courts administration authority annual report · 2014. 11. 18. · annual report 2013-2014 3 report...

ANNUAL REPORT2013-2014

Courts Administration Authority

October 2014

Courts Administration Authority Education Centre Building31 Flinders Street AdelaideSouth Australia 5000Telephone: +61 8 8226 0138www.courts.sa.gov.au

Report prepared by Media and Communications Branch, CAA. Inquiries about this report to +61 8 8204 0403 or email [email protected]

Copyright: Courts Administration Authority, South Australia, October 2014

ISSN 1443-0444

http://www.courts.sa.gov.au

mailto:media%40courts.sa.gov.au?subject=

CONTENTS

Annual Report 2013-2014

1

Contents 1

CAA Organisational Chart 2

Report from the Chair of the State Courts Administration Council 3

Report from the State Courts Administrator 6

Strategic Plan and Community Engagement 7

Supreme Court 9

District Court 17

Environment, Resources and Development Court 25

Magistrates Court 27

Youth Court 48

Coroners Court 52

Sheriff’s Office 54

Library Service 58

Court Transcription Services 59

Human Resources 60

Information Technology Services 64

Greening of Government Operations 66

Financial Overview 67

Financial Certification Statement 69

Auditor-General’s Certificate 71

Financial Reports 74


2

CAA ORGANISATIONAL CHART

SUPREME COURT

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND

DEVELOPMENT COURT

CAA LIBRARY SERVICE

DISTRICT COURT

COURT TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES

SHERIFF’S OFFICE

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES

HUMAN RESOURCES

MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS

BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL SERVICES

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

MAGISTRATES COURT

CORONERS COURT

ABORIGINAL PROGRAMS

YOUTH COURT

INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

CONFERENCING UNIT

STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATION

COUNCILCHIEF JUSTICECHIEF JUDGE

CHIEF MAGISTRATE

STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR

EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT

TEAM

COURT SERVICES

HIGHER COURT

SERVICES

CORPORATE SERVICES


3

REPORT FROM THE CHAIR OF THE STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATION COUNCIL

This is the 21st report of the State Courts Administration Council (‘the Council’). It deals with the year to 30 June 2014. The Council is established by the Courts Administration Act 1993 (SA). It is a statutory authority, independent of control by the Executive Government.

The function of the Council is to provide administrative facilities and services for the proper administration of justice by the courts of the State. By section 17 of the Act, the State Courts Administrator is responsible, subject to control and direction by the Council, for the control and management of the Council’s staff and the management of property that is under the Council’s care, control and management. The Council, the State Courts Administrator and the Council’s staff are referred to collectively as ‘the Authority’.

During the year, the Council comprised me as Chief Justice, Chief Judge Muecke of the District Court and Chief Magistrate, Judge Bolton. The Associate Members of the Council were Justice Stanley, Judge Lovell and Deputy Chief Magistrate, Dr Cannon AM.

At the invitation of the Council, Mr Brian Morris, an experienced forensic accountant, has attended Council meetings since 15 January 2014 as an observer and consultant. Mr Morris has much assisted the Council in grappling with important governance, financial and managerial issues.

In 2013 Mr Thompson informed the Council that he did not wish to renew his second five-year contract as State Courts Administrator after the expiry of its term on 8 January 2014. The Council thanks Mr Thompson for his support throughout the decade he held office. Mr Thompson was a strong advocate for the needs of the State’s Judiciary but, at the same time, kept a keen eye on better ways of organising our work. He always loyally promoted and defended the Authority’s staff. Mr Thompson’s counsel will be greatly missed.

After an extensive search from a strong field of applicants, the Council appointed Ms Julie-Anne Burgess as State Courts Administrator on 9 January 2014. Ms Burgess has strong experience in health administration and held the position of Director of Medical Imaging Operations with SA Health before her appointment as State Courts Administrator. Ms Burgess has quickly settled into her role showing a strong command of the work of the Authority. She has brought with her valuable new insights and methods of work.

The budget of the Council, like those of all other government departments, remains under much pressure. For the 2008–09 financial year to the year of this report, a budget reduction of $7.570m, the equivalent of a workforce reduction of 81 employees, has been imposed. The budget reduction for the year 2013–14 was $2.3m. In addition, the Council faced some extraordinary budget pressures for which it received supplementary funding in the 2012–13 budget round. The budget of the Council is almost totally committed to the funding of core judicial services, with only a small proportion of the budget expended on discretionary programs. It is, therefore, not possible for the Council to meet budget reductions without adversely affecting the provision of court services.

The budget reduction in 2013–14 was met primarily by the Executive not making appointments to replace retiring judicial officers. In the Supreme Court 1.5 judicial offices have not been filled,1 two District Court judicial offices remain vacant and two Magistrates were not replaced. There have been associated reductions in the judicial support staff of the Authority.

Other budgetary measures included the closure of the Sturt Street court complex and a reduction in the number

1 Justice Parker was appointed to the Supreme Court but also serves as President of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal devoting half of his time to each of those offices.

2 In recognition of the sensitivity and public interest in the location of murder trials, a contingency fund has been established for the 2014-2015 year should it become necessary to hold a Supreme Court circuit in Port Augusta.


4

of regional court circuits.2 Library purchases of hard copy journals, reports and texts were substantially diminished.

The budget measures put pressure on court waiting times, which was managed through the additional effort of judicial officers and staff of the Authority.

Despite the significant diminution in its resources, the Authority successfully implemented a range of new initiatives. During 2013–14, the Authority implemented procedures to give effect to the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Guilty Pleas Amendment Act 2012 (SA) which provides a graduated series of sentence reductions for guilty pleas, to encourage offenders to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity.

The Statutes Amendment (Court Efficiency Reforms) Act 2012 (SA) commenced operation on 1 July 2013. This Act expanded the small claims jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court to $25,000 and its general jurisdiction to $100,000. The Act caused a substantial spike in lodgments in the District Court and the Magistrates Court in April to June 2013. Processing these claims was a continuing burden in 2013-2014 and will continue to be in the coming financial year. Overall, the Act is likely to effect a shift in civil lodgments to the Magistrates Court. The Act also increased the Magistrates Courts criminal jurisdiction and sentencing powers, empowering Magistrates to impose a sentence of up to five years on conviction of a single offence and cumulative sentences of up to 10 years for multiple offences. Magistrates can also sentence on conviction of some major indictable offences if the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defendant both consent. The full effects of these new initiatives will be monitored and measured.

The Magistrates Court reviewed its civil procedure rules to accommodate these changes with updated costs scales and rules to discourage unrealistic ambit claims, counterclaims and defences. It has significantly expanded its mediation services by establishing a panel of private mediators who will mediate court matters at a cost to the parties of the court scale fee of $500 for small claims or two percent of the amount of the claim in the general jurisdiction.

Pursuant to the Statutes Amendment (Fines Enforcement Recovery) Act 2013 (SA) the fines payment functions of the

CAA were transferred to the Fines Enforcement Recovery Unit of the Attorney-General’s Department, from 3 February 2014. I commend the officers of the Authority for their efforts in smoothly implementing that transfer. About 72 of the Authority staff were transferred to the Fines Enforcement Recovery Unit as part of that process. The Authority’s staff who undertook fine payment functions were stationed in Adelaide and a number of suburban court locations. The loss of staff from suburban courts will adversely impact the sustainability of the registry operations at those locations.

The Drug Court and the Treatment Intervention Programs of the Magistrates Court were integrated into a single Treatment Intervention Court and other measures taken which will substantially reduce the cost of the program in 2014–15. The program continues to provide an alternative to imprisonment as a sentencing option in appropriate cases.

During the reporting period, the SA Indigenous Justice Committee formed a Reconciliation sub-committee comprising judiciary, and CAA Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal staff, tasked with developing a new CAA Reconciliation Statement. The Reconciliation Statement was completed in May 2014 and includes the image of the CAA’s Reconciliation Painting, created by judiciary and court staff in 2012. At the commencement of Reconciliation Week on 27 May 2014, the CAA’s Reconciliation Statement was signed at a ceremony hosted by Justice Sulan. Signatories to the statement are the Chief Justice, Chief Judge, Chief Magistrate, State Courts Administrator, Elder Aunty Coral Wilson, Senior Aboriginal Justice Officer Paul Tanner and Senior Aboriginal Cultural Consultant Geoff Cooper. The signed statement has been reprinted and framed for distribution across all CAA sites and registries.

The procedures for processing probate applications in the Supreme Court were re-engineered with a substantial reduction in the backlog. The turn-around time waiting time for straightforward applications was reduced from about seven weeks to seven working days.

Throughout the reporting year, the Procedure Executive Committee and the Joint Rules Advisory Committee of the Supreme and District Courts considered a range of procedural reforms. Rules implementing those reforms,



5

including a fast-track litigation stream, pre-action protocols and reductions in the number of pre-trial hearings will come into effect on 1 October 2014.

During the last financial year, substantial advances have been made in the procurement of building and technological infrastructure for the work of the Courts.

First, the Authority committed substantial resources to work with the Department of Public Transport and Infrastructure, and external consultants, to prepare a functional design brief to solicit expressions of interest for developers of a new higher courts building. The ‘Request for Proposal’ documentation, including a ‘Functional Design Brief’, was released on 7 April 2014.

It is expected that a development consortium will be selected before the end of the calendar year. The proposed building will accommodate the Supreme and District Courts, the Coroners Court and administrative elements of the Authority presently housed in Flinders Street. Proper accommodation for the judicial arm of government is of symbolic importance in itself but it has become clear in preparing the functional design brief that the new court building will have greater functionality, enabling the Courts to provide an improved and more cost efficient service to the public.

Secondly, the State Courts Administrator established a working group to prepare a business case for the

procurement of an electronic case management system. The working group was funded entirely from the internal resources of the Authority. The development of the business case is well advanced. As is generally the case when public infrastructure is made modern, it is likely that the Council will require additional government funding to procure and to operate the system. Some of the cost will be defrayed by savings from improved court processes. It should be understood that an electronic case management system will secure efficiencies across all of the government justice departments and the legal profession generally. The overall long-term benefits to the entire South Australian community cannot be over-stated and will far exceed the additional expenditure. It is of critical importance that the procurement be properly funded. All jurisdictions across Australia have already installed contemporary electronic case management systems or are moving to do so. South Australia cannot afford not to do the same.

THE HONOURABLE CHRIS KOURAKISCHAIR, STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATION COUNCILCHIEF JUSTICE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA


REPORT FROM THE STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR

This is my first annual report as the State Courts Administrator, having taken up the position following Mr Gary Thompson’s retirement. I acknowledge the very significant contribution Gary made to CAA and look forward to building on the legacy he left as the result of his decade long contribution to the organisation.

Given there have only been three previous State Courts Administrators in the past 21 years since the CAA was established, I feel particularly honoured to have been appointed to this role. I look forward to building on the considerable strengths of the organisation and to working toward the strategic goals of the Council.

Since becoming the State Courts Administrator I have had the pleasure of visiting a number of locations throughout the State. I have been consistently impressed by the dedication of our staff and their expertise. Often this is combined with many years of service to the Courts, which the CAA and community benefit from every day in the delivery of justice. The result is an enviable platform which any leader could set out from. There have been many opportunities for CAA staff to demonstrate skills and expertise this year, as several milestones were achieved.

The Fines Payment Unit transitioned successfully to the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) new Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit (FERU), on 3 February 2014. The professionalism of the transitioning staff until the very end of their employment with the CAA was appreciated and was undoubtedly a significant contributor to the smooth transition. There is ongoing work being done by the CAA to determine how registries best function with the loss of the staff and workload associated with the fines transition.

Progress on the Courts Urban Precinct Renewal Project is energising the organisation. Three consortia have been short-listed and proposals are due to be evaluated early in the new financial year. Progress throughout this year has been significant, and the work of many individuals has resulted in well-constructed documentation to guide consortia in the preparation of their proposals. We look forward to the progression of this significant project for the Courts of the future.

For a number of years the Courts have been working with electronic case management systems that are outdated

and fragile and therefore replacement of the systems has become a priority. This year, we took a team off-line to work on a business case to replace the systems and continuation of this work to the completion of a submission for funding is a CAA priority for 2014–15.

The creation and ongoing work of the Criminal Justice Sector Reform Council (CJSRC) has resulted in four priority projects being identified across the sector. These projects are: Discretion/Diversion Options, Early Resolutions, Remand in Custody and Criminal Justice Information Management (CJIM). There is a high level of engagement in these projects across the CAA, with many team members working across various aspects of the projects. With this high level of commitment, progress is being made on the reform agenda.

During the 2013–14 financial year the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) Act 2013 was passed and work began regarding matters to be moved to SACAT from CAA jurisdictions. The work will continue throughout 2014–15.

I wish to record my thanks to my Executive Management Team for the support they have given me since my arrival. I am conscious of the upheaval inevitably felt through the change in Administrator, and thank them for their patience and persistence to ensure we reach good decisions. I also would like to thank the Council for its support and encouragement since my appointment. I look forward to working with the Council towards a new strategic vision while embracing opportunities we are presented with at present, to make lasting and positive decisions for the organisation.

JULIE-ANNE BURGESSSTATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR


6

STRATEGIC PLAN AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

At the end of the 2012 financial year, Council approved a corporate strategic plan for 2013–2014. Highlights and achievements for the year under review appear below.

GOAL 1: JUSTICE SECTOR REFORMContribute our knowledge and expertise to major reform initiatives in the justice sector

FINES TRANSITION

CAA successfully managed the transition of the Fines Payment Unit to the Attorney-General’s Department and its consequent changes to registry structures, processes and service delivery.

COURTS PRECINCT URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT

There has been ongoing significant contribution to the concept planning for a Courts Precinct in the south western corner of Victoria Square in Adelaide.

JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM PROJECT

Senior staff have contributed to Justice Sector Reform Council initiatives, which concentrate on improving operations, reducing delays, reducing costs and improving victim and witness care across the justice sector.

SA CIVIL & ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (SACAT)

We have provided ongoing assistance to the machinery of government to establish a SACAT.

GOAL 2: REFORMING OUR OPERATIONSDevelop and implement innovative and improved ways of delivering our services

COURTS EFFICIENCY LEGISLATION

We have implemented legislative reforms and managed consequent changes to processes, workload and staffing in those Courts affected by this legislation.

CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND ELODGMENT

Significant progress is being made on a business case and associated IT strategy to replace case management

systems.

RECORDS MANAGEMENT

The CAA’s electronic document records management system continues to be rolled out.

LIBRARY DIGITAL RESOURCES

An integrated business and IT strategy for innovative online research of library resources has begun.

TECHNICAL TRAINING

Work has begun on an online suite of universal training modules for all CAA staff, commencing with new and updated Magistrates Court (criminal and civil jurisdictions) training modules.

GOAL 3: AN ETHICAL AND SAFE ORGANISATIONDemonstrate ongoing commitment and improvement in ethical and safe work practices in the CAA

HUMAN RESOURCES’ POLICY AND PROCEDURES

Policies and procedures relating to ethical behaviour, employee conflict and misconduct have been updated and training is on-going in these areas.

CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

Improved policy and training programs about compliance with guidelines and procedures relating to contract management have been completed. Training in these areas is on-going.

WORKER HEALTH AND SAFETY AND INJURY MANAGEMENT

Our commitment to zero injury has been demonstrated through expansion of a manual handling online training initiative and development of a resilience training strategy, which begins later this year.


7

GOAL 4: SUSTAINABLE COURTSMaintaining our operational and financial sustainability

Council and senior management have worked hard to ensure service delivery capacity and operational sustainability for the State Courts while in an environment of change and fewer resources. Budget savings measures imposed by Cabinet have been implemented for 2013–14 and 2014–15. Further work is being done to consider what reforms may be necessary in Magistrate Court operations following transition of the Fines Payment Unit to the Attorney-General’s Department.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Individual courts retain Court User Groups, which meet to consider local operational issues. The CAA also sponsors a Courts Community Reference Group, comprising 15 community-based associations. The group met twice this year, providing suggestions and commentary to the CAA on community-oriented activities run by the CAA. The CAA continues to run a Judicial Speaker’s bureau, making available judicial officers (where possible) and senior court staff to speak to community groups on aspects of the work of the Courts, and to host community group visits to the Courts.

From 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014, judicial officers gave talks to three community groups comprising approximately

117 individuals. In addition, judicial officers spoke to six professional groups, such as SA Police and Forensic Science South Australia, with audiences totalling approximately 150 individuals. From 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014, CAA staff hosted 12 tours of the courts by community groups, involving 305 visitors. CAA staff spoke to two professional groups of approximately 65 individuals. CAA staff also spoke to nine tertiary student groups such as TAFE Interpreting and Forensic Odontology students, comprising 200 individuals.

COURTS EDUCATION MANAGER

The Courts Education Manager is a seconded teacher, whose position is largely funded by the Department of Education and Child Development. The Education Manager is based at Adelaide Magistrates Court and runs curriculum-linked educational activities for students and teachers throughout SA. This year, the Courts Education Manager had direct contact with 6,100 school children and ran professional development programs for more than 150 teachers, including state-wide conferences for legal education teachers and primary school teachers, student meet-the-expert forums, role-plays, workshops and video-conferences. He continues to develop resources to support student learning about courts and the broader theme of civics education under the Australian Curriculum.

STRATEGIC PLAN AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT


8

At a glance 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Judges 13 12 12

Masters 2 2 2

Staff 52.3 50.6 47.8

Total Civil lodgments* 1,942 1,701 1,674

Land and Valuation Division lodgments*** 54 19 53

Probate Grant of Representation lodgments 5,492 5,778 5,643

Criminal lodgments (including circuits)** 208 237 221

Single Judge appeals instituted*** 182 143 165

Full Court appeals instituted*** 56 77 76

Court of Criminal Appeal appeals instituted 165 144 148

* includes matters not recorded in the annual Commonwealth Productivity Commission Report on Government Services (ROGS)** Total criminal lodgments include committals, bail reviews, transferred files, applications for the fixing of non-parole periods and miscellaneous applications

(whether in Adelaide or on circuit).*** included in total civil lodgments

ROLE AND FUNCTION

The Supreme Court is the superior court of South Australia.

The court deals with more complex civil claims and serious

criminal charges. It is the highest court of the State for

hearing appeals. It sits in Adelaide. Under the Administration

and Probate Act 1919, the Probate Registry grants probate

of a will or administration of the estate of a deceased

person. The court also determines matters in its Land and

Valuation jurisdiction.

JUDICIARY

The Chief Justice is the principal judicial officer of the court

and is responsible for its administration. He is also Chairman

of the State Courts Administration Council. There are

currently 12 Justices (including the Chief Justice) and two

Masters of the Supreme Court.

During the year, The Honourable Justice Bampton and The Honourable Justice Parker were appointed to the court. Justice Parker is also the President of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT).

STAFF

The Registrar is the principal administrative officer of the court. The Registrar manages the Supreme Court 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, who are all legally-qualified and some of whom are admitted barristers and solicitors, assist judges of the court with research and in-court duties.

SUPREME COURT


9

SUPREME COURT

COURT WORKLOAD AND PERFORMANCE

Civil Workload

Table 1: Supreme Court civil workload

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Total civil lodgments 1,942 1,701 1,674

Masters’ jurisdiction

Hearings in court 403 814 622

Hearings in chambers* 3,050 3,391 2,921

Urgent and other applications 102 91 76

E-applications and adjournments without attendance N/A N/A 842

Civil trials

Number of civil cases fixed for trial** 47 50 75

Cases disposed of by trial** 14 15 4

Trials commenced (percentage of cases fixed for trial***) 43% 38% 8%

Cases settled after being listed for trial 13 19 38

Civil cases awaiting trial as at 30 June 12 17 36

Number of civil lodgments finalised 2,089 1,682 1,727

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

Average for cases that proceeded to judgment 6.5 5.4 3.6

Average for cases that settled 2.2 1 1

Special classification cases#

Average trial length for cases that proceeded to judgment (days) 36 30 15

Judge sitting days during year 42 141 15

Average sitting time for cases (days) 8 35 15

New matters lodged 8 12 20

Trials listed 19 14 8

Cases awaiting trial at 30 June 14 4 13

* 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 ’Court Workload and Performance

A ‘special classification case’ is one assigned as such under Supreme Court Rule 115 by the Chief Justice or his delegate. They are usually cases that are estimated to exceed 15 sitting days or of sufficient difficulty or complexity to require special consideration. After being assigned, the matters are referred to a judge for case management. In the year under review, 20 cases were added to the list, which

is more than previous years, making a total of 22 matters case-managed during the period. In 2013–14, four matters were finalised, three matters were discontinued with one heard and judgment delivered. Of the three that settled, none had trial dates fixed. During the period, two matters had mediations arranged with one of those cases resolving during the year.


10

SUPREME COURT

APPELLATE WORKLOAD

Table 2: Supreme Court appellate workload

Appeals 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Full Court

Appeals and applications to Full Court 83 77 76

Disposal by hearing 69 19 44

Setting down* to hearing (average days) 49 62 68

Hearing to judgment (average days) 68 76 67

Single judge**

Appeals to single judge 254 143 165

Disposal by hearing 249 102 103

Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA)

Applications for permission to appeal 153 141 132

Applications not requiring permission to appeal 12 3 16

Total criminal appeals 165 144 148

Application for permission, or appeal, abandoned 29 27 19

Permission refused by CCA or single judge 18 16 7

Disposal by CCA hearing 135 102 104

Total disposals 182 145 130

Permission granted to hearing (average days) 42 40 38

Hearing to judgment (average days) 42 66 60

* 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 to the Full Court decreased in 2013–14. At 30 June 2014, there were 22 Full Court appeals pending, of which 20 had been filed but had not been set down by the parties. The Full Court can list matters as soon as the parties are ready.

CCA lodgments increased in 2013–14, as did the number of disposals.

CRIMINAL WORKLOAD

Cases that are committed for trial to the superior courts (the Supreme Court and District Court) are divided into four categories. Category 1 cases are those that can only be tried before a judge of the Supreme Court. Categories 2–4 comprise cases that are usually tried before a judge of the District Court. Some Category 2 cases may be tried before a judge of the Supreme Court for reasons such as the complexity of issues of law or of fact. Some Category 3 and 4 cases may be tried before the Supreme Court to assist with disposition of the case load.


11

SUPREME COURT

Table 3: Supreme Court criminal workload

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Lodgments and disposals (by defendant)

Criminal lodgments (including circuit lodgments)* 208 237 221

Circuit lodgments** 7 6 0

Matters disposed of (including by trial) 215 248 243

Trials (by case)

To verdict (category one) 13 9 14

To verdict (all categories)+ 27 27 22

Listed (all categories)+ 55 57 49

Matters disposed of by trial (all categories)*** 25 16 29

Listed but not heard as at 30 June+ 9 11 12

Average length of trial (days)

Category 1 trials 7.77 20.9 17.2

All categories 3.2 9.1 11.5

* Total criminal lodgments include 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 Note: Supreme Court did not circuit during 2013-2014*** 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

There was a decrease of 16 criminal lodgments in 2013–14 compared to 2012–13. 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.

Lodgments in the Supreme Court have decreased in two categories in 2013–14 relative to 2012–13. Committal for trial matters (increased by one), summons for review matters (increased by five), miscellaneous applications (decreased by 19) and transfers from the lower courts (decreased by 11).

The number of matters disposed of by trial has increased

by 13 in 2013–14, compared with the previous year. There

were five less matters disposed of (including by trial) this

year compared with 2012–13.

COURT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Table 4 shows performance against standards for the

Supreme Court appellate and civil jurisdictions. 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).


12

SUPREME COURT

Table 4: Performance against standards (targets) for Appellate and Civil jurisdictions

Standards TargetActual (%)

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Appellate jurisdiction

Full Court *One month 100 100 100

Court of Criminal Appeal **One month 70 67 76

Appeals to a single judge (Supreme Court) ***One month 100 100 100

Civil jurisdiction

Civil actions finalised by trial within 365 days 60% 20 33 26

* 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 Jurisdiction Performance Standards

In its appellate jurisdiction, the court continues to meet its target, except in the Court of Criminal Appeal (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 Standards

A total of 15 matters proceeded to trial during the year. Of those, four (27 percent) met the performance standard. There has been a decrease in the trials commenced, as a percentage of cases fixed for trial from 38 percent to eight percent. This is mostly as a result of the large increase in the number of trials settling after being listed for trial. The time taken to get 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 couple of months of the parties being ready for trial.

Age Profile Data – Criminal

The court measures the timeliness of its case disposition against the national performance standards used in the annual ROGS. Two standards are applied. The first of these is that no more than 10 percent 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. Table 5 shows that Non-Appeal matters have met the standards in relation to the matters more than 12 months old, but has not met the standard for matters more than 24 months old. The CCA has marginally exceeded the 12 month standard, and has not met the 24 month standard.

