS

TA

TE

CO

UR

TS

AD

MIN

IST

RA

TIO

N C

OU

NC

IL

ST

AT

E C

OU

RT

S A

DM

INIS

TR

AT

OR

EX

EC

UT

IVE

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

CO

MM

ITT

EE

ENV

IRO

NM

ENT,

RESO

URC

ES

AN

D D

EVEL

OPM

ENT

CO

URT

CO

URT

TRA

NSC

RIPT

ION

SE

RVIC

ES

CO

URT

LIB

RARY

SER

VIC

E

DIS

TRIC

T C

OU

RT

SUPR

EME

CO

URT

HIG

HER

CO

URT

SER

VIC

ESC

OU

RT S

ERV

ICES

CO

RON

ER’S

CO

URT

SPEC

IALI

ST C

OU

RTS

MA

GIS

TRAT

ES C

OU

RT

FAM

ILY

CO

NFE

REN

CE

TEA

M

YOU

TH C

OU

RT

CA

RE &

PRO

TEC

TIO

N

TEA

M

HU

MA

N R

ESO

URC

ES

FAC

ILIT

IES

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

AD

MIN

ISTR

ATIO

N

SERV

ICES

BUSI

NES

S &

FIN

AN

CIA

L SE

RVIC

ES

INFO

RMAT

ION

TE

CH

NO

LOG

Y S

ERV

ICES

CO

RPO

RATE

SER

VIC

ES

ENFO

RCEM

ENT

JURY

MA

NA

GEM

ENT

SEC

URI

TY

SHER

IFF’

S O

FFIC

E

CO

MM

UN

ICAT

ION

SBR

AN

CH

MED

IA L

IAIS

ON

OFF

ICE


This is the 16th report of the State Courts Administration Council (‘the Council’), dealing with the year to 30 June 2009. The Council is established by the Courts Administration Act 1993 (SA). It is a statutory authority, independent of the executive government.

During the year the Council comprised me as Chief Justice, Chief Judge Worthington of the District Court and the Chief Magistrate, Ms E.M. Bolton. The Associate Members of the Council were Justice Sulan until November 2008 and thereafter Justice Kourakis; Judge Simpson until her resignation as a judge of the District Court on 31 March 2009 and thereafter Judge Beazley; and the Deputy Chief Magistrate, Dr Cannon.

The State Courts Administrator, Mr Gary Thompson, is the Council’s Chief Executive Officer. By section 17 of the Act, subject to control and direction by the Council, he is responsible for the control and management of the Council staff and the management of property that is under the Council’s care, control and management.

The function of the Council is to provide the administrative facilities and services for the courts of the State. Each court remains responsible for its own internal administration

FinancesIn February 2009 the Council was informed by the Government that the appropriation for the Courts Administration Authority (‘CAA’) for the coming year (2009–10) would be reduced by $2.8 million, on an ongoing basis. The reduction is to take effect from the midpoint of the 2009–10 year. Accordingly, in the first year, the reduction will be one half of that amount. Additional reductions in the CAA’s appropriation in the next two years mean that the annual reductions will be about $3.8 million. The reduction is to be met primarily by a reduction in staff numbers, but with no forced redundancies. For the CAA, this represents a reduction in staff numbers of 39 in the year 2009–10 with a further seven in the year 2010–11 and a further seven in the year 2011–12.

This requirement is in addition to savings targets previously imposed by the Government. As well, the Government has subsequently informed the Council that the appropriation for the CAA in the year 2009–10 will not be increased by the full amount of the increase in the CPI index.

This decision has significant implications for the Council. The appropriation for the CAA for recurrent funding in the two previous budgets has been sufficient to enable the Council to maintain ongoing operations, but there was nothing to spare. There remains a need for significant expenditure in particular to improve the CAA’s information technology and to carry out much-needed maintenance work on court buildings, for which at present there is limited funding.

The Council accepts that the executive Government decides how public funds will be spent, subject to appropriation by Parliament. The Council also realises that the global financial crisis has had an adverse effect on revenue available to the Government. But it is appropriate to make some points about this.

A large amount of the time of our senior staff in particular has been consumed in identifying means of making the required reductions in staff numbers and the required savings. This is time that otherwise would have been spent on the core work of the CAA. I take this opportunity to record Council’s appreciation of the efforts of the Administrator and the staff of the CAA in managing the required reductions. Their task has been a very difficult one, made no easier by the impact of the reduction on individual employees of the Council. The Courts Administrator and his staff have done all that could be asked of them.

The process has been unsettling for our staff, particularly while they waited to learn how and where the staff reductions would be made. I thank our staff for their patience and cooperation in this respect.

The Judges of the Supreme Court and of the District Court on their own initiative reviewed the arrangements for the provision of support staff to them. The judges of each court proposed reductions in their support staff, resulting in the termination of seven positions for support staff in the Supreme Court and eight for support staff in the District Court. This has made a significant contribution to the overall target.

There is a tendency to overlook the fact that the members of staff whose positions have been made redundant were performing tasks which still have to be performed and so now must be attended to by others. The remaining staff, including judicial support staff, will have to undertake additional tasks in future. This increases the pressure on them. So it is not merely a matter of making the savings; the Council also has to ensure that the additional work is reallocated.

The function of the Council is to provide administrative support to the courts of the State. If that administrative support is reduced, one cannot assume that the courts can continue to do all that they did before, or at least as quickly as before. Nor can one assume that the existing level of services to the community can be maintained.

The Council expects that it will meet the required savings targets for the year 2009–10 without any significant reduction in the output by the courts of the State or in services provided to the public. However, three country registries of the Magistrates Court will be closed, regrettable as that is. But further reductions will almost certainly result in the Council, in conjunction with the courts, identifying functions or services that will have to be terminated. I emphasise that no consideration has been given to this as yet and no decisions have been made. But, to illustrate the kind of decision that may have to be made, I make the point that it may prove necessary to terminate one of the specialist courts in the Magistrates Court or to limit the hours during which court registries are open to the public or to reduce the effort made by staff of the CAA and the Judiciary to build community relations.

of the State Courts Administration Council

REPORT FROM THE CHAIRMAN


REPORT FROM THE CHAIRMAN of the State Courts Administration Council (continued)

In short, further reductions will require the Council to give very careful consideration to reductions in activities.

I have emphasised these matters because the fact that we expect to achieve the savings required, and the manner in which this has been achieved, might create the impression that the process that we have undertaken is a painless one and could be repeated. That is not the case.

It goes without saying that the appropriation for the CAA for 2009–10 will not include funding for the much-needed upgrade of our information technology, nor for some of the major maintenance projects that need to be undertaken.

Criminal cases in higher courtsIn last year’s report I referred to the increasing time taken to dispose of criminal cases, particularly in the District Court. I said that more criminal courts were needed. The Government responded by providing $2.845 million for capital funding and $3.112 million for recurrent funding to enable the provision of two additional criminal courts in leased premises in Sturt Street and the appointment of three additional District Court Judges to assist in the reduction of this backlog. It is likely that the courts will be ready for use by October 2009 and I hope that the two additional judges will be appointed before then.

Council acknowledges this commitment by the Government. However, the Council continues to believe that the trend in lodgments indicates that more criminal courts will be needed if waiting times are to be reduced to acceptable levels.

The Council will wait to see what impact the two additional courts and the two additional judges have on the criminal lists. But, unless there are other changes made to the criminal process which improve the rate at which criminal matters are dealt with in the District Court, Council is concerned that yet more criminal courts will be required. The Council remains of the view that the appropriate long-term solution is the provision of a new building on the Supreme Court site, including additional criminal courts.

I have referred on many occasions, and in previous reports, to the unsatisfactory standard of facilities available to the public, court staff and the judiciary in the Supreme Court. Nothing has changed in that respect. A new building with additional criminal courts would have the added advantage of meeting the longstanding and pressing need for improved Supreme Court facilities.

Audiovisual links projectThe Government has provided funding of $2.5 million for the purchase and installation of audiovisual equipment in a number of courtrooms in the State and in other locations as well as ongoing funding of around $0.3 million relating to the operation of this equipment. This equipment will improve the standard of the audiovisual link used when witnesses give evidence from outside the courtroom, and increase the number of courtrooms in which this can be done. It will also improve and increase the number of links between courtrooms and places outside the courts, such as prisons. The Government has indicated that it will in time provide funding for yet more courts to be fitted with new audiovisual equipment.

This is a major project, and will provide much needed improvement in the quality of the audio visual links between courtrooms and places outside the court, as well as increasing the number of courtrooms with audio visual links. The courts of the State will be better able to meet legislative and community expectations in connection with the giving of evidence by vulnerable witnesses and undertake recording of evidence as required by the Evidence Act.

There remains a good deal still to be done in this area, but the current project is a significant advance on the existing state of affairs.

Our staffLast year I referred to the many demands made of our staff. This year, for reasons outlined above, the demands on our staff have been even greater.

On behalf of the Council I acknowledge the work of our staff, and record Council’s appreciation of that work.

I thank the Attorney-General and his staff for their assistance during the year.

The Honourable John Doyle ACChief Justice of South Australia Chairman, State Courts Administration Council


I echo the point that continuing business with fewer resources has posed significant challenges and that we expect that 2009–10 will be another challenging year.

In July 2008, the first step towards building a more sustainable model of service delivery was implemented by combining the higher courts criminal registry with the District Court Civil and Environment, Resources and Development Court (ERD Court) registries. This amalgamation of staff and functions has provided greater flexibility and efficiencies. In workforce planning terms, it will enable better use and retention of staff resources by broadening their skills and, importantly, providing more robust development and career opportunities.

This model is being further developed with plans well underway for the co-location of the Supreme Court registry with the District and ERD Court registries in the Sir Samuel Way Building. The provision of a ‘one-stop’ registry for all higher court jurisdictions will benefit both court users and the future service needs of the judiciary.

The Authority welcomed the appointment of Ms Sarah Alpers in February 2009 to the newly created position of Aboriginal Programs Manager. This position is based in the Magistrates Court but has been designed to work with members of the judiciary, Aboriginal Justice Officers and other staff to consolidate and develop Aboriginal Programs across all of the courts.

The use of technology has become commonplace within courts in Australia and our efforts to modernise are paramount. Several technological initiatives were taken to improve communication with court users and to deliver services. A roll-out of digital audio technology in the higher courts was completed. The Probate Registry completed the electronic conversion of Probate Indexes and Records from 1844–1979, thus enabling greater efficiency in searching and retrieving records. The next step is to place this information online.

Our Information Technology branch is working with operational staff and other Justice agencies in a joint initiative to improve the exchange of bail information between them to ensure that all those who need it have timely and accurate data. This is a complex initiative and will require extensive modification to our electronic Criminal Case Management System to allow current and historic bail information to be available to assist in making bail decisions. Completion is expected to occur during the next year.

Welcome funding from the State Government for audio visual video linking facilities has resulted in a network through which witnesses, particularly vulnerable witnesses, defendants, and offenders in custody, counsel and courts communicate effectively and efficiently. The unprecedented and historic use of a video link this year to enable a victim in a regional centre watch her attacker being sentenced in an Adelaide courtroom is an example of wider use for this technology.

The Authority remains committed to increasing the understanding of the operation of the courts. Staff from across the Authority organised another successful Courts Open Day as part of the events held in May during Law Week. Around 2000 people took the opportunity of visiting the Sir Samuel Way Building where they were able to move between a number of interactive displays covering the justice system, including displays by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Victim Support Services, forensic science services and Legal Services Commission, and guided tours of the cells and courtrooms.

In addition to this, our Education Officer this year had direct contact with approximately 8 000 school children through his court-based learning program. Other educational activities included two civics and citizenship forums designed to engage primary and middle school teachers with courts-based learning opportunities; secondary school students from local schools in Mount Gambier participating in a mock sentencing activity facilitated by a District Court Judge; an educational ‘roadshow’ to the Riverland region; the launch of a Youth Court Virtual Tour and a series of twilight professional learning sessions for legal education teachers. Judicial officers also participated in mock court activities, a teacher professional learning evening and Internet forums.

The Chief Justice has reported on the heavy impact on the Courts of budget measures required of the Authority in the face of the economic global downturn, which began to manifest in December 2008.

REPORT FROM THE STATE COURTS ADMINISTATORof the State Courts

Administration Council (continued)


At the time of writing, we are preparing for the arrival of the State Government’s Justice Thinker in Residence, US-based drug court specialist Judge Peggy Fulton Hora (Ret). It is anticipated that Judge Hora will observe our Courts and justice system closely and will make suggestions to improve the delivery and administration of justice in our community. We are pleased to be partners in this initiative which arose as a suggestion from the Authority’s external Community Reference Group, a community-based committee that provides commentary on our relations with the community.

The Authority is committed to strengthening organisation capacity by developing the skills and talents of all staff. In terms of learning and development, our vision is to build a learning culture that ensures our people develop the skills and knowledge required to excel in their work. To do this, we commenced in late 2008 with the development of a Learning and Development framework. The purpose of this framework is to identify areas of priority in organisational learning that align to crucial areas of performance for the CAA. The key areas of the framework are core skills, leadership capability, strategic capability and corporate governance. In January 2009, we launched the framework with a comprehensive program of learning and development workshops covering all areas of the framework.

REPORT FROM THE STATE COURTS ADMINISTATOR

Continued

This year, we committed considerable effort to overhauling occupational health, safety, welfare and injury management systems and processes. A WorkCover audit is nearing completion, with early indications suggesting that the new OHSW &IM framework will serve effectively to minimize risk to staff and to the organisation. Management of risk and compliance within the SA Government Protective Security Management Framework also commenced this year and this work will continue until mid 2010.

I wish to record my appreciation to the members of the Executive Management Committee and our staff for their hard work this year. I would also like to thank the members of the Council for their continued encouragement and support.

Gary ThompsonState Courts Administrator


ContinuedSTRATEGIC PLAN

This is the third and final year of the CAA Strategic Plan. The Executive Management Committee approved an extension of the plan to conclude on 31 December 2009.

Goal 1 – Workforce: develop, attract and retain an appropriately skilled and diverse workforce

Workforce planning developments were affected as a consequence of having to introduce new budget measures to meet targets for a reduction in the workforce. Instead, reviews to assist with continuous improvements were undertaken across jurisdictions and divisions. Workforce-planning initiatives will commence in July 2009.

The Learning and Development Framework is an initiative that arose from responses obtained through a voluntary, confidential staff survey. The framework incorporates four areas of organisational learning, including core skills development, leadership capabilities, strategic capabilities and corporate governance.

Indigenous employment in the CAA has achieved a rate of 2.4% of employees being of Indigenous origin against the public sector target of 2% by 2009. The appointment of a Manager for Aboriginal Programs will assist in the review of Indigenous employment strategies in the next financial year.

Goal 2 – Services and processes: provide effective, flexible and adaptive services and processes necessary for the proper administration of justice

Relocation of the Combined Criminal Registry with the District Court Civil and Environment, Resources and Development Court Registries at the start of this financial year went smoothly and provides a ‘one-stop’ service point for these jurisdictions in the Sir Samuel Way Building.

The implementation of high priority information technology and administrative enhancements to the Fines Payment System is proving to be effective and creating efficiencies for staff and court users.

A bail process improvement project has started, with the analysis and design phase of the project now complete. Resource requirements for the development and implementation phases are being considered for 2009–10.

A survey designed to collect feedback from court users will be conducted at all Magistrates Court registries across the State over a five-day period, commencing July 2009. The results of the survey are expected to provide valuable information about any gaps and opportunities to improve the level of service.

The CAA has continued to improve the quality of its data and reporting by continuing its training programs to ensure accuracy of information and data entry procedures. Better ways to identify exceptions in data have been developed. All jurisdictions are monitoring the level of data quality within the CAA’s case management systems.

Goal 3 – Infrastructure: ensure our infrastructure supports the efficient and proper administration of justice

The Council endorsed the Corporate Infrastructure Plan, which documents existing and future business requirements. Business cases will be developed based on priorities in the plan.

Goal 4 – Communication: ensure effective communication within the CAA and with the community

Migration of all former intranet sites to one CAA central intranet site was completed this year. The site is being used in various ways and is proving to be an effective way to liaise, consult, raise awareness and provide advice on a number of issues affecting all CAA staff.

In particular, electronic discussion boards and bulletins have been used to share information across jurisdictions and to disseminate information on important corporate matters such as the promotion of influenza vaccination initiatives and raising awareness on controlling the spread of infection. CAA internal publications are also published on the site.

Court user groups have been established for all jurisdictions, with their reports placed under the scrutiny of the CAA’s Community Relations Committee, a standing committee of the Council. Court user groups, which comprise members of justice-related agencies and services (for example representatives of SA Police, legal firms, Department of Correctional Services, Victim Support Services) are in addition to management groups at local registries whose role is to ensure appropriate communication and planning occurs within each site.


STRATEGIC PLANContinued

Community Relations Committee

The Community Relations Committee (‘CRC’) is responsible for developing and implementing the CAA’s Community Involvement Plan (‘CIP’) which is part of the CAA’s strategic plan. The CRC comprises a number of Judges and Magistrates and senior administrative staff.

The Committee consults the Community Reference Group (‘CRG’), which comprises representatives of various community-based groups or organisations. The CRG suggests and comments on activities or programs run by the CAA to improve public understanding of the work of the Courts. The CRG’s membership this year increased from 14 to 16 representatives, including an additional youth representative.

This year, the CRC arranged a mock public sentencing demonstration, performed at the Courts Annual Open Day; presented an information session for Members of Parliament and their electorate staff; held a media forum, and published quarterly an online The Courts Newsletter, highlighting court operations and activities.

The CRC also oversaw Ask the Judge, an email centre for students who ask questions of Judges and Magistrates. The answers are published on the site, where others can view them. This year, some 120 questions were asked. There were fewer questions this year than in the previous year because of changes to the architecture of the site. However, changes to the site have meant that students are able to mine previous answers before asking another question.

Under the CIP, the CAA Communications Branch organised visits and presentations by judicial officers at various community locations. This year, judicial officers gave talks to more than 120 individuals off-site. The Branch conducted 24 tours of the courts and ran workshops involving a further 514 individual visitors.

The Communications Branch also provided several multi-media publications to assist self represented litigants, to train youth, and in support of continuing legal education for judicial officers and magistrates. Five instructional DVD’s were produced for the ERD Court and were published to YouTube, in what is thought to be a legal first in Australia.


HIGHER COURTS SERVICES

The Higher Courts Division comprises the Supreme Court, the District Court, the CAA Library Services and Court Transcription Services. The report on each business units follows, setting out their respective activities for the year under review – their structures, their workloads, their activities and their achievements in what has been a challenging year.

Each of the business units is supported by a small number of administrative, project and financial staff who are responsible to the Director, Higher Courts for the provision of strategic and corporate support services. The focus of this group is organisational development; business process improvement; statistical reporting and analysis; and budget analysis, planning and management.

The Director and her staff work closely with managers across the higher courts to achieve local, CAA-wide, and cross-agency business objectives. During the year under report, resources have been provided for the development and implementation of the following specific initiatives.

Organisational restructureThis year saw the progression of plans to further integrate and co-locate Supreme Court and District Court registry services. The registries have, over recent years, experienced significant staff turnover. Both registries have worked tirelessly to maintain services to the judiciary, the legal profession and court users under these difficult circumstances. However, the continual loss of experience and knowledge to the organisation, the inability to succession plan and the potential ongoing disruption to both court operations and people who use the courts has been the impetus for changing our registry service-delivery model.

In July 2008, the first step towards building a more sustainable model of service delivery was implemented by combining the Criminal Registry with District Court Civil and ERD Court Registries. This amalgamation of staff and functions has provided greater flexibility and efficiencies. In workforce planning terms, it will enable better use and retention of staff resources by broadening their skills and, importantly, providing more robust development and career opportunities.

This model is being further developed with plans well underway for the co-location of the Supreme Court Registry with the District and ERD Court Registries in the Sir Samuel Way Building. The provision of a ‘one-stop’ registry for all higher court jurisdictions will benefit both court users and the future service needs of the judiciary.

Plans for modifications to registries located in the Sir Samuel Way Building are well-advanced, and co-location will occur in early 2010.

Digital audio technologyThe replacement of obsolete analogue audio technology with digital technology commenced in 2007–08 with the purchase of 38 digital audio units, the vast majority of which were deployed in the Magistrates Court. This year a further 22 units were purchased for installation across all jurisdictions with the majority being directed to the higher courts, resulting in over 50% of the State’s courtrooms being upgraded with this equipment. By 2010–11 the last instalment of equipment will see approximately 65% of courts upgraded.

While the focus of this investment has been on purchasing, installing and training in the use of digital equipment, work has commenced on exploring the potential for extending its use to remote recording (predominantly for circuit work) and to provide the judiciary with option of accessing and working with voice files, rather than hard-copy transcript.

Audiovisual links (AVL) projectAudiovisual linking and video recording technology is being introduced progressively in courts across the State. Six higher courts courtrooms, including one in the recommissioned Sturt Street court site, will have videolinking and vulnerable witness facilities available to comply with the provisions of section 13 of the Evidence Act 1929, expected to come into operation in September 2009. In addition, courtrooms in Port Augusta and Mount Gambier have AVL-competent courtrooms and vulnerable witness suites in place.

Higher Court Services staff have liaised closely with the District Court Registrar and staff, and external agencies, in the preparation of procedures and work practices to ensure the smooth transition to the use of this technology, both in metropolitan and country courts.

Continued


HIGHER COURTS SERVICES

E-trial courtroomFollowing a review this year of e-trial requirements and the development of design specifications, the upgrade of courtroom 12 in the Supreme Court will commence early in August 2009. This will enable the court to host electronic trials providing significant potential benefits to both the court and parties involved in long and complex civil cases. Some work remains to be done in relation to reviewing practice directions and establishing protocols.

Automated suppression order systemIn 2007 new legislation required that suppression orders be managed in such a way that all suppression orders would be notified to registered media outlets in a timely manner and that there be a system of review at various stages of proceedings. To date these notifications had been managed through a manual system that has proved to be potentially unreliable.

The development, in conjunction with the IT Services Branch, of an automated tracking system for all suppression orders is nearing completion and expected to be in place by September 2009.

Sturt Street recommissioningTwo new criminal courts will be recommissioned at a former court building in Sturt Street, Adelaide, in early September 2009. A working group comprising relevant CAA operational managers has been tasked with ensuring all aspects of court operations are ready for the commencement of the new courts.

Staff from the Higher Courts in particular are involved in the preparation and coordination of listing procedures and protocols for the Sturt Street facility. This has included the development of a system for tracking criminal courtroom usage so that the use of courtroom and judicial resources may be optimised.

Review of Masters’ judicial supportA review commenced in March 2009 to review the support needs for Masters in the Supreme and District Courts. Traditionally areas of high workload requiring staff with specific skills to work online in court, both courts were deemed to have insufficient staff to meet the ongoing needs of five Masters. An additional position was created to work across both jurisdictions to provide stability and a succession strategy.

The review continues and is currently examining improved in-court systems support, the rationalisation and automation of statistics collection, and the standardisation of work practices across the two jurisdictions. The review is expected to be completed in December 2009.

Probate testamentary indexThe electronic conversion of grants of representation in the probate jurisdiction was completed during the year. This enables the electronic searching of the entire probate testamentary index which holds records from 1844 to the present. The capacity to search the index will shortly be available to the public via computers in the Supreme Court Library and in the Probate Registry.

Continued


ContinuedSUPREME COURT

At a glance 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Number of judges 13 13 13

Number of masters 2 2 2

Number of staff 64 60 55

Total civil lodgments *1 564 *1 771 *1 960

Land and Valuation Division lodgments+ 31 64 54

Probate grant of representation lodgments

5 159 5 310 5 115

Total criminal lodgments (including circuits)** **185 **236 **269

Single judge appeals instituted+ 202 234 181

Full Court appeals instituted+ 72 53 76

Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) appeals instituted 142 121 130

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

+ Included in total civil lodgments

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

Role and function The Supreme Court is the superior court in South Australia, dealing with more complex civil claims and serious criminal charges. It is the highest court of the State for hearing appeals. It sits in Adelaide and at Mount Gambier and Port Augusta as business requires. Under the Administration and Probate Act 1919, the Probate Registry grants probate of a will or administration of the estate of a deceased person. The Supreme Court also determines matters in its land and valuation jurisdiction.

Judiciary The Chief Justice is the principal judicial officer of the Supreme Court and is responsible for its administration. He is also Chairman of the State Courts Administration Council. There are 13 justices (including the Chief Justice) and two masters of the Supreme Court.

Registrar and Court Staff The Registrar is the principal administrative officer of the Supreme Court. The Registrar manages the registry and judicial support services to ensure the needs of the court and public are met. He is supported in this role by the Senior Deputy Registrar, branch managers, registry staff and judicial support staff. Associates, all of whom are legally-qualified and some of whom are admitted barristers and solicitors, assist judges with research and in-court duties.

Organisational review Plans are underway for the relocation of the Civil Registry of the Supreme Court to the Sir Samuel Way Building. It is anticipated that operational efficiencies resulting from the move will allow the Civil Registry as well as registries of the District Court and the Environment, Resources and Development Court to function better.


SUPREME COURT

Court workload and performance

Civil workload

Table 1: Supreme Court Civil workload

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Total civil lodgments 1 564 1 771 1 960

Masters’ jurisdiction

Hearings in court 600 685 695

Hearings in chambers* 2 175 2 061 2 299

Urgent and other applications 128 98 100

Civil trials

Number of civil cases fixed for trial** 28 35 43

Cases disposed of by trial ** 19 30 17

Trials commenced as a percentage of cases fixed for trial# 68% 83% 40%

Cases settled after being listed for trial 10 20 9

Civil cases awaiting trial as at 30 June 16 13 9

Number of civil lodgments finalised 1 647 1 873 1 931

Average length of trials (days) – not including special classification cases##

Average for cases that proceeded to judgment 2.1 5.2 1.7

Average for cases that settled 1.4 1.2 1.5

Special classification cases##

Average trial length for cases that proceeded to judgment (days) 13 26 29

Judge sitting days during year 92 43 58

Sitting time for cases (days) 23 14 29

New matters lodged 8 12 15

Trials listed 11 8 16

Cases awaiting trial at 30 June 13 17 17

* Includes possession applications

** Includes Supreme Court circuit trials and matters settled after trials commenced

# Includes matters settling after trial commences

## Previously called ‘long and complex cases’

A ‘special classification case’ is one assigned as such under Supreme Court 115 by the Chief Justice or by his delegate. These cases are estimated to exceed 15 sitting days, or they are of sufficient difficulty or complexity as to require special consideration. After being assigned, the matters are referred to a judge for case management. During the year under review, 15 cases were added to the list, making a total of 32 matters case-managed during the year. Fifteen matters were also finalised in the year. Two of the matters were tried, one took 45 days and the other, 13 days. Twelve matters were resolved without trial (of note is that 10 of them had trial dates fixed) and one matter returned to the general trial list. The number of judge sitting days has increased slightly. Of the 17 matters awaiting trial at the end of the period, two have a trial date fixed for the second half of 2009. In 14 cases, mediation was undertaken, and in five instances, the matters settled. At present, five matters are close to having trial dates fixed for hearing within the next 12 months. The estimates for most of the outstanding matters are two to three months each but one is expected to take over six months sitting time.

Continued


Continued

Appellate workload Table 2: Supreme Court appellate workload

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Full Court

Appeals and applications to Full Court 72 53 75

Disposal by hearing 61 54 69

Setting down* to hearing (average days) 42 45 41

Hearing to judgment (average days) 81 58 56

Single judge**

Appeals to a single judge 202 234 181

Disposal by hearing 204 262 183

Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA)

Applications for permission to appeal 137 116 130

Appeals and applications not requiring permission to appeal 5 5 0

Total criminal appeals 142 121 130

Application for permission, or appeal, abandoned 22 20 21

Permission refused by CCA or single judge 16 25 15

Disposal by CCA hearing 107 84 75

Total disposals 145 129 111

Permission granted to hearing (average days) 44 40 49

Hearing to judgment (average days) 55 49 48

* 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 increased slightly. There are 40 Full Court appeals pending, of which 22 are filed but not set down by the parties. The Full Court can list matters as soon as the parties are ready.



