Annual Report - Courts · 2011-06-30 · SPINE SPINE Annual Report Annual Report 2005–2006 Level...

SPINE

SPINE

Annual ReportAnnual Report 2005–2006

Level 14 Education Centre

31 Flinders Street Adelaide South Australia 5000

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

Internet www.courts.sa.gov.au

Courts Administration Authority Annual Report 2005–2006

SPINE

SPINE

�ANNUAL REPORT 05–06

ContentsContents

October 2006

Courts Administration Authority

Education Centre 31 Flinders Street Adelaide South Australia 5000

Telephone +61 8 8226 0100 Facsimile +61 8 8226 137 Internet www.courts.sa.gov.au

This report prepared by the Communications Branch of the Courts Administration Authority.

For more information or copies of this report please telephone +61 8 8204 0403 or send a Facsimile to +61 8 8204 0441

ISSN 1443-0444

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

Contents

Organisational Chart 2

Report from Chairman of the State Courts Administration Council 3

From the State Courts Administrator 5

Achieving Strategic Goals 6

Supreme Court 8

District Court 15

Magistrates Court 19

Specialist Sentencing Courts 25

Environment, Resources and Development Court 31

Youth Court 34

Coroner’s Court 39

Sheriff’s Office 41

Human Resources 45

Information Services 49

Court Reporting 50

Freedom of Information Act 1991 51

CAA Energy Report 53

Asbestos Management 54

Financial Statements 56

Appendix A Occupational Health Safety and

Injury Management Statistics 88

COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY�

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

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

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

OrganisationOrganisational Chart

STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATION COUNCIL

Chief Justice Chief Judge Chief Magistrate

State Courts Administrator Executive Management Committee

Corporate ServicesSupreme Court Director, Policy, Planning and Research

District Court

Magistrates Court

Specialist Courts

Youth Court

Environment, Resources and Development Court

Coroner’s Court

Industrial Relations Court

Finance and Accounting

Human Resources

Property Management

Administration Services

Sheriff’s Office

Senior Media Liason Officer

Information Services

Court Reporting

Policy, Planning and Research

Communications Branch

Education Officer


ChairmanReport from Chairmanof the State Courts Administration Council

The State Courts Administration Council (“the Council”) is responsible for providing administrative facilities and services for most of the Courts of the State. The Council is independent of the Government. It is established by the Courts Administration Act 1993 (“the Act”). This is the 13th report of the Council, dealing with the year to 30 June 2006.

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

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

Finances

For the third year in succession I report that the funds provided to the Council were not sufficient to enable it to provide services and facilities of an appropriate standard to the courts and to the public. Much of our infrastructure is outdated or near the end of its effective life. There is a risk of a failure of infrastructure of a kind that would have a serious effect on the Authority’s ability to operate.

Had the Council not been permitted to draw on funds provided to it in connection with the delayed road safety programs, the Council would not have been able to operate within its appropriation. I acknowledge that the Government permitted the Council to draw on this money. But it remains unsatisfactory that the Council was unable to persuade the Government to approve an appropriation that would cover the cost pressures that have been identified to the Government.

The financial restraints under which the Council operates mean that there are few resources available to identify possible efficiencies or take advantage of new technologies. Innovation is discouraged, because there is no prospect of obtaining funding support. Our staff and the judiciary want to promote change and improvement, and, in the public interest, should do so. That is difficult under circumstances like this.

I have expressed my concern publicly, as well as in these reports. The Executive Government is entitled to allocate public funds as it sees fit. I can do no more than record

that in the Council’s opinion in the year to 30 June 2006 the Government has not provided the funding required to enable the Council to serve the South Australian public as well as they could and should be served.

Buildings

I am pleased to report that new Magistrates Courts have been completed at Victor Harbor, Berri and at Port Pirie. A new court is being built at Port Lincoln. The new complex at Port Augusta for the use of the Supreme Court, District Court and Magistrates Court and other Courts is now under way. These new buildings will provide much better facilities for the public than were available in the past. The Council acknowledges the Government’s commitment in this respect.

There is still no progress with the Supreme Court buildings. There is no point in me repeating the details. The facilities of the Supreme Court are well below an appropriate standard for the public and for court staff, the legal profession and judges. A new building would give the opportunity to provide much needed additional criminal courts. Additional criminal courts would help the Supreme Court and District Court grapple with the problem of delays in bringing criminal cases to trial.

Courts and the Community

The Council and its staff continue to make a real effort to respond to the needs of the community by providing administrative services efficiently, and in a way that accords with contemporary standards.