Table 5: Criminal lodgment age profile 2013–14

Lodgments not finalised at 30 June Target % Non-appeal Appeal CCA

No. % No. %

More than 12 months old* <10.0 2 8.7 5 10.3

More than 24 months old 0.0 2 4.3 1 1.7

* Includes matters greater than 24 months old


13

Table 6: Criminal reserved verdicts following a trial by a judge sitting alone

Age ProfileVerdicts

2013–14

Less than one month 0

More than one month but less than two months 0

More than two months but less than three months 0

More than three months but less than six months 0

More than six months but less than 12 months 0

More than 12 months 0

Total judgments outstanding 0

There are no judgments for trials by judge alone outstanding for 2013–14.

Age Profile Data – Civil

The court measures the timelines of its case disposition against the national performance standards used in ROGS (the same standards referred to above).

The court did not meet the standards in its Non-Appeals. In

most cases the standard was not met because the parties

were not ready to proceed to trial. The court did meet the

12 months and 24 months standard in both Single Judge

Appeals and Full Court Appeals.

Table 7: Civil lodgment age profile 2013–14

Lodgments not finalised at 30 June Target % Non-appeal Appeal single judge

Appeal Full Court

No. % No. % No. %

More than 12 months old* <10.0 255 33.3 1 4.3 3 7.1

More than 24 months old 0.0 157 20.5 0 0.0 0 0.0


Table 8: Civil reserved judgments following a trial

Age ProfileJudgments

2013-2014








SUPREME COURT


14

Table 9: Other reserved decisions in the Civil jurisdiction

Age ProfileDecisions

2013–14







Total decisions outstanding 29

SUPREME COURT

PROBATE REGISTRY

The Probate Registry deals mainly with non-contentious applications for a grant of probate or letters of administration. These are collectively referred to as ‘grants of representation’. The Registrar of Probates is responsible for the issue of such grants. The Registrar’s authority to make grants of representation and other orders of the court is conferred by statute, rules of court and the common form practice. The function of the Probate Registry, insofar as it relates to grants of representation, is to determine what (if any) documents may be taken to be the will of a deceased person and who is entitled to be constituted the personal representative of that person.

This year, 5 643 applications for grants of representation were lodged and 6 122 grants were issued. The Probate Registry issued 5 778 grants in the previous year.

A processing initiative trialled in the previous year has proved successful in bringing down waiting times and is now permanent.

JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

The Judicial Development Committee met monthly throughout the year. There were no resignations or new appointments and as at June 2014 the Committee comprised Judge Wayne Chivell (Chair), Justice Malcolm Blue, Judge Brian Gilchrist, Judge Julie McIntyre, Magistrate Maria Panagiotidis, Professor Vicki Waye (University of South Australia) and Dr Suzanne Le Mire (University of Adelaide). The Chair is also Regional Convenor for SA chapter of the National Judicial

College of Australia (NJCA), which plans national judicial education programs. In addition, Judge Chivell is a member of an NJCA development committee in relation to witness assessment. His Judicial Support Officer, Janie Telfer, continues to provide administrative support to the Committee.

The Committee has a restricted access page on the CAA website on which it publishes a calendar of events, video recordings, papers and materials presented at programs throughout the year, articles of interest, links to the NJCA and other useful websites. The Committee is cooperating with the NJCA in providing its material to the NJCA’s “clearing house” to enable materials to be available Australia-wide.

In November 2013, the Committee arranged a successful day-long seminar covering topics including Navigating the Social Network; Current Criminal and Civil Issues, and The function and role of ICAC.

Twilight seminars are held as and when relevant topics arise. Those presented in 2013–14 were The Crown as model litigant – dispelling some myths; Concurrent evidence of expert witnesses; and Earlier guilty pleas.

The creation of an administrative position for the Committee, as recommended by the NJCA, is required if the judicial development program in South Australia is to be developed further.


15

SUPREME COURT

NATIONAL JUDICIAL COLLEGE OF AUSTRALIA INDIGENOUS JUSTICE COMMITTEE (SA COMMITTEE)

The SA Indigenous Justice Committee seeks to enhance the judiciary’s understanding of issues affecting Aboriginal people through workshops, seminars, community visits and cultural awareness programs. The Committee is chaired by Justice Sulan of the SA Supreme Court, has membership drawn from the federal jurisdiction as well as the higher courts, Magistrates, Youth and Coroners Courts, and is supported by the CAA’s Manager Aboriginal Programs and Senior Aboriginal Justice Officer.

The SA Indigenous Justice Committee supported the AIJA’s hosting of an Indigenous Justice Conference - Challenges for the Courts, held in Adelaide in July 2013. Committee members assisted with the organisation of the conference, in particular, arranging for speakers and the attendance of SA Aboriginal Elders. Some members also gave presentations.

In October 2013, the Committee hosted a twilight forum with the Grannies Group, a group of Aboriginal Elders who seek positive changes in the justice system. Nine judicial officers attended and more than 20 court staff, along with 10 Aunties from the Grannies Group. The forum included a viewing of the Grannies Group DVD entitled The Lost

Generation, followed by informative discussion. The Lost Generation very directly and honestly shares the stories of four Aunties whose children are caught up in the justice system through drug use and offending, and highlights the impact upon them as mothers and grandmothers.

On 13 February 2014, committee members along with Elders, judicial officers and court staff, shared an early breakfast and moving presentations, to mark the Sixth Anniversary of the Apology to the Stolen Generations, hosted by Reconciliation SA.

In late 2013 the Committee formed a Reconciliation sub-committee comprising judiciary, and CAA Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal staff, tasked with developing a new CAA Reconciliation Statement. The Reconciliation Statement was completed in May and includes the image of the CAA’s Reconciliation Painting, created by judiciary and court staff in 2012. On 27 May 2014, the CAA’s Reconciliation Statement was signed at a ceremony hosted by Justice Sulan and the Committee during Reconciliation Week. Signatories to the statement are the Chief Justice, Chief Judge, Chief Magistrate, State Courts Administrator, Elder Aunty Coral Wilson, Senior Aboriginal Justice Officer Paul Tanner and Senior Aboriginal Cultural Consultant Geoff Cooper. The signed statement has been reprinted and framed for distribution across CAA sites.


16

At a glance 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Judges * ** 22 20 20

Masters 3 3 3

Staff 68.2 68.4 66.6

Civil lodgments*** ^ 2,217 2,803 1,730

Criminal injuries lodgments 147 102 83

Administrative and Disciplinary lodgments ^ ~ 170 181 139

Lodgments (other courts and tribunals) 199 196 126

Minor civil claims reviews 28 32 50

Criminal lodgments *** ^ 2,570 2,761 2,877

Number of criminal circuit lodgments ^ 232 261 205

* As at 30 June 2013. ** Refer to “Judiciary” section below for further details.*** Includes matters heard on circuit.^ Includes matters not recorded in the annual Commonwealth Productivity Commission Report on Government Services (ROGS)~ Administrative and Disciplinary Division figures appear separately, to differentiate from the other courts and tribunals serviced by the Civil Registry.

DISTRICT COURT

ROLE AND FUNCTION

The 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 and is co-located with the Supreme Court and ERD Court registries.

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

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

In its Administrative and Disciplinary Division, the District Court deals with disciplinary and appeal matters under many

Acts; for example, the Guardianship and Administration Act 1993, the Mental Health Act 2009, the Building Work Contractors Act 1995 and the Land Agents Act 1994. In some of these cases, a judge sits with assessors who have expertise in the field that is the subject of the proceeding.

JUDICIARY

The Chief Judge is the principal judicial officer of the court and is responsible for its administration. The court comprises 20 judges (including the Chief Judge) and three Masters.

During this reporting period Judge Muecke was appointed as the Chief Judge on 25 July 2013 and Judge Bampton was appointed as a Justice of the Supreme Court from 14 November 2013, with no appointment to this vacancy made during 2013–14.

In response to the State Government budget requirements of the CAA, the State Courts Administration Council made a number of changes in the District Court from 1 July 2013. This included non-replacement of two judges who had retired in April 2013. The Attorney-General was asked not to replace them, to use their non-replacement to meet budget reduction requirements.


17

DISTRICT COURT

The Industrial Relations Court judges, who hold commissions as District Court judges, continue to preside in actions filed in the District Court under the Dust Diseases Act 2005 and appeals under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010. The registry for these actions remains in the Sir Samuel Way Building.

REGISTRAR AND OTHER COURT STAFF

The 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 share a pool of associates for the purpose of legal research and in-court assistance.

OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF THE DISTRICT COURT

Criminal

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

Table 10: District Court criminal lodgments, disposals and trial data

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Lodgments and disposals (defendants)

Total criminal lodgments (including circuit) 2,570 2,761 2,877

Circuit lodgments 232 261 205

Total matters disposed of (including circuit and by trials) 2,556 2,690 2,943

Trials (cases)

Total trials listed * 941 954 1,052

District Court criminal matters disposed of by trial (verdict) * 192 187 184

District Court criminal matters listed for trial and disposed of by other means * ** 367 391 469

District Court criminal matters listed for trial during the financial year but not disposed of * *** 381 376 399

Criminal trials listed but not heard as at 30 June * 289 339 428

Trials longer than ten days awaiting hearing as at 30 June 31 24 46

Trials by judge alone resulting in verdict * ^ 54 39 55

Length of criminal trials (average days) 5.3 6.4 5.7

* Includes trials heard on circuit** 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^ Included in the District Court criminal matters disposed of by trial (verdict)


18

DISTRICT COURT

Table 11: District Court criminal clearance rate

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

No. % No. % No. %

Lodgments 2,570 2,761 2,877

Finalisations 2,556 99.5 2,690 97.4 2,943 102.3

In the District Court for 2013–14 total criminal lodgments increased by 116 defendants (4.2%) from the previous year.

Total disposals in 2013–14 increased by 253 (9.4%) from the previous year. This has led to a clearance rate of 102.3%, which is an increase compared to 2012–13.

The total number of criminal trials listed in 2013–14 increased by 98 cases (10.3%). The number of trials listed but not heard as at 30 June 2014 increased from 339 in 2012–13 to 428 in 2013–14 (26.3% increase).

Criminal court sittings at the Sturt Street Court Complex ceased from 1 July 2013 resulting in an overall reduction from 12 to 10 in the available criminal courtrooms for the Supreme Court and District Court (with eight of those available to the District Court).

The closure of the Sturt Street courts has meant that District Court criminal trial listings ratios were decreased from 19 to 15 per week, due to the available courtrooms for the District Court reducing to eight.

Therefore there are less available courtrooms for sentencing submissions and sentencing and the sentencing process timeframe is increasing.

In 2013–14 there were 1 052 trials listed in total, of which 83 were trials by judge alone (as distinct from trial by jury).

The percentage of total listings disposed of by trial to verdict decreased by 1.6% from 187 in 2012–13 to 184 in 2013–14.

The percentage of defendants committed for trial has decreased. In 2012–13, 51.1% of defendants were committed for trial while in 2013–14, 42.1% were committed for trial. The percentage of defendants committed for sentence has increased. In 2013–14, 15.1% of defendants were committed for sentence compared to 12.4% in 2012–13.

In 2013–14, there has been a significant increase (22.3%) in the number of Magistrates Court matters transferred for sentencing with major indictable matters. These matters are generally finalised within 12 months.

Circuits

From 1 July 2013 the District Court reduced the criminal circuit sittings at Port Augusta and Mount Gambier by 25% (one week). The Port Augusta circuit now sits six times per year, each for three week’s duration, and the Mount Gambier circuit sits three times per year, each for three week’s duration, resulting in nine criminal circuits in total.

Some District Court criminal trials have, at the direction of the circuit judge, been transferred from Port Augusta to Adelaide, to provide for an earlier trial date - which impacts on the Adelaide trial list.

Total criminal circuit lodgments in 2013–14 for the District Court decreased by 56 defendants (21.5%) from the previous year.

Total criminal circuit finalisations decreased by nine defendants (3.9%) on the previous year’s figure, resulting in a clearance figure of 108.3%.


19

DISTRICT COURT

Table 12: District Court criminal circuit clearance rate

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

No. % No. % No. %

Lodgments 232 261 205

Finalisations 253 109.1 231 88.5 222 108.3

Technology

Audiovisual linking (AVL) technology continues to enable the court to use AVL for vulnerable and other witnesses to give evidence from remote locations, record evidence given by vulnerable witnesses and facilitate custodial appearances for pre-trial matters such as directions hearings and bail applications.

With the reduction to criminal court circuit periods to three weeks from 1 July 2013, there has been a trend for circuit matters to be listed for submissions and/or sentence to Adelaide by AVL outside the circuit three-week period.

This has put pressure on the availability of courts in the Sir Samuel Way Building to complete those matters in a timely way.

Age Profile Data

As in the Supreme Court, case disposition in the District Court is measured against national Productivity Commission performance standards which state that no more than 10% of lodgments pending completion are to be more than 12 months old, and that no lodgments pending completion are to be more than 24 months old.

Table 13: District Court criminal lodgment age profile

Criminal lodgments not finalised as at 30 June2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

No. % No. % No. %

More than 12 months old (target ≤ 10%)* 279 18.3 273 17.0 257 17.5

More than 24 months old (target = zero) 76 5.0 45 2.8 51 3.5


In 2013–14 the court’s performance relative to the Productivity Commission benchmarks declined with an increase to 17.5% of matters being more than 12 months

old (compared with 17.0% in 2012–13) and an increase to 3.5% of matters more than 24 months old (compared with 2.8% in 2012–13).


20

DISTRICT COURT

Table 14: District Court criminal reserved verdicts following a trial by a judge sitting alone

Age ProfileVerdicts

2013–14







Total verdicts outstanding 8

Civil

Table 15: District Court civil trial listings and finalisations

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Number of cases listed for trial * ** 419 423 439

Cases disposed of by trial * ** 64 63 87

Cases settled before being listed for trial * ** 190 194 241

Long trials *** in which judgment was reserved 8 5 4

Sitting time per long trial*** (average days) 14 22 9

Long trials*** awaiting hearing as at 30 June 42 128 232

* Includes full hearings (any hearing that is not a trial that requires judicial resources including hearings in the Administrative and Disciplinary Division and Civil Division)

** Includes circuit trials and long trials*** Duration of 10 or more days

There has been a significant increase in long trials (duration of 10 or more days) awaiting hearing as at 30 June 2014 when compared to previous years. This relates to changes in Civil Rules and Practice Directions that were introduced in December 2012 concerning Litigation Plans.

A Litigation Plan provides a brief outline of matters in issue and sets out the intermediate steps that each party is required to complete prior to proceeding to trial. Upon considering the Litigation Plan, a Master of the Court will generally make a series of orders including the early referral to a listing appointment to obtain a trial date. This process is now performed without waiting for all the intermediate steps in the action to be completed.

As the Listing Appointment date is provided at an earlier time in the proceedings the estimated length of time for each trial now appears to be longer than in the past and made more cautiously to ensure enough time is allocated to deal with all underlying issues at trial. The average sitting time per long trial has decreased in 2013–14 in comparison to 2012–13 due to trials not sitting as long as estimated by parties.

The number of long trials in which judgment was reserved decreased from five in 2012–13 to four in 2013–14. There is one part-heard long trial continuing in 2013–14 from 2012–13.


21

DISTRICT COURT

Table 16: District Court civil clearance rate

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

No. % No. % No. %

Lodgments* 2,761 3,314 2,128

Finalisations 3,161 114.5 2,917 88.0 2,978 139.9

* Includes civil, Criminal Injuries, Administrative and Disciplinary, other courts and tribunals and minor civil reviews

The clearance rate has increased this year due to both a decrease in lodgments and an increase in finalisations.

In 2013–14, total civil lodgments were 2,128 (including minor civil reviews), a decrease of 1,186 (35.8%) from 2012–13 (3,314 lodgments).

Civil lodgments in 2012–13 were significantly higher than past years and was attributed to a substantial increase in lodgments between April and June 2013 leading up to the commencement of the Statutes Amendment (Courts Efficiency Reform) Act 2012 from 1 July 2013.

The significant increase in 2012–13 resulted in a greater subsequent decrease in 2013–14 as a result of the legislation’s implementation.

Further to this, the implementation of the Compulsory Third Party Scheme has resulted in a reduction in claim

entitlements consequently resulting in fewer matters pursued in the Court.

As a result, general civil claims decreased by 37.2% (1,780 compared to 2,835 in 2012–13) with the decrease being in the categories of motor vehicle accident claims and debt/contract claims.

There have been 550 actions commenced under the Dust Diseases Act 2005 since inception in 2005. As at 30 June 2014, a total of 57 dust disease actions remain pending (not finalised). The Industrial Relations Court judges continue to preside in these actions.

Age Profile Data

The data below indicates that the finalisation figures for civil matters in the District Court do not meet the national standard targets.

Table 17: District Court civil lodgment age profile

Civil lodgments not finalised as at 30 June2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

No. % No. % No. %

More than 12 months old (target ≤ 10%)* 1,537 46 1,374 37 1,449 51.6

More than 24 months old (target = zero) 768 23 680 18 590 21.0


The reduction in lodgments this year has resulted in a greater percentage of matters in the categories of more than 12 and 24 months of age.


22

DISTRICT COURT

Table 18: District Court civil reserved judgments following a trial


2013–14








Table 19: District Court other reserved decisions in the civil jurisdiction

Age ProfileDecisions

2013–14







Total decisions outstanding 13

Administrative and Disciplinary Division

A total of 139 matters were lodged this year in the Administrative and Disciplinary Division, compared with 181 in the previous year, a decrease of 23.2%. These matters generally resolve within 12 months and are finalised relatively quickly when compared to civil actions.

Criminal Injuries Division

All applications for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1978 and the Victims of Crime Act 2001 are heard in the District Court. In 2013–14, 83 summonses for compensation were issued, a decrease of 17.8% from 2012–13 (102 summonses).

Masters supervise the lists for these matters and most settle without trial.

Other Tribunals

The District Court administers files for lodgment in other courts and tribunals, including the Warden’s Court, Equal Opportunity Tribunal and Police Disciplinary Tribunal. There were 126 matters lodged in 2013–14, a decrease of 35.7% from 2012–13 (196 matters).

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT)

Analysis commenced on the impact of the intended transfer of a number of jurisdictions to SACAT.

Masters’ Area

The District Court has three Masters who manage almost all pre-trial hearings, examination summonses and settlement conferences in both Civil and Criminal Injuries Divisions as well as preliminary hearings in the Administrative and Disciplinary Division.


23

DISTRICT COURT

Table 20: Masters’ jurisdiction

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Hearings in court 4,690 4,098 3,681

Hearings in chambers* 2,572 2,348 2,380

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

The number of matters heard in court in the Masters’ jurisdictions has decreased by 10.2% in 2013–14 compared to 2012–13. The introduction of litigation plans in December 2012, whereby a formal timetable is set early in the proceeding along with the allocation of a listing appointment date, has contributed to fewer hearings before the Masters.

Sir Samuel Way Registry

In 2013–14, the Sir Samuel Way Building registry handled a total of 64,362 court user contacts in relation to the

Supreme Court (Civil and Criminal), District Court (Civil and Criminal) and ERD Court.

This was made up of 34,661 telephone enquiries and 29,701 counter contacts. This is a decrease when compared with 70,489 contacts made in 2012–13, comprising 37,555 telephone enquiries and 32,934 counter enquiries.

Table 21: Inquiries handled by Sir Samuel Way Registry in 2013–14

Supreme Court Civil

District Court Civil

Combined Criminal ERD Court Other

services* Total

Counter 10,996 12,980 4,457 998 270 29,701

Telephone 11,295 12,485 8,838 2,043 0 34,661

Total 22,291 25,465 13,295 3,041 270 64,362

* Other services provided by the registry include attending as a Justice of the Peace to witness documents and answering general enquiries.

A Justice of the Peace service continued to be provided on Level 1 of the Sir Samuel Way Building.


24

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COURT

At a glance 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Judges 2 2 2

Commissioners 3.2 3.2 3.2

Masters (shared with District Court) 3 3 3

Sessional commissioners 23 23 27

Staff 7.8 7.7 8.2

Appeals 294 267 288

Enforcement applications 28 26 21

Prosecutions 16 12 23

Section 86(1)(f) Development Act applications for review 4 10 21

Other categories* 18 10 15

Total 360 325 368

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

ROLE, STRUCTURE AND LEGISLATION

The Environment, Resources and Development Court (ERD Court) is established under the Environment, Resources and Development Court Act 1993.

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

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 Criminal Divisions of the District Court and in the Equal Opportunity Tribunal. Her Honour Senior Judge Cole was appointed as the Deputy President of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT) on 13 February 2014. It is anticipated that Senior Judge Cole will share her time between the Court and the Tribunal.

In the ERD Court, there are three commissioners appointed full-time and one permanent part-time commissioner. The commissioners have qualifications and skills in planning, architecture and development. During the reporting period Commissioner Hamnett retired as a full-time commissioner on 20 June 2014. The Court has used experienced sessional commissioners until a replacement full-time commissioner is appointed. At the end of the reporting period there were 27 sessional commissioners appointed to the Court, with expertise in various fields.

The ERD Court Registrar also holds the position of District Court Registrar and is assisted by a Deputy Registrar and staff members, to provide administrative, registry and judicial support services to the Court. The staff work collaboratively with the District Court to provide registry and judicial support services.

WORKLOAD

There were 368 matters lodged in the ERD Court this reporting period, which is an increase of 13.2% from 2012–13. There was an increase in lodgments in most categories of actions and a significant increase in the category of criminal complaints lodged pursuant to the Development Act 1993, and appeals against water licences, pursuant to the National Resources Management Act 2004. The water licence appeals relate to the release of a new water allocation plan and new water licences introduced by


25

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES and DEVELOPMENT COURT

the Department of Water in the Adelaide Hills region. In the reporting period, 85.9% of lodgments were matters pursuant to the Development Act 1993, which is lower than

past years. There were 194 development appeals lodged in 2013–14 which was consistent with the figure in 2012–13.

Table 22: Workload of the ERD Court

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Matters lodged 360 325 368

Total finalised 370 353 330

Total finalised (%) 102.8 108.6 89.6

NATIVE TITLE

In 2013–14, 30 notices under relevant mining legislation were lodged to initiate negotiations with native title parties, two more than the previous year. The Court received two applications for a determination pursuant to Section 63 in the Mining Act 1971 during the reporting period.

CONFERENCES

The Court spends a significant amount of time conducting court-supervised conferences, which assist parties to explore any possible resolution of the matters in dispute before resorting to a formal hearing.

The Court uses two types of conferences, a preliminary conference and a conciliation conference. A preliminary conference is a 10 minute conference which allows the court and the parties an early opportunity to discuss and decide how a matter will proceed through the court. A longer time period is set aside for a conciliation conference, to allow the parties a greater opportunity to explore possible resolutions.

In this reporting period, 311 conciliation conferences were convened, consistent with 311 in 2013–14 and 326 preliminary conferences were convened, an increase of 2.8% from 317 in 2012–13. During the reporting period 85.7% of Development Act 1993 matters finalised by the court either settled or withdrew before or during the conference stage without requiring a formal hearing.

Figure 1: Conferences convened

HEARINGS AND JUDGMENTS

The ERD Court sits primarily in Adelaide but can sit anywhere in the State. Of 330 matters finalised during the year, 27% were finalised by the Court by way of judgment. Reasons for judgments were delivered in 43 matters which is a decrease from 66 matters in 2012–13. Of those matters, 18 judgments were delivered by a judge sitting alone, seven by a full bench comprising a judge and two commissioners, and 18 by a commissioner sitting alone.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2011-12 2012-13

Num

ber

of h

earin

gs

2013-14

Preliminary Conference Conciliation Conference


26

MAGISTRATES COURT

At a glance 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Magistrates * **35.4 * **35.7 * **34.8

Staff 257.2 261.7 ***226.8

Civil primary lodgments (over counter) 11,194 10,586 9,655

Civil primary lodgments (via internet) 15,478 17,025 15,758

Civil enforcement process 37,195 37,784 35,842

Civil applications 4,242 3,618 3,404

Civil defences lodged 2,527 2,453 3,076

Criminal general lodgments 65,979 65,398 62,889

Criminal expiation lodgments 180,296 188,713 174,684

Criminal hearings by magistrates 211,297 221,009 215,248

* Four magistrates were part-time.** In addition, there are two magistrates in the Youth Court.*** 13.3 percent reduction in staff is as a direct result of the cessation of the Fines Payment Unit

ROLE AND FUNCTION

The Magistrates Court handles the greatest proportion of litigation in the State. All criminal matters begin in the Magistrates Court and the civil jurisdiction hears more than 90 percent of all civil disputes within the state. The court has four jurisdictions.