Supreme Court criminal workload Cases that are committed for trial to the superior courts (the Supreme Court and the District Court) are divided into four categories. Category 1 cases are those that can only be tried before a judge of the Supreme Court. The other categories involve cases that may be tried before a judge of the District Court. Some Category 2 cases may be tried before a judge of the Supreme Court for reasons that may include the complexity of issues of law or of fact.

Table 3: Supreme Court criminal workload

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Supreme Court lodgments and disposals

Total criminal lodgments (including circuit lodgments)* 185 236 269

Circuit lodgments+ 4 14 3

Matters disposed of (including by trial) 234 224 289

Supreme Court trials

Trials to verdict (category 1) 16 8 12

Trials to verdict (all categories) 22 14 25

Trials listed (all categories) 98 50 54

Matters disposed of by trial (all categories)++ 52 26 36

Trials listed but not heard as at 30 June ** 10 8 10

Length of trial (average days) category 1 trials 14 12 23.5

Length of trial (average days) all categories 6 8 9

* Includes committals, bail reviews, transferred files, applications for the fixing of non-parole periods and miscellaneous applications

+ Includes category 1 matters committed to circuit trial and matters transferred from the District Court

++ Includes all matters listed for trial, but disposed of by way of verdict, guilty pleas, nolle prosequi, bench warrants issued at trial, and disputed facts hearings

** Includes category 1 matters

Table 3 (above) indicates an increase in the number of criminal lodgments in 2008–09, compared with 2007–08. Lodgments comprise cases committed for trial, cases committed for sentence, breach of bond matters and applications for variations of court orders; some items previously counted as lodgments, such as bench warrants and ancillary applications, have been excluded,.

The number of matters disposed of by trial has increased by 38.5% compared with the previous year. The number of disposals other than by trial has also increased by 29%, resulting in an overall increase in disposals for 2008–09. The number of trials listed but not heard as at 30 June 2009 has remained constant.

Supreme Court performance standardsTable 4 (below) shows performance against standards for the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction. It should be noted that the standards referred to here are not the same as those reported in the annual Commonwealth Productivity Commission Report on Government Services (ROGS).


Continued

Table 4: Performance against standards (targets) for appellate jurisdiction

Target Actual (%)

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Appellate jurisdiction

Full Court *One month 100 100 100

Court of Criminal Appeal **One month 68 85 82

Appeals to single Supreme Court judge ^One month 100 100 100

* The target is to list appeals in the month following setting down

** The target is to list appeals in the month following the grant of permission to appeal

^ Appeals are listed in the next monthly list after institution (lodgment)

Appellate performance standardsIn its appellate jurisdiction, the court continues to meet its target, except in the CCA. The delay in listing criminal appeals is due mainly to requests by a party not to list an appeal in the month following the grant of permission to appeal.

Civil jurisdiction performance standardsA total of 17 matters proceeded to trial during the year. Of those, five matters (29%) met the standard. The time taken to bring matters to trial reflects the complex nature of many matters in the civil jurisdiction, rather than the court’s ability to list cases for hearing. In most cases a listing can be given within a few months of the parties being ready for trial.

Age profile data – criminalThe court measures the timelines of its case disposition using the national performance standards used in the annual ROGS. Two standards are applied. The first of these is that ‘no more than 10% of lodgments pending completion are to be more than 12 months old’. The second is that ‘no lodgments pending completion are to be more than 24 months old’.

The data below indicates that non-appeal matters meet the 12-month standard, and 1.8% did not meet the 24-month standard. A number of factors contributed to the delay, though mainly the time taken by parties to prepare their case for trial. In its appellate jurisdiction the court is performing better than the national standard.

Table 5: Criminal lodgment age profile

Criminal lodgments not finalised as at 30 June 2009 Non-appeal Single judge Appeal to CCA

No. % No. % No. %

More than 12 months old (target ≤ 10%) 4 8.2 1 2 2 3.6

More than 24 months old* (target = zero)** 1 2 1 2 1 1.8

* The number of matters that are more than 24 months old is included in the numbers that are more than 12 months old.

** The percentage of matters that are more than 24 months old is included in the percentage concerning cases more than 12 months old.

Age profile data – civilThe Court measures the timelines of its case disposition using the national performance standards used in the ROGS. The data indicates that 29% of non-appeal matters did not meet the 12-month standard. In most cases the standard was not met because the parties were not ready to proceed to trial. The Court did not meet the national standard in its Single Judge Appeals, recording 13% of it workload being more than 12 months old. However this equates to just three matters. Those three are unusual matters that require management by a Master before they can be referred to a Judge. The Full Court met both the 12 month standard and the 24 month standard.


Table 6: Civil lodgment age profile (in numbers and percentages)

Civil lodgments not finalised as at 30 June 2009 Non-appeal* Single judge Appeal to Full Court

No. % No. % No. %

More than 12 months old (target ≤ 10%) 231 29 3 13 2 5

More than 24 months old (target = zero) 108 13 3 13 0 0

* Excludes probate matters

Probate Registry The Probate Registry deals mainly with non-contentious applications for a grant of probate or administration. These are collectively referred to as grants of representation. The Registrar of Probates is responsible for the issue of such grants. The Registrar’s authority to make grants of representation or orders of the court is conferred by statute, rules of court and common form practice.

The function of the Probate Registry, insofar as it relates to grants of representation, is to determine what documents may be taken to be a will of a deceased person and who is entitled to be constituted the personal representative of the deceased person.

This year, 5 115 applications for grants of representation were lodged and 5 241 grants were issued. This figure includes 27 re-sealed grants. These are grants of representations issued out of courts of other Australian or foreign jurisdictions which were re-sealed in this court. The Probate Registry issued 5 210 grants (including 27 sealed grants) in the previous year.

A person may apply for a grant of representation through a solicitor or by attending in person at the Probate Registry. In the year under review, 300 applications were made in person compared with 339 made in the previous year. The average length of time to finalise a lodgment ranges between six to nine weeks.

Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary TribunalThe Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Tribunal (‘LPDT’) comprises legal practitioners appointed by the Governor on the nomination of the Chief Justice. It hears and determines charges against legal practitioners by the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board or by a member of the public. There are 15 members who sit part-time. Officers of the Supreme Court provide secretariat services to the LPDT.

Legal Practitioners’ Disciplinary Tribunal workload statistics

Table 7: LPDT workload

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Matters instituted 6 22 21

Proceeded to hearing 4 9 2

Dismissed at hearing 1 0 0

Applications*

* Applications for employment by disqualified persons



Continued

Report on judicial development activitiesThe Judicial Development Committee (‘JDC’), chaired by Judge Trenorden and comprising Justice Layton, Judge Muecke, Judge Gilchrist, Ms Panagiotidis SM and Professor K. Mack, met monthly.

The JDC has published a calendar of events 12 months in advance, to enable judicial officers to plan a personal development program. An intranet page was created to enable judicial officers access to the judicial development calendar and a range of educative resource material, including a link to the National Judicial College of Australia (‘NJCA’) website. In addition, DVDs of almost all presentations/workshops have been produced and are available in the CAA libraries.

The general approach taken by the JDC is to arrange two all-day events for all judicial officers and twilight sessions (4.45–6.15pm), with assistance from the NJCA. This year, almost the entire cost of a development day on vulnerable witnesses was met by the Attorney-General’s Department.

This year, all-day workshops presented by several interstate experts covered the topics of children as vulnerable witnesses; pre-recording witness evidence; managing the ‘trial from hell’; and corrections programs. Topics covered in the twilight sessions included a report on a national survey of Australian judges; hearing expert evidence concurrently; dealing with DNA in court; the nature of contempt in the face of the court; stress and sleep; and modern forms of communication – their use and misuse.

The JDC does not have an executive officer but its activities generate a considerable administrative workload. Occasionally, the administrative work has been carried out by support staff of various committee members and the CAA Communications Branch staff. Most has been performed by the support officer to the Chairperson. The JDC records its gratitude to that judicial support officer for the workload she has borne willingly and performed to a high standard.

Legal Practitioners Education and Admission CouncilThe Legal Practitioners Education and Admission Council (‘LPEAC’) was established by section 14B of the Legal Practitioners Act 198I. Under the Act, LPEAC has the responsibility to set the academic and practical requirements for admission, to participate in the development of uniform national standards relating to admission qualifications, to review the effectiveness of legal education and training courses and to perform any other functions assigned to LPEAC pursuant to the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act.

The Chief Justice chairs LPEAC. The other members include the Attorney-General or his nominee, three judges (of the Supreme and Federal Courts), the Deans of Law at Flinders University and the University of Adelaide, representatives of the profession and one law student. It is anticipated that an amendment to the Act will be made to enable the Dean of Law at the University of South Australia to become another member.

This past financial year, LPEAC met seven times. It continues to have a concern about courses provided wholly or in part by distance education that are intended to satisfy the practical requirements for admission under Rule 5 of the LPEAC Rules. A decision is yet to be made about whether distance education is a suitable means of completing the practical requirements for admission. When LPEAC began to consider the issue, the Australasian Professional Legal Education Council (‘APLEC’) also began to prepare an accreditation system for use by admitting authorities when considering the sufficiency of courses intended to meet the practical requirements for admission. Local effort was stopped to await the completion by APLEC of its work.

This year, LPEAC noted and approved of changes to the structure of the degree in law offered at Adelaide University and has completed a review of degrees and qualifications offered by the University of Adelaide, Flinders University, and the Law Society of South Australia. It is thought that LPEAC will perform another such review by 2014. In the meantime, LPEAC will review the degree offered by the University of South Australia.

Some time has been spent on development of a template for information required from a university when LPEAC undertakes a review of the degrees in law offered by the universities. A subcommittee has prepared a number of drafts, and has had the assistance of comments on those drafts from the Deans of Law. The project is not yet complete.



This year, LPEAC resolved to support a proposal from the Law Admissions Consultative Committee (‘LACC’) for a uniform policy on accrediting subjects in certain overseas law courses for admission purposes in Australia, as well as a proposal by LACC for a scheme for special circumstances admission. The purpose of the scheme proposed by LACC is to enable highly-qualified practitioners from other countries to be admitted as practitioners in Australia for a limited purpose or limited time without having to satisfy the usual requirements for academic and practical training. So far, LPEAC has not been persuaded that the proposed scheme is necessary or desirable. The matter remains under consideration by LACC and by the Council of Chief Justices.

The LPEAC considered and agreed on a proposal by LACC for a system for the cooperative assessment of the qualifications of overseas applicants for admission, the assessment to be made against agreed uniform criteria and approaches, developed by LACC. As well as agreeing to the relevant criteria and approaches to assessment, admitting authorities have agreed to centralise the process for considering applications in order to minimise the risk of differences of approach and to enable those considering the applications to develop greater familiarity with the standards of the jurisdictions from which most of the applications originate. After the scheme had been agreed, some concern was expressed by the Law Council of Australia to the effect that the scheme involved the application of unnecessarily strict criteria in all the circumstances. While the scheme remains in force at present, the matter is being considered by the Council of Chief Justices and by LACC.

During the course of the year, LPEAC considered and commented on a number of other proposals from LACC. Amongst those is a proposal intended to achieve a uniform approach by Australian admitting authorities when dealing with accreditation of postgraduate practical legal training courses.

LPEAC will have to consider what could be substantial amendments to the LPEAC Rules if the Parliament enacts the proposed new Legal Profession Act.

National Judicial College of Australia’s Indigenous Justice Committee – South Australian CommitteeJustice Sulan chairs the South Australian Indigenous Justice Committee (‘IJC’). Federal Magistrate Chris Mead has been replaced on the IJC by Federal Magistrate Charlotte Kelly. The IJC comprises Justice Sulan (Supreme Court of South Australia), Justice Mansfield AM (Federal Court of Australia), Justice Burr AM (Family Court of Australia), Federal Magistrate Kelly (Federal Magistrates Court of Australia), Judge Tilmouth (District Court), Mr Johns SM (Coroner), Mr Boxall SM (Youth Court) and Ms Alpers (Manager, Aboriginal Programs).

The CAA has appointed Ms Alpers to oversee new initiatives.

In the year under review a daylong conference was held at the Nunkuwarrin Yunti Centre in Adelaide and was attended by 70 judges and magistrates, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Australia, the Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, and one Magistrate from Alice Springs. Professor Lowitja O’Donoghue opened the conference which involved guest speakers presenting information about the history of Aboriginal communities in South Australia and the significance of country and Dreaming and family and clans.

A twilight seminar is planned for later this financial year, involving Professor Lester-Irabinna Rigney, Director, Yunggorendi First Nations Centre for Higher Education and Research, Flinders University, who will present on ‘How to Grow an Indigenous Legal Workforce’.

A visit by judges and magistrates to the Anangu-Pitjantjatjara Yangkunyatjara (APY) Lands in 2010 is being planned.


ContinuedDISTRICT COURT

At a glance 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Judges 19 19 20

Masters 3 3 3

Staff 83 77 71

Civil lodgments* 2 078 2 111 2 277

Criminal injuries lodgments 463 405 381

Administrative and Disciplinary lodgments^ 217 202 229

Lodgments (other courts and tribunals) 258 210 192

Minor civil claims review 47 35 36

Criminal lodgments* #1 671 #1 895 #2 362

Number of criminal circuit lodgments #201 #234 #339

* Includes matters heard on circuit

^ Administrative and Disciplinary figures appear separately, to differentiate from the other courts and tribunals serviced by the Civil Registry.

# As reported last year, in 2005–06 a new system of data capture and analysis was introduced, resulting in the exclusion of some data that had been reported in previous years. The lodgment and disposal types that have been excluded from this data capture include Bench Warrants, Re-trials, Change of Venue applications and Change of Plea applications. This has resulted in improved data accuracy. The circuit figures have similarly been amended.

Role and functionThe District Court of South Australia is constituted by the District Court Act 1991 and is the principal trial court in South Australia. The court has four divisions: Criminal, Civil, Administrative and Disciplinary and Criminal Injuries. One registry services all of these divisions as well as the Supreme Court criminal jurisdiction.

The Court sits in Adelaide and conducts civil circuits regularly at Mount Gambier and as required at Berri, Port Pirie, Whyalla and Port Lincoln. For criminal matters the court conducts regular circuits at Port Augusta and Mount Gambier.

Except for Probate, Admiralty, Judicial Review and areas specified under various statutes, the civil jurisdiction of the Court is the same as that of the Supreme Court. In its criminal jurisdiction, the District Court hears serious criminal matters, except for offences related to murder and treason. It also has jurisdiction over criminal injuries compensation claims.

In its Administrative and Disciplinary division, the District Court deals with disciplinary and appeal matters under many Acts, for example, the 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. District Court judges also hear matters in the Medical Professional Conduct Tribunal and the Equal Opportunity Tribunal.

JudiciaryThe Chief Judge is the principal judicial officer and is responsible for its administration. The Court comprises 20 judges (including the Chief Judge) and three Masters. Judge Simpson retired on 31 March 2009. At the time of writing, a replacement had not been appointed. Judge Brebner was appointed to the Court on 21 August 2008. Auxiliary Judges Burley and Wilson sat during the year to assist with the caseload.

The District Court provides judges for the Licensing Court and in March 2009, the Court began to sit at the Sir Samuel Way Building, with its registry at the Office of Liquor Licensing in Grenfell Street.

Registrar and other court staffThe Registrar manages the provision of executive, registry, judicial and other support services to the Court, and ensures that policy objectives are met in the most efficient and effective manner. The Registrar is supported by Deputy Registrars, registry staff and judicial support staff. Judges of the District Court are assigned a judicial support officer and an associate on a rotational basis for the purpose of legal research and in-court assistance.

Overview of the work of the District Court

Criminal

The Supreme Court criminal and District Court jurisdictions are managed by a combined Registry in the Sir Samuel Way Building.


DISTRICT COURT

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Lodgments and disposals (defendants)

Total criminal lodgments (including circuit) #1 671 #1 895 #2 362

Circuit lodgments 201 234 339

Matters disposed of (including by trials) 1 650 1 948 2 046

Trials (cases)

Total trials listed 891 820 808

District Court criminal matters disposed of by trial (verdict) 164 143 143

District Court criminal matters listed for trial and disposed of by other means ^350 ^371 ^326

District Court criminal matters listed for trial but not disposed of *377 *306 *332

Criminal trials listed but not heard as at 30 June 434 437 559

Trials longer than ten days awaiting hearing as at 30 June 44 46 53

Length of criminal trials (average days) 5.6 5.7 6

^ Includes matters listed for trial but disposed of by way of guilty pleas, nolle prosequi, bench warrants issued at trial, and disputed facts hearings

* Includes mistrials, hung juries, trials vacated on application of the parties, trials ‘not reached’ by the court due to no judge or courtroom being available, and trials adjourned on the first day of trial

# In 2005–06 a new system of data capture and analysis was implemented

Table 2: District Court criminal clearance rate

The total number of criminal trials listed in 2008–09 did not change significantly despite the increase in lodgments. This is because listings are constrained by courtroom capacity, the number of judicial officers and staff and the rate of lodgments in excess of what existing capacity can accommodate. The effect is a longer delay between arraignment and the listed trial date.

The percentage of total listings disposed of by trial to verdict has remained around 17% (143 of 808), but the percentage of total listings finalised by other means has dropped from 45% in 2007–08 to 40% in 2008–09. This decrease represents more listed matters requiring a trial, therefore increasing trial delays.

In 2009–10, the State Government has allocated resources for two additional criminal courtrooms in Sturt Street, Adelaide, and the appointment of two additional judges. This will increase trial capacity.

The increasing trend in lodgments and the increased backlog has also placed pressure on the staff of the District Court Registry. Various approaches have been taken to improve the management of burgeoning case loads, including co-location of the District Court Criminal Registry with the District Court Civil and Environment, Resources and Development (‘ERD’) Court Registries in July 2008; restructure in March 2009 to make better use of resources across jurisdictions; steps to standardise procedures and processes across jurisdictions; improvements to the listings processes and procedures; and improvements in statistical reporting and reduction of manual data collection.

A plan has been developed to co-locate the Supreme Court Civil Registry with the combined District and ERD Court Registries in the Sir Samuel Way Building in 2009–10.

2007–2008 2008–09

Lodgments 1 895 2 362

Finalisations 1 948 2 046

Clearance rate (%) 102.8 86.6

Total criminal lodgments in 2008–09 increased by 467 (24.6%) from the previous year. Total circuit lodgments increased by 105 (44.9%). These are substantial increases and a major cause of pressure on the operations of the court.

Total disposals in 2008–09 increased by 98 (5%) from the previous year, significantly less than the increase in lodgments. The net effect is an increase in total matters pending and deterioration in the rate of clearance.

Lodgments and Finalisations as at 30 June

0

Lodgments Finalisations

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Continued

No.

of d

efen

dant

s


Continued

New legislation

A statutory priority for trials involving child sexual offences was introduced in late 2008. A new practice direction (10A) came into effect as from 1 January 2009. The direction requires that these matters be given a trial date within four months of arraignment. The need to accommodate them in a trial list already allocated to capacity some eight months in advance has contributed to more trials ‘not reached’ in the first half of 2009.

Video-linking technology has been improved in the criminal jurisdiction, enabling compliance with the requirements of the Statutes Amendment (Evidence and Procedure) Act 2008. These amendments require the court to use video-linking and recording technology for vulnerable witnesses to give evidence from remote locations and have their evidence recorded.

During 2008–09, technology was upgraded in courtrooms 1, 5, 10 in the Sir Samuel Way Building and Port Augusta courtrooms 2 and

Criminal lodgments not finalised as at 30 June 2009 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

No. % No. % No. %

More than 12 months old (target ≤ 10%)* 376 31 243 24 333 20.5

More than 24 months old (target = zero) 81 7 84 6 80 4.9

* Includes matters greater than 24 months old

In 2008–09 the court improved its performance against the Productivity Commission benchmarks, with 20.5% of matters being more than 12 months old (compared with 24% in 2007–08), and 4.9% more than 24 months old (compared with 6% in 2007–08).

Despite the improvement in percentage terms, the number of lodgments not finalised and more than 12 months old has increased by 90 (37%). This indicates that total matters pending have increased significantly in 2008–09, with more lodgements less than 12 months old. Unless trial delays can be addressed, these will soon become older than 12 months and the age profile percentages will suffer.

Civil

Table 5 below sets out the clearance rate for all civil matters.

Table 5: District Court civil clearance rate

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Number of lodgments 3 063 2 964 *3 115

Number of finalisations 3 440 3 259 2 985

Clearance rate (%) 112.3 110 95.8

* Includes Civil, Criminal Injuries Compensation and Administrative and Disciplinary Appeals Division

In 2008–09, total civil lodgements were 3 115 (including minor civil reviews) – an increase of 5% from 2007–08 (2 964 lodgements).

Most of this increase is due to 138 personal injury lodgments arising from the findings of the Children in State Care Commission of Inquiry. An additional conference list has been established to manage these matters. However, most matters have been adjourned for six months for parties to consider their position. Due to the complexities and volumes of matters involved in these cases, it is anticipated that the adjournments will impact on future general statistics concerning timeliness of the disposal of cases.

3, as well as a courtroom in Mount Gambier. This was in addition to improving the technology available in six vulnerable witness suites in the court complexes at each of these locations. Further improvements are planned for courts 3 and 7 in the Sir Samuel Way Building and in one of the two Sturt Street courtrooms.

It is hoped that, in addition to addressing the issue of vulnerable witnesses, the technology can be used to manage the case loads for circuits and other non-trial court activities with improved efficiency.

Age profile data

As within the Supreme Court, case disposition within the District Court is measured using the ROGS national performance standards (that ‘no more than 10% of lodgements pending completion are to be more than 12 months old’ and that ‘no lodgements pending completion are to be more than 24 months old’).

Table 3: District Court criminal lodgment age profile

Table 4: District Court civil trial lodgments and disposals

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Number of cases listed for trial* 328 ^442 ^432

Cases disposed of by trial* 36 ^101 ^81

Cases settled before being listed for trial* 166 ^188 ^187

Long trials ** to judgment *14 12 9

Sitting time per long trial** (average days) *13 15 26.4

Long trials*** awaiting hearing as at 30 June 40 50 59

* Includes circuit trials and long trials

^ Figures include full hearings (trials held in the Administrative and Disciplinary Division, District Court Appeals Division and arguments)

** Of 10 days or more duration


ContinuedDISTRICT COURT

Finalisations were lower this year partly because there were more longer and complex trials. There have also been fewer Criminal Injuries Compensation and Administrative and Disciplinary Division matters lodged than in previous years. These categories of matters tend to finalise more quickly than other civil matters.

The number of cases listed for trial decreased by 2.3% from 2007–08. The total number of long trial sitting days for the year has increased dramatically from 189 days in 2007–08 to 295 in 2008–09. This is having an impact on the number of trials that can be listed. In the current period, long trials accounted for 9.8% of

Age profile dataThe data below indicates that the finalisation figures for civil matters within the District Court do not meet the national standard targets.

Table 6: District Court civil lodgment age profile

Civil lodgments not finalised as at 30 June 2009 2006–07 No. %

2007–08 No. %

2008–09 No. %

More than 12 months old (target ≤ 10%)* 1 317 *43 1 296 *41 1 390 *41

More than 24 months old (target = zero) 618 20 628 20 705 21

* Includes matters greater than 24 months old

The primary reason for delays is that most civil matters in the District Court (approximately 60%) relate to personal injury claims. This includes personal injury claims arising from motor vehicle accidents, industrial accidents and other categories. These matters tend to take longer to resolve and are contributing to the changing age profile of outstanding matters. As a proportion of total civil matters lodged, these matters have been increasing since 2004.

At present, all categories within the civil jurisdiction reduce in number as the age profile increases, with the exception of personal injury matters. Statistics show that if the matter does not settle within the first 12 months then it is likely to take more than two years to resolve.

Masters areaThe District Court has three masters who manage almost all pre-trial hearings, examination summons, settlement conferences in both civil and criminal injuries as well as preliminary hearings in the Administrative and Disciplinary Division.

Statistics for the total work undertaken in this area commenced in July 2008.

Table 7: Masters jurisdiction

2008–09

Hearings in court 5 928

Hearings in chambers* 2 652

* Includes applications and orders sought by consent in chambers without the attendance of parties

the matters disposed of by trial. The number of long trials awaiting hearing has increased by 18%. There are six long trials continuing from 2008–09 into 2009–10.

There was a 16.4% increase in the number of full hearings (trials held in the Administrative and Disciplinary Division, District Court appeals and applications as well as arguments on pre-trial issues) listed in 2008–09 when compared with the previous year. Of the 85 full hearings listed, 39 were disposed of by hearing and 30 were settled prior to hearing. The remaining 16 matters are yet to be completed.


Continued

Criminal injuries compensation

All applications for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1978 and the Victims of Crime Act 2001 are heard in the District Court. In 2008–09, 162 summonses for compensation were lodged, a decrease of 51.9% from 2007–08.

Under this jurisdiction 219 summonses were issued by the State against offenders for recovery of compensation paid out to victims, an increase of 222% from 2007–08.

In 2005 a debt recovery process was introduced under the Victims of Crime Act 2001. A new procedure was introduced to capture the statistics for such matters. At the introduction of the legislation in 2005 there was a significant backlog in matters awaiting lodgment. This number has continued to increase significantly in 2008–09 due to updated internal procedures introduced by the Crown Solicitor’s Office.

Masters supervise the lists for these matters. Most settle without trial.

Administrative and Disciplinary Division A total of 229 matters were lodged this year compared with 202 last year, an increase of 13.4%.

Additionally, the District Court administers files for lodgments in other courts and tribunals, including the Wardens Court, Equal Opportunity Tribunal, Medical Professional Conduct Tribunal and Police Disciplinary Tribunal. There were 192 of these matters lodged in 2008–09, a decrease of 8.6% from last year.

The District Court has liaised with the Attorney–General’s Department and the Department of Premier and Cabinet on the topic of remuneration for assessors and tribunal members within this division.


MAGISTRATES COURT

At a glance 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Number of magistrates 37 37 37.2*

Number of staff 248 256 264

Civil primary lodgments (over counter) 18 412 17 467 16 713

Civil primary lodgments (via Internet) 14 689 13 418 13 854

Civil enforcement process 46 364 42 988 38 875

Civil applications 4 386 4 255 4 184

Civil defences lodged 3 283 3 187 3 165

Criminal general lodgments 75 144 76 561 73 510**

Criminal expiation lodgments 151 211 166 491 174 582

Criminal hearings by magistrates 228 785 230 816 232596

* Three of the magistrates were part-time

** The decrease in criminal lodgments does not represent a decrease in workload but rather a change in counting rules

Role and functionThe Magistrates Court handles the greatest proportion of litigation in the State. All criminal matters begin in the Magistrates Court and the civil jurisdiction hears approximately 90% of all civil disputes within the State. The court has four jurisdictions:

Civil jurisdictions

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

Matters in the Civil (Minor Claims) 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.

The Civil (Consumer and Business) 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 jurisdiction

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 1961 are summary offences. Minor indictable offences are decided in the Magistrates Court. After reviewing the evidence in major indictable offences, the court determines whether there is sufficient evidence to commit the accused person to be tried in the Supreme or District Courts.

MagistracyThere were no new appointments to the magistracy this year. Mr R. H. Kleining SM retired on 4 January 2008.

Overview of workload

Civil jurisdiction

Civil primary lodgments

These lodgments involve general and minor civil claims, recovery of debts, personal injury claims, claims that relate to motor vehicle property damage, workers’ liens, second-hand vehicle dealer matters and de facto relationships.

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

In 2008–09, 30 567 lodgments were recorded, a decrease of 1% from the previous year. Lodgments are made over the counter in court registries or via the Internet. Electronic lodgment of civil matters has enabled easier access for solicitors and the public and led to a decrease in numbers of documents lodged in person at court registries. Numbers of electronic lodgments have increased by 3% and over-the-counter lodgments have decreased by 4% in 2008–09.

Table 1: Civil lodgments by method of lodgment

Type of lodgment 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Civil primary lodgments 18 412 17 467 16 713

Civil electronic lodgments 14 689 13 418 13 854

Figure 1: Civil lodgments by method of lodgment

20000

15000

10000

5000

0

2006–07

Civil Primary Lodgments Civil Electronic Lodgments

2007–08 2008–09


Civil lodgment finalisations

Civil finalisations have decreased by 9%. ‘Finalisations’ are the number of lodgments completed in the financial year 2008–09.