We have various means of obtaining the views of and responses from that part of the community that deals with the Courts. The Council is aware of the need to pay particular attention to the needs and interests of the Aboriginal peoples who come in contact with the Courts. The Courts Aboriginal Reference Group, established a little over a year ago, will provide advice to the Council on this matter. The Council continues to support the program of visits to indigenous communities by members of the judiciary and court staff. In May 2006, a group of about 20 members of the judiciary and court staff visited and met with representatives of the indigenous peoples at Ceduna and nearby locations.

The Council has decided to conduct another community survey later this year, along similar lines to the community survey conducted in late 2000. The survey, to be professionally conducted, will focus on matters relevant to public trust and confidence in the courts. I acknowledge the generous support of the Law Foundation through its contribution to the cost of the survey. When the survey results have been collated, they will be discussed at a one day seminar involving representatives of the judiciary, of the staff of the Authority, and of our Community Relations Committee, Community Reference Group and Courts Aboriginal Reference Group.


Authority Staff

The Council is in the course of reviewing the Authority’s Strategic Plan. The Council and staff met for a day to discuss key aspects of the plan, and that has been followed by another meeting to deal with strategies.

I was struck by the enthusiastic and constructive participation of the Authority staff who were involved. Their enthusiasm, and the quality of the contribution that they made, demonstrate that the staff of the Authority are committed to serving the public as well as they can, and to improving the quality of justice by providing high quality administrative support to the judiciary. It is a tribute to our staff that, despite the constraints under which we are operating, they remain enthusiastic and committed.

Workload

The Authority exists to provide administrative support to the Courts. The work of the Authority is affected by the workload of the Courts. That workload remains heavy. Lodgments are increasing in all of the Courts, although at varying rates. The administration of the criminal law in particular is increasing in complexity. I am satisfied that the South Australian public is well served by the staff of the Authority. However, it is taking too long for the District Court and the Supreme Court to dispose of criminal cases. There is nothing to suggest that the problem lies with courts or with the Authority. Much of the delay is attributable to the time taken by prosecution and defence to prepare cases for trial. The District Court in particular is doing what it can to reduce, or at least to limit, this delay. The delay is a cause for concern, and is a problem to which there appears to be no single solution.

General Remarks

The Act requires the Council to report to the Attorney-General each year on the administration of justice in participating courts. My report, and the report that follows, does that. The Act also requires the Council to report on any changes to the law and court procedures that might be desirable to improve the administration of justice. These are usually matters of detail, that are discussed with the Attorney-General and his staff at our regular meetings with them. There are no particular changes that I need to refer to on this occasion. However, it is appropriate to emphasise that legislation affecting the administration of the criminal law has cost implications to which careful attention needs to be paid.

I thank the Authority staff for their efforts, under difficult circumstances.

Once again I thank the Attorney-General for being available to consult with me, the Chief Judge of the District Court and the Chief Magistrate. Each of us meets regularly with the Attorney-General, to discuss matters affecting the Courts. I also thank the staff of the Attorney-General’s Department for their cooperation and assistance during the year.

The Honourable John Doyle AC

Chief Justice of South Australia Chairman, State Courts Administration Council

Report from Chairmanof the State Courts Administration Council


I am pleased to report that the Courts Administration Authority has continued to build on its commitment to quality service delivery throughout the year. We have completed comprehensive analyses of our workforce, technology infrastructure and financial business transactions.

The Chief Justice has referred to the ongoing problems being faced by the Authority relating to our funding situation and to the effect that it is having on our ability to maintain our infrastructure. I see little purpose in repeating this in my report except to confirm the matters that the Chief Justice has raised.

In last year’s report, I stated that the Authority welcomed the commencement of a review to be held in collaboration with the Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF). The review was to examine future capital requirements, debt management and organisational structure of the Fines Payment Unit, trends in court workloads and potential measures to manage a significant over-expenditure on unavoidable services provided by the Courts. The Authority invested considerable effort working with the review team to develop issues papers. However, progress has stopped as, unfortunately, the DTF had to allocate its resources elsewhere.

The Authority’s existing strategic plan expired on 30 June 2006. There is a lot of detail contained in the body of this report on the activities of the Authority over the year relating to that plan. I have been struck by the diversity and inventiveness of some of the activities.

The Authority hosted several international study tours and workshops this year, covering judicial functions and court administration. These included visits by delegations of Judges and court administrators from Iraq, the Philippines and Indonesia.

We have been innovative in the use of technology. The Environment, Resources and Development Court (ERD) has developed an electronic calendar for listing matters. The calendar allows Commissioners access to their availability for listing a case via Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) while off-site, on views and at country locations. This system eventually will replace a hard-copy calendar used in the Registry.