CHANGES IN JURISDICTION

The Statutes Amendment (Courts Efficiency Reforms) Act 2012 commenced operation on 1 July 2013. The purpose of this Act is to reduce the backlog of matters in the District Court by expanding the criminal and civil jurisdictions of the Magistrates Court. The sentencing power of Magistrates has been increased to enable imposition of a maximum of five years imprisonment for a single offence and 10 years imprisonment for two or more offences. Magistrates also have been empowered to sentence offenders for major indictable offences to which the accused pleads guilty (where the defendant and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions consent). In the civil jurisdiction, the monetary limit for claims increased from $6,000 to $25,000 for minor claims, and from $80,000 to $100,000 for all other civil claims.

CIVIL JURISDICTION

The Civil (General Claims) jurisdiction hears claims up to $100,000. 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 $25,000 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 decided in a Magistrates Court. For example, most offences under the Road Traffic Act 1961 are summary offences. Minor indictable offences may also be 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 Court. Where all parties


27

MAGISTRATES COURT

consent, a plea of guilty for a major indictable matter may be heard in the Magistrates Court. The magistrate can determine and impose sentence on a defendant who admits a charge of a major indictable offence (other than treason, murder, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit, or assault with intent to commit, either of those offences).

MAGISTRACY

There have been no new appointments to, or retirements from, the magistracy in 2013–14.

OVERVIEW OF WORKLOAD

CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil lodgments

Civil lodgments involve general and minor civil claims, recovery of debts, personal injury claims, claims that relate to motor vehicle property damage, workers’ liens

and second-hand vehicle dealer matters. 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 2013–14, 25,413 lodgments were recorded, a decrease of 8.0 percent from the previous year. Lodgments are made over the counter in court registries or via the internet. Numbers of electronic lodgments decreased by 7.4 percent and over-the-counter lodgments decreased by 8.8 percent in 2013–14.

During June 2013, 3,399 claims were lodged with the Magistrates Court, compared with 1,844 for June 2012. The increase in lodgments is attributed to the introduction of new jurisdictional monetary limits on 1 July 2013, under the Statutes Amendment (Courts Efficiency Reforms) Act 2012.

Table 23: Civil lodgments by method of lodgment

Method of lodgment (civil) 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Over-the-counter 11,194 10,586 9,655

Electronic 15,478 17,025 15,758

Lodgments finalised

Finalisations are the number of lodgments completed in the

financial year 2013–14. Civil finalisations increased by 3.5 percent compared with the previous financial year.

Table 24: Civil lodgment finalisations

Civil lodgments 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

All lodgment methods 27,336 25,167 26,044

Civil lodgment age profile

Table 25: Civil lodgments not finalised as at 30 June 2014*

Civil lodgments 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

No. % No. % No. %

Pending greater than six months old** 4,946 41 5,145 34.7 7,632 46.8

Pending greater than 12 months old 1,086 9 1,045 7.1 2,326 16.2

* Total percentage of unfinalised matters as at 30 June 2014** Pending cases greater than six months include cases that are counted in >12 months figures.


28

MAGISTRATES COURT

Numbers of civil lodgments not finalised greater than six months have increased by 48.3 percent and numbers of civil lodgments not finalised greater than 12 months have increased by 122.6 percent, compared with the previous financial year. This is attributed to the increase in jurisdiction, which has resulted in more personal injury matters being lodged in the Magistrates Court.

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. The variation in clearance rate for the 2012-13 reporting period is attributed to the late increase in lodgments of personal injury claims in the final week of June 2013, allowing no opportunity for finalisation during that reporting period.

Table 26: Civil lodgment clearance rate (percentage)

2011–12 2012-13 2013–14

Civil lodgment clearance rate 102 91.2 102

Civil enforcement processes

Summonses raised for enforcement include summons to investigate or examine a witness or an absconding debtor, warrants of arrest/sale/commitment, other warrants (as specified by the Court) and miscellaneous enforcement matters (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). The number of civil enforcement processes in 2013–14 decreased by 5.1 percent compared with last financial year.

Table 27: Civil enforcement processes

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Civil enforcement processes 37,195 37,784 35,842

Civil applications heard by a magistrate

Civil applications heard by a magistrate include applications to set aside a judgment or warrant, applications to decide matters without formal court appearances (ex parte) and

other (unspecified) applications brought to the court by parties. The number of these applications has decreased by 5.9 percent since the previous reporting period.

Table 28: Civil applications heard by a magistrate

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Civil applications heard by a magistrate 4,242 3,618 3,404

Civil defences and counterclaims

Defences include those against an originating claim, a counterclaim and a third party notice to join in an action. The number of civil defences and counterclaims lodged has

increased by 26.3 percent in the reporting period. This is likely to be due to the increase in personal injury matters.


29

MAGISTRATES COURT

Table 29: Defence and counterclaim lodgments

Lodgments 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Defence and counterclaims 2,527 2,435 3,076

Table 30: Civil reserved judgments following a trial by a magistrate


2013–14





More than six months 0


Mediation

Magistrates and registrars can refer civil disputes to mediation. Mediation provides the parties with the opportunity to negotiate a mutually agreeable resolution to a dispute rather than going to trial. One mediator is based in the Adelaide Magistrates Court and conducts mediations throughout the State.

In the reporting period a panel of external mediators was created in response to a change in the Magistrates Court (Civil) Rules 2013. The guidelines for use of these external mediators is being finalised and parties will be referred to external mediators rather than the Court’s mediator except where either of the parties do not have the means to pay.

Table 31: Mediations

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Disputes referred to mediation 90 183 220

Civil Disputes resolved 56% 63% 71%

Intervention Order Mediations

A matter that is considered to be a civil dispute that has led to an intervention order being sought by the police or an individual can be referred to mediation if considered suitable. In 2013–14, nine matters were sent to mediation, of which 56 percent were settled.

Minor civil directions hearings

Minor civil directions hearings are usually heard by registrars and deputy registrars. At these hearings, parties are given the opportunity 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 (parties must agree to mediation) or to list the matter for trial.

In 2013–14, 26 percent of the matters defended in this jurisdiction proceeded to trial. This compares with 29 percent in the previous year and 30 percent in the year prior. This year, there were 852 minor civil directions hearings, compared with 1,135 in the previous year and 1,440 in 2011–12.


30

MAGISTRATES COURT

Pre-lodgment and pro bono mediations

An online pre-lodgment system enables individuals, businesses and organisations to try to resolve disputes rather than resort to formal proceedings. The pre-lodgment system offers a free mediation service through the

Magistrates Court, 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 32: Pre-lodgments and mediations

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Notices issued 5,481 5,409 3,811

Mediation conferences undertaken 23 18 11

Settlement rate (% of mediation conferences) 61 72 72

Court experts

The Magistrates Court has a panel of experts to call on for independent expertise, to assist parties in settling disputes and assist the Court and parties in preparing for an efficient

trial. This initiative has proven to be a cost-effective and efficient means of dealing with complex technical issues. The panel comprises 18 professional, trade and technical experts.

Table 33: Court Experts

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Disputes referred to court expert 134 154 177

Court expert assisted at Trial 28 33 37

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 (such as local councils, Fisheries, Customs), with unpaid expiation notices referred to the court for enforcement. General criminal matters usually originate from a police charge on complaint or information. In 2013-14, criminal general lodgments decreased by 3.8 percent.

On 3 February 2014 the Statutes Amendments (Fines Enforcement and Recovery) Act 2013 commenced. The passing of the Act resulted in the collection and enforcement of fines being moved from the CAA to a new entity overseen by the Attorney General’s Department. No expiations were lodged with the Court after 3 February 2014 which resulted in a decrease of 74,532 from the last reporting period.

Criminal lodgments

Table 34: Criminal lodgments

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Criminal general lodgments 65,979 65,398 62,889

Criminal expiation lodgments 180,296 188,713 114,181*

Total 246,275 254,111 177,070

* To 3 February 2014.


31

MAGISTRATES COURT

Criminal lodgment finalisations

Finalisations are the number of lodgments completed in the financial year 2013-14. Criminal lodgments finalised

have decreased by less than one percent from the previous financial year.

Table 35: Criminal lodgment finalisations

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Criminal lodgments finalised 66,215 65,918 65,817

Criminal matters pending

Table 36: Criminal lodgments not finalised as at 30 June 2014*

Criminal lodgments 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

No. % No. % No. %

Pending >6 months old** 5,205 24 6,004 28 5,144 27

Pending >12 months old 1,813 8 2,322 11 2,165 11

* Total percentage of unfinalised matters as at 30 June 2014** Pending cases greater than six months include cases that are counted in greater than 2 months figures.

Numbers of criminal lodgments not finalised, greater than six months, has decreased by 14.3 percent and numbers of criminal lodgments not finalised, greater than 12 months, has decreased by 6.8 percent since the previous reporting period.

Criminal lodgment 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 37: Criminal lodgment clearance rate (percentage of lodgments)

Criminal lodgments 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Clearance rate (%) 100 100 105

Criminal hearings by a magistrate

In 2013–14, criminal hearings heard by magistrates decreased by 2.6 percent compared to the previous reporting period.

Table 38: Criminal hearings by a magistrate

2011–12 2012-13 2013-14

Criminal hearings heard by a magistrate 211,297 221,009 215,248


32

MAGISTRATES COURT

Table 39: Magistrate Court criminal reserved verdicts following a trial by Magistrate


2013–14





More than six months 0


ABORIGINAL JUSTICE INITIATIVES

Aboriginal Justice Officers

The CAA employs 10 Aboriginal Justice Officers (AJOs) to service primarily the Magistrates Court, Youth Court and Aboriginal court users and their families. They also assist in the Supreme Court and District Court as required. AJOs are based at Port Adelaide, Elizabeth, Adelaide and Port Augusta Magistrates Courts, as well as the Adelaide Youth Court.

The role of the AJO is varied and includes providing assistance for Aboriginal Sentencing Courts and Conferences in the Supreme Court, District Court, Magistrates and Youth Courts. AJOs also assist Aboriginal court users to understand the court process, attend court and access JP services. AJOs provide information to the wider Aboriginal community about the role and work of the courts. The Senior Aboriginal Justice Officer position provides an AJO career path as well as expert advice, leadership and operational coordination of AJOs.

AJOs visit all metropolitan courts and circuit to regional courts and the more remote areas including Ceduna and Yalata and the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunyatjara Lands (APY Lands).

Aboriginal Sentencing Courts

In the period under review, Aboriginal Sentencing Courts have been operating regularly in Port Adelaide (this particular court is called the Nunga Court), Murray Bridge, Mount Gambier and Yalata Anangu Court. Aboriginal Sentencing Courts are presided over by a magistrate who is assisted by respected community Elders. They provide an opportunity for Aboriginal defendants to have their voice heard in a culturally appropriate manner, and family members and support persons are encouraged to attend and speak directly to the court. The Aboriginal Sentencing Court process can provide additional relevant information for the magistrate’s consideration when sentencing.

A six month Nunga Court Treatment Program continues as part of the Magistrates Court Intervention Program with referrals from the Port Adelaide Nunga Court. This program offers judicial supervision as well as individual and group counselling.

Table 40: Aboriginal Sentencing Courts

Number of appearances 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Mount Gambier* 0 11 8

Murray Bridge 23 28 27

Port Adelaide 163 294 246

Port Augusta** 41 0 0

Yalata*** 0 174 173

* Mount Gambier Aboriginal Sentencing Court has had individual data collected since 2012–13. ** Port Augusta Aboriginal Sentencing Court has not been operating during the reporting period *** Yalata Anangu Court commenced sitting in 2012–13.


33

MAGISTRATES COURT

Port Lincoln Adult Aboriginal Conferencing Program

This year is the seventh year an Adult Aboriginal Conferencing program has been offered by the Magistrates Court in the Port Lincoln area, delivered as a collaborative service of the Conferencing and Aboriginal Programs Units, with support from the Port Lincoln Magistrates Court Registry. The program is aimed at adult Aboriginal offenders in a post-guilty plea, pre-sentence conferencing process, where cultural facets of the incident are considered and the victim and the offender are offered the opportunity to meet face to face.

Aboriginal Sentencing Conferences (section 9C)

In 2005, the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 was amended to include Section 9C, entitled ‘Sentencing of Aboriginal defendants’. Section 9C expands upon the Magistrates Aboriginal Sentencing Court and allows any criminal court, with the offender’s consent, to convene an Aboriginal sentencing conference. Victims, Aboriginal 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 to better 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 offender and the circumstances surrounding the offending behaviour, leading to more constructive sentencing options. In the reporting period 13 Aboriginal Sentencing Conferences were conducted: one in the Supreme Court, six in the District Court and six in the Magistrates Court.

Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Training

The CAA’s Senior AJO in conjunction with Education Department staff and an AJO, deliver the CAA’s two-day Aboriginal cultural awareness training. This training is mandatory for all new CAA staff and provides participants with an understanding and insight into Aboriginal history, society and culture as well as contemporary Aboriginal justice issues. Three sessions were conducted for this reporting period, with favourable evaluations provided by participants.

Reconciliation Statement

During the reporting period, the SA Indigenous Justice

Committee formed a Reconciliation sub-committee comprising judiciary, and CAA Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal staff, tasked with developing a new CAA Reconciliation Statement. The Reconciliation Statement was completed in May 2014 and includes the image of the CAA’s Reconciliation Painting, created by judiciary and court staff in 2012. At the commencement of Reconciliation Week on 27 May 2014, the CAA’s Reconciliation Statement was signed at a ceremony. Signatories to the statement are the Chief Justice, Chief Judge, Chief Magistrate, State Courts Administrator, Elder Aunty Coral Wilson, Senior AJO Paul Tanner and Senior Aboriginal Cultural Consultant Geoff Cooper. The signed statement has been reprinted and framed for distribution across all CAA sites and registries.

Evaluation of South Australia’s Aboriginal Sentencing Courts and Conferences

From 2010-2012, Cultural and Indigenous Research Centre Australia (CIRCA) undertook an Australian Government-funded evaluation of SA’s Aboriginal Sentencing Courts and Conferences. The aim was to build the evidence base for the best approaches to tackling crime and addressing justice issues in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and to support the work of the National Indigenous Law and Justice Framework. CIRCA’s evaluation report ‘Project A: Aboriginal Sentencing Courts and Conferences’ was publicly released during the reporting period and concluded :

This evaluation has affirmed the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Courts and Conferences in providing culturally appropriate processes for engaging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders and community members. Innovative justice programs such as these, although not necessarily proven to have a significant impact on reducing recidivism, are supported in the literature and confirmed through this evaluation as having a positive effect on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander offenders and communities by providing more culturally appropriate forums for dealing with the administration of sentences and penalties. The evaluation findings indicate that, when compared with mainstream justice settings, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Courts and Conferences have resulted in greater


34

MAGISTRATES COURT

engagement, increased knowledge and confidence in the justice system, improved understanding of the process and outcomes, and improved outcomes in relation to conference agreements and sentencing by enabling more informed decision-making. Importantly, these intermediate-level outcomes may potentially lead to a reduction in offending through the development of prosocial behaviours for communities and future generations.

FINES PAYMENT UNIT

From 1 July 2013 to 2 February 2014, the Fines Payment Unit (FPU) and Magistrates Court registries managed the recovery and enforcement of all court-ordered financial penalties and fees and some expiation fees on behalf of a variety of issuing authorities, including South Australia Police and other state and local government authorities. The Easy Pay Fines Contact Centre accepted payments via credit card and advised callers on options available to deal with fines. In addition, Aboriginal Justice Officers assisted Indigenous people on all court related matters. Moneys collected were paid into SA Government general revenue.

On 3 February 2014 the Fines Payment Unit and Easy Pay Fines Contact Centre ceased to exist and the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit was established within the Attorney-General’s Department. From 3 February 2014 the Magistrates Court continued to accept payments on behalf of the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit but all other functions of the FPU were transferred to the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit. The FPU collected $53,277,626 from 1 July 2013 to 2 February 2014. Since 3 February 2014 to 30 June 2014 the CAA had collected, over the counter, $1,122,066 on behalf of the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit.

Magistrates Court staffing numbers have reduced by 13.3 percent compared with the previous reporting period. This is a direct result of the transfer of suburban and metropolitan staff from the Magistrates Court to the Attorney-General’s Department as a part of the transition of fines’ functions.

Applications to review orders to pay fines and applications for relief

The applications in the table below for 2013–14 are the numbers lodged up to 3 February 2014.

Table 41: Applications for review and relief (payment of fines)

Application type 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Review of enforcement order (Form 51) 45,799 48,338 32,423

Review of order to cancel relief (Form 48) 9,726 10,713 6,573

Applications for relief orders 72,184 73,400 44,459

Fines enforcement

Prior to the cessation of the FPU there were 53,300 cessation of business (COB) transactions issued through the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure and 23,837 Fine Enforcement Suspensions of driver’s licences. The total number of enforcement actions including cessation of business with motor registration, fines enforcement suspension, summons to attend, warrant of arrest, order for sale, charge on land and garnishee orders

was reduced during the period of transition to the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit.

The Easy Pay Fines Contact Centre

Up until 3 February 2014 the Easy Pay Fines Contact Centre allowed easy access for clients to arrange payment of outstanding fines over the phone, seek help for lodging applications for relief, make credit card payments or any other fines related queries.


35

MAGISTRATES COURT

Table 42: Easy Pay Fines Contact Centre contacts processed

Type of contact 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Inbound calls 196,548 222,173 127,240*

Outbound calls 17,884 19,952 18,560*

Email 13,339 14,905 11,382*

Abandoned rate (%) 20.4 16.0 8.3

* To 3 February 2014.

MAGISTRATES COURT CONTACT CENTRE

The Magistrates Court Contact Centre operates from 8.30 am to 5.00 pm weekdays. The contact centre allows client access by telephone (08 8204 2444) or email ([email protected]). The Magistrates Court Contact Centre handles all criminal and civil enquiries and responds to two electronic mailboxes: 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.

E-response mailbox enquiries continue to increase with a 13 percent increase recorded compared to 2012–13. This is attributed to legal firms and legal services using this service daily. Until 3 February 2014, the Magistrates Court Contact Centre assisted the Easy Pay Fines Contact Centre by processing fines administration tasks between calls; there was a slight decrease in the abandoned rate to 7.9 percent compared to 8.3 percent in 2012–13. The number of inbound calls taken has reduced by 7.2 percent, which is attributed to the increased usage of email queries.

Table 43: Magistrates Court Contact Centre

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Inbound calls 110,179 106,987 98,493

E-response centre mailbox 10,506 17,252 19,488

E-registration mailbox 1,296 971 846

Abandoned rate (%) 9.7 8.3 7.9

COURT VOLUNTEER SERVICE

During the reporting period 35 volunteers provided services at the Sir Samuel Building, Adelaide Magistrates Court and metropolitan Magistrates Courts. Court volunteers provide a vital link between the court and court users. Volunteers provide refreshments, support and information about the location of courtrooms, court services and facilities and help court users complete standard forms.

In 2013–14 court volunteers responded to 59,182 enquiries and served 1,133 refreshments. This compares with 2012–13 when they responded to 74,538 enquiries and served 1,647 refreshments. The significant decrease in services provided is a direct result of the cessation of the Fines Payment Unit.

SPECIAL JUSTICES

As at June 2014, 57 Special Justices were appointed under the Justices of the Peace Act, 2005 with 18 regularly presiding over petty session matters and bail applications under the Bail Act, 1985 in the absence of a Magistrate. They also preside over first appearance matters in Adelaide Magistrates Court on Mondays to Fridays and at other locations as approved by regional managing Magistrates, depending on workload requirements.

In 2011–12 there were 619 sittings days at Magistrates Courts, in 2012–13 there were 728 and in 2013–14 there were 646.


36

mailto:enquiry%40courts.sa.gov.au?subject=

MAGISTRATES COURT

RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO LEGISLATION

Section 13 of the Courts Administration Act 1993 requires there is a report on ‘any changes to the law and procedures of the participating courts that may be necessary or desirable to improve the administration of justice in participating courts.’ One such instance appears below.

Section 14 Expiation of Offences Act 1996

If an enforcement determination has been made by the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Officer under section 13 of the Expiation of Offences Act 1996 in relation to an expiation notice, the alleged offender may appeal to the Magistrates Court. Such an appeal can only be made on the ground that the expiation notice to which the determination relates should not have been given to the alleged offender in the first instance because the alleged offender did not commit an offence or offences to which the expiation notice relates.

This ground for review by the Court raises issues which are generally resolved through a trial process, rather than a review process. A determination that the offender ‘did not commit the offence’ requires evidence from both prosecution and defence and if granted, brings an end to the original expiation.

It is recommended that the ground to appeal to the Magistrates Court should be similar to “a reasonable prospect that he would be acquitted”. The prosecuting authority should then have an extended time to lay a complaint and the matter proceed to trial in the normal way.

INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

Intervention programs aim to reduce re-offending and improve health and social functioning by providing defendants with access to treatment and other services that address the underlying causes of their offending behaviour. Participation in an intervention program can be under the Bail Act or as a condition of an Intervention Order. Successful completion of a program is taken into consideration in sentencing and may result in a reduction in the length or severity of sentence.

The link between substance dependence and crime is well established and there is also evidence that the prevalence of mental disorder among offenders in the criminal justice

system is significantly higher than in the general population. The co-occurrence of substance dependence with a mental illness increases the risk of offending and is often also associated with poor treatment outcomes, the development of more severe illness and high service use. Co-occurring substance dependence and mental illness, or co-morbidity as it is also known, is now considered the norm rather than the exception and clinical guidelines developed by various state and national health authorities unanimously promote the need for an integrated service approach. The Treatment Intervention Program (TIP) was developed to identify and appropriately respond to this issue and this program has replaced the Magistrates Court Diversion Program (MCDP), which just targets defendants with mental impairment, in all metropolitan Magistrates Courts.

Treatment Intervention Program (TIP)

TIP commenced operating at the Christies Beach Magistrates Court in May 2010 and there has been a staged roll out to the other metropolitan courts which was completed in January 2013 when the Port Adelaide Magistrates Court adopted the program. TIP also operates in the Adelaide Youth Court and information relating to that program is contained in the Youth Court section of this report.

TIP is a six month program with three treatment streams to address issues associated with mental impairment, co-occurring mental impairment and substance dependence, and substance dependence.

The mental impairment stream provides the same level of service formerly offered by the Magistrates Court Diversion Program. Most participants have a mental illness, including personality disorders. Only a small proportion have an intellectual disability or acquired brain injury or other form of mental impairment. Participants are referred to appropriate health services in the community and their progress in engaging with these services is monitored by the Court on a bi-monthly basis for approximately six months. This may be extended if there are waiting lists to be seen by service providers.

For participants undertaking drug treatment as part of the co-morbidity stream or the substance dependence stream, Court supervision is more intensive and best practice treatment components for drug-using offenders are available. These include referral to withdrawal services,


37

opioid replacement therapy, random drug testing, cognitive behaviour therapy to address the attitudes and beliefs that support drug use and criminal behaviour (Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) group program), and a relapse prevention course. Defendants with co-morbidity issues are often managed concurrently with a general practitioner or psychiatrist addressing the mental illness symptoms and TIP addressing the substance dependence issues.

The number of referrals to TIP has steadily increased as the program has expanded to all metropolitan Magistrates Courts, as shown in the table below. Consequently, referrals to MCDP have decreased. There has been a small increase in numbers of indigenous participants in 2013–14.

In March 2014 the Drug Court merged with TIP at the Adelaide Magistrates Court and a 12-month substance dependence stream was created for defendants. The aim of the merger was to achieve better efficiencies overall for Intervention Programs. As a result of the merger of Drug Court with TIP the overall number of new participants increased by 10 in the period from 1 March 2014.

The data for the Drug Court from 1 July 2013 to 28 February 2014 will be reported separately for the last time, later in this section of the report.

The merged TIP and Drug Court will be known as the Treatment Intervention Court (TIC) from 1 July 2014.

Over the past two years the number of defendants accepted onto the six-month substance stream and the co-morbidity stream has remained fairly consistent. However, there has been a 16% increase in the number of defendants with mental impairment in 2013–14 and this is likely to be as a result of the Port Adelaide Magistrates Court changing to TIP in January 2013. It is likely that the increase in referrals of indigenous defendants from 29 to 34 is for the same reason.

Table 44 shows that referrals to TIP and the number of participants have increased steadily over the past three years in line with the staged implementation of TIP across all the metropolitan courts. Table 45 shows that indigenous referrals and numbers of participants have also increased slightly.