Table 2: Civil lodgment finalisations

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Civil lodgment finalisations

34 953 33 375 30 495

Figure 2: Civil lodgment finalisations

Figure 3: Civil lodgments clearance rate (percentage)

Civil enforcement processes

Summonses raised for enforcement include summons to a witness or an absconding debtor, warrants of arrest/sale/commitment and other warrants (as specified by the Court) and miscellaneous enforcement matters (such as signing off a copy of judgment, a 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 were 38 875 enforcement processes in 2008–09 compared with 42 988 in 2007–08, a decrease of 10%.

Table 6: Civil enforcement processes

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Civil enforcement processes

46 364 42 988 38 875

Figure 4: Civil enforcement processes

42000

40000

38000

36000

34000

2006–07

Civil Enforcement Processes

2007–08 2008–09

44000

46000

48000

110

105

100

95

2006–07

Civil Lodgments Clearance Rate as a percentage

2007–08 2008–09

Civil lodgment age profile

Table 3: Civil lodgments not finalised as at 30 June 2009 (percentage)

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Civil pending > 6 months old

53 41 45

Civil pending > 12 months old

28 10 12

Table 4: Civil lodgments pending as at 30 June (number)

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Lodgments not finalised > 6 months

6 243 5 831 6 530

Lodgments not finalised >12 months

1 600 1 376 1 798

Civil lodgment clearance rate

Clearance rate refers to the percentage of matters finalised by the court in a specified period, compared with the number of matters lodged with the court for the same period.

Table 5: Civil lodgment clearance rate (percentage)

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Civil lodgment clearance rate

106 108 100

36 000

34 000

32 000

30 000

28 000

2006–07

Civil Lodgment Finalisations

2007–08 2008–09

Civil applications heard by a magistrate

There were again slightly fewer applications heard by magistrates this year. These include applications to set aside a judgment or warrant, applications to decide matters without formal court appearances (ex parte) and other (unspecified) applications brought to the court by parties.

There were 4 184 civil applications in 2008–09, compared with 4 255 in 2007–08. Civil applications heard by a magistrate have decreased by 2%.


ContinuedMAGISTRATES COURT

Table 7: Civil applications heard by a magistrate

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Civil applications heard by a magistrate

4 386 4 255 4 184

Figure 5: Civil applications heard by a magistrate

Chronic debtors

The Magistrates Court introduced a system in 2005 to refer debtors who continue to default on civil debts to the Fines Payment Unit for action. There are currently 47 chronic debtors, which includes 22 new registrations last year.

Mediation

Two mediators are based in the Adelaide Magistrates Court and conduct mediations throughout the State. The effective level of mediators for the financial year was 1.5 full-time equivalent due to an officer being temporally located with the Youth Court Family Conferencing Team for six months.

Mediations come from minor civil matters referred by Registrars from minor civil directions hearings, and general matters referred by Magistrates. Parties continue to take up the opportunity to negotiate a mutually-agreeable resolution to a dispute rather than going to trial. This year 120 matters were mediated compared with 118 and 140 respectively in the previous years. Of the mediations conducted this financial year 63% resulted in the dispute being resolved compared to a settlement rate of 73% for the previous year and 78% for the year prior to that.

Directions hearings minor civil

Minor civil directions hearings are usually heard by registrars or their deputies. At these hearings, parties are given the option to discuss the dispute, with or without the assistance of the Registrar or Deputy Registrar, to reach a settlement, to list the matter for mediation (both parties must agree to mediation) or to list the matter for trial.

In 2008–2009 31% of the matters defended in this jurisdiction proceeded to trial, compared to 29% the previous year and 31% for the year prior to that. This year there were 1 899 hearings, compared with 1 934 in the previous year and 2 039 in 2006–07.

Pre-lodgment and pro bono mediations

An online pre-lodgment system was introduced in July 1999, enabling individuals, businesses and organisations to try to resolve disputes rather than resort to formal proceedings. The pre-lodgment system offers a free mediation service through the Magistrates Court, with mediations conducted by volunteer mediators. The numbers of final notices of claim (the first step in the litigation process, akin to a final letter of demand) issued resulting in mediation conferences and the settlement rates are shown below.

Table 9: Pre-lodgments and mediations

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Notices issued 4 745 5 748 5 959

Mediation conferences undertaken

77 66 47

Settlement rate (% of mediation conferences)

57% 69% 52%

4300

4250

4200

4100

4050

2006–07

Civil Applications heard by a Magistrate

2007–08 2008–09

4350

4400

4450

Civil defences and counterclaims

The number of civil defences and counterclaims lodged remains steady, with 3 165 lodged in 2008–09 compared with 3 187 in 2007–08. Defences include those against an originating claim, a counterclaim and third party notice to join in an action.

Table 8: Defence and counterclaim lodgment

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Defence and counterclaims

3 283 3 187 3 165

Figure 6: Defence and counterclaim lodgments

3300

3250

3200

3150

3100

2006–07

Defence and Counterclaims

2007–08 2008–09


Continued

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 disputes, 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 138 times for on-site inspections and mediations this year and assisted magistrates in 15 trials compared to the previous year, when experts were used 164 times for on-site inspections and mediations and assisted magistrates in 10 trials, and in the year 2006–07 when there were 117 onsite inspections and/or mediations and 11 trials.

Criminal jurisdiction

Lodgments in the criminal jurisdiction are divided into general criminal matters and expiations (fines). Expiations originate from South Australia Police (‘SAPOL’) or other prosecuting agencies (eg local councils, Fisheries, Customs) 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.

In 2008–09 criminal general lodgments have decreased by 4% and expiation lodgments have increased by 5% when compared with the previous year. The decrease in criminal lodgement does not represent a decrease in workload, but rather a change in counting rules. A new numbering system has been introduced whereby a file transferred between registries is no longer given a new number; instead it appears as one lodgment and finalisation.

Criminal general lodgments

Table 10: Criminal general lodgments

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Criminal lodgments by defendant

75 144 76 561 73 510

Criminal expiation lodgments

151 211 166 491 174 582

Total 225 355 243 108 248 092

Figure 7: Criminal general lodgments

Criminal lodgment finalisations

Criminal lodgments finalised have decreased by 10%.

Table 11: Criminal lodgement finalisations

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Criminal lodgments finalised

77 596 82 417 74 447

Figure 8: Criminal lodgment finalisations

200000

150000

100000

50000

0

2006–07

Criminal General Lodgments – by Defendant Adult Criminal

Criminal Expiation Lodgments – Adult Expiations

2007–08 2008–09

78000

76000

74000

72000

70000

2006–07

Criminal Lodgment Finalisations

2007–08 2008–09

80000

82000

84000

Criminal matters pending

Table12: Criminal lodgments not finalised as at 30 June 2009 (percentage)

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Criminal pending > 6 months old

35 29 31

Criminal pending > 12 months old

16 13 12

Table 13: Criminal lodgments pending as at 30 June 2009 (number)

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09


8 729 6 619 7 002


3 966 2 864 2 781

Criminal matters clearance rate

Clearance rate refers to the percentage of matters finalised by the court in a specified period compared with number of matters lodged with the court for the same period.

Table 14: criminal lodgment clearance rate (percentage)

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Criminal lodgment clearance rate (%)

103 108 101



Criminal hearings heard by a magistrate

Criminal hearings by magistrates have increased by 1%.

Table 15: Criminal hearings heard by a magistrate

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Criminal hearings heard by a magistrate

228 785 230 816 232 596

Figure 9: Criminal hearings heard by a magistrate

Aboriginal Justice Officer (Youth Court)

The first Aboriginal Justice Officer (Youth Court) was assigned to the Youth Court in April 2008 and is responsible for the development, delivery, monitoring and review of a culturally-sensitive service to Aboriginal youth, families and the Aboriginal community. The AJO provides a range of services and information to Aboriginal young people appearing before the Youth Court, by undertaking a variety of roles which contribute to the efficient, effective and more culturally-responsive operation of the Youth Court.

The AJO supports Aboriginal young people, their families and the court system to make informed decisions regarding the care, correction and guidance of Aboriginal youth.

Manager Aboriginal Programs

The CAA has created a new ongoing leadership position, Manager Aboriginal Programs, which was filled in February 2009. The role of Manager Aboriginal Programs includes leading new initiatives, and reviewing existing court services designed to improve culturally-appropriate services and programs for Aboriginal people. They also provide advice on policies and plans for Aboriginal employment within the CAA and co-ordinate the activities of the AJOs.

Cultural awareness training

AJOs deliver the CAA’s two-day Aboriginal cultural awareness training, which is mandatory for all new CAA staff. Six sessions were conducted for this reporting period, with all sessions receiving positive evaluations.

Adult Aboriginal Conferencing – Port Lincoln

Throughout 2008–09, for the second year, an Adult Aboriginal Conferencing program in the Port Lincoln area has been delivered by a Youth Justice Coordinator and an AJO with support from the Magistrates Court at Port Lincoln. The program is aimed at adult Aboriginal defendants in a post-plea, pre-sentence conferencing process, where cultural facets of the incident are considered.

The conference involves the defendant, members of the Aboriginal community (elders), SAPOL, victims, an AJO and the Youth Justice Coordinator, working together to make the defendant aware of the harm done as a result of his or her offending. The conference process encourages contrition and reparation to remedy harm, and provides a restorative opportunity to victims. After a conference, the coordinator generates a report for the court outlining the process and outcomes. The sentencing magistrate considers the report when sentencing the defendant.

The initiative has been strongly supported by the local community and magistracy, as demonstrated by regular referrals to the process from the court. In the reporting period nine Aboriginal conferences were conducted.

230000

229000

228000

227000

226000

2006–07

Criminal Hearings heard by a Magistrate

2007–08 2008–09

231000

232000

233000

Aboriginal justice initiatives

Aboriginal Justice Officers

The CAA employs 10 Aboriginal Justice Officers (‘AJOs’) to service Magistrates Court, Youth Court, Higher Courts and Aboriginal court users and their families.

Table 16: Aboriginal Justice Officers by location

Location AJOs

Adelaide Magistrates Court 3

Port Adelaide Magistrates Court 3

Port Augusta Magistrates Court 3

Adelaide Youth Court 1

The role of the Aboriginal Justice Officer is varied and includes providing assistance for Aboriginal sentencing conferences in the Higher Courts and Magistrates Courts, including support for Nunga Courts, assisting Aboriginal court users to pay their fines, attend court and understand the court process.

AJOs are based at Port Adelaide Magistrates Court, Adelaide Magistrates Court, Youth Court and Port Augusta Court. They visit all metropolitan courts, circuit to regional courts and the more remote areas including Ceduna and Yalata and the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunyatjara Lands (‘APY Lands’).


Continued

Aboriginal sentencing conferences in the higher courts

In 2005, the Criminal Law Sentencing Act 1988 was amended to include section 9C, ‘Sentencing of Aboriginal defendants’. Section 9C expands upon the Magistrate’s Nunga Courts and allows any criminal court, with the defendant’s consent, to convene an Aboriginal sentencing conference. As well as the defendant, victims, elders and family members have an opportunity to participate in the Aboriginal sentencing conference. The conference provides a culturally-responsive forum in which the offender has the opportunity better to understand the gravity of their offending and its impact upon the victim, their family and community. The judicial officer may also gain a better understanding of the defendant and the circumstances surrounding the offending behaviour, leading to more constructive sentencing options.

AJOs from the Magistrates Court provide significant assistance and support in convening a conference, particularly in relation to arranging for suitable elders, consideration of suitable rehabilitation programs, and making contact with the defendant’s family to explain the sentencing process. In 2008–09, 11 cases were referred to Aboriginal sentencing conferences, with 10 of the 11 conferences being held in the District or Supreme Courts.

Fines Payment UnitMagistrates Court registries manage the recovery of all criminal court monetary penalties. There is also a fines payment call centre that takes payment via credit card and advises callers on options available to deal with fines. In addition, Aboriginal justice officers assist Indigenous people on all court-related matters. Moneys are paid into SA Government General Revenue.

Total revenue collected by the Fines Payment Unit for 2008–09 was $61 546 504, an average of $5.2 million per month. This is an increase of 11% on the previous year.

Various payment options have been implemented over the past few years. Over-the-counter payments remain a preferred method of payment but are decreasing in popularity. The other most popular ways of paying fines are through direct debit and arrangements with Centrelink, Australia Post and BPay.

Table 17: Preferred method of fines payment by amount

Method of payment 2006–07 $

2007–08 $

2008–09 $

Increase/Decrease %

Australia Post 6 577 993 9 028 872 9 996 496 11

Transport SA 636 492 481 418 535 177 11

CentrePay 9 778 640 10 811 023 11 959 903 11

Direct Debit 11 812 720 12 450 567 13 482 273 8

Regular Processing Services (postal cheque payments) 1 577 753 1 392 457 123 476 –11

Services SA 59 026 63 790 118 900 86

On-Line Fines 617 440 955 904 1 314 912 38

Credit Card 2 391 262 2 310 923 2 436 830 5

Bpay 5 877 537 7 847 074 10 255 273 31

Bill Express 122 213 210 697 4 822 –98

BPoint 2 144 10 590 21 513 103

Over the counter 10 089 763 9 875 744 10 183 931 3

Total collection 49 542 983 55 439 059 61 546 504 11


Figure 11: Applications to review orders to pay fines


The Easy Pay Fines Call Centre

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 operates from 8.30am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 9am until noon on Saturdays. The centre pursues outstanding fines and arrangements, making 42 606 outbound calls this year. The Easy Pay Fines Call Centre achieved an average productivity rating of 112% for the year 2008–09.

SMS fine reminders were introduced to the call centre in May 2008. This has increased inbound calls by 15% compared with the 2007–08 financial year. The unit has concentrated on the increased calls but has maintained the number of outbound calls.

The unit generates approximately 250 letters per day.

Credit card payments increased with $2.43 million collected by this payment method last year compared to $2.31 million last year. This increase may relate to more clients responding to the SMS reminders being sent therefore paying their arrears. Court users contacting the call centre by email has had a significant increase with an email fines link recently made available on the CAA web page.

Table 19: Easy Pay Fines Call Centre contacts processed

Type of contact 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Inbound calls 147 944 158 957 184 389

Outbound calls 46 614 43 595 42 606

Email 525 692 1 726

Abandoned rate* (%) 2.0 2 3

* The national abandonment rate industry standard is 3–4%.

40000

30000

20000

10000

0

2006–07

Application Review Enforcement Order F51

Application Review Order Cancelled Relief F48

2007–08 2008–09

Figure 10: Preferred methods of payment of fines by amount

Applications to review orders to pay fines

Applications to review enforcement orders (Form 51 applications) have increased by 30%. In the same period, applications to review orders to cancel relief (Form 48 applications) have increased by 37%.

Table 18: Applications to review orders to pay fines

Type 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Application to review enforcement order (Form 51 applications)

20 198 26 456 34 388

Application to review order to cancel relief (Form 48 applications)

1 550 3 232 4 427

Australia Post

Transport SA

Centre Pay

Direct debit

Reculver

Service SA

Online fines

Credit card

BPay

Bill Express

BPoint

Over the counter

$0 $2 000 000 $4 000 000 $6 000 000 $8 000 000 $10 000 000 $12 000 000

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08


Magistrates Court Call CentreThe Magistrates Court Call Centre operates from 8.30am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday. This call centre handles all criminal and civil enquiries and responds to two electronic mailboxes. These are an ‘e-response centre’ used by court users for any court query, including those related to other courts and an ‘e-registration facility’ used by court users who wish to register for the civil pre-lodgment scheme.

In January 2009 this call centre relocated to the Port Adelaide Magistrates Court and was upgraded to a new telephone system.

The new system allows for eight calls to be held waiting to go to queue compared with four calls previously. This has caused more calls to be held in queue and is evident in peak times where at times there are up to 12 calls waiting to be answered. To support this increase a staff member from the Easy Pay Fines Call centre has been trained and rostered in peak times to the Magistrates queue to help with the influx.

E-response mailbox inquiries continue to increase. This is attributed to legal firms and legal services using this service daily, with up to 25 inquiries a day.

From July 2008 to January 2009 the Magistrates Court Call Centre also dealt with outcomes of applications for a review of enforcement orders for Adelaide Magistrates Court, within 24 hours of receipt. The call centre commenced processing these outcomes for the Port Adelaide Magistrates Court from January 2009 when the unit moved to its new location. The call centre assists the Easy Pay Fines Call Centre by processing fines cases in between calls.

Table 20: Magistrates Court Call Centre

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Inbound calls 121 723 123 932 123 021

E-response centre mailbox 1 856 2 985 4 060

E-registration mailbox 971 741 954

Enforcement order review results

22 613 22 613 14 074

Abandoned rate* (%) 1.8 1.9 2.3

* The national abandonment rate industry standard is 3–4%.

Continued

Fines redesign project

The Magistrates Court is in the implementation stage of a project to redesign the fines collection and enforcement process. The objectives of the redesign project are to reduce time taken to finish tasks, automate manual repetitive tasks, expand options for court users to do fines business, improve data quality and transfer processes from the front counter to the back office without losing quality of service to court users. There have been several IT and administrative enhancements implemented to reduce time for staff and court users.

The expected benefits are fewer outstanding debts, increased collection rates, improved registry capacity across the Magistrates Court and higher rates of satisfaction amongst court users.

Court Volunteer Service

Sixty-one volunteers provide services at the Sir Samuel Way Building, Adelaide Magistrates Court and metropolitan Magistrates Courts. Court volunteers provide a vital link between the court and court users, providing refreshments, support, and information about the location of courtrooms, court services and facilities. Volunteers also help court users complete standard forms.

In 2008–09 court volunteers dealt with 71 899 enquiries and served 4 254 refreshments. This compares with 2007–08, when they dealt with 69 249 enquiries and served 4 490 refreshments.

Special Justices

Since 1 July 2007 the use of Special Justices has increased across magistrates courts in the State.

Special Justices are rostered in accordance with the direction of the regional managing magistrates, depending on workload requirements.

As at May 2009, there were 68 Special Justices appointed to sit in court.

Special Justices have assisted the magistracy in dealing with matters in petty sessions and on an ad hoc basis in some country locations for the purpose of bail applications under the Bail Act 1985 in the absence of a magistrate. There were 59 bail applications heard by Special Justices in 2008–09.



Table 21: Special Justices’ activities 2008–09

Location

2007–08 2008–09

Total days Total days

Adelaide Magistrates Court 52 89

Adelaide Youth Court 4.5 6

Christies Beach Magistrates Court 22 46

Elizabeth Magistrates Court 51 51

Holden Hill Magistrates Court 26 51

Mount Gambier Magistrates Court 6 26

Mount Barker 0 16

Murray Bridge 0 16

Naracoorte Magistrates Court 1 6

Port Adelaide Magistrates Court 46 47

Port Augusta Magistrates Court 1.5 9

Tanunda Magistrates Court 7 0

Whyalla Magistrates Court 6 14

Total sittings 239 377

This represents an increase of 58% in the total full sitting days by Special Justices.

Specialist sentencing courts Specialist sentencing courts that operate in the Magistrates Court are the Drug Court; the Mental Impairment Court, known as the Magistrates Court Diversion Program (‘MCDP’); the Family Violence Court and Aboriginal (Nunga) Sentencing Courts.

There is also a Courts Assessment and Referral Drug Scheme (‘CARDS’), which provides referral to counselling for substance abuse. The scheme operates within the general criminal lists in the Magistrates Court and the Youth Court.

The Drug Court, MCDP and CARDS programs aim to reduce reoffending by providing defendants with access to intervention programs that tackle underlying causes of offending. The Family Violence Courts have a victim support and crime reduction focus.

Aboriginal sentencing courts

Aboriginal sentencing courts, (‘Nunga courts’ as they are also known in the Adelaide region), incorporate culturally-specific advice and guidance from respected Aboriginal community elders into the court’s sentencing process. Aboriginal sentencing courts operate at Port Adelaide, Murray Bridge and Port Augusta.

The Nunga Court has been designed to recognise the integral role of the family and the community in the lives of Aboriginal people and to create a venue that is less intimidating for offenders and their families. AJOs and Sheriff ’s Officers provide significant assistance and support to all parties participating in Aboriginal sentencing courts.

Defendants who plead guilty and have a connection to the local community can apply to have their matters sentenced in these courts. Increasingly, the court encourages defendants to tackle problems (such as drug and alcohol dependency) prior to sentencing. Representatives from service and program provider agencies may also be present to advise on appropriate programs for Aboriginal defendants.

On 1 June 2009, the Nunga Court at Port Adelaide celebrated its tenth anniversary. The Hon. Jay Weatherill MP, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, acknowledged the valuable role of the elders and presented certificates of appreciation to past and present elders of the Port Adelaide Nunga Court

At Aboriginal sentencing courts, all parties present are able to speak directly to each other, without the formality of speaking through legal counsel. Reports from the Indigenous community suggest that because defendants are now able to speak directly to the magistrate they feel they have a voice in court and are being listened to. Comments have been received that the court is less alienating and more culturally relevant to Aboriginal people, which is why the rate for failing to appear at these courts have been much lower than those involving Aboriginal people in general court sittings.

The table and figure below shows numbers of defendants appearing in these courts over the past three years.

Table 22: Matters heard in Aboriginal sentencing courts

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Number of defendants 164 212 234

Number of files 651 643 583

Number of charges 1 918 2 346 2 045


Continued

Family Violence CourtThe Family Violence Court (‘FVC’) aims to provide a safe and supportive environment for victims of family violence to lodge applications for restraining orders and summary protection orders at a designated time, separate from other criminal hearings. A collaborative interagency service system involving the Department of Correctional Services, SAPOL and a Violence Intervention Program (‘VIP’) ensures the safety of and appropriate support for the victims of domestic violence and their children. The FVC, at a separate hearing, also deals with the defendants charged with assault of family member matters or breaches of restraining orders, and the magistrate can refer men from that list to a 26-week group program for violent men to modify violent behaviour and attitudes. The VIPs run these groups. The Salvation Army runs the Central Violence Intervention Program (‘CVIP’), which is attached to the Adelaide Family Violence Court; and the Department of Health runs the Northern Violence Intervention Program (‘NVIP’), which is attached to the Family Violence Court at Elizabeth Magistrates Court.

Two new FVCs began operating in 2009, at Port Adelaide Magistrates Court and at Christies Beach Magistrates Court. The CVIP, Department of Correctional Services, SAPOL and the Central Domestic Violence Service support the court at Port Adelaide; SAPOL and Southern Junction Community Services support the court at Christies Beach.

These new initiatives have been supported from within the existing resources of the various supporting organisations and therefore are not necessarily permanent arrangements. Unfortunately, a FVC established at the Mount Gambier Magistrates Court under the same cooperative arrangements was discontinued as a result of resource and funding issues faced by the non-government organization supporting the initiative.

Table 23: Family violence matters 2006–07 and 2007–08

2006–07 2007–08

Defendants 979 820

Files 1 533 1 074

Charges 3 647 2 215

Table 24: Family violence matters 2008–09 by location

Cases Defendants Charges

Elizabeth 743 590 1 351

Adelaide 497 390 944

Port Adelaide 260 190 481

Christies Beach 11 10 14

Others 10 10 15

Total 1 521 1 190 2 805

Figure 12: Number of family violence matters

Courts drug intervention programsTo achieve greater efficiencies and savings, the coordination and administrative functions of the Drug Court and CARDS were merged. One of the planned outcomes of this merger was the adoption of a common assessment tool, which indicates level of substance dependence and is used as one of the factors in determining whether defendants are more suitable for CARDS or Drug Court.

Court Assessment and Referral Drug Scheme (CARDS)

CARDS commenced in 2004 as a pilot program jointly funded under the State and Australian Government Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative. The scheme aims to reduce drug-related crime by providing timely access to treatment services as part of the court process. Participation can be made a condition of bail or a bond but most commonly it is offered as voluntary pre-sentence undertaking to defendants who are motivated to address their drug problems. Referral to CARDS is available at all metropolitan courthouses and at Murray Bridge, Mount Barker, Mount Gambier, and recently commenced at Whyalla. It is also available for young offenders (see the Youth Court section of the report). Magistrates, defence lawyers, prosecutors or defendants can make a referral to the scheme.

Court matters are adjourned for three months to enable the defendant to attend a minimum of four counselling sessions, which are provided by the clinical staff from Drug and Alcohol Services SA (DASSA) or non-government agencies at locations across metropolitan and regional South Australia.

The two tables below show that referrals to CARDS have decreased in the past year. One factor which may have contributed to referrals dropping is the recognition that the program model needs refinement to make it more effective. Completion rates have also decreased.

Following an independent review of the intervention model an interagency working party has been established to develop a new model of intervention based on the research about programs specifically designed for substance using offenders.

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

2006–07

Number of Defendants Number of Files

2007–08 2008–09

Number of Charges



Table 25: Adult CARDS participation by gender

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Number M F Total M F Total M F Total

Referrals 273 112 385 289 101 390 251 76 327

Assessments 202 78 280 277 93 370 248 78 326

Accepted 156 65 221 192 75 267 130 42 172

Completed 86 21 107 117 35 102 59 16 75

Still in treatment

29 19 48 53 21 74 31 10 41

Completed (%) 68 62 62 84.1 65 78.80 60 50 57.25

Table 26: Adult CARDS Indigenous participation

Number 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Referrals 33 51 43

Assessments 23 49 42

Accepted 17 30 16

Completed 8 11 4

Still in treatment

5 12 5

Completed (%) 47 61 36

Drug Court

The Drug Court is an intensive 12-month drug rehabilitation program which aims to reduce future drug-related offending by assisting defendants to deal with their drug issues while on supervised bail. The program involves regular judicial review of progress, drug treatment, drug testing and assistance with accommodation and reintegration into the community from remand.

Treatment for participants in the form of group therapy and individual counselling continues to be provided by the special team of clinical staff from DASSA. Drug Court staff have been involved in facilitating groups for Moral Reconation Therapy (‘MRT’), with staff from Anglicare and the Aboriginal Sobriety Group (‘ASG’). An eight-week program to prevent relapse into drug use also has been introduced, to run concurrently with MRT. Some groups are held after hours.

A demonstration pilot of MRT began at Mobilong Prison in January 2009, in conjunction with prison chaplains and prison health services. Participant numbers were low but those that completed the program showed improvements in behaviour. Results from a formal evaluation are not yet available.

Following the large rise in completion rates in 2007–08, there were slightly fewer completions in 2008–09; however, the number of Indigenous men who completed has continued to increase over the past three years and coincides with the significant contribution of ASG to the Drug Court program.

In April, respected elder with ASG and Ngarrindjeri artist Irene Allen presented a painting to the Drug Court, to acknowledge and encourage participants in their recovery. The painting was done in a traditional style and depicts a healing journey of Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants on the program. It has been placed in Adelaide Magistrates Courtroom 17. Anglicare and the ASG have continued to provide a range of services for participants, including accommodation.


Continued

Table 27: Drug Court participation by gender

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

M F Total M F Total M F Total

Referrals 101 17 118 88 13 102 92 18 110

Assessments 78 11 89 67 7 74 79 13 92

Accepted 59 7 66 60 6 66 58 10 68

Completed 19 2 21 25 3 28 23 1 24

Completed (%) 23 42 36

Table 28: Drug Court Indigenous participation

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Referrals 6 11 11

Assessments 7 10 10

Accepted 10 10 6

Completed 1 4 6

The graph below depicts the primary drug of dependence of Drug Court participants at time of assessment for inclusion on the program. These figures indicate that amphetamines have continued to be more prevalent than opiates and other drugs; however, this year there has been a slight increase on opiates and slight decrease in amphetamines, and a slight increase in benzodiazepines.

In February 2008 the Drug Court sponsored a visit to Adelaide by US-based therapist Dr Ken Robinson, who led a five-day Moral Reconation Therapy training seminar. Subsequently, the Drug Court introduced an MRT program, which has proved to be a most effective treatment option.

Although 31 people were trained, it became evident that it was cost effective for training to occur in-house. The CAA sponsored its coordinator of drug intervention programs to travel to the USA for accreditation as a trainer in MRT. The in-house trainer has since provided guidance and supervision to facilitators and in April 2009 ran a MRT Facilitator Program for 21 staff from Anglicare, ASG and the Drug Court. The trainer also provided extra treatment programs for Drug Court participants.