MAGISTRATES COURT

Table 44: Treatment Intervention Program Participation by gender

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

M F Total MM F Total M F Total

Referrals 195 71 266 310 140 450 324 157 481

Assessments 177 68 245 264 118 382 283 158 441

Accepted 110 42 152 153 76 229 153 102 255

Still in treatment 0 0 0 72 31 103 57 36 93

Completed 24 17 41 69 41 110 93 59 152

Table 45: Treatment Intervention Court Indigenous participation

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

M F Total M F Total M F Total

Referrals 10 3 13 19 10 29 19 15 34

Assessments 10 3 13 13 7 20 18 13 31

Accepted 9 4 13 5 5 10 7 7 14


Completed 3 1 4 3 0 3 3 2 5


38

MAGISTRATES COURT

The distribution of participants across the three treatment streams is shown in Tables 46 and 47. Most participants are

accepted onto the co-morbidity stream and this is also the case for Aboriginal participants.

Table 46: Treatment Intervention Program Participation by Treatment Stream

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14


12 month substance* 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 10

Six month substance 27 5 32 30 4 34 31 5 36

Co-morbidity 50 20 70 75 40 115 65 51 116

Mental health 33 14 50 48 32 80 48 45 93

Total acceptances 152 229 255

* From March 2014 the Drug Court merged with the Treatment Intervention Program

Table 47: Treatment Intervention Court Indigenous participation by stream

2011–2011 2012–13 2013–14


12 month Substance 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Six month substance 2 0 2 1 1 2 2 2 4

Co-morbidity 4 3 7 4 4 8 4 4 8

Mental health 3 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 1

Total acceptances 13 10 14

As TIP takes approximately six months to complete, completion rates are estimated from the number of people accepted in the first half of the financial year with the number of completions in the second half of the year and any participants still active on the program by the end of the financial year are deducted from the number of acceptances. It is an approximate figure because some people are extended on the program beyond six months.

Table 48 shows there was a 17% decrease in the number of participants completing the six month substance

dependence stream in 2013–14 compared with 2012–13. However, as the total number is very low, the actual reduction represents a difference of only two people. Conversely there has been an increase in the number of participants completing the co-morbidity stream, from 30% in 2012–13 to 44% in 2013–14. However, the completion rates for the mental impairment stream have remained steady, at around 85% over the past three years.

Table 48: TIP Completion Rates by Stream

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Substance stream (Six months) 20% 36% 19%

Co-morbidity 48% 30% 44%

Mental Impairment 85% 86% 85%


39

MAGISTRATES COURT

The differences in the completion rates between the treatment streams can partially be explained by the intensity of the program requirements and the level of accountability and monitoring. The mental impairment stream is low intensity and participants usually only have three or four court reviews, whereas the substance dependence and co-morbidity streams are more intensive and participants are required to undergo random drug testing twice a week and attend at least seven court reviews during the six month period. Although the co-occurrence of mental illness and substance abuse is usually associated with poorer treatment outcomes, the completion rates for the co-morbidity stream are almost double that of the substance dependence stream. Continued drug use is the most common reason participants in the substance abuse stream are removed from the program and therefore do not complete. The assessment process has now incorporated a tool to assess readiness for change, to improve the identification of suitable participants who are likely motivated to change their drug use.

This is the first year that the primary drug of dependence for TIP participants is being reported and the figure below shows that the majority of defendants are dependent on methamphetamine followed by cannabis and alcohol. A small percentage of defendants use heroin, benzodiazepines and other drugs. Methamphetamines are also the primary drug of dependence for Drug Court participants followed by opiates which includes heroin and cocaine.

Figure 2: Primary drug of dependence 2013–14

Table 49 lists the offence categories for TIP participants using the Australian and New Zealand Standard Offence Classification. Theft and related offences has been the main offence category for TIP over the past three years however the percentage of offences in this category has increased since 2012–13 and is closer to the 2011–12 rates. Acts intended to cause injury have increased from 7% in 2012–13 to 11.4% but this is still lower than in 2011–12. The percentage of traffic and vehicle regulatory offences has almost remained the same over the past two years as have offences involving property damage and environmental pollution. Offences against justice procedures, government security and government operations have decreased by almost half since last year and the percentage has fallen slightly below the percentage in this category in 2011–12. The number of offences in the dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons category has decreased by 3.5% since last year and is almost back to the 2011–12 percentage.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0% Methamphetamines

Cannabis

Alcohol

Heroin

Other

Benzodiazepines

Cocaine

37.0%

22.8%22.3%

7.6%

5.1%4.1%

1.0%


40

MAGISTRATES COURT

Table 49: Offence Categories of TIP participants

Offence category2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

% % %

Theft and related offences 38.8 32.8 40.4

Acts intended to cause injury 14.5 7.0 11.4

Traffic and vehicle regulatory offences 11.2 9.6 9.8

Property damage and environmental pollution 7.9 12.2 11.8

Unlawful entry with intent/burglary, break and enter 6.6 7.0 6.9

Fraud, deception and related offences 5.3 7.0 7.3

Offences against justice procedures, government security and operations 5.3 8.7 4.5

Prohibited and regulated weapons and explosives offences 2.6 1.3 1.2

Public order offences 2.0 1.3 2.0

Sexual assault and related offences 1.3 0.9 0.0

Dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons 1.3 4.8 1.6

Abduction, harassment & other offences against the person 1.3 1.7 0.4

Illicit drug offences 1.3 2.6 1.6

Non-offence matters 0.7 1.3 0.4

Miscellaneous offences 0.0 1.8 0.4

Figure 3 shows the primary sentencing outcomes for defendants who completed TIP. A number of changes in sentencing outcomes are evident over the past three years and can be partially explained by the staged rolled out of TIP across the metropolitan area which has gradually increased the number of defendants participating with substance abuse related offences.

The biggest change in sentencing outcomes occurred in 2012–13 with a 50% decrease in the percentage of defendants whose matters had been dismissed under Section 19C of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988. The percentage has fallen again in 2013–14 but only by 1.2%.

The percentage of defendants receiving an unsupervised good behaviour bond has remained between 14–15% over the past three years however the percentage of supervised good behaviour bonds dropped from 9.8% in 2011–12 to 5.5% in 2012–13 and there has been little change this year.

Figure 3: TIP Participants’ primary sentencing outcomes 2011–14

Suspended Sentence Bond

No Conviction - Penalty

Good Behaviour Bond Unsupervised

Other

Magistrates Dismissal

Prison Sentence

Good Behaviour Bond Supervised

Return to General List

Fine

30.8%

13.2%

15.1%

5.9%

4.6%

9.9%

5.9%

2.0%

2.6%

41.8%

14.5%

14.5%

5.5%

10.0%

7.3%

3.6%

1.8%

0.9%

31.7%

29.3%

14.6%

9.8%

7.3%

2.4%

2.4%

0.0%

2.4%


41

MAGISTRATES COURT

MAGISTRATES COURT DIVERSION PROGRAM (MCDP)

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 health care interventions and treatment. It began in June 1999 as an alternative to the complex mental impairment defence under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935.

Referral and participant numbers have decreased significantly in line with the phasing out of MCDP and the

introduction of TIP, as shown in Table 49 below. However MCDP began operating at Port Pirie in September 2013 after several years of lobbying from local stakeholders. The other locations where MCDP operates, on a bi-monthly basis, are Mount Gambier, Murray Bridge, Port Augusta and Whyalla Magistrates Courts. A small number of referrals from Berri Magistrates Court were accepted onto the mental impairment stream of TIP at Elizabeth Magistrates Court and following an initial acceptance hearing, the court reviews were carried out via video conference.

Table 50: Magistrates Court Diversion Program Participation by gender and indigenous

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14


Referrals 184 92 276 44 13 57 34 15 49

Assessments 166 97 263 49 10 59 31 14 45

Accepted 113 80 193 30 9 39 17 13 30

Extended on the program 6 3 9 0 3 3

Completed 127 80 207 59 41 100 26 10 36

Table 51: Magistrates Court Diversion Program Indigenous participation

2011–12 2012–13 2013


Referrals 8 8 16 4 1 5 4 0 4

Assessments 5 6 11 4 0 4 0 0 0

Accepted 3 5 8 1 1 2 0 0 0

Extended on program 2 0 2 0 0 0

Completed 3 3 6 2 1 3 2 1 3*

* The participants who completed in 2013–14 were accepted in the years 2011–12 and 2012–13.

Table 52 shows that the completion rate for MCDP is significantly lower than last year and lower than the completion rate for the mental impairment stream in TIP. It is difficult to know what has caused this reduction however

it may be a connected to the fact that the major offence category for 2013–14 is Acts intended to cause injury, which, in turn, may reflect more serious mental health issues.


42

MAGISTRATES COURT

Table 52: MCDP Completion rates 2011–2014

2011–12 Qty 2012–13 Qty 2013–14 Qty

Acceptances01.07.11

– 31.12.11

11001.07. 12

– 31.12.12

2001.07.2013

– 31.12.2013

19

Completions01.01.12

–30.06.12

9001.01.13

– 30.06.13

1901.01.2014

– 30.06.2014

11

Completion Rate 82% 95% 69%

Tables of comparative data about primary diagnosis, mental health diagnosis and sentencing outcomes for MCDP are no longer provided due to the low number of program referrals and participants. However in 2013–14 the number of defendants with mental health issues increased by 15% and the prevalent diagnosis was major depressive illness (27%), followed by (in order of occurrence) post-traumatic stress syndrome (23%), personality disorder (13%) and schizophrenia (13%). From 2012–13 to 2013–14 the number of defendants with an intellectual disability dropped from 8% to 3% and the number of defendants with acquired brain injury dropped from 13% to 7%.

A breakdown of primary offence categories of MCDP participants shows that for the first time in the past two years, Acts intended to cause injury is the most prevalent offence category (27%) and this is more than double compared with 2012–13 (10%). Previously, Theft and related offences was the most prevalent offence category and the number of offences in this category (23%) did not change between 2012–13 and 2013–14. However, Offences against justice procedures, government security and Government operations has more than halved, from 15.4% in 2012–13 to 2013–14. However, in the same period, Unlawful entry with intent/break and enter category offences have doubled, from 5% to 10%.

MCDP aims to divert participants into treatment and to provide alternative sentencing options. As in previous years, the main sentencing outcome for participants is a suspended sentence bond and the percentage receiving this sentence increased slightly from 27% in 2012–13 to 33% in 2013–14. In the same period, supervised good

behaviour bonds increased from 16% to 22%. However, there was no change in the percentage of unsupervised bonds. As is the case with the sentencing outcomes for participants on TIP, there has been a decrease in Magistrates dismissal, from 11% to 5.6%, and there has also been a decrease in No conviction no penalty sentences.

DRUG COURT AND OTHER DRUG INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

There have been a number of different drug intervention programs operating in the Magistrates Court over the past 14 years, including the Drug Court, the Courts Assessment and Referral Drug Service (known as CARDS) and the six-month Drug Treatment Program, which replaced CARDS in 2010.

The volume of work for the Drug Court has decreased, with the introduction of the Treatment Intervention Program (TIP) across all metropolitan Magistrates Courts. More people can access the option of six-month substance dependence treatment and this, along with a need to achieve better operational efficiencies and budget savings, led to a decision to merge the Drug Court with TIP at the Adelaide Magistrates Court in April 2014. The merger has provided an option for a 12-month treatment stream alongside the six-month substance dependence stream. There is now a single point of referral into TIP. Matters are then ‘triaged’ by a magistrate and the prosecution to determine who should be assessed. The assessment results in a recommendation for a particular stream. Offenders likely to face immediate imprisonment for at least a year are now managed on a new 12-month substance dependence stream of TIP. The tables below show referrals up until the merger in April 2014.


43

MAGISTRATES COURT

Completion rates for the Drug Court are higher than for the six-month substance stream in TIP, which may be because some of these defendants would have been more suited

to the longer, Drug Court program. The single entry point for referral and assessment will ensure a better match of defendants to treatment stream.

Table 53: Drug Court Referrals and acceptances by gender to February 2014

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14


Referrals 138 24 162 80 12 92 61 8 69

Accepted for assessment 110 19 129 56 6 62 52 9 61

Accepted into program 57 10 67 46 4 50 35 5 40

Transferred from six month program 4 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 0

Completed 18 6 24 15 2 17 13 1 14

Completed (%) 37 34* 25 28

* This was printed in last year’s Annual Report as 34% but the correct percentage number is 25%. As the Drug Court is a 12-month program the completion rate is calculated by deducting the number of completions from the number of acceptances in the previous 12 months.

Indigenous participation has been decreasing in the Drug Court and the Nunga Court as shown in Tables 54 and 55. Recently the Chief Magistrate spoke at a Nunga Court operations meeting to discuss the program and encourage

participation and a pamphlet directed at Aboriginal defendants is being developed by the Aboriginal Justice Officers for the programs.

Table 54: Drug Court Participation by Indigenous participation

2011–12 2012–13 2013 14


Accepted 6 2 8 4 0 4 2 0 2

Completed 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 2

Table 55: Referrals to Nunga Court

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14


Referrals 15 6 21 17 8 25 9 0 9

Accepted 5 2 7 7 3 10 3 0 3

Completed 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 2

Over the past three years most Drug Court participants have identified amphetamines and then opiates as their primary drugs of dependence. Many participants are poly

drug users and there is widespread use of cannabis and prescription drugs such as benzodiazepines and methadone in conjunction with the primary drug of use.


44

MAGISTRATES COURT

INTERVENTION ORDERS

The Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (the Act) replaced the previous provisions for restraining orders and domestic violence restraining orders under the Summary Procedure Act 1921 and Domestic Violence Act 1994, respectively. The new Act introduced significant changes to improve the protection of individuals; these included the imposition of additional obligations upon the Court to notify various agencies and the provision of additional powers to the police to issue interim intervention orders without a court application. Police-issued interim

orders must be listed before the Court within eight days of issue in the metropolitan area. Court applications can still be made by parties, including the police.

Table 56 shows how the number of lodgments for Intervention Orders has increased every year since the introduction of the Act in December 2011. The lodgments include police interim order applications and court applications. The increase in lodgments has a significant impact on workload as these matters often require multiple attendances.

Table 56: Intervention Order lodgments

1 Dec 2011 to 30 June 2012 2012–13 2013–14

Intervention Order lodgments 1,771 2,740 3,019

ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAM

The Abuse Prevention Program was established to provide an intervention program for the court to mandate men to attend as a term of an Intervention Order (under Section 13), which enables the Court to require the defendant to undergo an assessment and to undertake an intervention program. A small proportion of men (16%) are also referred as a voluntary condition of bail.

There is strong evidence that the most prevalent form of abuse is domestic violence perpetrated by males against their female partners, therefore the Abuse Prevention Program targets men who have abused their female partner. The treatment element for the program (known as the DVPP) is contracted to a specialist team from the Department of Correctional Services and the assessment, monitoring, court reporting and breaching is managed by a small team within the Intervention Programs branch. The DVPP is a 24-week group based behavioural change program that is derived from Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT). It operates in the Adelaide CBD and at Elizabeth and Christies Beach. Tables below show the number of men who have been referred, accepted and who have completed

the DVPP under a term of the IO or under the Bail Act. The reasons men were not accepted relate to their inability to participate due to incompatible work commitments, moving outside the metropolitan area, language and literacy barriers, mental health and drug issues and the revocation of the condition to attend.

The Abuse Prevention Program case managers attend the family violence lists in the metropolitan Magistrates Courts and accept referrals and undertake assessments. The lists at Holden Hill, Adelaide and Elizabeth Magistrates Court are usually quite busy and most referrals come from these areas.

As a result of a recent open tender process Offenders Aid and Rehabilitation Services (OARS) Community Transitions was engaged to deliver this program, from 25 August 2014. OARS will be providing some additional services to meet the needs of men from cultural and linguistically diverse backgrounds who are not able to participate in the group program due to language and literacy barriers. The new services will include individual counselling and a shorter group program of 12 weeks that will not require any literacy skills.


45

Table 57: Abuse prevention program referral and participation as a term of an Intervention Order

Intervention Order condition

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

M F ATSI* Total M F ATSI* Total M F ATSI* Total

Referrals 263 9 7 272 315 4 18 319 350 1 17 351

Assessments 155 0 6 155 235 0 11 235 260 0 15 260

Accepted 83 0 3 83 161 0 9 161 152 0 9 152

Completed - - - - 30 0 0 30 51 0 4 51

Still in treatment - - - 54 86 0 6 86 76 0 4 76

* Females referred inadvertently are not assessed

Table 58: Abuse prevention program referral and participation as a condition of bail

Bail condition 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

M ATSI* Total M ATSI* Total M ATSI* Total

Referrals 36 2 38 38 3 41 49 8 57

Assessments 33 2 35 39 3 42 37 8 45

Accepted 31 0 31 30 1 31 23 6 29

Completed 12 0 12 11 0 11 26 1 27


* ATSI Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander

Table 59: Number and reasons for breaches of the Intervention Order term relating to an Intervention Program

Reason for breach 2012–13 2013–14

Did not phone for assessment 46 44

Did not attend assessment appointment 26 27

Did not attend group sessions 59 35

Total 131 106

MAGISTRATES COURT

The completion rate of 50% for the 24 week DVPP program in the 2012–13 Annual Report was calculated from the total of the number of men completing (under an Intervention Order or the Bail Act) in that year as a percentage of the total number of men accepted less the number still in treatment. This was considered an accurate measure as 2012–13 was the first full year that the program had been operating.

However when the same calculation is applied to the 2013–14 data the completion rate is 85% which is not

really indicative of the actual numbers because there are a significant number of men who are taking longer than six months to complete the program. The number of men who withdraw from the DVPP group because the term to attend is removed from the Intervention Order or the Intervention Order is not confirmed also needs to be taken into consideration. Therefore the 2013–14 completion rate has been calculated using a different formula, which is set out in Table 60. This method shows the completion rate is 52% which is a slight increase from the previous year.


46

MAGISTRATES COURT

Table 60: DVPP Completion rate 2013–14

Acceptances 2012–13 (Intervention Order and Bail condition) 192

Less number of defendants withdrawn because the IO condition was removed 42

Less those still active in the 12 month period 2

Total acceptances 2012–2013 (IO & Bail) 148

Completions between 2013–14 78

Completion Rate 52%

Port Augusta (pilot) Abuse prevention program

In response to the relatively high numbers of Intervention Orders issued in Port Augusta, a three-day intensive group program for Aboriginal defendants was developed, in consultation with Kornar Winmil Yunti (KWY), the Indigenous male health and wellbeing service. The commencement of the program in January 2014 coincided with the introduction of a family violence list at the Port Augusta Magistrates Court to hear Intervention Order applications and deal with domestic violence related charges. KWY were retained to

deliver a three-day group program once a month but due to the low number of referrals there were only two groups held before the end of the financial year. Plans are underway to continue offering the program for another six month period to test whether referrals increase and whether the three-day model can successfully engage men in the change process. The partners of men attending the group will be referred to a Women’s Safety Contact Officer as part of the integrated response model. The table below shows the data in relation to the Port Augusta program.

Table 61: Abuse prevention program referral and participation as a bail condition and Intervention Order condition at Port Augusta

Bail Intervention Order Total

Referrals 8 4 12

Assessments 8 4 12

Accepted 5 3 8

Completed 2 3 5

Waiting list 1 0 1


47

YOUTH COURT

At a glance 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Judges** 2 2 1.5

Magistrates 2 2 2

Staff (full-time equivalent) 34.4 33.8 33.1

Criminal

Criminal lodgments 7,606 6,866 6,454

Criminal expiation lodgments 2,653 2,204 1,773

Criminal lodgments finalisations 7,680 6,905 6,768

Criminal lodgments not finalised > six months* 347 324 274

Criminal lodgments not finalised > 12 months* 77 53 81

Youth Court criminal lodgment clearance rate 100.9% 100.6% 104.9%

Care and Protection

Care and Protection (number of children) lodgments 710 737 649

Investigation and Assessment lodgments 573 455 397

Conferencing Unit

Family Care Meeting referrals (families) 482 471 414

Family Care Meeting number of children referred 843 814 701

Family conference referrals 1,666 1,637 1,646

Family conference finalisations 1,675 1,609 1,734

Family conference lodgments pending > six months 38 56 45

Family conference lodgments pending > 12 months 1 19 12

Family conference lodgment clearance rate 100.1% 98.3% 105.4%

Child adoptions 18 19 4

Surrogacy 2 0 1

* Includes warrants of apprehension; Griffiths (conditional) remands; or lengthy adjournments for specialist court finalisations** The Youth Court had one judge only from November 2013

ROLE AND FUNCTION

YOUTH COURT

The Youth Court of South Australia incorporates Adelaide

Youth Court and all suburban and regional Youth Courts as

well as the Conferencing Unit, which convenes conferences

for care and protection and juvenile justice matters.

When at full strength, the Youth Court comprises two

District Court judges (one designated as a Senior Judge)

and two magistrates, all proclaimed by the Governor as

judges and magistrates of the Youth Court.

The Youth Court administers several Acts including Young Offenders Act 1993, Adoption Act 1988, Youth Court Act 1993, Children’s Protection Act 1993 and Statutes Amendment (Surrogacy) Act 2009.

The court exercises criminal jurisdiction for offenders aged from 10 to 17 years for all charges except murder and manslaughter or where, because of the gravity of the offence or a pattern of repeated offending, the court determines that the young person should be dealt with as an adult, or when the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) exercises the power to charge the youth as an adult.


48

YOUTH COURT

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 and applications for surrogacy orders.

Conferencing Unit

The Conferencing Unit conducts family conferences, family care meetings, victim impact meetings and Aboriginal conferences (at the Port Lincoln Magistrates Court). Family conferences and family care meetings are conducted in metropolitan and regional areas.

Family conferences

Under the Young Offenders Act 1993, any offence meeting the criteria for diversion under the Act may be referred to a family conference. Referrals can be received from the police or from the Youth Court. Youth Justice Coordinators convene these meetings.

Family care meetings

The Children’s Protection Act 1993 provides for family care meetings. Care and Protection Coordinators convene these meetings.

OVERVIEW OF WORKLOAD

Youth Court

The Youth Court strives to achieve prompt and efficient resolution of all matters relating to juveniles. When criminal matters are ready to be listed for trial, the court offers a trial date within three to six weeks. The court expects a matter, if defended, to be listed for a pre-trial conference at its third court date. If the matter does not resolve, it is listed for trial within the timeframes outlined above.

For care and protection trials, the relevant legislation requires a contested application to be listed for trial within 10 weeks of the filing of the application. Compliance with this statutory provision has continued. On 1 April 2012, new Care and Protection Rules commenced operation. These are designed to ensure that care and protection hearings and trials are conducted more efficiently, by earlier identification of issues in dispute and by facilitating the use of documentary and concurrent evidence at trial.

In 2013–14, the number of criminal lodgments across the State decreased six percent from 2012–13. The court recorded a high disposal rate of 105 percent of cases within a year of initiation.

A care and protection or investigation and assessment application may include more than one child; 649 lodgments for 2013–14 involved 1,046 children.

Table 62 below shows the numbers of criminal lodgments and child protection* applications over the past three years.

Table 62: Numbers of youths and children subject to criminal and child protection proceedings

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Criminal 7,606 6,866 6,454

Child Protection 1,283 1,192 1,046

* ‘Child protection’ includes both care and protection, and investigation and assessment figures.


49

YOUTH COURT

Conferencing Unit

Family Conference

The Conferencing Unit (Family Conference) received 1,646 referrals during 2013–14. This result is consistent with the previous year. During this period, 1,734 (105.3 percent) matters were finalised.

Table 63: Referrals for family conferences

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

1,666 1,637 1,646

For approximately 30 percent of family conference matters a victim, or a victim’s representative, attended the conference. Fifty-two percent of family conference matters were finalised within eight weeks of receiving the referral. Compliance with undertakings remains very high, at 90 percent overall, including compliance with individual

undertakings such as participating in community service or paying compensation.

Care and protection

In 2013–14, 701 referrals for family care meetings were received, involving 414 families. This is a 14 percent decrease in referrals of children compared with the previous year. About 70 percent of referrals progressed to a meeting within eight weeks of receipt. The unit finalised 463 matters during this year.

There were 338 family care meetings and 36 reviews in the year under review. Approximately 72 percent of meetings resulted in ‘valid decisions’ as defined under provisions of the Children’s Protection Act 1993. A valid decision occurs where arrangements for the care and protection of the child satisfy the concerns held by Families SA and have been agreed to by family members and the Care and Protection Coordinator.

Table 64: Referrals for family care meetings

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Families 482 471 414

Children 843 814 701

STRATEGIC INITIATIVES

Twentieth anniversary

In 2014 the Conferencing Unit celebrated 20 years of legislative reform in SA – introducing family care meetings and family conferences under the Children’s Protection Act 1993 and Young Offenders Act 1993, respectively. A celebratory event was attended by approximately 100 people, with presentations by international and national guest speakers on the future of restorative conferencing and the role of transformational justice systems within the traditional justice system.

The event also served to launch a comic intended for young people about family conferencing, and a brochure, for children, concerning family care meetings. There was good national media coverage of the commemorative event and of the new information materials.

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

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. These groups include Families SA, juvenile justice and child protection directors, Aboriginal specialist workers and SA Police community program managers.

Training and community educational activities

The Youth Court judicial officers continue to participate actively in training and educational activities designed to improve understanding about the juvenile justice system, by presentations to community groups, magistrates, legal practitioners, SA Police and advocacy workshops.

Conferencing Unit Coordinators continue to deliver education and training sessions to Flinders University Law


50

School, University of SA School of Psychology and School of Social Work and Families SA (through the College of Learning and Development), about restorative conferencing in the care and protection and juvenile justice arenas.

YOUTH COURT TREATMENT INTERVENTION PROGRAM

The Youth Court Treatment Intervention Program (YCTIP) has been operating since January 2012. From July 2015 it will be known as the Youth Treatment Intervention Court. The program targets young offenders who may be facing a term of incarceration and who are not suitable for a family conference. Mental health and substance abuse issues are addressed as separate issues or as co-occurring issues. If substance dependence is an issue, the treatment regime includes regular random drug-testing and regular court supervision, fortnightly for the first two months of the six month program.

In 2013–14 referral numbers were lower than in previous years and this may reflect a successful reduction of that cohort or reduced support for the program among some stakeholders. The program will continue to be promoted and offered in 2014–15.

The table below shows there were six participants in 2013–14 and of those, four were accepted into the co-morbidity stream and two were accepted into the mental impairment stream. The diagnoses of the participants varied; three had an intellectual disability, two had a mental illness and one had a personality disorder.

The primary offence types (using the Australian Standard Offence Classification) for the six participants were: Acts intended to cause injury (three), Property damage and environmental pollution (two), and Unlawful entry with intent/burglary break and enter (one).

YOUTH COURT

Table 65: YCTIP Participation

Participation 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

M F ATSI* Total M F ATSI* Total M F ATSI* Total

Referrals 16 2 3 18 16 2 4 18 9 2 1 11

Assessments 12 1 3 13 10 2 3 12 5 1 1 6

Accepted 5 1 1 6 7 0 1 7 5 1 1 6

Still In treatment 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 3

Withdrawn/removed 1 0 0 1 4 1 2 5 2 0 0 2**

Completed 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 3 0 0 3

* ATSI = Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander** Referred in 2012–13 but finalised in 2013–14

Table 66: YCTIP Participation by primary sentencing outcome

Primary outcomes 2012–13 2013–14

No conviction – no penalty 2 (40%) 0

Dismissed 3 (60%) 3 (100%)

Total number 5 (100%) 3 (100%)


51

CORONERS COURT

At a glance 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Coroners 2 2 2

Staff 16.5 16.5 16.2

Deaths reported 2,088 2,200 2,248

Post-mortems 1,105 1,289 1,339

Inquest findings delivered 41 35 35

Court sitting hours 343 421.5 421.5

ROLE AND FUNCTION

The Coroners Court is responsible for investigating deaths that are reportable pursuant to the Coroners 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 an emergency department or hospital, whilst a person is in custody or detained under any other Act, and of protected persons.

Mr Mark Johns is the State Coroner and Mr Tony Schapel is the Deputy State Coroner. Magistrate Elizabeth Sheppard also conducted two inquests during the year under review. The Coroners are supported by two Senior Counsels Assisting. For the latter part of the year both Senior Counsels Assisting were on maternity leave. Both were backfilled for the duration of that leave.

The Coroners Court also has two full-time social workers.

WORKLOAD

There were 13,009 deaths registered with the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages in 2013–14, a slight decrease compared to the previous year. Of these, 2,248 deaths were reported to the State Coroner, a small increase when compared with the previous two years.

In 2013–14, 32 inquests were held into individual deaths, of which 18 related to deaths in custody. Of these 32 inquests, seven matters were part heard at the time of the 2012–13 year and continued into the year now under review. Six matters are part-heard at the time of reporting and will continue in 2014–15. There were 11,272 pages of transcript produced.

The number of inquest findings (35) did not vary from the number documented for the previous year. This figure is

the actual number of findings delivered, regardless of the number of deaths per inquest. This was also the case for the number of court sitting hours (both this year and the previous year), that being 421.5 hours.

During the year under review there were no inquests held in country areas.

LISTING DELAYS

As at 30 June 2014, 36 inquests awaited hearing in the Coroners Court, including 27 cases involving a death in custody. There were 1,878 open cases pending inquiry, an increase when compared with the previous year (1,661). These open cases are at varying levels of investigation. Some may progress to a review by Senior Counsel Assisting the State Coroner and the Coronial Investigation Section (a unit within South Australia Police (SAPOL), often referred to as ‘coronial police’). As at 30 June 2013, Senior Counsel Assisting had 71 cases under high-level investigation with an additional three cases under investigation by coronial police.

OTHER MATTERS

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

The State Coroner, Deputy State Coroner, Senior Counsels Assisting and the Manager, South Australian Coroners Court continue to meet regularly with management and forensic pathologists from Forensic Science SA.

The State Coroner, Deputy State Coroner, Senior Counsels Assisting, the Manager and Senior Research


52

Officer (Domestic Violence) attended the Asia-Pacific Coroners Society Conference in Darwin in October 2013.

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

Since 2011 the Office for Women and the SA Coroners Court have partnered to research and investigate domestic violence related deaths. Based at the Coroners Court, the Senior Research Officer (Domestic Violence) works as part of the court’s team, reviewing open coronial cases with circumstances indicating a domestic

violence context, particularly in relation to homicide and suicide deaths. From 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014, approximately 35 file reviews had been conducted and one coronial inquest had been held, producing findings and recommendations specifically related to the improvement of system responses to domestic violence.

As reported last year, the Coroner’s case management system went live on 14 May 2013 with minimal disruption given the major impact it had on work practices and habits. The system continues to be refined. Enhancements to assist with preparation of inquests are currently being worked on, as are other improvements which are identified as needs arise.

CORONERS COURT


53

SHERIFF’S OFFICE

ROLE AND FUNCTION OF THE SHERIFF

The Sheriff is a statutory officer appointed pursuant to the Sheriff’s Act 1978 on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The 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 since 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 127 full-time equivalent (FTE) members of staff, incorporating uniformed officers trained in all aspects of the work of the Sheriff, including provision of emergency services, security, prisoner security and in-court support. There are also administrative officers located within the Sheriff’s Office providing administrative support for the functions undertaken. In addition, approximately 90 enforcement officers are contracted to serve and execute civil and criminal orders throughout SA.

PRISONER MOVEMENT

The South Australian Prisoner Movement and In-Court Management Contract is in the final year of a renewed five-year contract. G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd (G4S), as the contractor, is responsible for prisoner movement and in-court management for all courts in SA, except in the Supreme Court and District Court (sitting in the Sir Samuel Way Building), where the Sheriff manages prisoners.

Representatives from Correctional Services, South Australia Police, the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion, the Department for Health and Ageing and the Sheriff’s Office meet monthly to monitor operational issues associated with the contract, and bi-monthly for strategic matters. On-site compliance audits on the contractor’s operations are conducted regularly.

In 2013–14 a total of 6,880 Correctional Services’ prisoners were transported to various courts in SA. G4S provided in-court management for 3,078 prisoners. Sheriff’s Officers undertook the in-court management for 3,802 prisoners within the Sir Samuel Way Building. Contractor, G4S, transported and managed 1,257 young offenders at Youth Court sittings.

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 1978 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.

Officers serve and execute processes forwarded to them 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.

Table 67: Civil summonses and civil warrants (Magistrates Courts)

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

No. % No. % No. %

Summonses issued (percentage served)* 16,032 63 15,250 64 16,188 63

Warrants issued (successfully executed)** 4,766 60 4,440 60 4,780 61

* Summonses include investigation/examination summonses and summons to witness. Counting rules for the number of summonses issued have been varied and applied across the reporting periods shown for comparison purposes. Previous counting rules captured secondary court outcomes associated with the issue of the summons and did not count the summonses issued for multiple debtors.

** Warrants include warrants of sale, arrest, possession and commitment. ‘Successfully executed’ includes debtors presenting to the Court on warrants of arrest.


54

SHERIFF’S OFFICE

Table 68: Fines Payment Unit warrants

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

No. % No. % No. %

Order for sale – warrant of arrest issued (percentage successfully executed) 3,223 36 3,152 48 3,200 46

+ ‘Successfully executed’ includes debtors arrested, debtors presenting to Court, debtors paying in full and seizure of debtors’ property.

SECURITY

Upgrades to access control, intruder alarms, close-circuit security television and duress alarm systems in the Supreme Court, Adelaide Magistrates Court, Coroners Court, Port Adelaide Magistrates Court and Elizabeth Magistrates Court were completed. The main security control room in the Adelaide Magistrates Court was refurbished as part of the upgrade.

An upgrade of an intercom system in the Sir Samuel Way Building Cells complex to maintain operational effectiveness was completed.

A new Control and Restraint training program was developed by the Sheriff’s Office and the first stage of the module has been delivered to metropolitan and country Sheriff’s Officers.

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

Table 69: Point of entry searches conducted by location

LocationNumber of searches conducted

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Sir Samuel Way Building 335,737 308,532 291,974

Adelaide Magistrates Court 252,274 251,960 253,831

Coroners Court 8,129 6,742 7,554

Adelaide Youth Court 49,311 43,612 43,057

Holden Hill Magistrates Court 112,927 109,589 92,693

Elizabeth Magistrates Court 199,384 206,806 170,718

Port Adelaide Magistrates Court 133,307 140,124 123,854

Christies Beach Magistrates Court 116,179 101,391 90,223

Mount Gambier Magistrates Court 45,633 42,898 39,642

Port Augusta 44,806 43,951 30,538

Supreme Court 27,364 24,217 22,093

Total 1,325,051 1,279,822 1,166,177


55

SHERIFF’S OFFICE

Table 70: Weapons and inappropriate items detected

LocationItems confiscated

Items temporarily removed at

point of entry

Persons leaving court precinct prior to a

point of entry search

2012–13 2013–14 2012–13 2013–14 2012–13 2013–14

Sir Samuel Way Building 0 0 569 564 2 3

Adelaide Magistrates Court 0 4 2,703 2,532 55 108

Coroners Court 0 0 6 0 0 0

Adelaide Youth Court 0 0 94 208 6 0

Holden Hill Magistrates Court 2 0 900 673 3 0

Elizabeth Magistrates Court 0 0 2,084 1,846 9 18

Port Adelaide Magistrates Court 1 0 1,145 1,082 5 0

Christies Beach Magistrates Court 0 0 611 477 2 0

Mount Gambier Magistrates Court 0 0 124 153 0 0

Port Augusta 0 0 129 89 18 6

Supreme Court 0 0 66 46 0 0

Total 3 4 8,431 7,670 100 135

The total number of weapons/inappropriate items detected through point of entry search remains at less than one

percent of the total number of searches conducted across all locations.

Table 71: Report on incidents

Incident 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Needles found 24 22 45

Bomb threats 2 2 1

Duress alarms 295 304 264

Escapes 0 0 0

Attempted escapes 2 1 0

Security attendance 239 162 297

Emergency alarms 7 20 38

First aid emergency 37 54 43

Violent encounters 8 9 8

Removal from court 27 43 88

Remand in custody escorts 196 61 117

Prisoner production 34 13 83

Witness protection 35 17 22

Arrest/report 10 5 6

Total 916 713 1,012


56

SHERIFF’S OFFICE

JURIES

Remuneration 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 2013 increased travel expenses from 0.69c per kilometre to 0.71c per km and the maximum amount payable to jurors per day from $145 to $148.

Enhancements to the jury management database have streamlined the collection of contact information for jurors by reducing manual processes, which has expedited daily juror notifications.

Scoping work commenced on a new website for jurors that will enable jurors to log on and change or update personal details and lodge applications to be excused or deferred.

A complete revision and update of juror correspondence was undertaken and changes were made to the juror handbook and juror claim forms for loss of wages.

Jury surveys are conducted after jurors have completed their service in the Adelaide, Port Augusta and Mount Gambier jury districts. The survey measures the usefulness of information provided to jurors prior to service, at induction and during service; facilities provided; timeliness of payments and whether, by serving as a juror, they felt they had performed a valuable service to the community.

Responses to surveys across all three jury districts show 97 percent of jurors said they found the information provided in juror information booklets to be helpful or extremely helpful; 98 percent said the jury manager’s induction address was helpful or extremely helpful; 96 percent said the services of Sheriff’s Officers were helpful or extremely helpful; 99 percent said the services of Sheriff’s Office administrative staff were helpful or extremely helpful, 98 percent said they received payments in a timely manner; and 82 percent said they felt they had performed a valuable service to their community.


57

LIBRARY SERVICE

The CAA Library Service is responsible for the provision of library and information services to assist the judiciary and court staff in the administration of justice.

The Supreme Court Library is also a public access library and a major law resource for legal practitioners and the general public of South Australia.

The Library Service provides a comprehensive range of reference and research services. It also manages access to an extensive collection of legal research sources in print and digital formats.

COLLECTION OVERVIEW

The Library Service maintains library collections for the Supreme Court, District Court, Magistrates Courts, Environment, Resources and Development Court and Youth Court.

The major jurisdictions represented in the library collections are the Australian Commonwealth, States and Territories and the United Kingdom. Digital resources include a range of Australian and international databases that are available for public users in the Supreme Court Library.

Table 72: Print volumes and digital databases held by CAA Library Service

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Total volumes 190,032 191,679 192,564

Total databases available 1,441 1,538 1,520

STRATEGIC DIRECTION

The Library Service is committed to using technology to improve the delivery of information services. It has developed a digital strategy to transition the library from a predominately print-based service to a digitally-based information service integrated throughout the CAA with online resources accessed via the Intranet and stand-alone electronic publications used on laptops and tablets.

To date, the move to digital resources has focused on the main Library Collections (Supreme Court, District Court,

Adelaide Magistrates Court) which have been developed from print collections to comprehensive collections of print and digital resources.

The current focus is to improve access to online resources and provide training for judicial officers and court staff to support the use of digital resources. In 2013–14, usage of the Library’s digital resources increased by 12.7%, with 23,082 views via the CAA intranet.

Table 73: Usage of the Library’s digital legal research page

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Total number of page views 19,607 20,476 23,082

Longer term, the strategy aims to increase portability and access to information resources across the State, by using digital publications on laptops and tablets. This will enable

judicial officers to access information in their chambers, courtroom and on circuit.


58

COURT TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES

Court Transcription Services (CTS) is responsible for the provision of quality reporting and transcription services to the participating courts of the CAA and its users. During 2013–14, the branch had an average of 54 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 PROVIDED

In the year under review, CTS provided the following support.

Table 74: Support provided by CTS

2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

CRS ATS CRS ATS CRS ATS

In-court hours * 8,741 3,230 8,906 3,462 8,241 2,605

Pages of transcript produced 214,795 81,693 217,317 88,755 202,263 70,426

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

ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ETMS)

The ETMS is a key tool used by CTS to manage transcript in the CAA. Work has continued throughout the year to enable emailing of transcript to external parties. Pilots have been conducted in the District Court criminal jurisdiction to test functionality and to assess the benefit of ETMS for interested parties and the CAA.

The CAA has established a project team to consider a replacement ETMS that will build on the current functions of the system. A new ETMS will integrate with new/existing CAA systems, providing online ordering and distribution capability. The project team will evaluate systems used interstate and in other organisations in 2014–15, to determine how the CAA will advance this important change to the management of transcript.


59

HUMAN RESOURCES

One hundred and seventy one staff left employment with the CAA in 2013–14, largely as a result of the Fines Payment Unit moving to a new entity within the Attorney-General’s

Department. A total of 66 staff were recruited during this reporting period.

Table 75: Overview of CAA staff by gender and salary

Total number of employees

Persons 695

FTE 617.7

Gender % Persons % FTEs

Male 32.8 33.4

Female 67.2 66.6

Salary Bracket Male Female Total

$0 - $54,799 113 128 241

$54,800 - $69,699 48 222 270

$69,700 - $89,199 43 100 143

$89,200 - $112,599 20 13 33

$112,600+ 4 4 8

Total 228 467 695

Table 76: Executives by gender, classification and tenure status

Ongoing Term Tenured Term untenured Other (Casual) Total

Class Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male % Female % Total

EXEC0A 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 33 0 0 2

EXEC0B 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 17 2 33 3

EXEC0C 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 17 1

Total 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 50 3 50 6

WORKFORCE DIVERSITY

Table 77: Cultural and linguistic diversity as identified by employees

Male Female Total Agency

Number of employees born overseas 46 90 136 19.5%

Number of employees who speak languages(s) other than English at home 18 26 44 6.3%

INDIGENOUS EMPLOYEES

The number of employees identifying as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent has risen compared to

previous years. Total numbers represent 3.17% of the CAA workforce.


60

HUMAN RESOURCES

Table 78: Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander employees by salary bracket

Salary bracket Aboriginal employees Total employees % of Aboriginal employees

$0 - $54,799 9 241 3.73

$54,800 - $69,699 10 270 3.70

$69,700 - $89,199 3 143 2.10

$89,200 - $112,599 0 33 0.0

$112,600+ 0 8 0.0

Total 22 695 3.17

DISABILITY

As of June 2014, 12 employees identified themselves as having a disability requiring workplace adaptation. Due to

the reduction of overall employee numbers, this raises the representation to 1.7% of the CAA workforce.

Table 79: Disability types (where specified)

Disability Male Female Total % of Agency

Disability requiring workplace adaptation 4 8 12 1.7

Physical 2 2 4 0.6

Intellectual 0 0 0 0.0

Sensory 2 3 5 0.7

Psychological/Psychiatric 0 0 0 0.0

AGE PROFILE

The median age of CAA staff as at June 2014 is 45 years.

Table 80: Employees by age bracket in the workforce

Age bracket Total % of Total

15 – 19 1 0.14

20 – 24 19 2.73

25 – 29 64 9.21

30 – 34 59 8.49

35 – 39 55 7.91

40 – 44 82 11.80

45 – 49 109 15.68

50 – 54 109 15.68

55 – 59 93 13.38

60 – 64 79 11.37

65+ 25 3.60

Total 695 100


61

HUMAN RESOURCES

VOLUNTARY FLEXIBLE WORKING ARRANGEMENTS

Part-time work and flexitime was the most commonly used flexible working arrangements as shown in Table 81.

Table 81: Employee uptake of voluntary flexible working arrangements for 2013–14

Leave type Male Female Total

Purchased leave 5 0 5

Flexitime 99 277 376

Compressed weeks 1 3 4

Part-time 58 157 215

Job share 6 114 120

Working from home 7 2 9

LEAVE

The Carers Recognition Act 2005 ensures all employees who have carer responsibilities are recognised. This is promoted through the provisions of family care and

other types of leave and flexible working arrangements for carers.

There were 21 persons on leave without pay as at 30 June 2014.

Table 82: Average days taken per Full-time equivalent (FTE)

Sick Leave 9.3

Family Carers Leave 1.4

Miscellaneous Special Leave 0.6

LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

The Learning and Development program was delivered through workshops and forums, mentoring, e-learning, and on-the-job training. Thirty workshops were attended by 390 participants.

Topics covered in the program for 2013–14 were as follows: CAA core skills and knowledge; Leading others; Leading change; Developing self and others; Corporate governance; Work health, safety and injury management, and, Information technology.

STAFF AWARDS PROGRAM

The annual CAA Staff Awards Program recognises and celebrates the achievements of high-performing individuals and groups who go ‘above and beyond’ to contribute to the CAA vision of excellence in court administration. The

program offered six individual award categories and a total of 30 nominations were received. In the two group-award categories, five group nominations were received.

The Staff award categories were Aboriginal employee of the year; New employee of the year; CAA values award; Leadership and management award; Individual award for WHS and IM improvement or innovation; Individual award for service improvement or innovation; Group award for service improvement or innovation; and, Group award for WHS and IM improvement or innovation.

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAMS

This year, the CAA committed to participate in the Jobs4YouthSA program administered by the Office for Public Sector Renewal. As a result, one trainee was appointed, in April 2014.


62

HUMAN RESOURCES

WHISTLEBLOWERS PROTECTION ACT

The CAA has appointed five ‘responsible persons’ to assist in administering the Whistleblowers Protection Act 1993, pursuant to Section 7 of the Public Sector Act 2009. There have been no instances of public interest information reported to a responsible officer of the CAA under the Act this year.

WORK HEALTH, SAFETY AND INJURY MANAGEMENT (WHS&IM)

The CAA WHS&IM Unit has considered the top three major risks within CAA to focus its proactive risk management approach of Work Health and Safety issues during 2013-14. Manual handling, body stressing, slips trips and falls and psychological injuries have all been addressed with targeted strategies aimed at improving awareness of the issues and effectiveness of training and efficiencies in return to work of injured employees.

The modification of courtrooms to address manual handling/body stressing risks has continued throughout

2013–14. The WHS&IM training program continues to be enhanced with the inclusion of new on-line manual handling safety videos.

REHABILITATION

Ten rehabilitation cases for work injured employees were active during the year. Of those, five were resolved, leaving five employees still receiving rehabilitation at the end of this financial year. Active workplace support and rehabilitation has been successful in significantly reducing lost time in the workplace.

WORKERS COMPENSATION

There were 27 new claims for workers’ compensation benefits received during the year. Of these, six were accepted for medical expenses only and 13 were accepted for various periods of lost time. Four claims were rejected while one claim was withdrawn. There were three long term claims open at the end of the period.

Table 83: New claims by main mechanism of injury.

Injury Mechanism No.

Body stressing (including repetitive movement, low muscle loading) 14

Falls 3

Mental stress 8

Hitting objects with a part of the body 1

Chemical and other substances 1

Total 27


63


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

ITS faces numerous challenges, such as managing with smaller budgets, changing technology and meeting increased demand for its services. These have the potential to impact greatly on service delivery within the CAA. However, the branch has continued to develop and to deliver improved services to the business areas of the CAA.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Asset replacement

In the year under review, desktop personal computers, network switches, photocopiers and other Information and Communications technology (ICT) equipment were replaced according to an established ICT asset replacement program.

Wireless access in courtrooms

A WiFi network has been established to cover all courtrooms within the CBD, metropolitan and major country courthouses. This WiFi capability is used by judiciary and staff with CAA mobility devices to provide access to the CAA network, and on application by registered court users to provide connection to the internet

Disaster Recovery

Disaster recovery facilities were further developed to minimise adverse impact on court operations caused by loss of or damage to computing systems.

IMPROVED SERVICES AND PROCESSES

Fines payment system

During the year the Fines Payment Unit was relocated from the CAA to the Attorney-General’s Department

and renamed the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit (FERU). As a consequence of this move and new legislation, major enhancement was required to the fines payment system. Due to the specialist skills involved and the close relationship to the CAA systems, a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ was drawn up for the CAA IT staff to support and enhance this system on FERU’s behalf.

Case Management Systems

The CAA operates two ‘legacy’ case management systems: CrimCase, developed in 1989 for criminal cases, and CCMS, developed in 1996 for civil cases. During the last year, a project was established to consult with internal and external parties to gather the requirements for new systems to develop a business case for replacement of the old systems. It is planned to present this business case for replacement to government in the next round of funding submissions.

CHRIS 21 Payroll

The CAA payroll system was upgraded from an outdated Common Human Resource Information System (CHRIS) Version 5 to a contemporary CHRIS 21 system.

Records Management

The Electronic Document and Records Management System (EDRMS) currently in operation within the CAA Corporate Office was extended to management level across the CAA. Record Disposal Schedules (RDS) have been established for the various jurisdictions and there has been extensive archiving of records, which has occurred in accordance with relevant Record Disposal Schedules.

A number of trials were held using photographic and video evidence, submitted electronically by South Australian Police and then used within the trial electronically.


64

Audio visual linking (AVL)

There has been continual enhancement to AVL facilities and processes. The CAA’s use of AVL has increased, for prisoner appearances, giving of evidence by vulnerable

and remote witnesses, and presentation of evidence in courts. This is reflected in a significant increase in the use of AVL during the year.


Table 84: AVL use by court

Jurisdiction 2011–12 2012–13 2013–14

Magistrates Court* 4,832 7,880 11,732

Youth Court** 294 269 331

Higher Courts – Witness* 222 1,661 1,335

Higher Court – Custodial*** 296 807 905

Total 5,644 10,617 14,303

* commenced August 2008** commenced May 2009*** commenced February 2011


65

GREENING OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

As part of South Australia’s Strategic Plan, Target 61 is the improvement of energy efficiency by 30% in government buildings, by 2020. This includes a baseline of 37,023 Gigajoules (GJ) in 2000–01 and a reduction milestone of 25% by 2014. The result for the CAA for 2013–14 is a reduction of 21% from the baseline, falling just short of the milestone target of 25%.