In March 2009, following consultation with the key stakeholders and steering committee members, a six-month drug treatment program was introduced in the Drug Court to provide an option for defendants with significant substance abuse problems but who normally would not be considered for the Drug Court due to the less serious nature of their charges. The Drug Court Magistrate supervises participants but supervision at the level of home detention is not normally required.

The treatment regime consists of participation in the MRT groups and the Staying Quit program as well as random urine testing. To date, 11 people have been referred and four people have been removed for various reasons. At present, there are five male and two female participants. The six-month program will be evaluated next financial year.

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08

0

40%

Opiates

50%

10%

20%

30%

60%

70%

80%

Primary Drug of Dependence

Benzodiazepines Amphetamines Other/unclear Not dependant


Magistrates Court Diversion Program The Magistrates Court Diversion Program (‘MCDP’) aims to assist the court in the identification and management of defendants with a mental impairment and to prevent further offending behaviour by ensuring effective interventions and treatment. It is also designed to be an alternative to the complex legislated mental impairment defence.

The term ‘mental impairment’ includes mental illness, intellectual disability, acquired brain injury or neurological disorder. As shown in Figure 13 below, most MCDP participants suffer from a mental illness and this has been evident since the program began in 2000. The number of participants with a primary diagnosis of major depressive illness has increased steadily over the past five years to become the most common diagnosis ahead of schizophrenia, whereas previously there were almost equal numbers within these two main diagnostic categories (see Figure 14 below).

The program operates weekly at Adelaide Magistrates Court, monthly at the metropolitan courts and bimonthly at Port Augusta, Whyalla, Mount Gambier and Murray Bridge. In April 2009, the service ceased at Berri due to low referral rates over four years; however, defendants may have their matters transferred to a metropolitan court to access the program.

Referrals have decreased slightly this year and the number of people accepted has decreased. This is due to the improved assessment process adopted by the program psychologists, placing greater emphasis on links between the offending behaviour and the mental impairment. This ensures that those people most likely to benefit from the program are included and the increased completion numbers suggests that this new assessment process is successfully targeting this group. The number of male defendants continues at almost double that of female defendants.

Table 29: Magistrates Court Diversion Program participation by gender

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09


Referrals 296 105 401 298 145 443 287 131 418

Assessments 292 105 397 258 132 390 271 120 391

Accepted 184 87 271 184 98 282 143 93 236

Completed 149 79 228 149 65 214 145 79 224

Table 30: Magistrates Court Diversion Program Indigenous participation

Number 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Referrals 40 15 38


Accepted 18 10 25

Completed 14 10 12

Figure 13: MCDP participants by mental impairment 2008–09

0

200

250

50

100

15087.3%

206

Mental Health Issues

5.9%

14

Personality Disorder

2.5%

6

Intellectual Disability

0.4%

1

Substance Related Disorder

3.8%

9

Acquired Organic Brain Dysfunction



Figure 14: Primary diagnosis of MCDP participants 2008–09

a 35.2% – Major depressive disorder b 13.6% – Schizophrenia c 9.7% – Post-traumatic stress disorder d 6.8% – Psychotic disorder e 6.4% – Anxiety disorder f 5.9% – Personality disorder g 5.9% – Other h 5.1% – Bipolar disorder i 3.8% – Acquired/organic brain disfunction j 3.0% – Developmental disorder k 2.5% – Intellectual disability l 1.7% – Mood disorder m 0.4% – Substance related disorder

Figure 15: Comparison of primary offence categories in 2007–08 and 2008–09

0

15.0%

20.0%

5.0%

10.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

a b c d e f g h i j k l m

0

10.0%

15.0%

5.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0% a – Larceny b – Driving offences c – Assault non-family d – Alternative good order offence e – Fraud and misappropriation f – Trespass g – Property damage and environmental offence h – Assault police i – Other j – Assault family member k – Drug offences l – Sexual assault offence m – Disorderly behavior n – Common assault o – Fail to comply with restraining order p – Receiving

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p

2007–08 2008–09

Figure16: Primary sentencing outcomes for MCDP participants 2008–09

The sentencing outcomes indicate that 25% of MCDP participants were diverted from the criminal justice system and received no penalty or had their charges withdrawn or dismissed. A further 8.9% receive a penalty but no conviction, and 31% of participants received a suspended sentence bond. In 2005–06 just under 50% of participants were diverted and only 14.7% received a suspended sentence. A contributing factor in this change in sentencing outcomes has been the abolition of eligibility criteria in 2006, which previously excluded some offences.

a 31.3% – Suspended sentence bond b 12.1% – Good behavior bond – supervised c 8.5% – Good behavior bond – unsupervised d 4.5% – Return to general list – for sentencing e 2.2% – No conviction – no penalty f 1.8% – Community service order g 0.9% – Compensation h 0.9% – Withdrawn i 17.4% – Magistrate dismissal j 8.9% – No conviction – penalty k 4.9% – Conviction recorded – no penalty l 1.8% – 269 Application m 2.2% – Prison sentence n 1.8 – Fine o 0.9 – Commonwealth Order and recognizance

j – 8.9%

i – 17.4%

b – 12.1%

c – 8.5%

a – 31.3%

e – 2.2%

d – 4.5%

m – 2.2%f – 1.8%

l – 1.8%

n – 1.8%

h – 0.9%

k – 4.9%

g – 0.9%o – 0.9%

Continued


ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCES COURT

At a glance 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Judges 2 2 2

Full-time-equivalent commissioners 3 3 3

Masters (Shared with District Court) 3 3 3

Sessional commissioners 29 26 24

Staff 11 11 11

Appeals 419 429 461

Enforcement applications 26 39 24

Criminal 13 13 14

Section 86(1)(f) Development Act applications for review 0 5 18

Other categories* 4 1 9

Total 462 487 526

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

Role, structure and legislationThe Environment, Resources and Development Court (‘ERD Court’) was established under the Environment, Resources and Development Court Act 1993 and commenced operations on 15 January 1994. This year the ERD Court celebrated 15 years of operation.

The ERD Court has jurisdiction over development, heritage, environment protection, natural resources, irrigation, mining, native vegetation and native title matters. These fall into the categories of appeals against the decision of, or a notice or order issued by, a local council or authority; applications for enforcement orders, compensation and damages; criminal charges; appeals from judgments and orders of the Warden’s Court; and native title applications.

This year an amendment to the Local Government Act 1999 conferred a new appeal jurisdiction upon the ERD Court whereby a developer who is required to enter into a bond or security may appeal against the imposition of the requirement, or its terms or conditions.

The ERD Court has two judges, who are also judges of the District Court and deputy presiding members of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal. In addition to their work in the ERD Court jurisdiction, the judges assist the District Court by hearing and determining matters in the civil and administrative appeals division of the District Court and the Equal Opportunity Tribunal.

Four commissioners hold three full-time-equivalent (‘FTE’) commissioner positions in the ERD Court, with two full-time commissioners and two part-time commissioners. The number of sessional or part-time commissioners available to the court reduced from 26 to 24 during the year. The ERD Court continues to be under pressure to dispose of planning matters in a timely manner and the inability to attract planning commissioners, in particular, contributes to the court’s capacity to dispose of matters.

The ERD Court has worked with the Attorney-General’s Department and Department of Premier and Cabinet in an attempt to address issues relating to the appointment of sessional commissioners. These issues include governance, information provided to potential candidates prior to appointment, remuneration and management of sessional commissioners and attraction and retention of sessional commissioners.

The ERD Court Registrar, who also holds the position of District Court Registrar, is assisted by the Deputy Registrar and 10 other staff members who provide administrative, registry and judicial support services to the court and its clients. Registry staff also work collaboratively across the District Court in the provision of registry services.

Workload The number of matters lodged in the ERD Court this reporting period increased by 8% from last year and continues to climb towards the record 544 matters lodged in 2004–05. The number of matters finalised increased to 472, an increase of 9% compared with 432 matters finalised in 2007–08.

Table 1: Workload of the ERD Court

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Matters lodged 462 487 526

Matters finalised from matters lodged

271 273 267

Matters finalised from previous years

207 159 205

Total finalised 478 432 472

Total finalised (%) 103% 89% 90%


The increase in matters finalised by the Court can be attributed in the main to the introduction of the new preliminary conferences listings system (referred to later in this report), and a temporary increase of a full-time commissioner by .2 FTE for the second half of the year. The increase in matters finalised, whilst positive, still fails to keep pace with increase in lodgments. There has been a trend over the last two years where the lodgments have exceeded finalisations and the growth in lodgments has continued. This will impact on delays in finalising matters.

Figure 1: Comparison of lodgments against finalisations

The objectives of the new listings system are to minimise the use of judicial resources on matters that were not ready to proceed to conference or hearing soon after lodgement; enable commissioners to focus on presiding over hearings and finalisations; address the high level of requests for adjournments related to conciliation conferences and minimise the judicial resource time focused on this activity; respond to the inadequate number of commissioners with planning expertise able to preside over hearings by freeing up the time of our permanent planning commissioners; and deal with the increase in lodgments over the past two years.

From January 2009 the ERD Court has listed 273 preliminary conferences and, of those, convened 238, comprising 189 initial and 49 resuming.

At preliminary conference matters are placed into the conciliation conference track, hearing track or a pending track by agreement or by order of the court.

Figure 2: Initial track breakdown

Approximately 90% of the total work load of the ERD Court is related to the Development Act 1993. Of total lodgments, 68% were appeals involving development applications made under the Development Act (compared with 76% in 2006–07). Of the 357 appeals lodged, 56 (16%) were appeals lodged by persons other than the applicant for development approval. This year’s increase in lodgments was due primarily to an increase in appeals lodged pursuant to Section 84 of the Development Act 1993 increasing to make up 32% of total lodgments, and an increase in appeals lodged pursuant to the Natural Resources Management Act and the Environment Protection Act 1993.

Native titleIn 2008–09, 13 notices under mining legislation were lodged to initiate negotiations with native title parties. This is a significant decrease from the 44 lodged in 2007–08. There were no searches of the State Native Title Register this year, compared with two in the previous year. There were two applications for determination received by the ERD Court during the reporting period.

New preliminary conference systemIn January 2009 the ERD Court introduced a new preliminary conference system for all development appeals. The preliminary conference is a compulsory 10-minute conference listed four weeks from lodgment which allows the court and the parties an early opportunity to decide how the matter will proceed.

When a matter is placed into the pending track the court sets a resuming date of around four months so that it can manage the progress of the case whilst allowing the parties to continue with private settlement negotiations. Listing fewer conciliation conferences minimises the amount of time spent by judicial resources preparing for conciliation conferences that are adjourned at late notice at the request of parties, enabling the court to focus its resources towards matters ready to proceed to conciliation conference or hearing. It is estimated that, for every matter that is moved into the pending track, the court increases its efficiency by up to an hour of judicial time which would have been spent preparing or managing the conciliation conference.

The court is monitoring the reasons why parties choose the pending track. Of the matters that were placed into the pending track this year, 38% of appellants decided to amend their plans for development consent, 13% of appellants decided to lodge a new application for development consent with the local council, 38% of parties were negotiating a compromise and did not need the court’s assistance, 7% had reached a settlement and for 3% the reason was unknown.

0

Matters Lodged Total Finalised

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

100

200

300

400

500

600

No.

of d

efen

dant

s

Hearing 18%

Pending 60%Conference 18%


ENVIRONMENT, DEVELOPMENT AND RESOURCES COURT

Continued

Conciliation conferencesFigure 3: Conciliation conferences convened in 2008–09

The first six months of operation of the new system indicates that the number of conciliation conferences convened has halved, thus enabling more efficient use of judicial time to dedicate to hearing matters and writing judgments.

Of the 472 matters finalised during the reporting period, 68% were listed for one or more conciliation conferences. This compares with 2007–08 where 80% of matters proceeded to conciliation conference. The 12% drop in matters going to conciliation conference is a direct result of the introduction of preliminary conferences. Of matters finalised this reporting period, 149 did not proceed to conference: 48 were withdrawn or struck out before conference, 41 settled prior to conference and in 60 matters the court dispensed with the conference.

The settlement rate for conciliation conferences has decreased slightly with 143 matters (30%) having settled during the conference process, compared with 136 matters (31%) in the previous year.

HearingsIn 2008–09, hearings proceeded on approximately 45% of hearing days scheduled, compared to 40% in 2007–08. Many settlements occurred close to the scheduled hearing date. While this is regrettable in one sense, given the prior allocation of court resources, a settlement is economically beneficial to the parties and may also indicate the value of the ERD Court’s pre-hearing processes, which aim to clearly identify the issues and arguments between the parties in every matter.

The ERD Court sits primarily in Adelaide but can sit anywhere in the State. From the matters finalised during the year, 95 matters (20% of matters finalised) proceeded to hearing, compared with 81 (19% of matters finalised) in 2007–08 and 91 (20% of matters finalised) in 2006–07.

Of the 95 matters that proceeded to hearing, 18 were heard by a full bench of the court comprising a judge and one or two commissioners. There were 77 matters heard by a single member of the court, either a judge or commissioner sitting alone. There were no building disputes heard by the ERD Court in the reporting period.

JudgmentsThis year, judgments were delivered in 105 matters. Twenty-five of these were delivered by a Judge, 62 were delivered by a Commissioner, and 18 (including some matters being heard together) were delivered by a full bench consisting of a Judge and one or more Commissioners. These judgments finalised 91 matters compared to 77 matters finalised by judgments last year, an increase of 15%. This is in part due to the new preliminary conference system enabling the commissioners to preside over more hearings and write judgments and the additional .2 FTE commissioner available during the last six-month period.

Country conferences and hearingsThe ERD Court generally views the subject land, either before or early in the hearing of an appeal concerning a development application. The court will sit at a location as near as practicable to the land or development, the subject of the dispute. This year, the court travelled to Mount Gambier, Port Pirie, Kangaroo Island, Port Lincoln, Robe, Roxby Downs, Berri, Crystal Brook, Port Augusta, Renmark, Streaky Bay, Whyalla, Naracoorte, Coonawarra and Kadina.

The ERD Court continues to increase its use of telephone conferencing for an initial conference in country matters and this year will introduce videoconferencing as another option open to the court in order to improve efficiency by reducing the cost and time of travel.

0

July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June

10

20

30

40

50

60

No.

of c

onfe

renc

es

70

80


Continued

Listing and court performanceThe ERD Court monitors and manages the efficient progress of appeals. At each stage of an appeal the court measures how quickly it is able to list a conference or hearing, or how quickly it is able to deliver a judgment. This year the median time taken to list a new matter for a preliminary conference or conciliation conference was four weeks. The listing of hearings depends on the availability of judicial officers, the parties and their representatives, expert witnesses and the preferred location of the hearing. With no sessional commissioners having planning expertise available to the court for hearings, it has been difficult to list development appeals for hearing within a reasonable time frame. The median time taken to list a matter for a single bench hearing in the metro area was nine weeks from conference or preliminary conference. Once a hearing has concluded the Court delivers judgment at a median rate of five and a half weeks.

Achievements and initiatives in support of the CAA’s strategic planThe ERD Court Business Plan 2007–09 reflects the four corporate goals identified in the CAA strategic plan: workforce; improved services and processes; and infrastructure and communication, especially internal and external communication.

Communication with the community

On 25 September 2008, the ERD Court held a meeting of the ERD Court Forum. The meeting was attended by two members of court and 10 invited representatives of organisations including the Planning Institute of Australia (SA Chapter) and the Conservation Council of South Australia. There was useful discussion about court practice and procedure and issues faced by self-represented litigants. Several suggestions were made to the court, some of which have been acted upon.

On 26 November 2008, the court held a meeting of the ERD Court Practice & Rules Liaison Committee. The meeting was attended by four members of court and six legal practitioners from firms specialising in planning law, the Crown Solicitor’s Office and the Environmental Defender’s Office. The court used the meeting to consult with key court users about the introduction of the preliminary conference listings system and received valuable information from the group which was incorporated into the new system.

During the year members of the ERD Court and staff have delivered lectures or presentations to various student and community groups relating to the business of the court and the fields of urban and regional planning, and environment and planning law.

Self-represented litigants

This year 49% of appellants appeared for themselves at the conference stage of proceedings. At hearings, 26% had no legal representation. These figures have remained consistent over the past three reporting periods. Staff continue to provide comprehensive and detailed procedural advice to assist self-represented parties.

This past year the ERD Court has dedicated considerable resources to creating an instructional DVD for use by self-represented litigants. The DVD is entitled Lodging a planning appeal and features several videos which explain how to lodge a planning appeal, how to use the court’s website and how to find the court itself. In a first for a South Australian court, five instructional videos were also placed on the popular video-sharing website YouTube. It is hoped that this innovation will help the court reach another group of more ‘computer-savvy’ court users. The viewing statistics of the videos have shown a promising amount of interest.

Training

This year, the ERD Court arranged training for all permanent and sessional members of court on approaches to mediation, sustainable housing development, climate change and carbon trading. All courses were well-attended and feedback received was positive. Permanent members of the court have attended judicial development events organised by the SA Courts Judicial Development Committee and by the Council of Australasian Tribunals.


YOUTH COURT

At a glance 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Judges 2 2 2

Magistrates 2 2 2

Staff (full-time equivalent 32.4 33.4 31.4

Criminal lodgments 8 722 8 903 8 731

Criminal injuries lodgments 2 279 2 789 2 934

Criminal expiation lodgments 8 494 9 042 8 899

Pending criminal lodgments > six months 21.0% 20.0% 21.0%

Pending criminal lodgments > 12 months 8.0% 5.0% 6.7%

Number of criminal lodgments not finalised > six months 432 382 415

Number of criminal lodgments not finalised > 12 months 152 100 132

Youth Court lodgment clearance rate 96.0% 102.0% 102.0%

Child adoptions 48 26 29

Care and Protection Unit child protection referrals (families) 560 483 445

Care and Protection Unit number of children referred 969 891 788

Family conference referrals 1 596 1 839 2 082

Family conference criminal finalisations 1 545 1 621 2 032

Family conference pending > six months 3.0% 3.0% 14.0%

Family conference pending > 12 months 1.0% 1.0% 3.0%

Number of Family conference lodgments pending > six months 9 10 55

Number of Family conference lodgments pending > 12 months 3 1 10

Family conference lodgment clearance rate n/a 88.0% 98.0%

The Youth Court incorporates Adelaide Youth Court and all suburban and regional Youth Courts across the State as well as a Family Conference Team and a Care and Protection Unit.

Role and functionThe Youth Court comprises two District Court judges (one designated as a senior judge) and two magistrates, all of whom are proclaimed by the Governor as judges and magistrates of the Youth Court. 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 hears minor indictable and summary offences and may sentence a young offender to no more than two years’ detention. General magistrates, who usually hear matters in magistrates courts, who are resident in a location or on circuit, may also hear youth matters.

In sentencing, the court considers securing the necessary care, correction and guidance of the youth, 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 that for adults, where the principle of general deterrence (not individual deterrence) is applied.

The court exercises criminal jurisdiction for offenders aged from 10–17 years for all charges except murder and manslaughter, or where, because of the gravity of the offence or a pattern of repeated offending, the court determines that the young person should be dealt with as an adult.

The court exercises a civil jurisdiction in applications for the care and protection of children. The court may make investigation and assessment orders and care and protection orders for up to a year and, in some cases, may place a child under the guardianship of the relevant minister until the child attains the age of 18. The court also hears applications for the adoption of children.

Family Conference TeamUnder the Young Offenders Act 1993, any offence meeting the criteria for diversion under the Act may be referred to a family conference. Youth justice coordinators convene these meetings.

A family conference allows the young person who has committed an offence to meet the victim of the offence and better understand the consequences of their offending behaviour. It also enables the young person to try to make amends and provides an opportunity to restore relationships between the young offender and people close to him or her as well as others affected by the offence. Those who must attend the conference are the offender, a police representative and a youth justice coordinator.


Other participants may include the offender’s parents or guardians, the victim and a person to support the victim. 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 do anything else that might be appropriate in the circumstances. These outcome options are provided for in the legislation and are individually mandated by decision of the conference.

Matters coming to family conferences are diverted from the Youth Court for resolution. If a young person attends and participates in a family conference they have the opportunity to resolve their offending behaviour without receiving a court record.

Care and Protection UnitThe Children’s Protection Act 1993 provides 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 to have suffered harm, and is mandatory before an application is made to the court for a care and protection order. Most referrals are made by Families SA, 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 relevant family members as possible are invited to the meeting, plus professionals who have provided services to the child or family, a Families SA representative, and a care and protection coordinator. The child’s wishes must 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

Youth Court

The Youth Court reports annually on all young people dealt with by the Court in its criminal jurisdiction, including youth matters heard by general magistrates in metropolitan and regional areas.

The number of criminal lodgments across the State has decreased by 2%. The court recorded a high disposal rate of 102% of cases within a year of initiation.

Around 79% of care and protection matters were finalised within six months of lodgment date. An application may include more than one child, therefore 629 lodgments for 2008–09 constituted 1 107 children. The figure below shows the numbers of child protection applications over the past three years.

Figure 1: Child protection applications

Family Conference Team

The Family Conference Team received 2 082 referrals during 2008–09; this is an increase of approximately 13% over the previous year. Of these matters, 2 032 (98%) were finalised.

Figure 2: Family Conference Team referrals

In approximately half of family conference matters, a victim, or a victim’s representative, attended the conference. The Family Conference Team managed 40% of family conference matters within eight weeks of receiving the referral.

Compliance with undertakings remains very high at 90% overall, including compliance with individual undertakings such as participating in community service or paying compensation.

Care and Protection Unit

The Care and Protection Unit received referrals for family care meetings for 788 children in 2008–09, from 445 family groups. This is an 11% decrease in referrals of children and an 8% decrease in referrals of families compared with the previous year.

About 81% of referrals proceeded to a meeting within eight weeks of receipt. The unit convened 384 family care meetings and 98 review meetings.

1120

1100

1080

1060

1040

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

1140

1160

1180

1200

1220

No.

of c

hild

ren

2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

1429 15871839

2082


YOUTH COURTContinued

Approximately 72% of meetings resulted in ‘valid decisions’ as defined under provisions of the Children’s Protection Act 1993. A valid decision is an outcome where arrangements for the care and protection of the child satisfy the concerns held by Families SA and have been agreed to by family members and the care and protection coordinator.

Figure 3: Referrals to Care and Protection Unit

A factor contributing to delay in relation to family care meetings is the unavailability of required assessment reports due to backlogs in other government agencies, which impacts on compliance with section 32(2) of the Children’s Protection Act. Since June 2007, there has been some improvement in report availability. This may be linked to the amendment of the Children’s Protection Act in October 2006, which increased the initial period of an Investigation and Assessment Order from four to six weeks.

Difficulties in obtaining cultural representation for Aboriginal children referred to family care meetings have continued. Under section 31(h) of the Children’s Protection Act a cultural representative nominated by a gazetted Aboriginal organisation must be invited to the meeting but, owing to a lack of gazetted organisations and funding issues within Aboriginal organisations, this role has not always been fulfilled.

Other Youth Court mattersIn 2007–08, judicial officers of the Youth Court remained unchanged, which enabled the court to consolidate and improve its efficiency. Changes were made to listing procedures in the criminal jurisdiction. It is too early to measure the result but early indications are positive. It is not known if the court can continue to operate efficiently with the same number of judicial officers as it has had for more than 20 years. This year has seen an increased reliance on auxiliary magistrates in the suburban courts.

Youth Justice Leadership Group

A Youth Justice Leadership Group reports directly to Cabinet about critical juvenile justice matters. The Youth Court continues to be represented at this committee. This year, emphasis was given to implementation of recommendations from the Break the Cycle report.

Youth Court strategic interface meetings

The Youth Court continues to meet as required with groups working in the field, to ensure strategic and operational matters are managed. This group includes Families SA Juvenile Justice and Child Protection Directors, the Manager, Aboriginal Services and SA Police Community Program Managers.

Training and exporting knowledge

The Youth Court judiciary continued to actively participate in training others and educational activities about the juvenile justice system. Examples include a conference on physiological aspects of children’s evidence, presentations to schools and community groups (including a ‘Grandparents for Grandchildren Association’), forums, magistrates’ conferences and presentations interstate. In addition, judicial officers meet with legal practitioners as issues arise. The Senior Judge this year also participated in South Pacific Council of Youth Courts. All areas of the Youth Court contribute to training for Families SA staff.

The Family Conference Team continues to maintain a national profile for expertise in juvenile justice conferencing by managing an electronic network for conference convenors across Australia. There are approximately 40 subscribers.

Team members continue to deliver public education sessions to the Law Society of SA, Flinders University Law School, University of SA School of Psychology and TAFE, and provide training to Victim Support Service volunteers, Families SA youth workers and SA Police, about the juvenile justice system and the role of conferencing in South Australia.

Youth CARDS

The Youth Court Assessment and Referral Drug Scheme (CARDS) has been operating since November 2005. The scheme targets young people (aged 12–18) appearing in the Youth Court or diverted to a family conference who have a drug or alcohol problem. The scheme aims to enhance the operation and outcomes of the juvenile justice system by providing direct referral into drug and alcohol assessment and treatment services and to reduce the risk of further drug-related offending and potential harm to self and others. The Office of Crime Statistics and Research recently published an evaluation of the pilot phase of the scheme, and although numbers were not sufficient for statistically significant outcomes, the evidence was encouraging in suggesting that Youth CARDS may reduce offending. (For more information about CARDS see the Magistrates Court section.)

800

600

400

200

0

2006–07

Families Children

2007–08 2008–09

1000


Continued

Table 1: Youth CARDS participation by gender

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09


Referrals 76 18 94 111 26 137 96 25 121

Assessments 68 16 84 102 16 118 95 29 124

Accepted 49 14 63 81 12 93 68 13 81

Completed 19 2 21 41 4 45 38 5 43

Still in treatment 11 6 17 34 2 36 12 5 17

% completed 45% 79% 67%

Table 2: Youth CARDS participation by Aboriginality

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Referrals 17 34 31


Accepted 11 25 22

Completed 4 9 14

Still in treatment 1 13 4

% completed 40% 75% 78%

Youth Court Diversion Program

The Youth Court Diversion Program commenced operating at the Youth Court in April 2008. The program is based on the Magistrates Court Diversion Program model, which targets adults with a mental impairment. The youth diversion targets young offenders who have a mental illness, intellectual disability, brain injury, personality disorder or neurological disorder. The program aims to assist the court in the identification and management of cases involving young offenders with mental impairment and to prevent further offending behaviour by ensuring effective interventions and treatment. It is also designed to be an alternative to using the legislated mental impairment defense.

Of youth referred in 2008–09 the primary diagnoses is mental illness (50%) and intellectual disability (41%) and personality disorder is the third group (9%).

There was a range of offence types, with larceny being the most prevalent.

Table 3: Youth Court Diversion Program participation by gender

2007–08^ 2008–09

M F Total M F Total

Referrals 3 1 4 26 5 31

Assessments 0 1 1 26 4 30

Accepted 0 1 1 19 3 22

Completed 0 0 0 6 1 7

* April to June 2008 only (program commenced in April 2008)


Table 4: Youth Court Diversion Program participation by Aboriginality

2007–08 2008–09

Referrals 0 2

Assessments 0 2

Accepted 0 1

Completed 0 1

Table 5: Youth Court Diversion Program offence types

2008–09

Larceny 7 31.8%

Alternative good order offence 4 18.2%

Assault non-family 3 13.6%

Robbery and extortion 2 9.1%

Trespass 2 9.1%

Assault police 1 4.5%

Driving offences 1 4.5%

Property damage and environmental offence 1 4.5%

Other 1 4.5%

Sentencing outcomes for 2008–09 largely reflected the aims of the program, with over half (four youths) having their matters dismissed, one youth had no conviction recorded and two youths had their matters referred for a hearing under section 269 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, which is used to determine whether that person is mentally fit to stand trial.

Records managementArchiving Youth Court files to State Records began this year, as a priority, due to a chronic lack of storage on-site. As most Youth Court records have now been deemed by State Records for permanent retention, yearly archiving will be necessary. However, there remains a backlog of files.

Five years of court files, two years of family care meeting files and two years of family conference files have been archived. Once the backlog of files has been archived, the Youth Court will be in a position to store all State adoption register books, which are currently stored at individual registries throughout the State.