Figures presented in the table below reflect energy (natural gas and electricity) consumed in buildings owned and leased by the CAA.

Table 85: Performance against annual energy use targets

Energy use (GJ) Energy target Business measures

Base year 2000–01 37,023 37,023 491 MJ/sq m

2012–13 30,796 29,618 381 MJ/sq m

2013–142014–15

29,174n/a

27,76727,458

361 MJ/sq m340 MJ/sq m

ACHIEVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES

The CAA focused on numerous tasks this financial year to reduce its carbon footprint. Some examples include changing faulty light fittings to a more energy-efficient

type and replacing faulty emergency exit lights with LED fittings. This strategy forms part of an agency-wide asset maintenance program, to ensure plant and equipment performs at its optimal state.


66

FINANCIAL OVERVIEW

2013–14 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

The CAA’s operations for the year ended 30 June 2014 resulted in a net surplus of $0.8million.

Total expenses decreased by $2.1 million, mainly due to the reduction in operating costs associated with the transfer of the Fines Payment Unit to the Attorney-General’s Department in February 2014.

Total income decreased by $1.0 million in 2013–14, due mainly to penalty order/reminder fees collections for which the responsibility for collection transferred with the Fines Payment Unit to the Attorney-General’s Department in February 2014.

Account payment performance*

Particulars Accounts paid Value of accounts paid

No. % $A %

Paid by due date** 13,711 90 39,747,559 93

Paid late, but paid within 30 days from due date** 1,074 7 2,407,626 5

Paid more than 30 days from due date** 515 3 724,330 2

Total 15,300 100 42,879,515 100

* excludes suitor payments. ** Due date paid is measured from the date the account is issued by the creditor.

For the reporting period no amounts were paid or were payable by CAA under the Late Payment of Debts (Interest) Act 2013.

Consultancies

Expenditure on consultancies amounted to $57,000 during 2013–14 compared to $20,000 the previous year.

Consultant Purpose of consultancy Number Total $

Value below $10,000

Various Various

Sub-total 2 4,075

Value $10,000 - $50,000

Liquid Pacific Asset land and building valuation 23,565

Architects Ink Asset lifecycle data collection 29,260

Sub-total 2 52,825

Total 4 56,900

Contractual arrangements

Premier and Cabinet Circular No. 13 requires agencies to provide a summary of all contractual arrangements which exceed $4 million (GST inclusive) and extend beyond a year.

Cleaning contract

On 25 June 2013 the CAA entered into an agreement with Academy Services Pty Ltd for the provision of cleaning, hygiene and linen services to all court facilities across SA. The contract began on 11 August 2013 for an initial period of two years. The agreement contains two extension options of two years. The estimated contract value is $8.1 million (GST inclusive).


67

FINANCIAL OVERVIEW

The agreement is expected to deliver services for court staff, judiciary, contractors and court users by providing a clean environment and meet CAA’s obligations under the WH&S Act 2012. There were no assets transferred under this agreement. Academy Services Pty Ltd provided detailed contingency planning for emergency situations in the tender response and these are incorporated into the agreement. There is no limitation of liability.

Corporate governance statement

The Council has worked to ensure that there is a framework in place to promote good governance that encourages and promotes sound management practices. The CAA’s Audit and Risk Management Committee (ARM Committee), which is supported by an internal audit function, assists the

Council and State Courts Administrator in meeting these governance objectives.

The ARM Committee provides independent assurance and assistance on the CAA’s risk, control and compliance framework, business ethics, efficiency and effectiveness of business policies and practices and its internal and external accountability responsibilities. The ARM Committee also updates the Council and Executive Management Team on the status of the CAA’s governance framework. No instances of fraud were reported or detected in the reporting period.

Overseas Travel

During 2013–14, two judicial officers attended conferences overseas.

Destinations Reasons for Travel Total Cost to CAA

Samoa South Pacific Council for Youth and Children’s Courts Conference $5,145

Tanzania International Association of Women Judges Conference $5,998


68

Dear Chief Justice

The audit of the Courts Administration Authorityfor the year ended 30 June 2014

The audit of the accounts of the Courts Administration Authority (the Authority) for the year ended 30 June 2014 has been completed.

The scope of the audit covered the principal areas of the financial operations of the Authority and included the test review of systems and processes and internal controls and financial transactions.

The notable areas of audit coverage included:• payroll• expenditure• financial accounting• cash• revenue and receipting• financial management compliance program• Fines Payment Unit• trust accounts• fixed assets

The audit coverage and its conduct is directed to meeting statutory audit responsibilities under the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 and also the requirements of Australian Auditing Standards.

The Honourable Chief Justice C KourakisChair State Courts Administration CouncilCourts Administration AuthorityGPO Box 1068ADELAIDE SA 5001

Our Ref: A14/049

24 September 2014

FINANCIAL CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

Auditor-General’s Department

9th FloorState Administration Building200 Victoria SquareAdelaide SA 5000

DX 56208Victoria Square

Tel +618 8226 9640Fax +618 8226 9688

ABN 53 327 061 410

[email protected]


69

In essence, two important outcomes result from the annual audit process, notably:• the issue of the Independent Auditor’s Report (IAR) on the integrity of the Authority’s financial

statements• the issue during the year or at the time of financial statement preparation and audit or close

thereto, of an audit management letter advising of deficiencies/weaknesses in areas of governance, financial system and process and control and financial reporting, together with recommendations for improvement in controls.

In this regard, returned herewith are the financial statements of the Authority together with the IAR, which is unmodified.

My Annual Report to Parliament indicates that an unmodified IAR has been issued on the Authority’s financial statements.

In addition, during the year an audit management letter was forwarded to the Authority, detailing findings and recommendations from the audits of the areas reviewed. The findings and recommendations relate to deficiencies/weaknesses noted by Audit and improvements needed in the areas reviewed. The audit recommendations provided in the letter was directed to achieving a sufficient standard of governance, financial management, financial reporting and control. Responses to the matters raised were received and will be followed up in the 2014-15 annual audit.

My Annual Report to Parliament includes a controls opinion and summary commentary for the Authority with reference to the matters raised and responses received. The Report indicates those matters that were assessed as not meeting a sufficient standard of governance and financial control.

Finally, I would like to express my appreciation to the management and staff of the Authority in providing assistance during the year to my officers in the conduct of the annual audit.

Yours sincerely

S O’NeillAUDITOR-GENERAL

Enc.

FINANCIAL CERTIFICATION STATEMENT


70

AUDITOR-GENERAL’S CERTIFICATE

To the Chair State Courts Administration Council

As required by section 31(1)(b) of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 and section 27 of the Courts Administration Act 1993, I have audited the accompanying financial report of the Courts Administration Authority for the financial year ended 30 June 2014. The financial report comprises:• a Statement of Comprehensive Income for the year ended 30 June 2014• a Statement of Financial Position as at 30 June 2014• a Statement of Changes in Equity for the year ended 30 June 2014• a Statement of Cash Flows for the year ended 30 June 2014• Disaggregated Disclosures - Expenses and Income for the year ended 30 June 2014• Disaggregated Disclosures - Assets and Liabilities as at 30 June 2014• notes, comprising a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory information• a Statement of Administered Comprehensive Income for the year ended 30 June 2014• a Statement of Administered Financial Position as at 30 June 2014• a Statement of Administered Changes in Equity for the year ended 30 June 2014• a Statement of Administered Cash Flows for the year ended 30 June 2014• notes, comprising a summary of significant accounting policies and other explanatory

information for administered items• a Certificate from the Chair State Courts Administration Council, State Courts Administrator

and the Director Corporate Services.

State Courts Administration Council’s Responsibility for the Financial Report

The members of the State Courts Administration Council are responsible for the preparation of the financial report that gives a true and fair view in accordance with the Treasurer’s Instructions promulgated under the provisions of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 and Australian Accounting Standards, and for such internal control as the members of the State Courts

Auditor-General’s Department

9th FloorState Administration Building200 Victoria SquareAdelaide SA 5000

DX 56208Victoria Square

Tel +618 8226 9640Fax +618 8226 9688

ABN 53 327 061 410

[email protected]


71


Administration Council determines is necessary to enable the preparation of the financial report that is free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Auditor’s Responsibility

My responsibility is to express an opinion on the financial report 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 comply with relevant ethical requirements and that the auditor plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial report is free from material misstatement.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial report. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgement, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial report, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation of the financial report that gives a true and fair view 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 members of the State Courts Administration Council, as well as the overall presentation of the financial report.

I believe that the audit evidence I have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for my audit opinion.

Opinion

In my opinion, the financial report gives a true and fair view of the financial position of the Courts Administration Authority as at 30 June 2014, 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 1987 and Australian Accounting Standards.

S O’NeillAUDITOR-GENERAL

24 September 2014


72

CERTIFICATION OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

We certify that the:

• financial statements of the Courts Administration Authority:- are in accordance with the accounts and records of the authority; and- comply with relevant Treasurer’s Instructions; and comply with relevant accounting standards; and- present a true and fair view of the financial position of the authority at the end of the

financial year and the result of its operations and cash flows for the financial year.

• Internal controls employed by the Courts Administration Authority over its financial reporting and its preparation of the financial statements have been effective throughout the financial year.

Signed in accordance with a resolution of the State Courts Administration Council.


Julie-Anne BurgessState Courts AdministratorDate: 15 September 2014

The Honourable Chief Justice Christopher KourakisChair State Courts Administration CouncilDate: 15 September 2014

Shaun MattersDirector, Corporate ServicesDate: 15 September 2014


73

STATEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2014

Note2014 2013

$’000 $’000

Expenses

Employee benefits expenses 5 52,657 53,198

Supplies and services 6 33,766 36,006

Depreciation and amortisation expense 7 8,715 8,304

Borrowing costs 8 858 924

Net loss from disposal of non-current assets 11 - 4

Other expenses 9 1,206 913

Total Expenses 97,202 99,349

Income

Revenues from fees and charges 12 5,046 6,123

Sale of goods and services 13 671 769

Grants and transfers 14 473 285

Total Income 6,190 7,177

Net cost of providing services 91,012 92,172

Revenues from / payments to SA Government

Revenues from SA Government 15 91,801 91,175

Payments to SA Government 15 - (21)

Net Result 789 (1,018)

Other Comprehensive Income

Item that will not be reclassified to net result

Changes in property, plant and equipment asset revaluation surplus 5,561 -

Total other comprehensive income 5,561

Total comprehensive result 6,350 (1,018)

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

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

FINANCIAL REPORTS


74

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION AS AT 30 JUNE 2014

Note2014 2013

$’000 $’000

Current Assets

Cash and cash equivalents 16 36,942 34,496

Receivables 17 1,619 1,441

Total Current Assets 38,561 35,937

Non-Current Assets

Property, plant and equipment 18,19 212,810 212,622

Intangible assets 20 176 164

Other assets 36 285

Total Non-Current Assets 213,019 212,822

Total Assets 251,580 248,759

Current Liabilities

Payables 22 3,130 4,652

Financial liabilities 26 1,286 1,216

Employee benefits 23 4,084 4,217

Provisions 24 381 369

Other liabilities 25 435 336

Total Current Liabilities 9,316 10,790

Non-Current Liabilities

Payables 22 780 831

Financial liabilities 26 13,347 14,633

Employee benefits 23 8,225 8,813

Provisions 24 1,402 1,522

Total Non-Current Liabilities 23,754 25,799

Total Current Liabilities 33,070 36,589

Net Assets 218,510 212,170

Equity

Contributed capital 3,140 3,140

Retained earnings 83,906 83,127

Asset Revaluation Surplus 131,464 125,903

Total comprehensive result 218,510 212,170

The Total Equity is attributable to the SA Government as owner

Unrecognised contractual commitments 27 Contingent assets and liabilities 28


FINANCIAL REPORTS


75

FINANCIAL REPORTS

STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN EQUITY FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2014

NoteContributed

Capital

Asset Revaluation

Surplus

Retained Earnings

Total Equity

$’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Balance at 30 June 2012 3,140 125,903 84,145 213,188

Net result for 2012 - 2013 - - (1,018) (1,018)

Total comprehensive result for 2012-2013 (1,018) (1,018)

Balance at 30 June 2013 3,140 125,903 83,127 212,170

Net result for 2013 - 2014 - - 789 789

Gain on revaluation of land and buildings during 2013-14 19 - 5,561 - 5,561

Total comprehensive result for 2013-2014 - 5,561 789 6,350

Net assets transferred as a result of an administrative restructure 29 - - (10) (10)

Balance at 30 June 2014 3,140 131,464 83,906 218,510

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



76

FINANCIAL REPORTS

STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2014

Note2014 2013

$’000 $’000

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES

Cash Outflows

Employee benefits payments (53,435) (53,624)

Payments for supplies and services (39,169) (39,849)

Payments for paid parental leave scheme (131) (134)

Borrowing costs (858) (924)

Other payments (498) (275)

Cash used in operations (94,091) (94,806)

Cash Inflows

Grants and transfers 473 285

Fees and charges 5,613 7,050

GST recovered from the ATO 3,656 3,732

Receipts for paid parental leave scheme 125 142

Cash generated from operations 9,867 11,209

Cash Flows from SA Government

Receipts from SA Government 91,801 91,175

Payments to SA Government - (21)

Cash generated from SA Government 91,801 91,154

Net cash provided by operating activities 31 7,577 7,557

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES

Cash Outflows

Purchase of intangibles (72) (42)

Purchase of property, plant and equipment (3,843) (4,645)

Cash used in investing activities (3,915) (4,687)

Cash Inflows

Proceeds from the sale of surplus land - 30

Cash generated from investing activities - 30

Net cash used in investing activities (3,915) (4,657)

CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES

Cash Outflows

Repayment of finance lease (1,216) (1,150)

Cash used in financing activities (1,216) (1,150)

Net cash used in financing activities (1,216) (1,150)

Net Increase in cash and cash equivalents 2,446 1,750

Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the financial year 34,496 32,746

Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the financial year 16 36,942 34,496



77

FINANCIAL REPORTS

DISAGGREGATED DISCLOSURES - EXPENSES AND INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2014

Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3 Total

2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013

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

Expenses

Employee benefits expenses 44,671 43,770 2,553 2,497 5,433 6,931 52,657 53,198

Supplies and services 28,534 29,658 685 687 4,547 5,661 33,766 36,006

Depreciation and amortisation expenses 7,819 7,624 60 52 836 628 8,715 8,304

Borrowing costs 853 918 - - 5 6 858 924

Net loss from disposal of non-current assets - 4 - - - - - 4

Other expenses 1,095 838 27 15 84 60 1,206 913

Total expenses 82,972 82,812 3,325 3,251 10,905 13,286 97,202 99,349

Income

Revenues from fees and charges 1,205 1,159 - - 3,841 4,964 5,046 6,123

Sales of goods and services 645 734 - - 26 35 671 769

Grants and transfers 473 285 - - - - 473 285

Resources received free of charge - - - - - - - -

Total income 2,323 2,178 - - 3,867 4,999 6,190 7,177

Net cost of providing services 80,648 80,634 3,325 3,251 7,038 8,287 91,012 92,172

Revenues from/Payments to SA Government

Revenues from SA Government 81,351 74,058 3,352 3,726 7,098 13,391 91,801 91,175

Payments to SA Government - (21) - - - - - (21)

Net and Total Comprehensive Result 702 (6,597) 27 475 60 5,104 789 (1,018)


78

FINANCIAL REPORTS

DISAGGREGATED DISCLOSURES - ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AS AT 30 JUNE 2014

Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3 General/ Not Attributable Total

2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013

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

Assets

Cash and cash equivalents - - - - - - 36,942 34,496 36,942 34,496

Receivables 1,617 1,382 - - 2 59 - - 1,619 1,441

Non-current assets classified as held for sale

- - - - - - - - - -

Property, plant and equipment 207,195 186,490 5,476 6,938 139 19,194 - - 212,810 212,622

Intangible assets 171 144 5 5 - 15 - - 176 164

Other non-current assets 32 32 1 1 - 3 - - 33 36

Total assets 209,015 188,048 5,482 5,944 141 19,271 36,942 34,496 251,580 248,759

Liabilities

Payables 3,706 4,516 79 105 125 862 - - 3,910 5,483

Financial liabilities 14,573 15,745 - - 60 104 - - 14,633 15,849

Employee Benefits 11,588 10,721 597 612 124 1,697 - - 12,309 13,030

Provisions 1,722 1,736 40 31 21 124 - - 1,783 1,891

Other liabilities 434 322 - - 1 14 - - 435 336

Total liabilities 32,023 33,040 716 748 331 2,801 - - 33,070 36,589

Activity 1: Court and Tribunal Case Resolution ServicesThe resolution of criminal, civil, appellate, coronial and probate matters in the State’s courts and tribunals.

Activity 2: Alternative Dispute Resolution ServicesServices 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 ServicesThe 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. The management of penalties imposed in the criminal jurisdiction has been transferred to the Attorney-General’s Department from 3 February 2014.


79

FINANCIAL REPORTS

Notes to and forming part of the financial statements

NOTE INDEX

Objectives of the Courts Administration Authority Note 1Summary of significant accounting policies Note 2New and revised accounting standards and policies Note 3Activities of the Authority Note 4

Expense notesEmployee benefits expenses Note 5Remuneration of employees and TVSP disclosure Note 5Supplies and services Note 6Depreciation and amortisation expense Note 7Borrowing costs Note 8Other expenses Note 9Auditor’s remuneration Note 10Net loss from disposal of non-current assets Note 11Payments to SA Government Note 15

Income notesSales of goods and services Note 13Revenues from fees and charges Note 12Grants and transfers Note 14Revenues from SA Government Note 15

Asset notesCash and cash equivalents Note 16Receivables Note 17Property, plant and equipment Notes 18 & 19Intangible assets Note 20Fair value measurement Note 21

Liability notesPayables Note 22Employee benefits Note 23Provisions Note 24Other liabilities Note 25Finance lease liabilities/commitments Note 26

Other notesUnrecognised contractual commitments Note 27Contingent assets and contingent liabilities Note 28Transferred function Note 29Remuneration of board and committee members Note 30Cash flow reconciliation Note 31Transactions with SA Government Note 32 Note 33


80

FINANCIAL REPORTS

Notes to and forming part of the financial statements

NOTE 1: OBJECTIVES OF THE COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY

The 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.

The continued existence of the Authority is dependent on State Government policy and on continuing appropriations by Parliament in order to fund the Authority’s net cost of providing services.

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

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

• provide administrative support to the courts of this state;

• foster an environment in which judicial officers, staff and volunteers can contribute to improved performance of the courts system;

• co-operate with other parts of the justice system to improve access to justice and the overall performance of the justice system;

• improve court facilities;

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

• increase the community’s understanding of the operations of the courts and provide new avenues for community comment on the operations of the courts and their registries.

NOTE 2: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

a) Statement of compliance

The Authority has prepared these financial statements in compliance with section 23 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987.

The financial statements are General Purpose Financial Statements. The accounts have been prepared in accordance with relevant Australian Accounting Standards and comply with Treasurer’s Instructions and Accounting Policy Statements promulgated under the provisions of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987.

The Authority has applied Australian Accounting Standards that are applicable to not-for-profit entities, as the Authority is a not-for-profit entity.

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 ended 30 June 2014. Refer to Note 3.

b) Basis of preparation

The preparation of the financial statements requires:

• the use of certain accounting estimates and requires management 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;

• accounting policies are selected and applied in a manner 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

• compliance with Accounting Policy Statements issued pursuant to 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 these financial statements:

a) revenues, expenses, financial assets and liabilities where the counterparty/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) employee targeted voluntary separation package information;


81

d) employees whose normal remuneration is equal to or greater than the base executive remuneration level (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

e) 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 2014 and the comparative information presented.

c) Reporting entity

The 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 Authority’s 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) Transferred functions

The Public Sector (Reorganisation of Public Sector Operations) Notice 2013 (dated 30 January 2014) declared that the management of penalties imposed in the criminal jurisdiction transferred from the Authority to the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit in the Attorney-General’s Department, effective 3 February 2014 (refer to Note 29).

e) Comparative information

The presentation and classification of items in the financial statements are consistent with prior periods except where specific accounting standards and/or Accounting Policy Statements has required a change.

Where presentation or classification of items in the financial statements have been amended, comparative figures have been adjusted to conform to changes in presentation or classification in these financial statements unless impractical.

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

I) Rounding

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

g) 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:

• when the GST incurred on a purchase of goods or services is not 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

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

FINANCIAL REPORTS


82

FINANCIAL REPORTS

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.

h) Events after the reporting period

There were no events occurring after balance date.

i) 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 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 Victims of Crime levies are recognised at the time cash is received due to the uncertainty of amounts to be collected. From 3 February 20!4 the Authority has continued to receive fines income, court fees and victims of crime levies in relation to fines enforcement activities which were transferred to the Attorney-General’s Department and report the income in the Administered Financial Statements. Transcript fees are recognised upon delivery of the service.

Recovery from other SA Government agencies 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.

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:

• contributions with unconditional stipulations - this will be when the 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.

• contributions with conditional stipulations - this will be when 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.

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.


83

FINANCIAL REPORTS

j) 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 following are specific recognition criteria:

Employee benefits expenses

Employee benefit expenses include all costs 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. Amortisation is used in relation to intangible assets such as software, while depreciation is applied to tangible assets such as property, plant and equipment.

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 10-56

Building under finance lease Life of lease

Leasehold improvements Life of lease

Computing and office furniture and equipment 3-25

Library collections 5-25

Intangibles 3- 7

Borrowing costs

All borrowing costs are recognised as expenses.

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 has been determined by comparing proceeds with the carrying amount.

When revalued assets are sold, the revaluation surplus is transferred to retained earnings.

Losses on disposal of equipment are recognised at the date control of the asset is passed to the buyer and are determined after deducting the cost of the asset from the proceeds at that time.

Payments to SA Government

Payments to the SA Government include proceeds from the sale of assets, 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.


84

FINANCIAL REPORTS

k) 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.

I) 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.

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 settled within 30 days after the issue of an invoice or the goods/services have been provided under a contractual arrangement.

Collectability 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

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 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 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, buildings and improvements and library collections with the exception of the Authority’s finance lease relating to the Sir Samuel Way building, via internal estimates based on indices or recent transactions. A valuation appraisal by an independent Certified Practicing Valuer is performed at least every 6 years.

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. Refer to Note 19.


85

FINANCIAL REPORTS

Any revaluation increment is credited to the revaluation surplus, 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 revaluation surplus to the extent of the credit balance existing in revaluations surplus 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 de-recognition, any revaluation surplus 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 revaluation surplus.

Intangible assets

An intangible asset is an identifiable non-monetary asset without physical substance and is measured at cost. Majority of the intangible assets of the Authority is 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.

Fair Value measurement

AASB 13 defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants, in the principal or most advantageous market, at the measurement date.

The Authority classifies fair value measurement using the following fair value hierarchy that reflects the significance of the inputs used in making the measurements, based on the data and assumptions used in the most recent revaluation.

• Level 1 - traded in active markets and is based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the entity can access at measurement date

• Level 2 - not traded in an active market and are derived from inputs (inputs other than quoted prices included within level I) that are observable for the asset, either directly or indirectly.

• Level 3 - not traded in an active market and are derived from unobservable inputs.

Non- financial assets

In determining fair value, the Authority has taken into account the characteristic of the asset (e.g. condition and location of the asset and any restrictions on the sale or use of the asset); and the asset’s highest and best use (that is physically possible, legally permissible, financially feasible).

The Authority’s current use is the highest and best use of the asset unless other factors suggest an alternative use is feasible. As the Authority did not identify any factors to suggest an alternative use, fair value measurement was based on current use.


86

FINANCIAL REPORTS

The carrying amount of non-financial assets with a ‘fair value at the time of acquisition that was less than $1 million or had an estimated useful life that was less than three years’ are deemed to approximate fair value.

Refer to Note 18 and 21 for disclosure regarding fair value measurement techniques and inputs used to develop fair value measurements for non-financial assets.

Financial assets/liabilities

The Authority does not recognise any financial assets or financial liabilities at fair value.

m) 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.

Payables

Payables include creditors, accrued expenses, GST payable, employment on-costs and Paid Parental Leave Scheme payable.

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.

The paid parental leave scheme payable represents amounts which the Authority has received from the Commonwealth Government to forward onto eligible employees via the Authority’s standard payroll processes. That is, the Authority is acting as a conduit through which the payment to eligible employees is made on behalf of the Family Assistance Office.

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 benefits on-costs include payroll tax, WorkCover levies and superannuation contributions in respect to outstanding liabilities for salaries and wages, long service leave, annual leave and skills and experience retention 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


87

FINANCIAL REPORTS

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.