YOUTH COURTContinued


ContinuedCORONER’S COURT

At a glance 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Staff* **15.4 **15 **15

Deaths reported 1 880 1 899 2 099

Post-mortems 1 285 1 221 1 571

Inquest findings delivered 30 38 33

Court sitting hours 808 465 339

* Does not include judicial officers

** Plus two counsel assisting

Role and functionThe Coroner’s Court is responsible for investigating deaths that are reportable pursuant to the Coroner’s Act 2003. ‘Reportable deaths’ include those occurring from unexpected, unnatural, violent or unknown cause, within 24 hours of surgical and certain other medical procedures, within 24 hours of discharge from hospital, whilst a person is in custody, and of protected persons.

The Act also requires the State Coroner to provide an annual report to the Attorney-General and to parliament and requires a relevant minister or agency to report on action taken in response to findings and recommendations made on an inquest into a death in custody.

Mr Mark Johns is the State Coroner and Mr Tony Schapel is the Deputy State Coroner, and they are supported by two counsel assisting.

The Coroner’s Court also has a social work service, which provides short-term counselling to family and friends of the deceased. This service also works with next of kin where organs are to be retained during post-mortem examination.

WorkloadThere was a slight increase in the number of deaths reported to the State Coroner in 2008–09 compared to the previous year.

There were 12 729 deaths registered with the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Of those, 2099 deaths were reported to the State Coroner. The heatwave experienced in January/February 2009 resulted in a sharp increase in deaths reported during that period.

The number of inquest findings (33) decreased slightly in 2008–09. The number of court sitting hours (339) fell slightly compared to 2007–08.

Four inquests were held in country regions (two in Port Lincoln, one each in Ceduna and Mount Gambier) during the financial year.

Listing delaysAs at 30 June 2009, there were 32 inquests awaiting hearing in the Coroner’s Court, including 19 cases involving a death in custody. There were 1 643 open cases pending inquiry. These cases are at varying levels of investigation. Some may progress to a review by counsel assisting the State Coroner and the Coronial Investigation Section (a unit within South Australia Police, often referred to as ‘coronial police’). As at 30 June 2008, Senior Counsel Assisting and

Counsel Assisting had 177 cases under high-level investigation with an additional 51 cases under investigation by coronial police.

RecommendationsIn inquest findings, the State Coroner may include recommendations that advocate measures to reduce the likelihood of the occurrence of a similar event. In the year under review, the court heard 42 inquests and delivered 33 findings. Of the inquests heard, 20 were inquiries into deaths in custody.

During the year, the State Coroner, and Deputy State Coroner made a number of recommendations as a result of those inquests. Details of each of these appear in the Coroner’s annual report to the Parliament. Examples of those recommendations appear below.

That the Commissioner of Police establish a panel to investigate the appropriateness or otherwise of police officers pursuing motorcyclists at high speed.

That the relevant government ministers consider the introduction of legislation that would prevent the registration of vehicles in the names of persons who are not licensed to drive vehicles of the kind sought to be registered; and that the relevant ministers at the same time consider the introduction of legislation that would render it an offence for the registered owner of a vehicle knowingly to cause or permit an unlicensed person to operate that vehicle.

That the Minister for Health, in conjunction with other stakeholders and interested entities, cause training programs to be directed towards the education of general practitioners, and in particular those general practitioners who are practising or who aspire to practise in country areas, as to the following:

a) the importance of informing oneself of and examining a patient’s risk factors for heart disease when considering, determining and identifying presentations of acute coronary syndrome;

b) the importance of conducting a global risk assessment when endeavouring to identify an acute coronary syndrome that takes into account, on a global in-the-round basis, the patient’s risk factors for heart disease and the patient’s symptomatology;

c) the importance of general practitioners having regard to observations made by paramedics of patients presenting with suspected acute coronary syndrome;


d) the importance of obtaining, if possible, records of previous presentations of the patient that might be relevant to the identification of an acute coronary syndrome, for example, a previous electrocardiogram (‘ECG’) taken in respect of the patient;

e) the need to study and understand the relevant protocols, guidelines and clinical pathways that are available to general practitioners;

f) the need rigorously to follow the acute coronary syndrome diagnostic pathways to their conclusion, with particular emphasis in respect of cases where the Low Risk Protocol has been embarked upon;

g) the importance of general practitioners considering what might be the worst case scenario when a patient presents with chest pain and/or other symptoms of an acute coronary syndrome; and the importance of identifying with some certainty an explanation for those symptoms before dismissing them as not being due to an acute coronary syndrome;

h) to promote amongst general practitioners, especially those who practise in country areas, and especially those who have been trained overseas, greater knowledge, skill and confidence in interpreting ECGs;

i) to promote a greater understanding amongst general practitioners of the need to compare ECGs within a series so as to more readily identify the presence of, and significance of, ECG changes within that series;

j) to promote a greater understanding amongst general practitioners of the need to identify occasions upon which there is a need to refer ECGs for expert specialist interpretation such as that provided by Integrated Cardiovascular Clinical Network SA (‘iCCNet’); and to promote a greater awareness of the availability of such specialist services;

k) the importance of providing patients with sufficient information to enable them to make fully-informed decisions as to whether they should receive further diagnostic measures and treatment in respect of a suspected acute coronary syndrome;

l) the importance of general practitioners understanding the pathophysiology involved in an acute coronary syndrome.

That the Commissioner of Police take the necessary steps to ensure that (a) detained persons under the Mental Health Act 1993 who have left their places of detention without permission are not regarded as missing persons simpliciter but are regarded as persons who are unlawfully at large and liable to be apprehended under the law and that (b) the necessary vigour is brought to bear in order to facilitate the return of a detained person to his or her place of detention.

That the Department of Health give consideration to the provision of further education to all emergency doctors and specialist physicians in relation to the signs and symptoms and appropriate clinical management of acute brain attacks in young adults.

That the Minister for Health and the Minister for Consumer Affairs cause the necessary legislation or subordinate legislation to be enacted that would (a) prescribe mandatory safety standards in respect of the supply and sale of corded internal window coverings and (b) mandate the fixation to those products of warnings concerning the hazards presented by those products.

That the State Government:

a) acknowledge the efforts made by South Australia Police (‘SAPOL’) to date to control petrol sniffing in Yalata Indigenous Protected Area, and to engage in positive community policing activities;

b) give consideration to the construction of a police station with safe cells at Yalata;

c) give consideration to the implementation of a drug diversion program for petrol sniffers along the lines of the programs that are available to Drug Diversion Courts in other parts of the State;

d) give consideration to the establishment of a drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre at Yalata;

e) give consideration to the construction of a remand facility at Yalata;

f) maintain support for existing community programs and that it considers the institution of further community programs, such as camps for youths to learn traditional practices from elders.

That the Department for Correctional Services review the system of home detention bail with particular attention to the logistical difficulties imposed in ensuring proper supervision of bailees in regional areas.

Other mattersIn the year under review, the State Coroner, the Deputy State Coroner and senior staff continued to provide information and education about requirements under the Coroner’s Act 2003 to medical practitioners, nurses, funeral directors, police, the legal profession and the wider community.

The Coroner’s Court continued to maintain close links with the National Coroners Information System (‘NCIS’), contributing to improvements in quality assurance processes, data entry, timeliness, awareness and use of the system.

The goals and objectives of the Coroner’s Court Business Plan developed in line with the Strategic Plan of the CAA were achieved, ensuring continuous improvement in services to families, and comprehensive investigation and timely reporting of all coronial findings.

This year, the State Coroner hosted the Asia-Pacific Coroner’s Society Conference, which attracted 136 participants, including several interstate and overseas visitors. Participants were experts in the fields of forensic pathology, medicine, law, academic research and law enforcement. The keynote speaker was Lord Justice Scott Baker, who had recently completed his duties as the coroner inquiring into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Mr Dodi Al Fayed. Lord Baker explored issues relating to long and highly-publicised inquests.

CORONER’S COURTContinued


ContinuedSHERIFF’S OFFICE

Role and function of the SheriffThe Sheriff is a statutory officer appointed pursuant to the Sheriff ’s Act 1978 on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The office of the Sheriff can be traced back in English history for more than 1 000 years. The Sheriff ’s Office was first established by the Supreme Court Act 1837, which provided that the court should have ministerial and other officers as might be necessary for the administration of justice in the court and for the execution of judgments and other orders.

These functions have expanded to include administration of the Juries Act 1927; in-court support service; court security service; prisoner security service; and service and execution of civil and criminal processes.

The Sheriff has 132 uniformed officers trained in all aspects of the work of the Sheriff, including provision of emergency services, security, prisoner security and in-court support; 110 enforcement officers who serve and execute civil and criminal orders throughout South Australia; and 12 administrative officers located within the Sheriff ’s Office providing administrative support for the functions undertaken.

Prisoner movement The South Australian Prisoner Movement and In-Court Management Contract (‘SAPMICM’) is in its final year. G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd (‘G4S’), as the contractor, is responsible for prisoner movement and in-court management for all courts in South Australia, except in the Supreme Court and District Court (sitting in the Sir Samuel Way Building), where the Sheriff manages prisoners. Representatives from the Justice Portfolio Contract Management Group and the Sheriff ’s Office meet monthly to monitor the contract. On-site compliance audits on the contractor’s operations are conducted regularly. The Sheriff ’s Office has been involved with a prisoner movement contract steering committee to assess tenders and make recommendations to Cabinet on the successful tender for the next contract which is to commence on 1 July 2009.

In 2008–9 a total of 14 213 Department of Correctional Services prisoners were transported to various courts in South Australia. G4S provided in-court management for 11 033 prisoners. Sheriff ’s officers undertook the in-court management for 3 324 prisoners within the Sir Samuel Way Building. G4S transported and managed 1 847 young offenders at the Adelaide Youth Court.

Enforcement The Sheriff is responsible for the service and execution of civil and criminal (pecuniary) enforcement orders across the State.

Enforcement sheriff ’s officers are appointed pursuant to the Sheriff ’s Act to serve and execute civil and criminal processes on behalf of the Sheriff and are paid a fee for service for each process served and executed. Officers are subject to terms and conditions of a contract which may be extended annually up to a maximum of three years, based on acceptable performance. The instrument to appoint officers has been reviewed by the Crown Solicitor’s Office and endorsed by the State Courts Administration Council.

Officers serve and execute processes forwarded directly from the Sheriff ’s Office or under the direction of registrars of the Magistrates Court, who are appointed as deputy sheriffs.

The following tables show the number of summonses and warrants issued from Magistrates Court registries and the success rate for the service and execution of those processes.

Civil summonses and civil warrants (Magistrates Courts)

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Summonses issued (successfully served)*

19 416 (83%)

19 560 (83%)

14 374 (85%)

Warrants issued (successfully executed)+

5 583 (66%)

5 703 (69%)

4 272 (60%)

* Summonses include investigation/examination summonses and summons to witness

+ Warrants include warrants of sale, arrest, possession and commitment

Fines Payment Unit warrants

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Order for sale – warrant of arrest issued (successfully executed)

2 054 (54%)

2 747 (48%)

1 406 (61%)

A successfully-executed warrant means it has been paid, goods seized or the debtor is arrested and presented to the Fines Payment Unit for assessment.

SecuritySheriff ’s Office business continuity plans for critical loss of staff and failure of security systems were reviewed for each court site.

The electronic security access systems for the Sir Samuel Way Building and Supreme Court precinct was reviewed and enhanced to maintain the integrity of the buildings during an after hours fire alarm.

Sheriff ’s Office has participated in the Sturt Street Court Redevelopment Implementation Working Group and provided advice on issues associated with precinct security, prisoner movement and jury management.

Ongoing training concerning minimum restraint and accredited non-violent crisis intervention (NVCI) for dealing with aggressive clients was provided to sheriff ’s officers.

Managers from the Sheriff ’s Office and members of the Justice Portfolio Contract Branch audited operational tasks undertaken by G4S staff within court precincts under the SAPMICM contract. Audits ensure that documented safe operating procedures within the contract are being adhered to.

Operational safety and restraint refresher training continued to be delivered throughout the year for metropolitan and country sheriff ’s officers. Every 18 months metropolitan officers are required to undertake refresher training and block assignments for two weeks in court security, prisoner security or in-court management.


Point of entry searches conducted by location

Location Number of searches conducted

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Sir Samuel Way Building 344 027 320 150 321 633

Adelaide Magistrates Court 273 741 270 394 270 537

Coroners Court 9 433 8 772 5 364

Adelaide Youth Court 70 704 57 202 51 252

Holden Hill Magistrates Court 106 469 110 404 116 433

Elizabeth Magistrates Court 171 968 202 220 205 119

Port Adelaide Magistrates Court 118 642 125 045 132 272

Christies Beach Magistrates Court 108 024 107 952 116 180

Mount Gambier Magistrates Court 57 718 60 143 65 446

Port Augusta* 13 100 47 221 51 615

Supreme Court 52 719 49 730 53 034

Total 1 326 545 1 359 233 1 388 885

* Port Augusta courthouse figures available from 2 April 2007 only.

Weapons and inappropriate items detected

Location Items confiscated Items temporarily removed

at point of entry

Persons leaving court precinct prior to a point

of entry search

2007–08 2008–09 2007–08 2008–09 2007–08 2008–09

Sir Samuel Way Building 0 1 592 626 30 25

Adelaide Magistrates Court 0 0 2 339 2 521 65 55

Coroners Court 0 0 3 2 1 1

Adelaide Youth Court 1 0 133 149 6 0

Holden Hill Magistrates Court 0 0 918 1 075 0 0

Elizabeth Magistrates Court 0 1 1 787 1 920 0 0

Port Adelaide Magistrates Court 2 0 1 138 1 139 3 0

Christies Beach Magistrates Court 0 0 310 317 2 1

Mount Gambier Magistrates Court 1 1 191 378 8 18

Port Augusta* 1 0 420 397 4 0

Supreme Court 0 0 115 156 10 7

Total 5 3 7 946 8 680 129 107

The total number of weapons/inappropriate items detected through point of entry search remains at less than 1% of the total number of searches conducted across all locations.

SHERIFF’S OFFICEContinued


Report on incidents

Incident 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Needles found 75 48 50

Bomb threats 0 0 0

Duress alarms 320 254 261

Escapes 0 0 0

Attempted escapes 0 1 0

Security attendance 505 379 383

Emergency alarms 2 6 1

First aid emergency 18 14 17

Violent encounters 5 8 4

Removal from court 31 10 23

Remand in custody escorts 96 145 142

Prisoner production 16 49 53

Witness protection 42 30 17

Arrest/Report 2 5 5

Total 1 112 949 956

Continued

JuriesRemuneration payable to jurors was amended by the Juries (Remuneration for Jury Service) Variation Regulations 2007. This allows for the amounts payable to be adjusted by the indexation factor applicable for the financial year. Amounts payable as at 1 July 2008 increased travel expenses from 0.60c per kilometre to 0.62c per km and the maximum amount payable to jurors per day from $125 to $128.

The Sheriff ’s Office continues to conduct quarterly surveys with jurors who have completed their service in 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, they felt they had contributed to the administration of justice in South Australia.

In their responses to surveys, 92% of Adelaide jurors and 92% of country jurors said they found the information provided in the juror information and employer brochures to be helpful or extremely helpful; 85% of Adelaide jurors and 93% of country jurors said their induction address and a judicial induction video were helpful or extremely helpful; 87% of Adelaide jurors and 81% of country jurors said the facilities provided were comfortable or very comfortable; 20% of Adelaide jurors and 10% of country jurors said they were out of pocket as a result of jury service; 98% of Adelaide jurors and 100% of country jurors said they received payments in a timely manner; 91% of Adelaide jurors and 93% of country jurors said they felt they had performed a valuable service to their community by serving as a juror.

The juror survey responses have led to several improvements in services to jurors. New hot beverage facilities have been placed in the Sir Samuel Way Building jury lounge and written material that is provided to jurors (prior to and at induction) has been reviewed and amended. Daily jury message by email, short message service (SMS) text, free-call recorded message and daily notice published in The Advertiser continue to be provided to jurors in Adelaide to provide timely information on attendance requirements or changes to prior advice on any day.

Work has been undertaken on redeveloping the electronic Jury Election Management system to a web based application in order to achieve cost efficiencies for the CAA. The redeveloped system has allowed opportunities to improve system functionality and will be available for use in July 2009.

The Sheriff and Jury Manager continue to be available for community meetings and service clubs as guest speakers. The Jury Manager continues to be available to student groups visiting the Sir Samuel Way Building. In addition, information is regularly supplied to students searching the CAA website for research and project information.

Counselling continues to be made available for jurors who feel traumatised as a result of court proceedings in which they have been involved, and three jurors accessed this service during the reporting period.


Protective Security Management FrameworkOn 7 April 2008 Cabinet approved the South Australian Government Protective Security Management Framework (PSMF), which specifies minimum standards required to protect assets (including human resources and information). Appointments have been made within the CAA to the positions of Agency Security Executive (Sheriff), Agency Security Advisor (Deputy Sheriff) and Information Technology Security Advisor (Manager, Information Technology Services). Police Security Services Branch has facilitated training about the PSMF.

Work has been undertaken to prepare a security policy and to draft an agency security plan along with supporting procedural information. A security action plan is being developed, as a number of actions will require considerable time and resources to implement.

A gap analysis has been undertaken against 313 minimum standards contained in the PSMF and, as at 30 June 2009, 35% were achieved, 29% were outstanding and 36% did not apply to the CAA. A further 456 recommended standards are still to be assessed.

SHERIFF’S OFFICEContinued


ContinuedLIBRARY SERVICE

The CAA provides a comprehensive library service to ensure access to relevant information sources that support the proper administration of justice.

The mission of the Library Service is to ensure timely, accurate and complete access to information sources, by providing comprehensive research and reference services. The Library Service also recognises its role as the principal law library within South Australia.

Overview of the collectionThe Library Service is made up of several collections. The main collection is located in the Supreme Court (which is open to the public) and the Sir Samuel Way Libraries. Other smaller, specifically targeted collections are maintained at Adelaide Magistrates Court, suburban and regional courts, specialist courts and in judges’ chambers. The major jurisdictions represented in the library collections are the Australian Commonwealth, states and territories and the United Kingdom. Print and electronic formats are available. The use of resources in electronic format is becoming increasingly popular.

Table 1: Volums held by CAA Library Service

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Total volumes 181 780 183 702 185 852

Survey of library usersIn November 2008, the library’s user groups were surveyed for commentary on several aspects of service offered. The rationale behind the survey was to gain quantitative and qualitative information that would assist library staff to better understand the information needs and preferences of Library users and to review the extent to which the library meets the needs of its users.

More than 80% of respondents rated library resources and access as good or excellent and 92% rated the staff as good or excellent. Pleasingly, more than 90% of respondents said they were at least satisfied with resources, access and staff. The aged infrastructure of the Supreme Court Library Building was reflected in the fact that 84% of respondents rated the amenity of the building as only ‘satisfactory’. The survey results serve as a foundation against which to measure satisfaction with services and facilities in future. Another survey is planned for 2012.

Replacement operating softwareA business case has been approved to purchase a modern automated library information management system. The library relies on a system that is 18-years-old, which is becoming inefficient and unreliable. It is anticipated the procurement process will commence shortly.


COURT TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES

Court Transcription Services (‘CTS’) is responsible for the provision of quality reporting and transcription services to the participating courts of the CAA. The branch has 78 (60.9 full-time-equivalent) staff, comprising court reporters (Court Reporter Services or ‘CRS’), audio recorders (Audio Transcription Services or ‘ATS’) and management/administration.

CTS concentrates on the production and delivery of transcript in accordance with established service levels, providing quality transcript that meets accuracy and style requirements effectively and efficiently.

Support providedIn the year under review CTS provided the following support.

Table 1: Support provided by CTS

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

CRS ATS CRS ATS CRS ATS

In-court hours 9 533 3 425 8 905 3 129 8 813 3 072

Pages of transcript produced 244 758 71 902 226 261 76 358 215 229 79 465

Initiatives undertakenIn 2008–09, two significant initiatives were advanced. A review of service levels will be undertaken once these two initiatives near completion.

Digital audio technology

CTS continued its lead role in the implementation of digital audio technology across the State courts. This technology replaces aging analogue equipment and, following the installation of 36 digital audio units last year, a further 22 units were purchased this year. More than half of all State courts will have digital audio recording equipment installed by the end of 2009. This will be lifted to 65% with the proposal to install a further 13 units in the next financial year.

Electronic Transcript Management System (ETMS)

Redevelopment of the existing ETMS commenced in 2009. The upgraded system will ensure greater capability to store both print and voice-file transcript.


A major goal within the CAA Strategic Plan is to Develop, attract and retain an appropriately-skilled and diverse workforce. In the year under review, emphasis was given to the areas of organisational learning and development; and occupational health, safety, welfare and injury management. Resources were also directed to develop, implement and review policies, procedures and guidelines within the CAA Human Resources Policy Framework and into organisational workforce planning.

Learning and developmentA new CAA Learning and Development Framework and Program began in January 2009. The CAA envisions the creation of a learning culture to ensure its staff members develop skills and knowledge required to excel in their work. The CAA is committed to providing its members of staff with attractive learning and development opportunities.

The Learning and Development Program is set within a framework of four areas of organisational learning: core skills development, leadership capability, strategic capability and corporate governance. Within each area there are activities to support managers and staff in the performance of their work.

The program delivered a total of 16 workshops attended by 190 participants.

Occupational health, safety, welfare and injury management WorkCover auditors performed an evaluation against WorkCover Performance Standards for Self-Insurers during May 2009. The auditors noted many improvements since their last examination in 2007 and also identified several examples of superior performance. An external legislative and work instruction compliance audit of injury management systems was also undertaken in April 2009. An Occupational Health, Safety, Welfare and Injury Management (‘OHSW&IM’) Action Plan was developed to deal with problem areas.

The Hazard and Incident Reporting System (‘HIRS’) has been in use for more than a year, enabling the CAA to monitor emerging OHSW issues and to put in place measures that ensure provision of a safe and healthy working environment for all employees and members of the judiciary.

The OHSW&IM system was advanced this year with all system documentation made available on the CAA intranet. Additional enhancements introduced throughout the year included an online Hazardous Substances Register, Corrective Actions Register and site logs throughout the state.

An internal audit team was established and two rounds of internal audits have been completed, with corrective action taken where required.

An influenza vaccination program was conducted between April and June 2009 as part of a wellbeing program for all employees and the members of the judiciary. The program was well supported with more than 350 participants from across the CAA.

Following the worldwide outbreak of H1N1 virus, a corporate Infection Control Information Pack was developed and promulgated throughout the CAA in June 2009, providing information on infection control and good hygiene practices for all.

The CAA employee assistance program for employees and immediate family for work-related and non-work related issues that may impact on work was well utilised.

Recruitment Human Resources developed procedures and guidelines to assist with the recruitment of high quality applicants. A new procedure was developed and implemented for undertaking criminal history checks to meet legislative requirements and to ensure new employees to the public sector meet code of conduct expectations. A criminal history clearance is required for new employees when the position is declared as a prescribed position under the Children’s Protection Act 1993, and/or the successful applicant is employed externally to State, local or Federal Government.

Procedures were implemented for the filling of vacancies and staff selection to assist with the recruitment process following a review of the Filling of Vacancy Policy.

Performance managementPerformance management feedback meetings are conducted annually with approximately 55% of all staff having individual performance plans. The existing program is under review. Some practices are expected to change in 2009–10.

Workforce planningA Transition to Retirement Guideline was developed as part of the SA public sector’s strategy to retain older workers. This strategy enables eligible employees to reduce hours of work or responsibility whilst maintaining their income level through their superannuation.

EmploymentThe CAA has 803 members of staff (excluding judiciary) representing the equivalent of 724.9 full-time equivalent employees. Of these, 32% are male and 68% female. During 2008–09, 129 employees (including associates on 12-month contracts) were recruited and 131 separated from the CAA including Associates.

Vacancies were advertised internally within the CAA or through the Public Sector Notice of Vacancies. Of 90 vacancies, 40 were advertised outside of the public service due to positions being specialised in nature, difficult to recruit for or based in a country location. Applicants recruited externally from the Public Service consisted of sheriff ’s officers, magistrates clerks, coronial services officers and staff in specialist skills areas of occupational health and safety, court transcription services, psychology and information technology. Most successful applicants were recruited externally from the CAA.

HUMAN RESOURCES


Table 1: Number of employees by salary bracket

Salary bracket ($) Male Female Total

0–47 999 113 185 298

48 000–60 999 72 245 317

61 000–78 199 43 105 148

78 200–98 499 19 12 31

98 500 and above 5 4 9

Total 252 551 803

The CAA has six male and three female executives, all on untenured contracts.

LeaveTable 2: Average number of days leave taken per full-time-equivalent employee

Leave type 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Sick leave 8.8 8.6 9.3

Family carer’s leave 1 1.1 1.2

Special leave with pay 2 0.9 1.1

The Carers Recognition Act 2005 ensures all employees who have carer responsibilities are recognised and this is promoted through the provisions of family care leave and other types of leave and flexible working arrangements to care for family members.

Profile of the workforceFigure 1 below provides an overview of the age of the workforce over the past two years.

HUMAN RESOURCESContinued

Age profile of CAA and SA public sector employees

The median age for staff has fallen slightly again, to 44.4 years, which is generally consistent with the public sector average of just over 44 years. The profile is compared to the 2009 Workforce Benchmark sourced from Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Demographics Statistics, South Australia at May 2009.

0.00

8.00

10.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

15– 19

20– 24

30– 34

35– 39

40– 44

45– 49

50– 54

55– 59

60– 64

65+25– 29

Total % of CAA employees 2009

Total % of CAA employees 2008

Workforce Benchmark 2009

Age of employees

% o

f em

ploy

ees


Continued

Flexible working arrangementsPart-time work and flexitime continue to be the most commonly used options, as shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Employee uptake of voluntary flexible working arrangements

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09

Purchased leave 0 1 1

Flexitime 485 514 433

Compressed weeks 15 11 7

Part-time (including job share)

96 93 85

Working from home *24 *23 17

* Reflects the inclusion of ad hoc working from home arrangements

Indigenous employeesThe number of employees identifying as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent has remained stable. During 2008–09 there were 20 employees compared with 21 as at June 2008. This represents 2.4% of the CAA’s employees and continues to surpass the target of 2% for government agencies set in the South Australian Strategic Plan.

DisabilityThe CAA has 13 employees who have identified as having disabilities requiring workplace adaptation, representing 1.8% of the total workforce.

Activities to support court users with disabilitiesInterpreters from Deaf SA were used to interpret in court and for profoundly deaf staff. In the year under review, interpreters from Deaf SA were used for 36 court matters and seven times for staff meetings.

RehabilitationThree new rehabilitation cases for work injured employees were opened this year which is five less than for 2007–08. One employee made a full return to work. The remaining two did not lose any time from work, as assistance in the workplace was provided to support them during their recovery.

Workers’ compensationTwenty-six new claims for workers’ compensation benefits were received, representing a decrease of four claims compared with 2007–08. This was due in part to early interventions designed to provide suitable alternative duties for injured employees.

Nine injury claims were accepted for medical expenses only, 16 were for various periods of lost time and one claim was rejected. This is a decrease of two lost-time injuries compared to the 2007–08 financial year.

Table 4 below highlights the type of injuries.

Table 4: Injury mechanisms by percentage

Injury mechanism %

Muscular stress while handling objects 20

Psychological disorders 12

Repetitive movement, low muscle loading 16

Muscular stress with no objects being handled 8

Falls on the same level 12

Muscular stress while carrying or moving objects 8

Falls from a height 12

Exposure to occupational violence 4

Hitting stationary objects 4

Exposure to single sudden sound 4

Total 100

Equal employment opportunity (EEO) programsParticipation continued in EEO strategies such as Aboriginal recruitment and development and the employment of people with disabilities. During the past year, two employees were recruited to the District Court through the Disability Works Scheme and two employees commenced with Court Services Division through the Aboriginal Employment Initiatives.

Conduct and disciplineDuring 2008–09 four notices of inquiry were served, resulting in a range of disciplinary penalties under section 58 of the Public Sector Management Act 1995.

Overseas travelDuring 2008–08, one judicial officer attended a conference in Samoa at a cost of $4 606. One non judicial officer traveled to the USA for specialist drug offender training at a cost of $7 869.


INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES

The Information Technology Services (‘ITS’) Branch provides support and development services, and manages third-party service providers in the use of information technology within the courtroom and other areas of the CAA.

Improved services and processes

Audio visual link (AVL)

The Justice Business Services Division of the Attorney-General’s Department and the CAA continued a project concerning AVL conferencing within courtrooms. AVL conferencing facilities offer support and improvements in the areas of prisoner movement, the giving of evidence by vulnerable and remote witnesses and presentation of evidence in courts. To date, business processes have been developed and facilities have been installed or upgraded at the Magistrates Courts and higher courts and at Port Augusta and Mount Gambier. The project will continue in 2009–10.

Suppression order system

Design and development work was completed on a system to manage suppression orders. Implementation of the system is expected in the first half of the next financial year.

CAA data warehouse

A data warehouse was established to replace an existing externally-provided service, to allow greater accessibility and ownership of the data by courts personnel and leading to greater use of reports.

Bail process improvement

Design and specification work was undertaken in a Justice Portfolio Project to improve the management of the bail process. This will require extensive modification to its Criminal Case Management System (‘CCMS’) to allow existing and historical bail information to be available when making decisions about bail.

Infrastructure

Desktop

Approximately a quarter of personal computers in the CAA were replaced during the year, along with many printers and a third of ‘thin client’ networked computers.

Storage area network

The Courts Administration Authority implemented a storage area network (SAN) to replace its existing computer storage. This SAN provides infrastructure to store existing files as well as those from new initiatives such as digital audio transcription services and video-linking/conferencing.

Server replacement

Computer servers were replaced. These servers provide the platform for running the CAA’s Civil Case Management System (CCMS), and for general operations within the CAA, such as file and print.

Communications network

The communication network in the Adelaide central business district was further upgraded to provide better response times as well as access to the Internet and State Government network. Upgrades to improve the speed of links to Elizabeth, Holden Hill, Christies Beach and Port Augusta courtrooms were also undertaken, with Port Augusta’s communications link now operating at the same speed as that available for users within in the metropolitan area.


GREENING OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Energy reportTable 1: Performance against annual energy use targets

Energy Use (GJ)

Business Measures

Base year 2000–01 37 023 491 MJ/sq m

2008–09 27 964 343 MJ/sq m

Agency target for 2008–09 32 143

n/a

Agency target for 2014 27 767 n/a

Note1: Figures presented in Table 1 above reflect energy (natural gas and electricity) consumed only in buildings owned and leased by the CAA.

Note 2: The energy accounts for three sites were estimated as invoices had not been received at the time of writing this report.

Achievements and Activities

The CAA performed a number of tasks this year to reduce its environmental footprint. The CAA acted on results (where feasible) of an energy audit at the Youth Court in Adelaide. Low energy LED lighting was installed in Magistrates Courts at Elizabeth and Port Adelaide and power factor correction equipment was installed at Adelaide Magistrates Court. A re-lamping program in the CBD and metropolitan facilities continued, with efficient tri-phosphor lamps. Single flush toilet cisterns were replaced with dual flush cisterns, in an ongoing replacement program. The CAA recycles office furniture as much as possible before disposal via salvage. The Manager, Facilities participates actively in the Justice Energy Managers Network.

Asbestos management report 2008–09 Table 1: Asbestos status of CAA sites

Category* Number of sites Description**

Start of year

End of year

1 0 0 Remove

2 3 2 Remove as soon as practicable

3 2 3 Use care during maintenance

4 11 8 Monitor condition

5 10 3 No asbestos identified/identified asbestos removed

6 6 0 Further information required

* Based on lowest item performance score at each site

** As per OHS&W Regulations (SA) 1995, 4.2.10

Additional information

The CAA asbestos register for all owned sites is updated annually. The CAA has policies and procedures to manage asbestos within CAA assets. The CAA uses only licensed and pre-qualified contractors via a whole-of-government facilities management contract to remove asbestos from CAA assets.


The number and types of applications processed under the Freedom of Information Act 1991 (‘FOI Act’) for the period 2008–09 are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Applications processed under FOI Act

2008–09

Applications for access 74

Applications for internal review 1

Applications for amendment of record 4

Total payments received $294.25

Policy documents CAA policy statements are available dealing with the following topics: Business continuity; CAA representation on external committees; Complaints; Courts volunteer service policy and guidelines; Effective workplace performance; Employment of staff; Entertainment; Ethical research; Financial budgets; Fixed asset management policy; ICT resource policy; Library collection; Media; Occupational Health, Safety & Welfare; Policy guidelines for public speaking for staff of CAA; Provision of default judgment information; Provision of published reasons for judgment; Remuneration and conditions of employment; Revenue recognition policy; Risk management policy and framework; Security policy.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REPORT

Information statementsDocuments can be inspected free of charge during business hours. Policy statements can be obtained free of charge. For other documents a moderate purchase or per page photocopying fee applies.

It should be noted that, pursuant to Schedule 1 of the FOI Act, documents relating to judicial functions of courts and tribunals are exempt documents.

A person desiring to access documents held by a court or tribunal may contact the Registrar of the particular court or tribunal for information.

Contact arrangementsApplications under the FOI Act for access to documents held by the CAA or for amendment of personal record should be accompanied by a $27.75 application fee and directed to The Freedom of Information Officer, Courts Administration Authority, GPO Box 1068, Adelaide, SA 5001. A reduction in the fee payable may be applicable in certain circumstances.

Enquiries can be directed to the Freedom of Information Officer during business hours on telephone (08) 8226 0103 or facsimile (08) 8226 0137.


FINANCIAL OVERVIEW

2008–09 Financial PerformanceThe Authority’s operations for the year ended 30 June 2009 resulted in a net surplus with income and appropriation revenue exceeding expenditure by $0.5 million.

Income increased by $0.3 million in 2008–09. The income from sales of goods and services and grants and transfers was comparable with the previous year whereas revenues from fees and charges increased by $0.3 million. The increase in the delivery of summonses and licence disqualification notices by Sheriff Officers was the main stimulus for the increase in revenues from fees and charges.

Salary and wage related expenses were approximately $3.1 million higher than the previous financial year mainly due to wage increases, staff appointments associated with the Government’s

Road Safety initiative and the Major Criminal Case Backlog Reduction Program.

In addition to this the Authority was able to maintain its staffing levels compared to the previous year when for part of 2007–08 it operated well below established staff levels due to difficulties in recruiting specialist staff.

Supplies and services expenses were approximately $1.3 million higher than the previous financial year and can be attributed to CPI increases, increased coronial costs due to more autopsies and toxicology examinations being undertaken and higher juror costs. Increases in accommodation, circuit and travel costs were offset by decreases in purchases of essential equipment and computing costs.

Depreciation costs increased during the year by $0.5 million when compared to the previous year mainly due to an increase in the purchase of computing equipment that occurred during 2008–09.

Account Payment Performance

Particulars Number of accounts paid % Value in $A of accounts paid %

Paid by due date 238 630 96 183 923 444 96

Paid late and paid < 30 days from due date 3 918 1 5 984 265 3

Paid late and paid > 30 days from due date 6 326 3 2 453 958 1

The above table highlights that the Authority paid 97% of all invoices within 30 days of the invoice date. This percentage is consistent with previous years’ accounts payable performance.

ConsultanciesExpenditure on consultancies amounted to $134 000 during 2008–09 compared to $119 000 the previous year. Refer to note 6 to the Financial Statements for more detail.

Contractual ArrangementsThere was one new major contractual arrangement entered into during 2008–09. Based on negotiations held at a Whole of Government level, the Authority signed a customer services agreement with Telstra for the provision of phone services.

Corporate Governance StatementThe State Courts Administration Council has worked to ensure that there is a framework in place to promote good governance that encourages and promotes sound management practices. To this end the State Courts Administrator (SCA) established the Courts Administration Authority (CAA) Audit and Risk Management Committee (committee) in November 2007.

The committee provides independent assurance and assistance to the SCA on the CAA’s risk, control and compliance framework, business ethics, efficiency and effectiveness of business policies and practices and its internal and external accountability responsibilities. The committee updates the State Courts Administration Council and Executive Management Committee on the status of the Authority’s governance framework.


Note2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Expenses

Employee benefit expenses 5 48,122 45,043

Supplies and services 6 31,218 29,905

Depreciation and amortisation expenses 7 5,661 5,125

Borrowing costs 8 1,155 1,205

Net loss from the disposal of assets 15 – 92

Other expenses 9 732 575

Total Expenses 86,888 81,945

Income

Revenues from fees and charges 13 4,873 4,610

Sale of goods and services 12 710 737

Grants and transfers 11 1,130 1,106

Commonwealth revenue 14 14 –

Total Income 6,727 6,453

Net cost of providing services 80,161 75,492

Revenues from / Payments to SA Government:

Revenues from SA Government 16 80,665 79,075

Payments to SA Government 16 – 448

Net Revenues from SA Government 80,665 78,627

Net Result 504 3,135

Total comprehensive result 504 3,135

The net result and comprehensive result are attributable to the SA Government as owner

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

STATEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME for the year ended 30 June 2009

FINANCIAL OVERVIEW


Note2009 $’000

2008 $’000

CURRENT ASSETS

Cash and cash equivalents 17 25,919 21,698

Receivables 18 892 1,244

26,811 22,942

Non–current assets classified as held for sale 19 – 211

Total Current Assets 26,811 23,153

NON–CURRENT ASSETS

Property, plant and equipment 20 206,318 131,636

Intangible assets 21 62 78

Other non–current assets 22 26 39

Total Non–Current Assets 206,406 131,753

Total Assets 233,217 154,906

CURRENT LIABILITIES

Payables 23 3,644 3,426

Financial liabilities 27 972 919

Employee benefits 24 4,972 4,543

Provisions 25 496 522

Other current liabilities 26 236 365

Total Current Liabilities 10,320 9,775

NON–CURRENT LIABILITIES

Payables 23 738 654

Financial liabilities 27 19,115 20,088

Employee benefits 24 7,306 7,033

Provisions 25 1,637 1,777

Total Non–Current Liabilities 28,796 29,552

Total Liabilities 39,116 39,327

NET ASSETS 194,101 115,579

EQUITY

Contributed capital 3,140 3,140

Retained earnings 83,358 82,827

Asset revaluation reserve 107,603 29,585

Amounts recognised directly in equity relating to

non–current assets classified as held for sale – 27

TOTAL EQUITY 194,101 115,579

The Total Equity is attributable to the SA Government as owner

Unrecognised contractual commitments 27

Contingent assets and liabilities 28


STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION as at 30 June 2009


Note

Contributed Capital

$’000

Asset Revaluation

Reserve $’000

Retained Earnings

$’000

Total Equity $’000

Balance at 30 June 2007 3,140 29,555 79,749 112,444

Error correction 19 – 228 (228) –

Restated balance at 30 June 2007 3,140 29,783 79,521 112,444

Transfer between equity on disposal of revaluated assets – (171) 171 –

Net result for 2007–2008 – – 3,135 3,135

Total comprehensive result for 2007–2008 – (171) 3,306 3,135

Balance at 30 June 2008 3,140 29,612 82,827 115,579

Transfer between equity on disposal of revaluated assets – (27) 27 –

Gain on revaluation of land and buildings 20(b) – 78,018 – 78,018

Net result for 2008–2009 – – 504 504

Total comprehensive result for 2008–2009 – 77,991 531 78,522

Balance at 30 June 2009 3,140 107,603 83,358 194,101

All changes in equity are attributable to the SA Government as owner


STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN EQUITY for the year ended 30 June 2009

FINANCIAL OVERVIEW


Note 2009 $’000

2008 $’000

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES

Cash Outflows

Employee benefit payments (47,275) (44,827)

Payments for supplies and services (34,318) (33,008)

Borrowing cost (1,155) (1,205)

Other payments (693) (649)

Cash used in operations (83,441) (79,689)

Cash Inflows

Grants and transfers 1,130 955

Fees and charges 5,957 5,316

GST recovered from the ATO 3,074 2,673

Receipts from commonwealth 40 –

Cash generated from operations 10,201 8,944

Cash Flows from SA Government

Receipts from SA Government 80,665 79,075

Payments to SA Government – (448)

Cash generated from SA Government 80,665 78,627

Net cash provided by operating activities 30 7,425 7,882

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES

Cash Outflows

Purchase of intangibles (4) (51)

Purchase of property, plant and equipment (2,281) (2,064)

Cash used in investing activities (2,285) (2,115)

Cash Inflows

Proceeds from the sales of property, plant and equipment – 364

Cash generated from investing activities – 364

Net cash used in investing activities (2,285) (1,751)

CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES

Cash Outflows

Repayment of finance lease (919) (869)

Cash used in financing activities (919) (869)

Net Increase in cash and cash equivalents 4,221 5,262

Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the financial year 21,698 16,436

Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the financial year 17 25,919 21,698


STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS for the year ended 30 June 2009


DISAGGREGATED DISCLOSURES – EXPENSES AND REVENUES for the year ended 30 June 2009

Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3General/not attributable Total

2009 $’000

2008 $’000

2009 $’000

2008 $’000

2009 $’000

2008 $’000

2009 $’000

2008 $’000

2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Expenses

Employee benefit expenses 39,925 38,421 2,172 2,117 6,025 4,505 – – 48,122 45,043

Supplies and services 25,917 25,988 685 678 4,616 3,239 – – 31,218 29,905

Depreciation and amortisation expense 5,429 5,121 14 1 218 3 – – 5,661 5,125

Borrowing cost 1,147 1,205 – – 8 – – – 1,155 1,205

Net loss from disposal of non–current assets – 92 – – – – – – – 92

Other expenses 579 503 18 20 135 52 – – 732 575

Total expenses 72,997 71,330 2,889 2,816 11,002 7,799 – – 86,888 81,945

Income

Revenues from fees and charges 727 539 – – 4,146 4,071 – – 4,873 4,610

Sales of goods and services 679 707 2 – 29 30 – – 710 737

Grants and transfers 1,127 1,106 – – 3 – – – 1,130 1,106

Commonwealth revenues 14 – – – – – – – 14 –

Total income 2,547 2,352 2 – 4,178 4,101 – – 6,727 6,453

Net cost of providing services

(70,450) (68,978) (2,887) (2,816) (6,824) (3,698) – –

(80,161) (75,492)

SA Government

Net Revenue from SA Government 66,202 68,442 3,077 2,702 11,386 7,483 80,665 78,627

Net Result (4,248) (536) 190 (114) 4,562 3,785 – – 504 3,135

Activity 1: Court and Tribunal Case Resolution Services

The resolution of criminal, civil, appellate, coronial and probate matters in the State’s courts and tribunals.

Activity 2: Alternative Dispute Resolution Services

Services for resolving disputes between citizens, and disputes between citizens and the State; as well as the education, training, information and advice processes, which aim to prevent disputes.

Activity 3: Penalty Management Services

The management of penalties arising from court orders, the enforcement of court orders as well as the recovery of debts, and the administration and execution of warrants.

FINANCIAL OVERVIEW



2009 $’000

2008 $’000

2009 $’000

2008 $’000

2009 $’000

2008 $’000

2009 $’000

2008 $’000

2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Assets

Cash and cash equivalents – – – – – – 25,919 21,698 25,919 21,698

Receivables 853 1,193 3 – 36 51 – – 892 1,244

Non-current assets classified as held for sale – 193 – 8 – 10 – – – 211

Property, plant and equipment

190,747 120,211 8,099 5,285 7,473 6,140 – –

206,318 131,636

Intangibles 57 71 2 3 2 4 – – 62 78

Other assets 24 35 1 2 1 2 – – 26 39

Total assets 191,680 121,703 8,106 5,298 7,512 6,207 25,919 21,698 233,217 154,906

Liabilities

Payables 3,638 3,546 96 93 648 442 – – 4,382 4,080

Financial liabilities/Borrowings 19,954 20,868 – – 133 139 – – 20,087 21,007

Employee benefits 10,187 9,874 554 544 1,537 1,158 – – 12,278 11,576

Provisions 1,687 2,011 52 80 393 208 – – 2,133 2,299

Other liabilities 226 350 1 – 10 15 – – 236 365

Total liabilities 35,692 36,649 703 717 2,721 1,961 – – 39,116 39,327

DISAGGREGATED DISCLOSURES – ASSETS AND LIABILITIES for the year ended 30 June 2009


FINANCIAL REPORTS Notes to and forming part of the financial statements

NOTE INDEX

Objectives of the Courts Administration Authority Note 1

Summary of significant accounting policies Note 2

Changes in accounting policies Note 3

Activities of the Authority Note 4

Expense notes

Employee benefit expenses Note 5

Remuneration of employees Note 5

Supplies and services Note 6

Depreciation and amortisation expense Note 7

Finance lease Note 8

Other expenses Note 9

Auditor’s remuneration Note 10

Net loss from the disposal of assets Note 15

Payments to SA Government Note 16

Income notes

Grants and transfers Note 11

Sales of goods and services Note 12

Revenues from fees and charges Note 13

Commonwealth revenues Note 14

Revenues from SA Government Note 16

Asset notes

Cash and cash equivalents Note 17

Receivables Note 18

Non–current assets classified as held for sale Note 19

Property, plant and equipment Note 20

Intangible assets Note 21

Other non–current assets Note 22

Liability notes

Payables Note 23

Employee benefits Note 24

Provisions Note 25

Other liabilities Note 26

Other notes

Unrecognised contractual commitments Note 27

Contingent assets and contingent liabilities Note 28

Remuneration of board and committee members Note 29

Cash flow reconciliation Note 30

Financial instruments/Financial risk management Note 31


Notes to and forming part of the financial statements

Note 1: Objectives of the Courts Administration AuthorityThe Courts Administration Authority (the Authority) operates within the Courts Administration Act 1993. It is overseen by the State Courts Administration Council and is independent of the Government.

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:

• provideadministrativesupporttothecourtsofthisstate;

• increasethecommunity’sunderstandingoftheoperationsofthe courts and provide new avenues for community comment on the operations of the courts and their registries;

• improvecourtfacilities;

• fosteranenvironmentinwhichjudicialofficers,staffandvolunteers can contribute to improved performance of the courts system;

• keepuptodatewithtechnologicaldevelopmentsandapplythose that are appropriate to improve the performance of the courts system; and

• co-operatewithotherpartsofthejusticesystemtoimproveaccess to justice and the overall performance of the justice system.

Note 2: Summary of significant accounting policies

a) Statement of compliance

The financial statements are general purpose financial statements. The accounts have been prepared in accordance with relevant Australian accounting standards and Treasurer’s instructions and accounting policy statements promulgated under the provisions of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987.

Except for the amendments to AASB 101 Presentation of Financial Statements (September 2007 version) including AASB 2007–8 and AASB 2007–10 (these standards make consequential amendments to other standards as a result of the revised AASB 101), which the Authority has early adopted, Australian accounting standards and interpretations that have recently been issued or amended but are not yet effective have not been adopted by the Authority for the reporting period ending 30 June 2009. These are outlined in Note 3.

b) Basis of preparation

The preparation of the financial statements requires:

• theuseofcertainaccountingestimatesandrequiresmanagement to exercise its judgement in the process of applying the Authority’s accounting policies. The areas involving a higher degree of judgement or where assumptions and estimates are significant to the financial statements, are outlined in the applicable notes;

• accountingpoliciesareselectedandappliedinamanner which ensures that the resulting financial information satisfies the concepts of relevance and reliability, thereby ensuring that the substance of the underlying transactions or other events are reported; and

• compliancewithaccountingpolicystatementsissuedpursuantto section 41 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987. In the interest of public accountability and transparency the accounting policy statements require the following note disclosures that have been included in this financial report:

a) revenues, expenses, financial assets and liabilities where the counter- party/transaction is with an entity within the SA Government as at reporting date, classified according to their nature;

b) expenses incurred as a result of engaging consultants (as reported in the Statement of Comprehensive Income);

c) employees whose normal remuneration is $100,000 or more (within $10,000 bandwidths) and the aggregate of the remuneration paid or payable or otherwise made available, directly or indirectly by the entity to those employees; and

d) board/committee member and remuneration information, where a board/committee member is entitled to receive income from membership other than a direct out-of-pocket reimbursement.

The Authority’s Statement of Comprehensive Income, Statement of Financial Position and Statement of Changes in Equity have been prepared on an accrual basis and are in accordance with historical cost convention, except for certain assets that were valued in accordance with the valuation policy applicable.

The Statement of Cash Flows has been prepared on a cash basis.

The financial statements have been prepared based on a twelve month period and presented in Australian currency.

The accounting policies set out below have been applied in preparing the financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2009 and the comparative information presented.

c) Reporting entity

The Courts Administration Authority was established by the Courts Administration Act 1993 as a statutory authority independent of executive government. The State Courts Administration Council (Governing Body), the State Courts Administrator and staff of the Council are collectively referred to as the Authority.

The financial statements and accompanying notes include all the controlled activities of the Authority. Transactions and balances relating to administered resources are not recognised as departmental income, expense, assets and liabilities. As administered items are significant in relation to the Authority’s overall financial performance and position, they are disclosed in the administered financial statements at the back of the controlled General Purpose Financial statements. Except as otherwise disclosed, administered items are accounted for on the same basis and using the same accounting policies as for the controlled items.


d) Comparative information

The presentation and classification of items in the financial statements are consistent with prior periods except where adjusted to reflect the early adoption of AASB 101 Presentation of Financial Statements and specific revised accounting standards and accounting policy statements.

Where the Authority has applied an accounting policy retrospectively; retrospectively restated items in the financial statements; reclassified items in the financial statements, it has provided three Statements of Financial Positions and related notes.

Comparative figures have been adjusted to conform to changes in presentation in these financial statements where required e.g. preparation of a single Statement of Comprehensive Income.

The restated comparative amounts do not replace the original financial statements for the preceding period.

e) Rounding

All amounts in the financial statements have been rounded to the nearest thousand dollars ($’000).

f) Taxation

The Authority is not subject to income tax. The Authority is liable for payroll tax, fringe benefits tax, goods and services tax (GST), emergency services levy, land tax equivalents and local government rate equivalents.

Income, expenses and assets are recognised net of the amount of GST except:

• whentheGSTincurredonapurchaseofgoodsorservicesisnot recoverable from the Australian Taxation Office, in which case the GST is recognised as part of the cost of acquisition of the asset or as part of the expense item applicable; and

• receivablesandpayables,whicharestatedwiththeamountofGST included.

The net amount of GST recoverable from, or payable to, the Australian Taxation Office is included as part of receivables or payables in the Statement of Financial Position.

Cash flows are included in the Statement of Cash Flows on a gross basis and the GST component of cash flows arising from investing and financing activities, which is recoverable from, or payable to, the Australian Taxation Office is classified as part of operating cash flows.

Unrecognised contractual commitments and contingencies are disclosed net of the amount of GST recoverable from, or payable to the Australian Taxation Office. If GST is not payable to, or recoverable from the Australian Taxation Office, the commitments and contingencies are disclosed on a gross basis.

g) Events after the end of the reporting period

There were no events occurring after balance date.

h) Income

Income is recognised to the extent that it is probable that the flow of economic benefits to the Authority will occur and can be reliably measured.

Income has been aggregated according to its nature and has not been offset unless required or permitted by a specific accounting standard, or where offsetting reflects the substance of the transaction or other event.

The notes accompanying the financial statements disclose income where the counter party/transaction is with an entity within the SA Government as at the reporting date, classified according to their nature.

The following are specific recognition criteria:

Fees and charges

Revenues from fees and charges are derived from the provision of goods and services to other SA Government agencies and to the public. This revenue is recognised upon delivery of the service to the clients or by reference to the stage of completion.

The Authority performs activities on behalf of the Government and other Government agencies and reports these in the Administered Financial Statements. Fines income from infringements issued to offenders, court fees and victim of crime levies are recognised at the time cash is received due to the uncertainty of amounts to be collected. Transcript fees are recognised upon delivery of the service. Recovery from other SA Government entity for witness fees paid is included in other income when the witness fee expense is paid.

Sale of goods and services

Revenues from sales of goods and services are derived from the provision of goods and recouping of services to other SA Government agencies and to the public.

Revenues from SA Government

Appropriations for activity funding are recognised as revenues when the Authority obtains control over the funding. Control over appropriations is normally obtained upon receipt.

Where money has been appropriated in the form of an equity contribution, the Treasurer has acquired a financial interest in the net assets of the Authority and the appropriation is recorded as contributed equity.

Contributions received (grants and transfers)

Contributions are recognised as an asset and income when the Authority obtains control of the contributions or obtains the right to receive the contributions and the income recognition criteria are met (i.e. the amount can be reliably measured and the flow of resources is probable).



Generally, the Authority has obtained control or the right to receive for :

• contributionswithunconditionalstipulations–thiswillbewhenthe agreement becomes enforceable i.e. the earlier of when the receiving entity has formally been advised that the contribution (e.g. grant application) has been approved; agreement/contract is executed; and/or the contribution is received.

• contributionswithconditionalstipulations–thiswillbewhen the enforceable stipulations specified in the agreement occur or are satisfied; that is income would be recognised for contributions received or receivable under the agreement.

The majority of contributions received by the Authority have been contributions with unconditional stipulations attached and have been recognised as an asset and income upon receipt.

Disposal of non-current assets

Income from the disposal of non-current assets is recognised when the control of the asset has passed to the buyer and determined by comparing proceeds with the carrying amount. When revalued assets are sold, the revaluation increments are transferred to retained earnings.

i) Expenses

Expenses are recognised to the extent that it is probable that the flow of economic benefits from the Authority will occur and can be reliably measured.

Expenses have been aggregated according to their nature and have not been offset unless required or permitted by a specific accounting standard, or where offsetting reflects the substance of the transaction or other event.

The notes accompanying the financial statements disclose expenses where the counter party/transaction is with an entity within the SA Government as at the reporting date, classified according to their nature.

The following are specific recognition criteria:

Employee benefits expenses

Employee benefit expenses include all cost related to employment including wages and salaries, non-monetary benefits and leave entitlements. These are recognised when incurred.

Superannuation

The amount charged to the Statement of Comprehensive Income represents the contributions made by the Authority to the superannuation plan in respect of current services of current staff. The Department of Treasury and Finance centrally recognises the superannuation liability in the whole of government financial statements.

Depreciation and amortisation

All non-current assets, having a limited useful life, are systematically depreciated/amortised over their useful lives in a manner that reflects the consumption of their service potential.

Assets’ residual values, useful lives and amortisation methods are reviewed and adjusted if appropriate, on an annual basis.

Changes in the expected useful life or the expected pattern of consumption of future economic benefits embodied in the asset are accounted for prospectively by changing the time period or method, as appropriate, which is a change in accounting estimate.

The value of leasehold improvements is amortised over the estimated useful life of each improvement, or the unexpired period of the relevant lease, whichever is shorter.

Land, non-current assets held for sale and works of art are not depreciated. The Authority does not depreciate the works of art because it believes that works of art do not diminish in value over time.

Depreciation/amortisation is calculated on a straight line basis over the estimated useful life of the following classes of assets as follows:

Class of asset Useful life (years)

Buildings and Improvements 30–60

Building under finance lease Life of lease

Leasehold improvements Life of lease

Computing and office furniture equipment 3–10

Library collections 5–25

Intangibles 5

Borrowing costs

All borrowing costs are recognised as expenses.

Payments to SA Government

Payments to the SA Government include taxation revenues and expiation fees received on behalf of the Government and paid directly to the Consolidated Account.

The Authority makes payments pursuant to the Remuneration Act 1990 to members of the judiciary and receives reimbursement for these and other expenses paid on behalf of other agencies. It is dependent on support from the Crown to meet accruing judicial entitlement obligations recognised in the financial statements.

j) Current and non-current classification

Assets and liabilities are characterised as either current or non-current in nature. Assets and liabilities that are sold, consumed or realised as part of the normal operating cycle even when they are not expected to be realised within twelve months after the reporting date have been classified as current assets or current liabilities. All other assets and liabilities are classified as non-current.