Salaries and wages, annual leave, skills and experience retention leave and sick leave

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

The annual leave liability and the skills and experience retention leave liability is expected to be payable within twelve months and is measured at the undiscounted amount expected to be paid.

Where annual leave liability is expected to be payable later than 12 months, the liability is 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 measured as the present value of expected future payments to be made in respect of services provided by employees up to the end of the reporting period using the projected unit credit method.

The estimated liability for long service leave is based on actuarial assumptions over expected future salary and wage levels, experience of employee departures and periods of service. These assumptions are based on employee data over SA government entities. Expected future payments are discounted using market yields at the end of the reporting period on government bonds with durations that match, as closely as possible, the estimated future cash outflows.

The long service leave liability has been allocated between current and non-current liabilities using the average leave pattern history of previous years.

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.

The workers compensation provision is an actuarial estimate of the outstanding liability as at 30 June 2014 provided by a consulting actuary engaged through the Public Sector Workforce Relations Division of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet. The provision is


88

FINANCIAL REPORTS

for the estimated cost of ongoing payments to employees as required under current legislation.

The Authority is responsible for the payment of workers compensation claims.

n) Unrecognised contractual commitments and contingent assets and liabilities

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.

NOTE 3: NEW AND REVISED ACCOUNTING STANDARDS AND POLICIES

The Authority did not voluntarily change any of its accounting policies during 2013-14.

In accordance with the new AASB 13 Fair Value Measurement, which became effective for the first time in 2013-14, the Authority has:

• reviewed its fair value valuation techniques (both internal estimates and independent valuation appraisal) for non-financial assets to ensure they are consistent with the standard. Previously, the Authority has used the cost approach or the market approach to determine fair value. The Authority will continue to measure its non-financial assets using either the cost or market approach. The application of AASB 13 has not had a material impact on the fair value measurements; and

• included additional disclosures where required to assist users in assessing the valuation techniques and inputs used to ascertain fair value measurements used for asset and liability measurements.

Fair value hierarchy and other information is provided in Notes 18 and 21.

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 2014.

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 AUTHORITY

In 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

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.

The management of penalties imposed in the criminal jurisdiction transferred to the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit in the Attorney-General’s Department from 3 February 2014. Limited fines collection services performed on behalf of the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit have been transferred to Activity 1 from this date.

General/not attributable: Certain items of the Authority are not allocated to activities.

The disaggregated disclosures schedules present expenses, income, assets and liabilities information attributable to each of the activities for the years ended 30 June 2013 and 30 June 2014.


89

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE 5: EMPLOYEE BENEFITS EXPENSES 2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Salaries and wages 39,345 41,203

TVSPs (refer below) 481 -

Long service leave 1,398 447

Annual leave 3,921 3,910

Skills and experience retention leave 185 218

Employment on-costs - superannuation 4,707 4,761

Employment on-costs - payroll tax 2,454 2,502

Board and committee fees 53 64

Workers Compensation 17 21

Other employee related expenses 96 72

Total employee benefits expenses 52,657 53,198

Targeted Voluntary Separation Packages (TVSPs)

Amount paid during the reporting period to separated employees: $’000 $’000

TVSPs 418 -

Annual leave, long service leave and skills and experience retention leave paid to those employees 125 -

606 -

Recovery from the Department of Treasury and Finance - -

Net cost to the Authority 606 -

The number of employees who received a TVSP during 2014 was 6 (2013 - nil). The recovery will be received from the Department of Treasury and Finance in the next financial year.

Remuneration of employees 2014 2013The number of employees whose remuneration received or receivable falls within the following bands:$141,500 to $151,499* 7 1

$161,500 to $171,499* 2 -

$171,500 to $181,499 - 1

$191,500 to $201,499 1 -

$201,500 to $211,499 1 2

$211,500 to $221,499 1 -

$221,500 to $231,499 - 1

$231,500 to $241,499 2 2

$241,500 to $251,499 1 -

$261,500 to $271,499 1 -

$281,500 to $291,499 - 1

$311,500 to $321,499* 1 -

Total number of employees 17 8

*Increase in number of employees due to TVSP payments and termination payout in 2014


90

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE 6: SUPPLIES AND SERVICES 2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Accommodation and services 14,144 14,440

Circuit and Travel expenses 1,004 1,508

Computing and communications 5,655 5,406

Consultancy, contractors and temp staff 1,249 1,141

Court expenses 1,247 1,990

Operating leases 237 266

Staff development and training 409 576

Equipment purchases and repairs 275 299

Coronial Charges 3,923 3,731

Jurors’ expenses 1,642 2,030

Sheriff Officer Payments 1,096 1,097

Other administration expenses 2,885 3,522

Total supplies and services 33,766 36,006

NOTE 7: DEPRECIATION AND AMORTISATION EXPENSE

Depreciation

Buildings and Improvements 3,675 3,538

Computing and office furniture & equipment 1,203 1,095

Library collections 1,611 1,444

Total Depreciation 6,489 6,077

Amortisation

Leasehold improvements 1,336 1,310

Building under Finance lease 830 830

lntan ibles 60 87

Total Amortisation 2,226 2,227

Total depreciation and amortisation 8,715 8,304

The number and dollar amount of consultancies paid/ payable (included in supplies and services expense) that fell within the following bands:

2014 2013

No $’000 No $’000

Below $10,000 2 4 5 20

$10,000 to $50,000 2 53 - -

Total paid/payable to the consultants engaged 4 57 5 20

The table includes all employees who received remuneration equal to or greater than the base executive remuneration level during the year. Remuneration of employees reflects all costs of employment including salaries and wages, payments in lieu of leave, superannuation contributions,

salary sacrifice benefits and fringe benefits and any fringe benefits tax paid or payable in respect of those benefits. The total remuneration received by these employees for the year was $3.3 million ($1. 7 million).


91

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE 8: BORROWING COSTS 2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Interest expense on financial lease liability 858 924

Total borrowing costs 858 924

NOTE 9: OTHER EXPENSES

Workers compensation 383 187

Audit fees 338 226

Contributions 485 500

Total Other Expenses 1,206 913

NOTE 10: AUDITOR’S REMUNERATION

Audit fees paid / payable to the Auditor-General’s Department relating to the audit of the financial statements 135 125

Total Audit Fees 135 125

NOTE 11: NET LOSS FROM DISPOSAL OF NON-CURRENT ASSETS

Proceeds from disposal of assets - -

Less: Carrying value of assets disposed - 4

Total loss from disposal of non-current assets - 4

NOTE 12: REVENUES FROM FEES AND CHARGES

Licence disqualification and reminder fees 1,906 3,159

Sheriff's officer fees 2,135 2,016

Other regulatory fees 1,005 948

Total revenues from Fees and Charges 5,046 6,123

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 was at 5.63% (2013 - 5.63%). The Authority is responsible for all maintenance costs and paid a contingent rental of

$4,168,000 (2013 - $4,034,000) 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.

No other services were provided by the Auditor-General’s Department. Auditor’s remuneration costs are recognised in

the Statement of Comprehensive income (refer to note 9).


92

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE 14: GRANTS AND TRANSFERS

Court Assessment Referral Drug Scheme (CARDS) - 203

Industrial Court- Sheriffs officer services 61 59

Fines Enforcement Recovery unit transfers 412 -

National Judiciary Council - 23

Total grants and transfers 473 285

NOTE 15: REVENUES FROM / PAYMENTS TO SA GOVERNMENT

Revenues from SA Government

Appropriations from Consolidated Account pursuant to the Appropriation Act 89,348 87,507

Transfers from contingency provisions 115 1,191

Appropriations from the Governor’s Appropriation Fund 2,338 2,477

Total revenues from SA Government 91,801 91,175

Payments to SA Government

Return of surplus cash from sale of asset - 21

Total payments to SA Government - 21

NOTE 13: SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES 2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Sale of electronic information 275 416

Services 106 107

Rent recoveries 290 246

Total Sale of Goods and Services 671 769

There were no material variations between the amount appropriated and the expenditure associated with this appropriation.


93

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE 16: CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS 2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Deposits with the Treasurer 36,908 34,462

Cash on hand 34 34

Total cash and cash equivalents 36,942 34,496

Deposits with the Treasurer

Included $37.3M (2013 $31.8M) 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 nonRinterest bearing. The carrying value of cash and cash equivalents represents fair value.

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 Sheriffs officer fees until the payment is made. Receivables are normally settled within 30 days.

Receivables, prepayments and accrued revenues are nor interest-bearing and the carrying amounts approximate fair value. There is no concentration of credit risk.

(a) Maturity analysis of receivables - Refer note 33.

(b) Categorisation of financial instruments and risk exposure information - Refer note 33.

NOTE 17: RECEIVABLES

Current

Receivables 519 278

Accrued revenue 134 19

GST input tax recoverable 586 752

Prepayments 380 392

Total receivables expected to be recovered within 12 months 1,619 1,441


94

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE 18: PROPERTY, PLANT AND EQUIPMENT 2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Land and buildings

Land at fair value 62,202 416

Buildings and improvements at fair value 125,859 107

Accumulated depreciation at the end of the period - 246

Total land and buildings 188,061 184,319

Assets under finance lease

Buildings and improvements at net present value 33,191 33,191

Accumulated amortisation at the end of the period (25,723) (24,893)

Total Assets under finance lease 7,468 8,298

Leasehold improvements

Leasehold improvements at cost (deemed fair value) 7,899 7,492

Accumulated amortisation at the end of the period (5,663) (4,328)

Total leasehold improvements 2,236 3,164

Computing and office furniture & equipment

Plant and equipment at cost (deemed fair value) 9,901 8,966

Accumulated depreciation at the end of the eeriod (6,249) (5,291)

Total plant and equipment 3,652 3,675

Capital work in progress

Capital work in progess 66 1,327

Total capital work in progress 66 1,327

Library Collection

Library collections at fair value 15,553 14,453

Accumulated depreciation at the end of the period (4,333) (2,721)

Total library collection 11,220 11,732

Works of art and collections

Works of art and collections at fair value 107 107

Total works of art and collections 107 107

Total property, plant and equipment 212,810 212,622


95

FINANCIAL REPORTS

Valuation of land and buildings

The valuation of land and buildings were performed by an independent Certified Practising Valuer from Liquid Pacific Pty Ltd as at 30 June 2014. The valuer arrived at fair value using the market approach. The valuation was based on recent market transactions for similar land and buildings (non-specialised) in the area and includes adjustment for factors specific to the land and building being valued such as size and location.

The valuer used depreciated replacement cost for specialised buildings, due to there not being an active market for such buildings. The depreciated replacement cost considered the need for ongoing provision of government services;

specialised nature of the assets, including the restricted use of the assets; the size, condition, location and current use of the assets. The valuation was based on a combination of internal records, specialised knowledge and the acquisition/transfer costs.

Carrying amount of computing and office furniture and equipment

All items of computing and office furniture and equipment had a ‘fair value at the time of acquisition that was less than $1 million’ and have not been revalued in accordance with

APF 111. The carrying value of these items are deemed to approximate fair value. These assets are classified at level 3 as there has been no subsequent adjustments to their value, except for management assumptions about the assets condition and remaining useful life.

Valuation of library collection

The valuation of library collections was performed by Valcorp Australia Pty Ltd as at 30 June 2011. The independent valuer arrived at fair value based on the market buying price of the collection. The library collections was reviewed by management during 2014 based on a combination of internal records and annual price movement of books and found that the net book value appropriately reflects the fair value.

Impairment

There were no indications of material impairment of property, plant and equipment assets at 30 June 2014.


96

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE 19: RECONCILIATION OF NON-CURRENT ASSETS

The following table shows the movement of Non-Current Assets during 2013-14

Land $’000

Buildings & improvements

$’000

Building under finance lease

$’000

Buildings- leasehold

improvements $’000

Total land & buildings

$’000

Carrying amount at the beginning of the period 48,672 135,647 8,298 3,164 195,781

Additions - 900 - 37 937

Transfers - 956 - 371 1,327

Revaluation increment/(decrement) 13,530 (7,969) - - 5,561

Disposal through administrative restructure - - - - -

Depreciation & amortisation - (3,675) (830) (1,336) (5,841)

Carrying amount at the end of the period 62,202 125,859 7,468 2,236 197,765

Computing and office furniture

& equipment $’000

Library collections

$’000

Works of arts & collections

$’000


$’000

Total Property, Plant &

Equipment $’000

Carrying amount at the beginning of the period 3,675 11,732 107 1,327 212,622

Additions 1,190 1,099 - 66 3,292

Transfers - - - (1,327) -

Revaluation increment/(decrement) - - - - 5,561

Disposal through administrative restructure (10) - - - (10)

Depreciation & amortisation (1,203) (1,611) - - (8,655)

Carrying amount at the end of the period 3,652 11,220 107 66 212,810

Other Computer Software & licence

$’000

Total Intangible Items $’000

Carrying amount at the beginning of the period 164 164

Additions 72 72

Depreciation & Amortisation (60) (60)

Carrying amount at the end of the period 176 176


97

FINANCIAL REPORTS

The following table shows the movement of Non-Current Assets during 2012-13

Land $’000

Buildings & improvements

$’000

Building under finance lease

$’000

Buildings- leasehold

improvements $’000

Total land & buildings

$’000

Carrying amount at the beginning of the period 48,672 137,344 9,128 4,474 199,618

Additions - 1,806 - - 1,806

Disposals - - - - -

Transfers - 35 - - 35

Depreciation & amortisation - (3,538) (830) (1,310) (5,678)

Carrying amount at the end of the period 48,672 135,647 8,298 3,164 195,781

Computing and office furniture

& equipment $’000

Library collections

$’000

Works of arts & collections

$’000


$’000

Total Property, Plant &

Equipment $’000

Carrying amount at the beginning of the period 3,832 12,028 107 91 215,676

Additions 956 1,148 - 1,271 5,181

Disposals (4) - - - (4)

Transfers (14) ) - - (35) (14)

Depreciation & amortisation (1,095) (1,444) - - (8,217)

Carrying amount at the end of the period 3,675 11,732 107 1,327 212,622

Other Computer Software & licence

$’000

Total Intangible Items $’000


Additions 42 42

Transfers 14 14

Depreciation & amortisation (87) (87)



98

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE 20: INTANGIBLE ASSETS 2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Computer software

Internally developed computer software 7,688 7,688

Accumulated amortisation (7,688) (7,688)

Other computer software and licences 611 704

Accumulated amortisation (435) (540)

Total Computer software and licences 176 164

Recurring fair value measurements 2014 $’000

Level 2 $’000

Level 3 $’000

Buildings (Note 18) 125,859 2,633 123,226

Land (Note 18) 62,202 62,202 -

Assets under finance lease (Note 18) 7,468 - 7,468

Leasehold improvements (Note 18) 2,236 - 2,236

Computing and office furniture & equipment (Note 18) 3,652 - 3,652

Library Collections (Note 18) 11,220 - 11,220

Works of art and collections (Note 18) 107 - 107

Total recurring fair value measurements 212,744 64,835 147,909

Total 212,744 64,835 147,909

Impairment

There were no indications of impairment on intangible assets at 30 June 2014.

NOTE 21: FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENT

Fair Value Hierarchy

The fair value of non-financial assets must be estimated for recognition and measurement for disclosure purposes.

The Authority categorises non-financial assets measured at fair value into hierarchy based on the level of inputs use in measurement.

Valuation techniques and inputs

Valuation techniques used to derive level 2 and 3 fair values are at note 18. There were no changes in valuation techniques during 2014.


99

FINANCIAL REPORTS

DescriptionFair

Value $’000

Valuation Technique

Unobservable Inputs

Range

$/m2 Effective Life (Years)

Buildings 123,226 Depreciated Replacement Cost (1) Replacement cost - $ 600 -

$8,000 40-60

Asset under finance lease 7,468 Amortised Cost Net present value

life of leaseCost at

inception - 40

Leasehold improvements 2,236 Depreciated Cost (2) Life of lease -

At cost - - 3-5

Computing and office furniture and equipment 3,652 Depreciated Cost (2) Replacement cost

and useful life At cost - 3-25

Library collections 11,220 Depreciated Replacement Cost

Replacement cost and useful life - - 5-25

Works of art and collections 107 Replacement Cost (2) Replacement cost At cost - -

(1) Due to the highly specialized nature of the assets, fair value was determined using depreciated replacement cost approach.

(2) As per Accounting Policy Framework APS III Asset Accounting Framework paragraph APS 3.13, assets below the revaluation threshold are deemed to have been revalued to their fair values immediately following recognition at cost.

The following table is a reconciliation of fair value measurement using significant unobservable inputs (level 3).

Reconciliation of fair value measurements - Level 3

* Of the gains and losses, $8.5M is attributable to the change in unrealised gains or losses for assets held at the end of the reporting period.

Buildings $’000

Asset under

finance lease $’000

Leasehold improvements

$’000

Computing and office

furniture & equipment

$’000

Library Collections

$’000

Works of art and

collections $’000

Total $’000

Opening balance at the beginning of the period

132,790 8,298 3,164 3,675 11,732 107 159,766

Acquisition 1,856 - 37 1, 190 1,099 - 4,182

Transfers from WIP - - 371 - - - 371

Total gain/(loss) for the period in other comprehensive income

Revaluation decrement (7,864) - - - - - (7,864)

Total gain/(loss) for the period recognised in net result*

Depreciation (3,556) (830) (1,336) (1,203) (1,611) - (8,536)

Disposal through administrative restructure

- - - (10) - - (10)

Closing balance at the end of the period 123,226 7,468 2,236 3,652 212,744 64,835 147,909


100

FINANCIAL REPORTS

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 remained at the 2013 rate of 40% and the average factor for the calculation of employer superannuation cost on-cost has remained at the 2013 rate of 10.3%. These rates are used in the employment on-cost calculation. Refer to note 23.

Interest rate and credit risk

Creditors 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.

Categorisation of financial instruments and risk exposure information - Refer note 33.

NOTE 22: PAYABLES 2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Current

Creditors 475 465

Accrued expenses 1,947 2,857

Accrued capital expenditure 143 750

Employment on-costs 559 568

Paid Parental Leave Scheme payable 6 12

Total current payables 3,130 4,652

Non-Current

Employment on-costs 780 831

Total non-current payables 780 831

Total Payables 3,910 5,483


101

FINANCIAL REPORTS

AASB 119 contains the calculation methodology for long service leave liability. The actuarial assessment performed by the Department of Treasury and Finance has provided a set level of liability for the measurement of long service leave.

AASB 119 requires the use of the yield on long term Commonwealth Government bonds as the discount rate in the measurement of the long service leave liability. The yield on long term Commonwealth Government bonds has decreased from 2013 (3.75%) to 2014 (3.5%).

This decrease in the bond yield, which is used as the rate to discount future long service leave cash flows, results in an immaterial increase in the reported long service leave liability. The impact on future periods is impracticable to measure as the long service leave liability is calculated using a number of assumptions - a key assumption is the long term discount rate.

The actuarial assessment performed by the Department of Treasury and Finance left the salary inflation rate at 4%. As a result, there is no net financial effect resulting from changes in the salary inflation rate.

NOTE 23: EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Current

Accrued salaries and wages 172 -


Long service leave 1,247 1,357

Skills and experience retention leave 245 218

Total current employee benefits 4,084 4,217

Non-Current

Annual leave Employment on-costs 283 267


Total non-current employee benefits 8,225 8,813

Total employee benefits 12,309 13,030


102

FINANCIAL REPORTS

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 Relations Division of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

NOTE 24: PROVISIONS 2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Current

Provision for workers compensation 381 369

Total current provisions 381 369

Non-Current

Provision for workers compensation 1,402 1,522

Total non-current provisions 1,402 1,552

Total provisions 1,783 1,891

Carrying amount at the beginning of the period 1,891 1,979

Reductions arising from payments/other sacrifice of future economic benefits (489) (295)

Reductions resulting from re-measurement or settlement without cost (228) (185)

Additional provisions recognised 609 392

Carrying amount at the end of the period 1,783 1,891

NOTE 25: OTHER LIABILITIES

Current

Unearned revenue 267 191

Unclaimed money 168 145

Total other liabilities 435 336


103

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE 26: FINANCE LEASE LIABILITIES/COMMITMENTS 2014 $’000

2013 $’000

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 6,427 6,243

Payable later than one year and not later than five years 25,705 24,972

Payable later than five years 25,705 31,214

Total minimum lease payments 57,837 62,429

Less: Future finance charges and contingent rentals 43,204 46,580

Total finance lease commitments - non-cancellable 14,633 15,849

Present value of finance leases payable as follows:

Within one year 1,286 1,216

Later than one year but not longer than five years 5,930 5,607

Later than five years 7,417 9,026

Total present value of minimum lease payments 14,633 15,849

Included in the financial statements as:

Current financial liabilitiest 1,286 1,216

Non-Current financial liabilities 13,347 14,633

Total present value of minimum lease payments 14,633 15,849

The weighted average interest rate implicit in the lease is 5.63% (5.63%)


104

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE 27: UNRECOGNISED CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS 2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Expenditure commitments - Remuneration

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:



Total Remuneration Commitments 3,647 3,975

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.

Expenditure commitments - Other

Commitments in relation to a Public Private Partnership arrangement for regional court premises and other operating expenses not recognised as liabilities in the financial report, are payable as follows:



Later than five years 33,198 35,749

Total other commitments 46,098 47,647

The commitment in relation to a Public Private Partnership arrangement for 2013 has been restated to include items that were omitted in 2013.

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:



Total operating lease commitments - all non-cancellable 2,768 3,593

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:

Within one year 208 215

Later than one year but not longer than five years 561 757

Later than five years - 17

Total operating lease commitments - all non-cancellable 769 989

NOTE 28: CONTINGENT ASSETS AND LIABILITIES

The Authority has no material contingent assets or liabilities as at 30 June 2014 (2013 Nil)


105

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE 29: TRANSFERRED FUNCTION 2014 $’000

Net assets transferred out

The Public Sector (Reorganisation of Public Sector Operations) Notice 2013 (dated 30 January 2014) declared that the management of penalties imposed in the criminal jurisdiction transferred from the Authority to the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit (FERU) in the Attorney-General’s Department, effective 3 February 2014. Following assets and employee liabilities were transferred to the FERU.

Deposits with the Treasurer 905

Property, plant and equiement 10

Total assets 915

Payables 93

Emeloyee Benefits 812

Total liabilities 905

Total net assets transferred out 10

Net assets transferred by the Authority as a result of the administrative restructure were at the carrying amount. The net assets transferred were treated as a distribution to the Government as owner.