Where asset and liability line items combine amounts expected to be realised within twelve months and more than twelve months, the Authority has separately disclosed the amounts expected to be recovered or settled after more than twelve months.



k) Assets

Assets have been classified according to their nature and have not been offset unless required or permitted by a specific accounting standard, or where offsetting reflects the substance of the transaction or other event.

Where an asset line item combines amounts expected to be settled within twelve months and more than twelve months, the authority has separately disclosed the amounts expected to be recovered after more than twelve months.

The notes accompanying the financial statements disclose financial assets where the counter party/transaction is with an entity within the SA Government as at the reporting date, classified according to their nature.

Cash and cash equivalents

Cash and cash equivalents in the Statement of Financial Position includes cash at bank and on hand and other short-term, highly liquid investments with maturities of three months or less that are readily converted to cash and which are subject to insignificant risk of changes in value.

For the purposes of the Statement of Cash Flows, cash and cash equivalents consist of cash and cash equivalents as defined above. Cash is measured at nominal value.

Receivables

Receivables include amounts receivable from goods and services, GST input tax credits recoverable, prepayments and other accruals.

Receivables arise in the normal course of selling goods and services to other Government agencies and to the public. Receivables are generally due within 30 days after the issue of an invoice or the goods/services have been provided under a contractual arrangement.

Collectibility of receivables is reviewed on an ongoing basis. An allowance for doubtful debts is raised when there is objective evidence that the Authority will not be able to collect the debt. Bad debts are written off when identified.

Non-current assets (or disposal groups) held for sale

Non-current assets (or disposal groups) are classified as held for sale and stated at the lower of their carrying amount and fair value less costs to sell if their carrying amount will be recovered principally through a sale transaction rather than through continuing use. This condition is regarded as met only when the sale is highly probable and the asset’s sale is expected to be completed one year from the date of classification.

Non-current assets classified as held for sale and the assets of a disposal group classified as held for sale are presented separately from the other assets in the Statement of Financial Position.

Non-current assets

Acquisition and recognition

Non-current assets are initially recorded at cost or at the value of any liabilities assumed, plus any incidental cost involved with the acquisition. Non-current assets are subsequently measured at fair value less accumulated depreciation.

Where assets are acquired at no value, or minimal value, they are recorded at their fair value in the Statement of Financial Position. However, if the assets are acquired at no or nominal value as part of a restructuring of administrative arrangements then the assets are recorded at the value recorded by the transferor prior to the restructure.

All non-current tangible assets with a value equal to or in excess of $5,000 are capitalised. Items of property, plant and equipment and infrastructure costing less than $5,000 are immediately expensed direct to the Statement of Comprehensive Income (other than where they form part of a group of similar items which are significant in total).

Revaluation of non-current assets

All non-current tangible assets are valued at written down current cost (a proxy for fair value); and revaluation of non-current assets or group of assets is only performed when its fair value at the time of acquisition is greater than $1 million and estimated useful life is greater than three years.

Every three years, the Authority revalues its land and buildings and improvements with the exception of the Authority’s finance lease relating to the Sir Samuel Way building. However, if at any time management considers that the carrying amount of an asset materially differs from its fair value, then the asset will be revalued regardless of when the last valuation took place. Non-current tangible assets that are acquired between revaluations are held at cost until the next valuation, where they are revalued to fair value.

Any revaluation increment is credited to the asset revaluation reserve, except to the extent that it reverses a revaluation decrease of the same asset class previously recognised as expense, in which case the increase is recognised as income. Any revaluation decrease is recognised as expense, except to the extent that it offsets a previous revaluation increase for the same asset class, in which case the decrease is debited directly to the asset revaluation reserve to the extent of the credit balance existing in revaluations reserve for that asset class.

Any accumulated depreciation as at the revaluation date is eliminated against the gross carrying amounts of the assets and the net amounts are restated to the revalued amounts of the asset.

Upon disposal or derecognition, any revaluation reserve relating to that asset is transferred to retained earnings.



Impairment

All non-current tangible and intangible assets are tested for indication of impairment at each reporting date. Where there is an indication of impairment, the recoverable amount is estimated. An amount by which the asset’s carrying amount exceeds the recoverable amount is recorded as an impairment loss.

For revalued assets, an impairment loss is offset against the asset revaluation reserve.

Intangible assets

An intangible asset is an identifiable non-monetary asset without physical substance and is measured at cost. The intangible assets of the Authority are primarily software. Following initial recognition, intangible assets are carried at cost less any accumulated amortisation and any accumulated impairment losses.

The useful lives of intangible assets are assessed to be either finite or indefinite. The Authority only has intangible assets with finite lives. The amortisation period and the amortisation method for intangible assets are reviewed on an annual basis.

The acquisition of or internal development of software is capitalised only when the expenditure meets the definition and recognition criteria and when the amount of expenditure is greater than or equal to $5,000.

All research and development costs that do not meet the capitalisation criteria outlined in AASB 138 are expensed.

Subsequent expenditure on intangible assets has not been capitalised. This is because the Authority has been unable to attribute this expenditure to the intangible asset rather than to the Authority as a whole.

l) Liabilities

Liabilities have been classified according to their nature and have not been offset unless required or permitted by a specific accounting standard, or where offsetting reflects the substance of the transaction or other event.

Where a liability line item combines amounts expected to be settled within twelve months and more than twelve months, the department has separately disclosed the amounts expected to be settled after more than twelve months.

The notes accompanying the financial statements disclose financial liabilities where the counter party/transaction is with an entity within the SA Government as at the reporting date, classified according to their nature.

Payables

Payables include creditors, accrued expenses and employment on-costs.

Creditors represent the amounts owing for goods and services received prior to the end of the reporting period that are unpaid at the end of the reporting period. Creditors include all unpaid invoices received relating to the normal operations of the Authority.

Accrued expenses represent goods and services provided by other parties during the period that are unpaid at the end of the reporting period and where an invoice has not been received.

All payables are measured at their nominal amount, are unsecured and are normally settled within 30 days from the date of the invoice or date the invoice is first received.

Employee benefit on-costs include payroll tax, Workcover and superannuation contributions in respect to outstanding liabilities for salaries and wages, long service leave and annual leave.

The Authority makes contributions to several State Government and externally managed superannuation schemes. These contributions are treated as an expense when they occur. There is no liability for payments to beneficiaries as they have been assumed by the respective superannuation schemes. The only liability outstanding at balance date relates to any contributions due but not yet paid to the South Australian Superannuation Board.

Financial liabilities

The Authority measures financial liabilities at historical cost.

Leases

The determination of whether an arrangement is or contains a lease is based on the substance of the arrangement.

The Authority has entered into finance leases and operating leases.

Finance leases

Finance leases, which transfer to the Authority substantially all the risks and benefits/rewards incidental to ownership of the leased assets, are capitalised at the inception of the lease at the fair value of the leased asset or, if lower, at the present value of the minimum lease payments.

Minimum lease payments are allocated, between interest expense/borrowing costs and reduction of the lease liability, to each period during the lease term so as to produce a constant periodic rate of interest on the remaining balance of the liability.

Where there is no reasonable assurance that the Authority will obtain ownership of the capitalised asset at the end of the lease term, the asset is amortised over the shorter of the lease term and its useful life.

Operating leases – The Authority as Lessee

Operating lease payments are recognised as an expense in the Statement of Comprehensive Income on a straight-line basis over the lease term. The straight-line basis is representative of the pattern of benefits derived from the leased assets.

Courts premises in four country centres are provided by a Public Private Partnership arrangement between the State and Plenary Justice Pty Ltd. It is accounted for as an operating lease. As the arrangement is for a 25 year period from 2005 the Authority has a substantial future commitment for servicing costs but has no right to obtain ownership.

The aggregate benefit of lease incentives received by the Authority in respect of operating leases have been recorded as a reduction of rental expense over the lease term, on a straight line basis.



Operating leases – The Authority as Lessor

The Authority leases commercial spaces to external parties through operating leases. Income derived from these leases is recognised as rental recovery income in the Statement of Comprehensive Income in the period in which it is earned.

Employee Benefits

These benefits accrue for employees as a result of services provided up to the reporting date that remain unpaid. Long-term employee benefits are measured at present value and short-term employee benefits are measured at nominal amounts.

Wages, salaries, annual leave and sick leave

The liability for salary and wages are measured as the amount unpaid at the reporting date at remuneration rates current at reporting date.

The annual leave liability is expected to be payable within twelve months and is measured at the undiscounted amount expected to be paid. In the unusual event where salary and wages and annual leave are payable later than 12 months, the liability will be measured at present value.

No provision has been made for sick leave as all sick leave is non-vesting and the average sick leave taken in future years by employees is estimated to be less than the annual entitlement for sick leave.

Long service leave

The liability for long service leave is recognised after an employee has completed 6.5 years of service. An actuarial assessment of long service leave undertaken by the Department of Treasury and Finance based on a significant sample of employees throughout the South Australian public sector determined that the liability measured using the short hand method was not materially different from the liability measured using the present value of expected future payments. This calculation is consistent with the Authority’s experience of employee retention and leave taken.

Provisions

Provisions are recognised when the Authority has a present obligation as a result of a past event, it is probable that an outflow of resources embodying economic benefits will be required to settle the obligation and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation.

When the Authority expects some or all of a provision to be reimbursed, the reimbursement is recognised as a separate asset but only when the reimbursement is virtually certain. The expense relating to any provision is presented in the Statement of Comprehensive Income net of any reimbursement.

Provisions are measured at the present value of management’s best estimate of the expenditure required to settle the present obligation at the Statement of Financial Position date. If the effect of the time value of money is material, provisions are discounted for the time value of money and the risks specific to the liability.

Unrecognised contractual commitments

Commitments include operating, capital and outsourcing arrangements arising from contractual or statutory sources and are disclosed at their nominal value.

Contingent assets and contingent liabilities are not recognised in the Statement of Financial Position, but are disclosed by way of a note and, if quantifiable, are measured at nominal value.

Unrecognised contractual commitments and contingencies are disclosed net of the amount of GST recoverable from, or payable to the Australian Taxation Office. If GST is not payable to, or recoverable from the Australian Taxation Office, the commitments and contingencies are disclosed on a gross basis.




Note 3: New and revised accounting standards and policiesThe Authority has early adopted the September 2007 version of AASB 101 Presentation of Financial Statements including AASB 2007–8 and AASB 2007–10 (these standards make consequential amendments to other standards as a result of the revised AASB 101) – this includes the preparation of a single Statement of Comprehensive Income.

In accordance with the new accounting standard AASB 1052 Disaggregated Disclosures, the amounts of assets and liabilities reliably attributable to each activity has been disclosed.

Issued or amended but not yet effective

Except for the amendments to AASB 101 Presentation of Financial Statements, which the Authority has early-adopted, the Australian accounting standards and interpretations that have recently been issued or amended but are not yet effective, have not been adopted by the Authority for the period ended 30 June 2009. The Authority has assessed the impact of the new and amended standards and interpretations and considers there will be no impact on the accounting policies or the financial statements of the Authority.

Note 4: Activities of the AuthorityIn achieving its objectives, the Authority provides a range of services classified into the following activities:

Activity 1: Court and Tribunal Case Resolution Services.

The resolution of criminal, civil, appellate, coronial and probate matters in the State’s courts and tribunals.

Activity 2: Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Services for resolving disputes between citizens, and disputes between citizens and the State; as well as the education, training, information and advice processes, which aim to prevent disputes.

Activity 3: Penalty Management Services.


The disaggregated disclosures schedules at pages 5 and 6 present expenses, income, assets and liabilities information attributable to each of the activities for the years ended 30 June 2008 and 30 June 2009.



2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Note 5: Employee Benefit ExpensesSalaries, wages and annual leave 39,812 37,106

Employment on–costs 6,825 6,360

Long service leave 1,263 1,373

Board and committee fees 66 78

Other employee related expenses 156 126

Total employee benefit expenses 48,122 45,043

Remuneration of employees 2009 2008

The number of employees whose remuneration received or receivable falls within the following bands:

$100 000 to $109 999 8 6

$110 000 to $119 999 3 3

$120 000 to $129 999 2 2

$130 000 to $139 999 2 2

$150 000 to $159 999 1 2

$160 000 to $169 999 1 –

$170 000 to $179 999 1 1

$180 000 to $189 999 1 1

$200 000 to $209 999 1 –

$240 000 to $249 999 – 1

$250 000 to $259 999 1 1

Total number of employees 21 19

The table includes all employees who received remuneration of $100 000 or more during the year. Remuneration of employees reflects all costs of employment including salaries and wages, superannuation contributions, fringe benefits tax and any other salary sacrifice benefits. The total remuneration received by these employees for the year was $2.8 million ($2.7 million).



2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Note 6: Supplies and Services Supplies and services provided by entities within the SA Government:

Accommodation and services 9,058 8,356

Computing and communications 2,527 2,347

Coronial Charges 3,321 2,557

Operating leases 237 238

Other administration expenses 1,287 1,223

Total supplies and services – SA Government entities 16,430 14,721

Supplies and services provided by entities external to the SA Government:

Accommodation and services 2,268 2,242

Circuit and Travel expenses 1,537 1,274

Computing and communications 1,940 2,547

Consultancy, contractors and temp staff 1,481 1,325

Court expenses 766 646

Operating leases 113 178

Staff development and training 540 591

Equipment purchases and repairs 221 766

Other administration expenses 2,722 2,775

Coronial Charges 326 234

Jurors’ expenses 1,884 1,500

Sheriff Officer Payments 990 1,106

Total supplies and services – Non SA Government entities 14,788 15,184

Total supplies and services 31,218 29,905

Consultancies

Individual consultancies costing between $10,000 and $50,000 90 68

4 Consultancies (2008: 4)

Total cost of consultancies less than $10,000 44 51

10 Consultancies (2008: 13)

Total paid/payable to the consultants engaged 134 119



2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Note 7: Depreciation and Amortisation ExpensesDepreciation

Buildings and Improvements 2,249 2,251

Computing and office furniture & equipment 526 168

Library collections 1,952 1,782

Total Depreciation 4,727 4,201

Amortisation

Leasehold improvements 84 84

Building under Finance lease 830 830

Intangibles 20 10

Total Amortisation 934 924

Total depreciation and amortisation 5,661 5,125

Note 8: Borrowing costsFinance lease provided by entities within the SA Government:

Interest expense on financial lease liability 1,155 1,205

Total borrowing costs 1,155 1,205

The Authority occupies the Sir Samuel Way building under a 40 year non-cancellable finance lease which expires in 2023. The nominal interest rate on the lease remains at 5.61% (2008 – 5.61%). The Authority is responsible for all maintenance costs and paid a contingent rental of $3,441,000 (2008 – $3,204,000) which will increase each year by the amount obtained by applying the rate of CPI increase in the previous year to the combined total of the previous year’s rental and finance lease repayments.

Note 9: Other ExpensesOther expenses paid/payable to entities within the SA Government:

Audit fees (see note 10) 185 164

Other expenses paid/payable to entities external to the SA Government:

Workers compensation 336 403

Land and building held for sale de–recognised 211 –

Others – 8

Total other expenses 732 575



2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Note 10: Auditor’s RemunerationAudit fees paid / payable to the Auditor-General’s Department 105 105

Total audit fees 105 105

No other services were provided by the Auditor–General’s Department

Note 11: Grants and transfersIntra government transfers received/receivable from entities within the SA Government:

Court Assessment Referral Drug Scheme (CARDS) 510 513

Industrial Court – Sheriff ’s officer services 53 52

Guardianship Board 27 27

Drug court 512 502

Other 28 12

Total Intra government transfers 1,130 1,106

Note 12: Sale of Goods and ServicesSales of goods and services to entities external to the SA Government:

Sale of electronic information 308 308

Services 191 204

Rent recoveries 211 225

Total sales of goods and services 710 737

Note 13: Revenues from Fees and ChargesRegulatory Fees received/receivable from entities external to the SA Government:

Licence disqualification and reminder fees 2,459 2,443

Sheriff ’s officer fees 1,132 1,104

Other regulatory fees 1,282 1,063

Total Revenues from Fees and Charges 4,873 4,610

Note 14: Commonwealth revenueGrant for APY Lands Restorative Justice 14 –

Total Commonwealth revenues 14 –

Note 15: Net (loss)/gain from the disposal of assetsProceeds from disposal of assets – 364

Less: Carrying value of assets disposed – 456

Total loss from the disposal of assets – 92



2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Note 16: Revenues from / Payments to GovernmentRevenues from SA Government

Appropriations from Consolidated Account pursuant to the Appropriation Act 80,665 79,075

Total revenues from SA Government 80,665 79,075

Payments to SA Government

Return of surplus cash from sale of asset – 448

Total payments to SA Government – 448

Note 17: Cash and cash equivalentsDeposits with the Treasurer 25,886 21,666

Cash on hand 33 32

Total cash and cash equivalents 25,919 21,698

Deposits with the Treasurer

Include $18.05 M (2008 $13.6M) held in the Accrual Appropriation Excess Funds Account. The balance of these funds is not available for general use, i.e. funds can only be used in accordance with the Under Treasurer’s approval.

Interest rate risk

Cash on hand and deposits with the Treasurer are non–interest bearing. The carrying value of cash and cash equivalents represents fair value.



2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Note 18: ReceivablesReceivables from non-SA Government entities

Receivables 100 440

Less allowance for doubtful debts (4) (5)

Accrued revenue 2 6

GST input tax recoverable 295 384

Prepayments 182 184

Total receivables from non-SA Government entities 575 1,009

Receivables from SA Government entities

Receivables 228 12

Accrued revenue 89 223

Total receivables from SA Government entities 317 235

Total receivables 892 1,244

Movement in the allowance for doubtful debts

The allowance for doubtful debts is recognised when there is objective evidence that a receivable is impaired. An allowance for impairment loss has been recognised in ‘other expenses’ in the Statement of Comprehensive Income for the specific debtors and debtors assessed on a collective basis for which such evidence exists.

Movements in the allowance for doubtful debts

Carrying amount at the beginning of the period 5 –

Increase in the allowance – 5

Amounts recovered during the year (1) –

Carrying amount at the end of the period 4 5

Interest rate and credit risk

Receivables are raised at the time service is provided only where it is probable that the revenue will be received. The Authority can not be certain of receiving items such as reminder fees and Sheriff ’s officer fees until the payment is made. Receivables are normally settled within 30 days. Receivables, prepayments and accrued revenues are non interest-bearing and the carrying amounts approximate fair value. There is no concentration of credit risk.



2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Note 20(a): Property, plant and equipmentLand and buildings

Land at fair value 46,634 24,769

Buildings and improvements at fair value 137,040 87,047

Accumulated depreciation at the end of the period – (4,313)

Total land and buildings 183,674 107,503

Assets under finance lease

Buildings and improvements at net present value 33,191 33,191

Accumulated amortisation at the end of the period (21,574) (20,744)

Total assets under finance lease 11,617 12,447

Leasehold improvements

Leasehold improvements at cost (deemed fair value) 1,033 1,033

Accumulated amortisation at the end of the period (790) (706)

Total leasehold improvements 243 327

Computing and office furniture & equipment

Plant and equipment at cost (deemed fair value) 3,665 4,648

Accumulated depreciation at the end of the period (1,891) (3,147)

Total plant and equipment 1,774 1,501

Others

Library collections at fair value 14,331 13,226

Accumulated depreciation at the end of the period (5,391) (3,438)

Works of art and collections at fair value 70 70

Accumulated depreciation at the end of the period – –

Total other plant and equipment 9,010 9,858

Total property, plant and equipment 206,318 131,636

2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Note 19: Non-current assets classified as held for saleLand – 81

Buildings and improvements – 130

Total non-current assets classified as held for sale – 211

As a result of construction, or leasing of newly constructed court buildings in regional centres, several properties became available for disposal. Remaining land and associated improvements were transferred during the year to the Department of Environment and Heritage – see Note 9. Proceeds from the sale of improvements will be returned to the Authority upon disposal. Two properties were disposed of during 2008 – see Note 15.

Correction of errors

Related asset revaluation reserves ($228,000) on properties sold prior to current financial year have been identified and transferred to retained earnings at 30 Jun 2007.



ValuationsThe valuation of Land, Buildings and Improvements was performed by Liquid Pacific Holdings Pty Ltd, an independent valuer from the Australian Valuation Office as at 30 June 2009. The valuer arrived at fair value based on recent market transactions for similar land and buildings in the area taking into account zoning and restricted use.

The valuation of library collections were performed by Valcorp Australia Pty Ltd as at 30 June 2006.

The valuation of works of art and collections was performed by Rushton Valuers Pty Ltd as at 30 June 2006.

ImpairmentThere were no indications of material impairment of property, plant and equipment assets at 30 June 2009.

Grouping of assetsThe Authority has grouped items of computer equipment that individually are below the capitalisation threshold of $5,000 but, as a group, are considered significant. This change commenced from 1 July 2008 following the implementation of the operational asset replacement program.

Note 20(b): Reconciliation of Non-Current AssetsThe following table shows the movement of Non-Current Assets during 2008–09

LandBuildings &

improvements

Building under

finance lease

Buildings – leasehold

improvementsTotal land &

buildings

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Carrying amount at the beginning of the period 24,769 82,734 12,447 327 120,277

Additions – 402 – – 402

Depreciation & amortisation – (2,249) (830) (84) (3,163)

Revaluation increment 21,865 56,153 – – 78,018

Carrying amount at the end of the period 46,634 137,040 11,617 243 195,534

Computing and office

furniture & equipment

Library collections

Works of arts & collections

Total Property,

Plant & Equipment

$'000 $'000 $'000 $'000

Carrying amount at the beginning of the period 1,501 9,788 70 134,636

Additions 799 1,104 – 2,305

Depreciation & amortisation (526) (1,952) – (5,641)

Revaluation increment – – – 78,018

Carrying amount at the end of the period 1,774 8,940 70 206,318

In-house Developed Computer

Software

Other Computer

Software

Total Intangible

Assets

$’000 $’000 $’000

Carrying amount at the beginning of the period – 78 78

Additions – 4 4

Depreciation & amortisation – (20) (20)

Carrying amount at the end of the period – 62 62




Land $’000

Buildings and improvements

$’000

Building under

finance lease $’000


improvements $’000

Total land and buildings

$’000


Additions – 21 – – 21


Carrying amount at the end of the period

24,769 82,734 12,447 327 120,277



$’000

Library collections

$’000


$’000

Total Property,

Plant & Equipment

$’000

Carrying amount at the beginning of the period 614 10,506 70 134,611

Additions 1,055 1,064 – 2,140



1,501 9,788 70 131,636


Software $’000

Other Computer

Software $’000

Total Intangible

Assets $’000


Additions – 51 51





2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Note 21: Intangible AssetsComputer software

Internally developed computer software 7,688 7,688

Accumulated amortisation (7,688) (7,688)

Other computer software 569 673

Accumulated amortisation (507) (595)

Total Intangible Assets 62 78

The Authority has no contractual commitments for the acquisition of intangible assets.

Impairment

There were no indications of impairment on intangible assets at 30 June 2009.

Note 22: Other non-current assetsPrepayments 26 39

Total other non-current assets 26 39

Note 23: PayablesCurrent:

Creditors 1,074 526

Accrued expenses 1,715 2,129

Accrued capital expenditure 147 122

Employment on-costs 708 649

Total current payables 3,644 3,426

Non-Current:


Total non-current payables 738 654

Total Payables 4,382 4,080

Government/non-government payables

Payable to SA Government entities:

Creditors 809 310

Accrued expenses 903 1,088


Total payables to SA Government entities 2,358 2,011

Payable to non-SA Government entities:

Creditors 265 216

Accrued expenses 959 1,163


Total payables to non-SA Government entities 2,024 2,069

Total payables 4,382 4,080

As a result of an actuarial assessment performed by the Department of Treasury and Finance, the percentage of the proportion of long service leave taken as leave has changed from the 2008 rate 35% to 45% and the average factor for the calculation of employer superannuation cost on-cost has changed from the 2008 rate 11% to 10.5%. These rates are used in the employment on-cost calculation. The net financial effect of the changes in the current financial year is an increase in the employment on-cost of $78,000. The estimated impact on future years is anticipated to be similar.


Land $’000

Buildings and improvements

$’000

Building under

finance lease $’000


improvements $’000

Total land and buildings

$’000


Additions – 21 – – 21



24,769 82,734 12,447 327 120,277



$’000

Library collections

$’000


$’000

Total Property,

Plant & Equipment

$’000

Carrying amount at the beginning of the period 614 10,506 70 134,611

Additions 1,055 1,064 – 2,140



1,501 9,788 70 131,636


Software $’000

Other Computer

Software $’000

Total Intangible

Assets $’000


Additions – 51 51





Interest rate and credit riskCreditors and accruals are raised for all amounts billed but unpaid. Sundry creditors are normally settled within 30 days. Employment on-costs are settled when the respective employee benefit that they relate to is discharged. All payables are non interest-bearing. The carrying amount of payables represents fair value due to the amounts being payable on demand.

2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Note 24: Employee BenefitsCurrent:

Accrued salaries and wages 1,136 910

Short term long service leave 1,399 1,324

Annual leave 2,437 2,309

Total current employee benefits 4,972 4,543

Non-Current:

Annual leave 228 240


Total non-current employee benefits 7,306 7,033

Total employee benefits 12,278 11,576

The total current and non-current employee expense (i.e. aggregate employee benefit plus related on costs) for 2009 is $5,680,000 and $8,044,000 respectively. For 2008 the expense was $5,192,000 and $7,687,000 respectively.

Based on the actuarial assessment performed by the Department of Treasury and Finance, the benchmark for the measurement of long service leave liability has not changed from the 2008 benchmark (6.5years).

However, the actuarial assessment performed by the Department of Treasury and Finance revised the inflation rate down by 0.5% from the 2008 rate 4.5%. The net financial effect of the changes in the current financial year is a decrease in the annual leave liability and long service leave liability of $13,000 and $41,000 respectively, and total employee benefit expenses of $60,000. The estimated impact on future years is anticipated to be similar.



2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Note 25: ProvisionsCurrent:

Provision for workers compensation 496 522

Total current provisions 496 522

Non-Current:

Provision for workers compensation 1,637 1,777

Total non-current provisions 1,637 1,777

Total provisions 2,133 2,299

Carrying amount at the beginning of the period 2,299 2,394

Reductions arising from payments/other sacrifice of future economic benefits (503) (478)

Reductions resulting from re-measurement or settlement without cost (147) (144)

Additional provisions recognised 484 527

Carrying amount at the end of the period 2,133 2,299

A liability has been reported to reflect unsettled workers compensation claims. The workers compensation provision is based on an actuarial assessment performed by the Public Sector Workforce Division of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Note 26: Other LiabilitiesCurrent

Payable to SA Government entities:

Unearned revenue 50 42

Payable to non-SA Government entities:

Unearned revenue 98 234

Unclaimed money 88 89

Total payables to non-SA Government entities 186 323

Total other liabilities 236 365



2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Note 27: Unrecognised contractual commitmentsRemuneration commitments

Commitments for the payment of salaries and other remuneration under fixed–term employment contracts in existence at the reporting date but not recognised as liabilities in the financial report, are payable as follows:

Within one year 1,717 1,510

Later than one year but not longer than five years 3,348 2,027

Total Remuneration commitments 5,065 3,537

Amounts disclosed include commitments arising from executive and other contracts for non-executives . The Authority does not offer fixed–term remuneration contracts greater than five years.

Other commitments

Commitments in relation to a public/private partnership arrangement for regional court premises not recognised as liabilities in the financial report, are payable as follows:

Within one year 1,919 1,873


Later than five years 42,406 44,528

Total other commitments 52,511 54,384

Operating lease commitments as lessee

Commitments in relation to equipment and accommodation operating leases contracted for at the reporting date but not recognised as liabilities in the financial report, are payable as follows:

Within one year 623 570

Later than one year but not longer than five years 1,084 565

Later than five years 59 –

Total operating lease commitments – all non-cancellable 1,766 1,135

Operating lease commitments as lessor

Commitments in relation to accommodation operating leases contracted for at the reporting date but not recognised as receivable in the financial report, are receivable as follows:


Later than one year but not longer than five years 563 633

Later than five years 366 430

Total operating lease commitments – all non-cancellable 1,076 1,253



2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Note 27: Unrecognised contractual commitments (contd.)Finance lease commitments

Future minimum lease payments under finance lease of the Sir Samuel Way Building, expiring in 2023, together with the present value of net minimum lease payments are as follows:

Payable no later than one year 5,642 5,515

Payable later than one year and not later than five years 22,567 22,060

Payable later than five years 50,776 55,152

Total minimum lease payments 78,985 82,727

Less: Future finance charges and contingent rentals 58,898 61,720

Total finance lease commitments – non-cancellable 20,087 21,007

Present value of finance leases payable as follows:



Later than five years 14,633 15,850

Total present value of minimum lease payments 20,087 21,007

Included in the financial statements as:

Current borrowings 972 919

Non-Current borrowings 19,115 20,088

Total present value of minimum lease payments 20,087 21,007

The weighted average interest rate implicit in the leases is 5.61%

Note 28: Contingent Assets and LiabilitiesThe Authority has no material contingent assets or liabilities as at 30 June 2009 (2008 Nil)



Note 29: Remuneration of board and committee membersMembers that were entitled to receive remuneration for membership during the 2009 financial year were:

Administrative and Disciplinary Committee Medical Professional Conduct Tribunal

Ms Samantha Battams Mr Frederick Henning

Mr Christopher Branson Mr David Blaikie

Ms Jean Hutchinson Mr Graham West

Ms Janina Gipslis Dental Professional Conduct Tribunal

Ms Polly Sumner-Dodd Mr Anthony Lake (resigned 22 Jun 08)

ERDC Environment Protection Act Panel Mr Frank John Van Der Linden (appointed 23 Jun 08)

Dr Megan Lewis Mr William Squire

Mr Brooke Hill (appointed 1 Jul 08) ERDC Development Act Panel

ERDC Native Title Panel Ms Judith Brine

Ms Barbara Wingard (appointed 1 Jul 08) Mr Demetrius Poupoulas

Mr Francis Lampard Mr Peter Koukourou

Mr Olec Morozow Mr Alan Hutchings

ERDC Natural Resources Panel Mr John Schenk (appointed 1 Jul 08)

Mr John Botting ERDC Irrigation Act Panel

Ms Carolyn Ireland (retired 30 Jun 08) Ms Toni Robinson

Ms Megan Dyson ERDC Native Vegetation Act Panel

Mr Bryan Harris Mr John Lothian

Dr Megan Lewis Mr David Moyle

Ms Jennifer McKay ERDC Soil Conservation & Land Care Panel

Mr Philip Read Ms Mary Crawford

Equal Opportunity Tribunal Ms Carolyn Ireland

Mr Richard Altman Electricity Act 1996 Assessors Panel

Ms Elizabeth Bachmann Mr David Round

Ms Helena Jasinski Second-Hand Vehicle Dealers Industry/Consumer Panel

Mr David Shetliffe Ms Elaine Attwood

Mr Hau Yapp Mr Ian MacDonald

Plumbers, Gas Fitters and Electricians Industry/Consumer Panel

Mr Rodger Stainer

Mr Michael Richer



Note 29: Remuneration of board and committee members (continued)Members that were entitled to receive remuneration for membership during the 2009 financial year were:

Training Centre Review Board Security and Investigation Agents Industry/Consumer Panel

Mr David Branson Mr Harald Klavins

Ms Sandra Miller Ms Jean Hutchison

Mr John Eaton

Ms Branka King Supported Residential Facilities Assessor Panel

Ms Irene Watson Mr Keith Moorman (resigned 26 Aug 08)

Mr Paul Pledger (resigned 29 Jul 08)

The number of members whose remuneration received or receivable falls within the following bands:

2009 2008

$0 – $9,999 48 53

$20,000 – $29,999 – 1

$40,000 – $49,999 – 1

Total number of members 48 55

Remuneration of members reflects all costs of performing board/committee member duties including sitting fees, superannuation contributions, fringe benefits tax and any other salary sacrifice arrangements. The total remuneration received by members was $81,000 ($164,000).

In accordance with the Department of Premier and Cabinet Circular No. 016, government employees did not receive any remuneration for board/committee duties during the financial year.

Unless otherwise disclosed, transactions between members are on conditions no more favourable than those it is reasonable to expect the entity would have adopted if dealing with the related party at arm’s length in the same circumstances.

Note 29: Remuneration of board and committee membersMembers that were entitled to receive remuneration for membership during the 2009 financial year were:

Administrative and Disciplinary Committee Medical Professional Conduct Tribunal

Ms Samantha Battams Mr Frederick Henning

Mr Christopher Branson Mr David Blaikie

Ms Jean Hutchinson Mr Graham West

Ms Janina Gipslis Dental Professional Conduct Tribunal

Ms Polly Sumner-Dodd Mr Anthony Lake (resigned 22 Jun 08)

ERDC Environment Protection Act Panel Mr Frank John Van Der Linden (appointed 23 Jun 08)

Dr Megan Lewis Mr William Squire

Mr Brooke Hill (appointed 1 Jul 08) ERDC Development Act Panel

ERDC Native Title Panel Ms Judith Brine

Ms Barbara Wingard (appointed 1 Jul 08) Mr Demetrius Poupoulas

Mr Francis Lampard Mr Peter Koukourou

Mr Olec Morozow Mr Alan Hutchings

ERDC Natural Resources Panel Mr John Schenk (appointed 1 Jul 08)

Mr John Botting ERDC Irrigation Act Panel

Ms Carolyn Ireland (retired 30 Jun 08) Ms Toni Robinson

Ms Megan Dyson ERDC Native Vegetation Act Panel

Mr Bryan Harris Mr John Lothian

Dr Megan Lewis Mr David Moyle

Ms Jennifer McKay ERDC Soil Conservation & Land Care Panel

Mr Philip Read Ms Mary Crawford

Equal Opportunity Tribunal Ms Carolyn Ireland

Mr Richard Altman Electricity Act 1996 Assessors Panel

Ms Elizabeth Bachmann Mr David Round

Ms Helena Jasinski Second-Hand Vehicle Dealers Industry/Consumer Panel

Mr David Shetliffe Ms Elaine Attwood

Mr Hau Yapp Mr Ian MacDonald

Plumbers, Gas Fitters and Electricians Industry/Consumer Panel

Mr Rodger Stainer



2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Note 30: Cash Flow ReconciliationReconciliation of Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the reporting period:

Cash and cash equivalents disclosed in the Statement of Financial Position 25,919 21,698

Balance as per the Statement of Cash Flows 25,919 21,698

Reconciliation of net cash provided by operating activities to net cost of providing services:

Net cash provided by operating activities 7,425 7,882

Less Revenues from SA Government (80,665) (79,075)

Add Payment to SA Government – 448

Add/Less non cash items

Depreciation/Amortisation (5,661) (5,125)

(Loss) from disposal of assets – (92)

Allowance of doubtful debts – (8)

Assets de-recognised (211) –

Changes in Assets / Liabilities

(Decrease)/Increase in Receivables (354) 687

(Decrease)/Increase in Other Assets (13) 39

(Increase) in Employee Benefits (703) (211)

(Increase) in Payables (300) (58)

Decrease in Provisions 166 95

Decrease/(Increase) in Other Liabilities 155 (74)

Net Cost of providing Services (80,161) (75,492)

Note 31: Financial instruments/financial risk management

a) Categorisation of financial instruments

Details of the significant accounting policies and methods adopted including the criteria for recognition, the basis of measurement, and the basis on which income and expenses are recognised with respect to each class of financial assets, financial liability and equity instrument are disclosed in Note 2 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.

Category of financial asset and financial liabilities Note Balance Sheet line itemCarrying amount

equates to fair value

2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Financial assets

Cash and cash equivalents 17 Cash and cash equivalents 25,919 21,698

Loans and receivables 18,22 Receivables* 623 899

Total financial assets at cost 26,542 22,597

Financial liabilities 23 Payables* 4,350 4,050

Financial liabilities at cost 27 Borrowings 20,087 21,007

Total financial liabilities at cost 24,437 25,057



* Receivable and payable amounts disclosed here exclude amounts relating to statutory receivables and payables. In government, certain rights to receive or pay cash may not be contractual and therefore in these situations, the requirements will not apply. Where rights or obligations have their source in legislation such as levy receivable/payables, tax equivalents, commonwealth tax etc they would be excluded from the disclosure. The standard defines contract as enforceable by law. All amounts recorded are carried at cost, except for employee on-costs which are determined via reference to the employee benefit liability to which they relate.

b) Credit Risk

Credit risk arises when there is the possibility of the Authority’s debtors defaulting on their contractual obligations resulting in financial loss to the Authority. The Authority measures credit risk on a fair value basis and monitors risk on a regular basis.

The Authority has no significant concentration of credit risk. The Authority has policies and procedures in place to ensure that transactions occur with customers with appropriate credit history. The Authority does not engage in any hedging activity.

Allowance for impairment of financial assets is calculated on past experience and current and expected changes in client credit rating. The Authority’s financial assets are mainly cash and receivables which do not require any collateral as security. Other than receivables, there is no evidence to indicate that financial assets are impaired. Refer to note 18 for information on the allowance for impairment in relation to receivables.

c) Ageing analysis of receivables

Past due by

Overdue for <30days

Overdue for 30–60 days

Overdue for >60days Total

$’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

2009

Not impaired

Receivables 320 3 1 324

Accrued revenue 91 – – 91

Prepayments 208 – – 208

Impaired

Receivables – – 4 4

Total 619 3 5 627

2008

Not impaired

Receivables 431 4 – 435

Accrued revenue 229 – – 229

Prepayments 223 – – 223

Impaired

Receivables – – 5 5

Total 883 4 5 892



d) Maturity analysis

The financial assets and liabilities of the Authority are all current with maturity within the next 12 months, except finance lease liabilities (refer to note 27 for the split of maturity by band of years) and employee on-costs which are not practical to split the maturity by band of years.

e) Liquidity Risk

The Authority is funded principally from appropriations by the SA Government. The Authority works with the Department of Treasury and Finance to determine the cash flows associated with its Government approved program of work and to ensure funding is provided through SA Government budgetary processes to meet the expected cash flows. The continued existence of the Authority is dependent on State Government policy and on continuing appropriations by Parliament for the Authority’s administration and programs. The Authority settles undisputed accounts within 30 days from the date of the invoice or date the invoice is first received. In the event of a dispute, payment is made 30 days from resolution.

The Authority’s exposure to liquidity risk is insignificant based on past experience and current assessment of risk.

The carrying amount of financial liabilities recorded in note 31.a) represent the Authority’s maximum exposure to financial liabilities.

f) Market risk

Market risk for the Authority is primarily through interest rate risk. Exposure to interest rate risk may arise through its borrowings from Funds SA. There is no exposure to foreign currency or other price risk.

g) Sensitivity disclosure analysis

A sensitivity analysis has not been undertaken for the interest rate risk of the Authority as it has been determined that the possible impact on profit and loss or total equity from fluctuations in interest rate is immaterial.


Note2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Administered Expenses

Judicial benefits expenses A4 32,188 30,525

Victims of Crime payments 11,400 9,498

Payments to Consolidated Account 50,688 46,955

Other expenses 938 881

Total Administered Expenses 95,214 87,859

Administered Income

Revenues from SA Government 32,188 32,250

Fines 26,952 24,914

Court fees 22,688 21,170

Victims of Crime levies 11,400 9,498

Transcript fees 1,059 974

Other income 927 777

Total Administered Income 95,214 89,583

Net and total comprehensive result – 1,724

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


STATEMENT OF ADMINISTERED COMPREHENSIVE INCOME for the year ended 30 June 2009



Note2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Administered Current Assets

Cash and cash equivalents A5 2,679 2,132

Receivables A6 4,969 4,264

Total current assets 7,648 6,396

Administered Current Liabilities

Payables A7 6,476 6,051

Judicial benefits A8 2,772 2,764

Other current liabilities A9 57 48

Total current liabilities 9,305 8,863

Administered Non-Current Liabilities

Payables A7 904 691

Judicial benefits A8 5,407 4,810

Total non-current liabilities 6,311 5,501

Total liabilities 15,616 14,364

Net Assets (7,968) (7,968)

Administered Equity

Accumulated deficit (7,968) (7,968)

Total administered equity (7,968) (7,968)


STATEMENT OF ADMINISTERED FINANCIAL POSITION as at 30 June 2009



Note

Retained Earnings

$'000

Balance at 30 June 2007 (9,692)

Net result for 2007–08 1,724

Total comprehensive result for 2007–08 1,724


Net result for 2008–09 –

Total comprehensive result for 2008–09 –



STATEMENT OF ADMINISTERED CHANGES IN EQUITY for the year ended 30 June 2009



Note2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Cash outflows

Judicial benefits (31,483) (30,478)

Payments to consolidated account (50,284) (46,872)

Victims of Crime payments (11,257) (9,024)

Other payments (927) (777)

Total cash outflows (93,951) (87,151)

Cash inflows

Receipts from SA Government 31,517 30,455

Fines 26,922 24,914

Court fees 22,688 21,170

Victims of Crime receipts 11,383 9,498

Transcript fees 1,059 974

GST recovered from the ATO 2 –

Other receipts 927 777

Total cash inflows 94,498 87,788

Net cash inflows from operating activities A10 547 637

Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 547 637

Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the financial year 2,132 1,495

Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the financial year A5 2,679 2,132

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTERED CASH FLOWS for the year ended 30 June 2009


SCHEDULE OF EXPENSES AND INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO ADMINISTERED ACTIVITIES for the year ended 30 June 2009



2009 $’000

2008 $’000

2009 $’000

2008 $’000

2009 $’000

2008 $’000

2009 $’000

2008 $’000

2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Administered Expenses

Employee benefit expenses 32,188 30,525 – – – – 32,188 30,525

Victims of Crime payments – – – – 11,400 9,498 11,400 9,498

Payments to Consolidated Account 11,806 10,951 – – 38,882 36,004 50,688 46,955

Other expenses 927 881 – – 11 – 938 881

Total administered expenses 44,921 42,357 – – 50,293 45,502 – – 95,214 87,859

Income

Revenues from SA Government 32,188 32,250 – – – – 32,188 32,250

Fines – 20 – – 26,952 24,894 26,952 24,914

Court Fees 10,747 10,060 – – 11,941 11,110 22,688 21,170

Victims of Crime levies – – – – 11,400 9,498 11,400 9,498

Transcript Fees 1,059 974 – – – – 1,059 974

Other income 927 777 – – – – 927 777

Total administered income 44,921 44,081 – – 50,293 45,502 – – 95,214 89,583

Total Comprehensive Result – 1,724 – – – – – – – 1,724



Administered items

Objectives of the Courts Administration Authority Note A1

Summary of significant accounting policies Note A2

Activities of the Authority Note A3

Judicial benefits expense Note A4

Remuneration of judiciary Note A4

Administered cash and cash equivalents Note A5

Administered receivables Note A6

Administered payables Note A7

Judicial benefits Note A8

Administered other liability Note A9

Administered cash flow reconciliation Note A10

Trust Monies Note T1

NOTE INDEX

Note A1: Objectives of the Courts Administration AuthorityThe objectives of the authority outlined in Note 1 for operating items apply equally to the Administered Financial Statements.

Note A2: Summary of significant accounting policiesThe policies of the Authority outlined in Note 2 for operating items apply equally to the Administered Financial Statements.

Note A3: Activities of the AuthorityActivity 1: Court and Tribunal Case Resolution Services The resolution of criminal, civil, appellate, coronial and probate matters in the State’s courts and tribunals.

Activity 2: Alternative Dispute Resolution Services Services for resolving disputes between citizens, and disputes between citizens and the State; as well as the education, training, information and advice processes, which aim to prevent disputes.

No Administered activity under this Activity – Controlled only activity.

Activity 3: Penalty Management Services


The Authority does not track Assets and Liabilities at the administered Activity level and therefore figures can not be reliably measured.



2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Note A4: Judicial BenefitsSalaries, wages and annual leave 22,346 21,562

Employment on-costs 6,722 6,145

Long service leave 1,159 990

Other judicial related expenses 1,961 1,828

Total Judicial benefits 32,188 30,525

2009 2008

Remuneration of judiciary The number of judicial officers whose remuneration received or receivable falls within the following bands:

$100 000 to $109 999 – 2

$110 000 to $119 999 1 1

$120 000 to $129 999 – 3

$130 000 to $139 999 1 2

$140 000 to $149 999 2 –

$160 000 to $169 999 – 1

$170 000 to $179 999 1 1

$230 000 to $239 999 – 2

$240 000 to $249 999 1 8

$250 000 to $259 999 5 8

$260 000 to $269 999 11 7

$270 000 to $279 999 5 4

$280 000 to $289 999 8 8

$290 000 to $299 999 4 7

$300 000 to $309 999 5 1

$310 000 to $319 999 2 –

$320 000 to $329 999 2 –

$330 000 to $339 999 – 1

$350 000 to $359 999 1 –

$360 000 to $369 999 1 1

$370 000 to $379 999 – 8

$380 000 to $389 999 2 13

$390 000 to $399 999 14 1

$400 000 to $409 999 7 –

$420 000 to $429 999 – 8

$430 000 to $439 999 – 4

$440 000 to $449 999 8 1

$450 000 to $459 999 5 –

$490 000 to $499 999 – 1

$500 000 to $509 999 1 –

Total number of judicial officers 87 93

The table includes all judicial officers who received remuneration of $100 000 or more during the year.

Remuneration of judicial officers reflects all costs of employment including salaries and wages, superannuation contributions, fringe benefits tax and any other salary sacrifice benefits. The total remuneration received by these judicial officers for the year was $29.0 million ($28.4 million).



2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Note A5: Administered Cash and cash equivalentsDeposits with the Treasurer 2,679 2,132

Note A6: Administered ReceivablesReceivables from non-SA Government entities

Debtors 369 362

Allowance for doubtful debts (70) (65)

GST input tax recoverable 10 12

309 309

Receivables from SA Government entities

Debtors 27 11

Accrued revenue 4,633 3,944

4,660 3,955

Total current administered receivables 4,969 4,264

Movements in the allowance for doubtful debts

Carrying amount at the beginning of the period 65 –

Amounts written off (1) –

Increase in the allowance 6 65

Carrying amount at the end of the period 70 65

Note A7: Administered PayablesCurrent:

Creditors and accrued expenses 5,817 5,453

Judicial benefits on-costs 659 598

Total current payables 6,476 6,051

Non-Current:


Total Administered payables 7,380 6,742

Government/non-government payables

Payables to SA Government entities

Creditors 3 114

Accrued expenses 5,623 5,098


Total payables to other SA Government entities 6,092 5,639

Payables to non-SA Government entities

Creditors 191 241

Judicial benefits on-costs 1,097 862

Total payables to non-SA Government entities 1,288 1,103

Total payables 7,380 6,742

As a result of an actuarial assessment performed by the Department of Treasury and Finance, the percentage of the proportion of long service leave taken as leave has changed from the 2008 rate 35% to 45% which is used in the employment on-cost calculation. The net financial effect of the changes in the current financial year is an increase in the employment on-cost of $145,000 and employee benefit expenses of $145,000. The estimated impact on future years is anticipated to be similar.


2009 $’000

2008 $’000

Note A8: Judicial BenefitsCurrent:

Accrued Salaries and Wages 617 487

Long service leave 980 1,089

Annual leave 1,175 1,188

Total current judicial benefits 2,772 2,764

Non-Current:

Annual leave 448 511


Total non-current judicial benefits 5,407 4,810

Total judicial benefits 8,179 7,574

The total current and non-current judicial benefit expense (i.e. aggregate judicial benefit plus related on costs) for 2009 is $3,461,000 and $6,319,000 respectively. For 2008 the expense was $3,362,000 and $5,501,000 respectively. The benchmarks for the measurement of long service liability has not changed from the 2008 benchmarks of between 6.5 to 7 years.

Note A9: Other liabilitiesCurrent

Unclaimed money 57 48

Total other liabilities 57 48

Note A10: Administered Cash Flow ReconciliationReconciliation of Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the reporting period:

Cash and cash equivalents disclosed in the Statement of Administered Financial Position 2,679 2,132

Balance as per the Statement of Administered Cash Flows 2,679 2,132

Reconciliation of Net Cash provided by Administered Activities to total comprehensive result:

Net cash (used in) operating activities 547 637

Less: non cash item

Doubtful debts and bad debts expenses (11) (104)

Changes in Administered Assets / Liabilities

Increase in Receivables 716 1,795

(Increase) in Judicial Entitlements (605) (9)

(Increase) in Payables (647) (595)

Total comprehensive result from Administered Activities – 1,724



Note T1 Trust MoniesThe Authority holds monies pending the outcome of court decisions. These monies are excluded from the financial statements as the Authority cannot use them for the achievement of its objectives. The following is a summary of the transactions in the jurisdictions’ trust accounts.

2009 2008$’000 $’000

Supreme Court Suitor AccountBalance at 1 Jul 24,537 7,759

Receipts 17,553 23,790

42,090 31,549

Less: Payments 20,292 7,012

Balance at 30 Jun 21,798 24,537

District Court Suitor AccountBalance at 1 Jul 2,925 3,008

Receipts 1,441 1,576

4,366 4,584


Balance at 30 Jun 2,832 2,925

Sheriff ’s Office Trust AccountBalance at 1 Jul 249 57

Receipts 1,467 1,488

1,716 1,545


Balance at 30 Jun 428 249

Magistrate’s Court Suitor AccountBalance at 1 Jul 4,086 4,012

Receipts 12,801 12,146

16,887 16,158


Balance at 30 Jun 4,289 4,086



Certification of the Financial StatementsWe certify that the attached general purpose financial statements for the Courts Administration Authority:

• ComplywithrelevantTreasurer’sinstructionsissuedundersection41ofthePublicFinanceandAuditAct1987, and relevant Australian accounting standards;

• AreinaccordancewiththeaccountsandrecordsoftheCourtsAdministrationAuthority;and

• PresentatrueandfairviewofthefinancialpositionoftheCourtsAdministrationAuthorityasat30June2009 and the results of its operation and cash flows for the financial year.

We certify that the internal controls employed by the Courts Administration Authority for the financial year over its financial reporting and its preparation of the general purpose financial statements have been effective throughout the reporting period.

Signed in accordance with a resolution of the State Courts Administration Council.

Gary Thompson State Courts Administrator25 September 2009

Michael Harrison Chief Financial Officer25 September 2009

CERTIFICATION OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTSNotes to and forming part of

the financial statements


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT

To the Chief Justice Courts Administration Authority

As required by section 31 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 and section 27 of the Courts Administration Act 1993, I have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Courts Administration Authority for the financial year ended 30 June 2009. The financial statements comprise:

• A Statement of Comprehensive Income

• A Statement of Financial Position

• A Statement of Changes in Equity

• A Statement of Cash Flows

• Disaggregated Disclosures – Expenses and Revenues

• Disaggregated Disclosures – Assets and Liabilities

• Notes to and forming part of the financial statement

• A Statement of Administered Comprehensive Income

• A Statement of Administered Financial Position

• A Statement of Administered Changes in Equity

• A Statement of Administered Cash Flows

• A Schedule of Expenses and Income attributable to Administered Activities

• Notes to and forming part of the administered financial statement and

• A Certificate from the State Counts Administrator and the Chief Financial Officer

The Responsibility of the Members of the State Courts Administration Council for the Financial Statements

The members of the State Courts Administration Council are responsible for the preparation and the fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with the Treasurer’s Instructions promulgated under the provisions of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 and Australian Accounting Standards. This responsibility includes establishing and maintaining internal controls relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error; selecting and applying appropriate accounting policies; and making accounting estimates that are reasonable in the circumstances.

Auditor’s Responsibility

My responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial statements based on the audit. The audit was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 and Australian Auditing Standards. The Auditing Standards require that the auditor complies with relevant ethical requirements relating to audit engagements and plans and performs the audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgement, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of the accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by the Courts Administration Authority, as well as the overall presentation of the financial statements.

I believe that the audit evidence I have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for my auditor’s opinion.

Auditor’s Opinion

In my opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Courts Administration Authority as at 30 June 2009, and its financial performance and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with the Treasurer’s Instructions promulgated under the provisions of the Public Finance and Audit Act and Australian Accounting Standards.

S O’NeillAuditor-General28 September 2009


OUR STRATEGIC PLAN

GO

ALS

WORKFORCE IMPROVED SERVICES AND PROCESSES

INFRASTRUCTURE COMMUNICATIONS

Develop, attract and retain an appropriately skilled and diverse workforce

Provide effective, flexible and adaptive services and processes necessary for the proper administration of justice

Ensure our infrastructure supports the efficient and proper administration of justice

Ensure effective communication within the Authority and with the community

STRA

TEG

IES

1. Develop a coordinated approach to workforce planning.

2. Develop, implement and maintain a meaningful performance development program.

3. Strengthen organisation capacity by developing the skills and talents of all staff.

4. Ensure safe employment conditions

1. Develop a policy framework to support our services.

2. Regularly identify and review/evaluate services and processes and make appropriate changes.

3. Develop and implement service level standards.

4. Develop a data quality plan that assures the accuracy of information.

1. Research and identify current and future infrastructure requirements.

2. Develop an infrastructure plan that is aligned to current and future business needs

1. Prepare and implement a communication plan that reflects the Authority’s priorities.

2. Prepare and implement a communication plan with the community.

Courts Administration Authority Strategic Plan 2006–09

OUR PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OUR PURPOSE OUR VALUES

Provide courts with the services and administrative facilities necessary for the proper administration of justice.

To provide:

1. Administrative support and infrastructure to enable the participating courts to discharge their functions

2. Facilities for court users at registries and courts which meet their needs

Integrity: honest, objective and ethical

Justice: fair, equitable and impartial

Respect: sensitive to others’ needs and opinions

Professionalism: proficient and capable

APPENDIX A


Community Involvement Plan 2008–09Strategic plan ref #

Action

4.1.1.1. Develop a proposal for a Justice Thinker in Residence and follow up with any associated activities

4.1.1.2. Develop and promote a SA Legal Justice Education Network

4.1.1.3. Engage with migrant groups and those who are socially disadvantaged and disengaged to enhance their understanding of the South Australian justice system by:

• Liaising,whereappropriate,withtheSocialInclusionUnit

•LiaisingthroughtheCRGwithrepresentativegroups

•Sponsoringatleasttwoinformationsessionswiththosewhoworkwithmulticulturaland disadvantaged groups a year

•SponsoringatleasttwobrochuresthatexplainaspectsoftheStateCourtsinatleastfourin-demandlanguages, in at least two formats, including formats that engage with youth

4.1.1.4. Arrange at least three public mock sentencing seminars a year

4.1.1.5. Provide broad direction to jurisdictions and divisions about community-oriented easy-to-access information by: Suggesting publications, including website content, especially concerning sentencing and court processes

4.1.1.6. Contribute to educational resources for students and specialist workers by

•Monitoringinteractiveeducativefacilitiese.g.AsktheJudge,viareceiptofbiannualreportsontrafficandtrends

•Providinganasneedseditorialadvisoryserviceforpublicationsconcerningstudentsandspecialistworkers

4.1.1.7. Facilitate opportunities for the Authority to engage with Government ministers, ministerial and electorate staff, to improve understanding of court process and any current pressures by:

•HoldingatleastoneMPandelectoratestaffinformationsessioneachyear

•ArrangingatleastonebriefingforMPsatParliamentHouseeachyear

4.1.1.8. Monitor reports from jurors, court user groups and any information concerning court waiting areas and court services and suggest improvements to EMC

4.1.1.9. Develop and promote programs to improve judicial awareness of community needs, to enhance the delivery of justice by:

•MonitoringactivitiesconcerningSelf-representedlitigants

•Ensuringguidesforjudicialofficersdealingwithself-representedlitigantsareregularlyupdated in judicial handbooks

•ArrangingatleasttwoguestspeakersfromCRGtojudicialeducationalseminarsinayear

•Disseminatingtrendinformationfromjurorsurveys

4.1.1.10. Contribute informative articles on the justice system to mainstream media and the publications of community organizations, and continue oversight of publication of a quarterly Courts Newsletter

4.1.1.11. Maintain a Community Reference Group, with meetings twice yearly

APPENDIX B

Level 14 Education Centre

31 Flinders Street Adelaide SA 5000

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

Internet: www.courts.sa.gov.au

Courts A

dministration A

uthority Annual Report 2008–2009

Annual ReportANNUAL REPORT 2008–09