106

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE 30: REMUNERATION OF BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Members of/assessors in the board and committees during the 2014 financial year were:

Administrative and Disciplinary Division of the District Court

Mr Abdulghani Usman Mr John HitchcockMr Adrian Jackson Mr John JansseMr Alan Tregilgas (expired 15.02.14) Mr John WalkerMr Andrew Clark Ms Julia HannaMr Andrew Day (expired 14.09.14) Ms Karen Lehman Mr Andrew Forrest Ms Karen MonaghanMs Ann Rungie (expired 15.02.14) Mr Leonard WhiteMs Elizabeth Bachmann Mr Leroy Uren (expired 14.05.14)Mr Arch Boonen (expired 14.05.14) Ms Lyn English (expired 18.07.13)Ms Astrid Birgden Mr Marc Cheney (expired 14.05.14)Ms Barbara Rajkowaka Ms Marilyn SheffieldMs Betty Richards (expired 14.05.14) Mr Mark Leach*Mr Brenton Caddle Mr Mark Oldfield (expired 31.12.13)Mr Brenton Trenorden Mr Michael Pohl (expired 31.12.13)Ms Catherine Cooper Mr Nick GiannettaMr Charles MacDonald Ms Nola BeckMs Christine Bindon Mr Oliver ClarkMr Christopher Shinners Ms Patricia Johnson (expired 14.05 .14) Mr Colin Field Ms Patricia KentMr Darryl Watson (expired 15.12.13) Mr Philip Hoffman Mr David Kelly Ms Polly Sumner-Dodd (expired 13.04.14)Mr David Round Mr Ralph Scutella Mr Dennis Shipp Ms Rhonda Smith (expired 15 .02.14) Mr Edward Woodley Mr Robert Rawson Ms Elaine Attwood (expired 31.12.13) Ms Robin James Ms Florina D'Sylvia Mr Robin Turner (expired 14.05.14) Ms Gabrielle Canny Ms Robyn Buckler (expired 31.12.13) Mr Garry Raymond * Mr Rod Shogren Mr Gary Martin Mr Roger Stainer Mr Gary McDougall Ms Roseanne Healy Mr Hans Sandstrom Ms Sharon Olsson Mr Harry Klavins Mr Stephen Fribbins Mr Ian Butterworth Mr Stephen Kemp Mr Ian MacDonald Ms Susan Visser(expired 14.05.14) Mr James Hundertmark Mr Timothy CrowleyMs Janina Gipslis Mr Trevor Blackburn Mr Jaroslaw Frankiw (expired 31.12.13) Ms Valerie Walsh (expired 14.05.14) Ms Jean Hutchinson Mr Warren Hall Ms Jennifer Everett Mr William Ryan Mr John Adley Mr William Waterhouse (expired 14.05.14) Mr John Furbank


107

FINANCIAL REPORTS

Training Centre Review Board

Mr David Branson Mr Philip Fagan-Schmidt * Ms Branka King Ms Ester Huxtable Mr Darryn Keneally Mr Barry Jennings Mr Robert Gray * Ms Lynette Pugh * Ms Tiffany Downing* Mr Christopher Boltje * Ms Kathryn Stone * Ms Katrina Dee * Mr Christopher Zanker * Ms Shona Reid * Mr Gregory Forrest * Ms Nancy Penna Mr Stewart Dodd * Mr Dale Agius (appointed 08.08.13) *

Training Centre Review Board

Ms Helena Jasinski Mr Hau YappMr David Shetliffe Mr Richard Altman Ms Elizabeth Bachmann

State Courts Administration Council

Chief Justice Christopher Kourakis Judge David LovellJustice Timothy Stanley Chief Magistrate Elizabeth BoltonChief Judge Geoffrey Muecke Magistrate Dr Andrew Cannon

Information Technology Committee

Chief Justice Christopher Kourakis Mr Shaun Matters * Chief Judge Geoffrey Muecke Ms Sarah PhiIpott * Chief Magistrate Elizabeth Bolton Ms Lynette Duncan* Ms Julie-Anne Burgess * Mr David Menzies *

State Courts Administration Council

Justice Timothy Stanley Magistrate Dr Andrew Cannon Judge David Lovell Mr Brian Morris (appointed 01.03.14)

The number of members who have been called and received remuneration that falls within the following bands:

2014 2013

$0- $9,999 20 19

$10,000 - $19,999 - 1

Total number of members 20 20


108

FINANCIAL REPORTS

Remuneration of members reflects all costs of performing board/committee member duties including sitting fees, superannuation contributions, salary sacrifice benefits and fringe benefits and any fringe benefits tax paid or payable in respect of these benefits. The total remuneration received/receivable by members was $50,000 ($62,000).

* 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.

The District Court and Youth Court judges are presiding officers of the boards. Various Acts confer a jurisdiction

upon the District Court in its Administrative and Disciplinary Division and the Youth Court in the Training Centre Review Board. The District Court Act 1991 and Young Offenders Act 1993 specify the proceedings process when the matters are referred to the boards for hearing.

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.


109

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE 31: CASH FLOW RECONCILIATION 2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Reconciliation of Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the reporting period:

Cash and cash equivalents disclosed in the Statement of Financial Position 36,942 34,496

Balance as per the Statement of Cash Flows 36,942 34,496

Reconciliation of net cash provided by operating activities to net cost of providing services:

Net cash provided by operating activities 7,577 7,577

Less Revenues from SA Government (91,801) (91,175)

Add Payment to SA Government - 21

Add/Less non cash items

Depreciation/Amortisation (8,715) (8,304)

(Loss) from disposal of assets - (4)

Changes in Assets / Liabilities

Increase in Receivables 246 18

(Decrease) in Other Assets (15) (63)

Decrease in Employee Benefits 721 454

Decrease/(lncrease) in Payables 966 (771)

Decrease in Provisions 108 88

(lncrease)/Decrease in Other Liabilities (99) 7

Net Cost of providing Services (91,012) (92,172)


110

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE 32: TRANSACTIONS WITH SA GOVERNMENT

The following table discloses revenues, expenses, financial assets and liabilities where the counterparty/transaction is with an entity within the SA Government as at the reporting date, classified according to their nature.

Note

SA Government Non-SA Government Total

2014 $’000

2013 $’000

2014 $’000

2013 $’000

2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Expenses

5 Employee benefits expenses 2,471 2,523 50,186 50,675 52,657 53,198

6 Supplies and Services

Accommodation and services 11,020 11,398 3,124 3,042 14,144 14,440

Circuit and Travel expenses - - 1,004 1,508 1,004 1,508

Computing and communications 1,582 1,708 4,073 3,698 5,655 5,406

Consultancy, contractors and temp staff - - 1,249 1,141 1,249 1,141

Court expenses 240 988 1,007 1,002 1,247 1,990

Operating leases 225 115 12 151 237 266

Staff development and training 3 4 406 572 409 576

Equipment purchases and repairs - - 275 299 275 299

Coronial Charges 3,674 3,338 249 393 3,923 3,731

Jurors’ expenses - - 1,642 2,030 1,642 2,030

Sheriff Officer Payments - - 1,096 1,097 1,096 1,097

Other administration expenses 408 435 2,477 3,087 2,885 3,522

7 Depreciation and amortisation expense - 8,715 8,304 8,715 8,304

8 Borrowing costs 858 924 - - 858 924

9 Other expenses

Workers compensation - - 383 187 383 187

Audit fees - - 203 101 203 101

Contributions 485 500 - - 485 500

10 Auditors Remuneration 135 125 - - 135 125

15 Payments to SA Government - 21 - - - 21

TOTAL EXPENSES 21,101 22,079 76,101 77,287 97,202 99,366


111

FINANCIAL REPORTS

Note


2014 $’000

2013 $’000

2014 $’000

2013 $’000

2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Income

12 Revenues from fees and charges - - 5,046 6,123 5,046 6,123

13 Sales of goods and services

Sale of electronic information - 8 275 408 275 416

Services 13 - 93 107 106 107

Rent recoveries 83 44 207 202 290 246

14 Grants and transfers 473 262 - 23 473 285

15 Revenues from SA Government 91,801 91,175 - - 91,801 91,175

TOTAL INCOME 92,370 91,489 5,621 6,863 97,991 98,352

Financial Assets

17 Receivables

Receivables 284 65 235 213 519 278

Accrued revenues 112 18 22 1 134 19

GST input tax recoverable - - 586 752 586 752

Prepayments - - 380 392 380 392

Other assets - - 33 36 33 36

TOTAL FINANCIAL ASSETS 396 83 1,256 1,394 1,652 1,477

Financial Liabilities

22 Payables

Creditors 421 310 54 155 475 465

Accrued expenses 976 2,301 1,114 1,306 2,090 3,607

Employment on-costs 643 681 696 718 1,339 1,399

Paid Parental Leave Scheme payable - - 6 12 6 12

26 Borrowings

Finance lease liabilities 14,633 15,849 - - 14,633 15,849

25 Other Liabilities 41 - 394 336 435 336

FINANCIAL LIABILITIES 16,714 19,141 2,264 2,527 18,978 21,668


112

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE 33: 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.

Category of financial asset and financial liabilities Note Balance Sheet

line item

Carrying amount equates to frair value

2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Financial Assets

Cash and cash equivalents Loans and receivables

16 17

Cash and cash equivalents 36,942 34,496

Receivables (1) (2) 653 297

Total financial assets at cost 37,595 34,793

Financial Liabilities

Financial liabilities at cost 22 26

Payables (1) 2,391 3,913

Financial liabilities 14,633 15,849

Total financial liabilities at cost 17,024 19,762

(1) Receivable and payable amounts disclosed here exclude amounts relating to statutory receivables and payables (e g Commonwealth, State and Local Govt taxes, fees and charges; audit fees payable to the Auditor- General’s Dept etc). 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 (not materially different from amortised cost).

(2) Receivables amount disclosed here excludes prepayments. Prepayments are presented in Note 17 as trade and other receivables in accordance with paragraph 78(b) of AASB IOI. However, prepayments are not financial assets as defined in AASB 132 as the future economic benefit of these assets is the receipt of goods and services rather than the right to receive cash or another financial asset.

Fair Value

The Authority does not recognise any financial assets or financial liabilities at fair value, but does disclose fair value in the notes. All of the resulting fair value estimates are included in level 2 as all significant inputs required are observable.

• The carrying value less impairment provisions of receivables and payables is a reasonable approximation of their fair values due to the short term nature of these. Refer to Notes 2, 17, and 22.

• Financial liabilities are initially recognised at fair value, plus any transaction cost directly attributable to the finance lease liabilities, then subsequently held at amortised cost. The fair value of the finance lease liabilities approximates the carrying amount, as the impact of discounting is not significant. Refer to Notes 2 and 26.


113

FINANCIAL REPORTS

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 carrying amount of financial assets as detailed in note 33(a) represents the Authority’s maximum exposure to credit risk.

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 any financial assets are impaired.

c) Ageing analysis of receivables

The following table discloses the ageing of financial assets, past due, including impaired assets past due.

Past due by

Total $’000

Overdue for <30days

$’000

Overdue for 30-60 days

$’000

Overdue for >60 days

$’000

2014 Not impaired

Receivables(1) 2 - 224 226

Total 2 - 224 226

2013 Not impaired

Receivables (1) 6 15 8 29

Total 6 15 8 29

(1) Receivable amounts disclosed here exclude amounts relating to statutory receivables. 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 receivables/payables, tax equivalents, commonwealth tax, audit receivables/payables etc they would be excluded from the disclosure. The standard defines contract as enforceable by law. They are carried at cost.


114

FINANCIAL REPORTS

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 26 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

Liquidity risk arises where the Authority is unable to meet its financial obligations as they are due to be settled. 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 33(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 bon-owings 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.


115

FINANCIAL REPORTS

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTERED COMPREHENSIVE INCOME FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2014

Note2014 2013

$’000 $’000

Administered Expenses

Judicial benefits expenses A4 38,042 38,658

Victims of Crime payments 13,815 22,077

Payments to Fines Enforcement Recovery Unit 14,362 -

Payments to Consolidated Account 44,140 64,019

Other expenses 739 1,043

Total Administered Expenses 111,098 125,797

Administered Income

Revenues from SA Government 38,042 38,658

Fines 21,516 33,896

Court fees 21,667 29,133

Victims of Crime levies 13,815 22,077

Transcript fees 1,133 1,392

Fines Enforcement Recovery Unit Income 14,362 -

Other income 563 641

Total Administered Income 111,098 125,797

Net and total comprehensive result 31 - -

Net and total comprehensive result are attributable to the SA Government as owner.



116

FINANCIAL REPORTS

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTERED FINANCIAL POSITION AS AT 30 JUNE 2014

Note2014 2013

$’000 $’000

Administered Current Assets

Cash and cash equivalents A5 5,375 8,491

Receivables A6 5,221 5,359

Total current assets 10,596 13,850

Administered Current Liabilities

Payables A7 4,399 8,648

Judicial benefits A8 3,162 3,061

Other current liabilities A9 103 88

Total current liabilities 7,664 11,797

Administered Non-Current Liabilities

Payables A7 1,448 1,375

Judicial benefits A8 9,452 8,646

Total Non-Current Liabilities 10,900 10,021

Total Liabilities 18,564 21,818

Net Assets (7,968) (7,968)

Administered Equity

Accumulated deficit A7 (7,968) (7,968)

Total Administered Equity (7,968) (7,968)

Total administered equity is attributable to the SA Government as owner



117

FINANCIAL REPORTS

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTERED CHANGES IN EQUITY FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2014

Note Retained Earnings $’000

Balance at 30 June 2012 (7,968)

Net result for 2012-13 -

Total comprehensive result for 2012-13 -


Net result for 2013-14 -

Total comprehensive result for 2013-14 -


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



118

FINANCIAL REPORTS

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTERED CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2014

Cash Flows from Administered Activities Note2014 2013

$’000 $’000

Cash outflows

Judicial benefits (37,140) (38,980)

Payments to consolidated account (48,486) (60,304)

Victims of Crime payments (15,672) (22,048)

Payments to Fines Enforcement Recovery Unit (12,336) -

Other payments (740) (1,075)

Total cash outflows (114,374) (122,407)

Cash inflows

Receipts from SA Government 38,054 42,391

Fines 21,516 33,896

Court fees 21,626 28,879

Victims of Crime receipts 13,815 22,077

Transcript fees 1,193 1,330

Fines Enforcement Recovery Unit receipts 14,362 -

GST recovered from the ATO 75 115

Other receipts 617 705

Total cash inflows 111,258 129,393

Net cash (used in) provided from administered activities A10 (3,116) 6,986

Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents (3,116) 6,986

Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the financial year 8,491 1,505

Total cash and cash equivalents at the end of the financial year A5 5,375 8,491



119

FINANCIAL REPORTS

SCHEDULE OF EXPENSES AND INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO ADMINISTERED ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2014

Activity 1 Activity 3 Total

2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013

$’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Administered Expenses

Judicial benefits expenses 38,042 38,658 - - 38,042 38,658

Victims of Crime payments - - 13,815 22,077 13,815 22,077

Payments to Fines Enforcement Recovery Unit 14,362 - - - 14,362 -

Payments to Consolidated Account 16,118 18,890 28,022 45,129 44,140 64,019

Other expenses 576 647 163 396 739 1,043 Total administered expenses 69,098 58,195 42,000 67,602 111,098 125,797

Administered Income

Revenues from SA Government 38,042 38,658 - - 38,042 38,658

Fines 12 6 21,504 33,890 21,516 33,896

Court Fees 14,986 17,498 6,681 11,635 21,667 29,133

Victims of Crime levies - - 13,815 22,077 13,815 22,077

Transcript Fees 1,133 1,392 - - 1,133 1,392

Fines Enforcement Recovery Unit Income 14,362 - - - 14,362 -

Other income 563 641 - - 563 641

Total administered income 69,098 58,195 42,000 67,602 111,098 125,797

Total Comprehensive Result - - - - - -


120

FINANCIAL REPORTS

Notes to and forming part of the administered financial statements

NOTE INDEX

Administered itemsObjectives of the Courts Administration Authority Note A1Summary of significant accounting policies Note A2 Activities of the Authority Note A3 Judicial benefits expenses Note A4 Remuneration of judiciary Note A4 Administered cash and cash equivalents Note AS Administered receivables Note A6 Administered payables Note A7 Judicial benefits Note A8 Administered other liabilities Note A9 Administered cash flow reconciliation Note A1O Administered Transactions with SA Government Note A11

Trust Monies Note T1


121

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE A1: OBJECTIVES OF THE COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY

The objectives of the Authority outlined in Note 1 for operating items apply equally to the Administered Financial Statements.

NOTE A2: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

The policies of the Authority outlined in Note 2 for operating items apply equally to the Administered Financial Statements.

NOTE A3: ACTIVITIES OF THE AUTHORITY

The activities the Authority administers are mainly comprised of the following transactions:

• Fines - The Authority receives revenue from infringements issued to offenders committing offences under various acts and regulations. This revenue is directly credited to the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) Consolidated Account.

• Comt fees - The Authority processes revenue from fees charged under regulations to various Acts. Examples of these fees include lodgement fees in the various jurisdictions, enforcement fees imposed on outstanding matters and sale of evidence/transcript. This revenue is directly credited to the DTF Consolidated Account.

• Judicial expenses - The Authority makes payments pursuant to the Remuneration Act 1990 for the judiciary. These expenses include judicial salaries and associated on-costs (superannuation and payroll tax), judicial vehicle expenses and related Fringe Benefits Tax.

• Victims of Crime levy - The Authority collects Victims of Crime levies pursuant to the requirements of the Victims of Crime Act 2001. Monies collected are paid into the Victims of Crime Fund operated by the Attorney-General’s Department.

Effective from 3 February 2014, the collection of Fines related to criminal court orders, Enforcement fees imposed on outstanding matters and Victims of Crime Levy has been transferred to Attorney-General’s Department.

The activities used by the Authority for budgeting and reporting purposes are classified as follows:

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 3: Penalty Management Services.

The management of penalties arising from comt orders, the enforcement of court orders as well as the recove1y of debts, and the administration and execution of warrants. The management of penalties has been transferred to the Attorney General’s Department effective 3 February 2014. Enforcement of civil court orders has been retained.

The Authority does not track Assets and Liabilities at the Administered Activity level and therefore figures cannot be reliably measured.


122

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE A4: JUDICIAL BENEFITS EXPENSES 2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Salaries and wages 24,500 25,113



Employment on-costs - superannuation 5,992 5,992

Employment on-costs - payroll tax 1,786 1,813

Other judicial related expenses 1,848 2,080

Total Judicial benefits expenses 38,042 38,658

Remuneration of judiciary 2014 2013 2014 2013The number of judicial officers whose remuneration received or receivable falls within the following bands:$141,500 to $151,499 - 1 $381,500 to $391,499 1 -

$151,500 to $161,499 - 1 $391,500 to $401,499 1 1

$191,500 to $201,499 1 3 $421,500 to $431,499 - 1

$201,500 to $211,499 2 1 $431,500 to $441,499 1 -

$231,500 to $241,499 - 1 $461,500 to $471,499 - 1

$251,500 to $261,499 1 1 $471,500 to $481,499 - 16

$271,500 to $281,499 - 1 $481,500 to $491,499 15 7

$281,500 to $291,499 - 1 $491,500 to $501,499 9 -

$291,500 to $301,499 - 1 $501,500 to $511,499 1 1

$301,500 to $311,499 1 - $521,500 to $531,499 1 -

$311,500 to $321,499 2 9 $531,500 to $541,499 - 7

$321,500 to $331,499 11 7 $541,500 to $551,499 - 4

$331,500 to $341,499 5 4 $551,500 to $561,499 11 -

$341,500 to $351,499 7 9 $561,500 to $571,499 - 1

$351,500 to $361,499 6 2 $591,500 to $601,499 - 1

$361,500 to $371,499 4 4 $611,500 to $621,499 1 -

$371,500 to $381,499 2 3 $651,500 to $661,499 - 1

Total number of judicial officers 83 90

The table includes all judicial officers who received remuneration equal to or greater than the base executive remuneration level during the year. Remuneration of judicial officers reflects all costs of employment including salaries and wages, payments in lieu of leave, superannuation

contributions, salary sacrifice and fringe benefits and any fringe benefit tax paid/payable in respect of those benefits. The total remuneration received by these judicial officers for the year was $34.6 million ($36.0 million).


123

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE A5: ADMINISTERED CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS 2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Current

Deposits with the Treasurer 5,375 8,491

NOTE A6: ADMINISTERED RECEIVABLES

Current

Debtors 957 940

Allowance for doubtful debts (126) (67)

Accrued revenue 4,373 4,466

GST input tax recoverable 17 20

Total Administered receivables expected to be recovered within 12 months 5,221 5,359

Movements in the allowance for doubtful debts


Amounts written off (49) (59)

Increase in the allowance 108 -


NOTE A7: ADMINISTERED PAYABLES

Current

Creditors 188 197

Accrued expenses 3,567 7,841

Judicial benefits on-costs 644 610

Total current payables 4,399 8,648

Non-Current


Judicial benefits on-costs 1,448 1,375

Total Administered payables 5,847 10,023

As a result of an actuarial assessment performed by the Department of Treasury and Finance, the percentage of the proportion of Jong service leave taken as leave has remained at the 2013 rate of 40% which is used in the employment on-cost calculation. As a result, there is no net financial effect of the changes in the current financial year. The impact on future years is impractical to estimate. Refer to note AS.


124

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE A8: JUDICIAL BENEFIT 2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Current

Accrued salaries and wages 103 -



Total current judicial benefits 3,162 3,061

Non-Current

Annual leave 462 384


Total non-current judicial benefits 9,452 8,646

Total judicial benefits 12,614 11,707

NOTE A9: ADMINISTERED OTHER LIABILITIES

Current

Unclaimed money 103 88

Total Administered other liabilities 103 88

NOTE A10: ADMINISTERED CASH FLOW RECONCILIATION

Reconciliation of Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the reporting period:

Cash and cash equivalents disclosed in the Statement of Administered Financial Position 5,375 8,491

Balance as per the Statement of Administered Cash Flows 5,375 8,491

Reconciliation of Net Cash provided by Administered Activities to total comprehensive result:

Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities (3,116) 6,986

Less: non cash item

Doubtful debts and bad debts expenses (108) -

Changes in Administered Assets/Liabilities

(Decrease) in Receivables (30) (3,417)

(lncrease)/Decrease in Judicial Entitlements (907) 159

Decrease/(lncrease) in Payables 4,161 (3,728)

Total comprehensive result from Administered Activities - -

AASB 119 contains the calculation methodology for long service leave liability. The actuarial assessment performed by the Department of Treasury and Finance has provided a set level of liability for the measurement of long service leave.

AASB 119 requires the use of the yield on long term Commonwealth Government bonds as the discount rate in the measurement of the long service leave liability. The yield on long term Commonwealth Government bonds has decreased from 2013 (3.75%) to 2014 (3.50%). This decrease

in the bond yield, which is used as the rate to discount future long service leave cash flows, results in a minor increase in the reported long service leave liability. The impact on future periods is impractical to estimate as the long service leave liability is calculated using a number of assumptions -a key assumption is the long term discount rate.

The Authority has used the average leave pattern history of previous years to allocate the current and non-current liability. Refer to note A7.


125

FINANCIAL REPORTS

NOTE A11: ADMINISTERED TRANSACTIONS WITH SA GOVERNMENT

The following table discloses revenues, expenses, financial assets and liabilities where the counterparty/transaction is with an entity within the SA Government as at the reporting date, classified according to their nature.

Note


2014 $’000

2013 $’000

2014 $’000

2013 $’000

2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Expenses

A4 Judicial benefits expenses - - 38,042 38,658 38,042 38,658

Administered expenses

Victims of Crime payments 13,815 22,077 - - 13,815 22,077

Payments to Fines Enforcement Recovery Unit 14,362 - - - 14,362 -

Payments to Consolidated Account 44,140 64,019 - - 44,140 64,019

Other expenses 13 6 726 1,037 739 1,043

TOTAL ADMINISTERED EXPENSES 72,330 86,102 38,768 39,695 111,098 125,797

Administered Income

Fines - - 21,516 33,896 21,516 33,896

Court fees - - 21,667 29,133 21,667 29,133

Victims of Crime levies - - 13,815 22,077 13,815 22,077

Transcript fees - - 1,133 1,392 1,133 1,392

Fines Enforcement Recovery Unit - - 14,362 - 14,362 -

Other income 563 641 - - 563 641

Revenues from SA Government 38,042 38,658 - - 38,042 38,658

TOTAL ADMINISTERED INCOME 38,605 39,299 72,493 86,498 111,098 125,797

Administered Financial Assets

A6 Administered Receivables

Receivables 138 114 693 759 831 873

Accrued revenues 4,373 4,442 - 24 4,373 4,466

GST input tax recoverable - - 17 20 17 20

TOTAL ADMINISTERED FINANCIAL ASSETS 4,511 4,556 710 803 5,221 5,359

Administered Financial Liabilities

A7 Administered Payables

Creditors - - 188 197 188 197

Accrued expenses 3,552 7,718 15 123 3,567 7,841

Employment on-costs 694 646 1,398 1,339 2,092 1,985

A9 Other Administered liabilities - - 103 88 103 88

TOTAL ADMINISTERED FINANCIAL LIABILITIES 4,246 8,364 1,704 1,747 5,950 10,111


126

FINANCIAL REPORTS

2014 $’000

2013 $’000

Supreme Court Suitor Account

Balance at 1 July 14,394 38,389

Receipts 30,369 4,112

44,763 42,501

Less: Payments 14,037 28,107

Balance at 30 June 30,726 14,394

District Court Suitor Account


Receipts 8,380 10,442

16,477 13,266



Sheriff’s Office Trust Account

Balance at 1 July 173 402

Receipts 899 1,702

1,072 2,104

Less: Payments 919 1,931

Balance at 30 June 153 173

Magistrates’ Court Suitor Account - others *


Receipts 3,213 3,231

7,705 7,614



Magistrates’ Court Suitor Account - Fines and penalty and impounding fees*

Balance at 1 July 848 612

Receipts 9,658 16, 108

10,506 16,720


Balance at 30 June - 848

* The function of receiving fines and related fees was transferred to the Attorney General’s Department effective 3 February 2014. The receipts and payments related to the fines and related fees have been restated and disclosed separately from the other Magistrate’s Suitor Account between the two years.

T1: TRUST MONIES

The Authority holds monies pending the outcome of comt decisions. Beneficiaries of these payments include other SA, Federal and Local government entities, and individuals. 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 jurisdiction’s trust accounts:


127

Courts Administration Authority Education Centre Building31 Flinders Street AdelaideSouth Australia 5000Telephone: +61 8 8226 0138www.courts.sa.gov.au

http://www.courts.sa.gov.au

courts administration authority annual report · 2014. 11. 18. · annual report 2013-2014 3 report...

Documents