Similarly, the Sheriff’s Office has improved timeliness in customer service by using mobile phone communication. At present, jurors call an 1800 messaging service after 4pm daily or take directions from a notice published in daily newspaper to find out when they are required at court. The Sheriff has introduced sending daily jury requirements directly to jurors’ mobile telephone numbers via Short Message Service (SMS) text messages. Approximately 25% of the jury pool has used this service. The viability of offering the daily jury requirement information via email message is also under consideration.

During the year, closed circuit television (CCTV) and video conferencing facilities in the Sir Samuel Way Building were upgraded, enabling higher courts to deal with more matters where child or vulnerable witness were required to give evidence. The number of courtrooms with these facilities increased from one to three. The equipment was provided as a result of funding made available by the Attorney General’s Department and the Authority.

We appreciate the efforts of the Attorney-General’s Department Victims of Crime Coordinator for obtaining funding to purchase television sets and DVD players for witness rooms at Berri, Port Lincoln and Port Pirie Magistrates Courts. These have helped to create a more comfortable environment for victims of crime, child witnesses and families.

This year, a record number of 2000 visitors attended the Courts Open Day, exploring the courthouse and a range of displays and information booths. Many visitors participated in mock trials and a public mock sentencing demonstration.

Around 230 people, including 20 Judges, Magistrates and senior administrators met with various Aboriginal communities at a meeting arranged by the Judicial Cultural Awareness Committee at the Parks Community Centre. The meeting provided an opportunity for judicial officers and court administrators to gain a clearer understanding of the serious issues and frustrations confronting various Aboriginal communities, and to enable discussion.

During the year, our two library services were integrated into one Authority-wide service and a Manager, Court Libraries replaced two site-specific senior librarian positions. This new structure is expected to improve services to library users and to generate savings.

Considerable work has been occurring during the year under review on a new strategic plan for the Authority. This three-year plan will form the backbone of divisional business plans. A common theme that has emerged during this exercise has been a very real desire expressed by staff throughout the Authority to continue to provide support of the highest quality to the Courts and to the community in South Australia.

I would like to record my appreciation to the members of the staff of the Authority for their hard work and dedication during this year.

Gary Thompson

State Courts Administrator

AdministratorFrom the State Courts Administrator


The Authority’s three-year Strategic Plan expires on 30 June 2006.

In the year under review, in a structured process involving all areas of the organization, the Authority developed a new corporate strategy 2006–2009.

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

• Increase the community’s understanding of the operations of the Courts and provide more avenues for community feedback into the operations of the Courts

• Improve court facilities and means of dealing with the Courts

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

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

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

This strategy has underpinned the administration of the Courts, and is, in most measure, accounted for by reports from each of the Courts in this document.

Highlights

In the year under review, the Authority:

• Completed major reviews of its workforce and administrative, business and information technology operations

• Relocated courthouses at Port Pirie and Berri. Resumed operations after refurbishment at Victor Harbor courthouse. Continued development for a new courts complex at Port Augusta

• Worked with a consultative Community Reference Group to create a new community involvement plan, for integration into the corporate strategic plan

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

Achieving Strategic Goals

• Continued to provide expertise, locally and internationally, on family conferencing and care and protection of children

• Implemented the new Coroner’s Act 2003

• Developed a Courtroom Technology Strategic Directions Plan 2006–10

• Introduced e-filing for civil matters in higher Courts

• Created new and refreshed existing material for self-represented litigants in the Environment, Resources and Development Court

• Upgraded jury management computer system and audited various courthouse security measures


Community Relations Committee

The Community Relations Committee reports to the Council and has carriage of the Authority’s Community Involvement Plan. This year, the Committee:

• Continued involvement with the Community Reference Group, a group that provides feedback on appropriateness and effectiveness of Court-initiated, community-oriented activities

• Arranged with the Secondary Schools Principals Association and Legal Studies Teachers Association a mock public sentencing seminar for principals, lecturers and teachers

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

• Hosted a media forum, enabling dialogue between the media and Judiciary.

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

• Developed a guide for self-represented litigants in the higher courts and a Guide for Judicial Officers dealing with self-represented litigants in higher courts.

Judicial officers from all jurisdictions supported the Courts Education Officer in professional development for Legal Studies teachers and students by participating in mock trials, information session and workshops. In addition the Education Officer held workshops and court tours for 9500 school students and community groups this year, including a leadership seminar for 60 senior schoolboys.

The Communications Branch coordinated visits and presentations about the courts to more than 350 members of community groups, including African interpreters.

ProgressAboriginal Initiatives

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

In addition, the Authority continued to support National Aboriginal Islander Day Observance Committee (NAIDOC) activities. This year, Aboriginal members of the staff arranged a successful quiz night during which the Authority’s Aboriginal Employee of the Year Award was presented to Port Augusta based Aboriginal Justice Officer Mr Paul Tanner.


At a Glance 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Number of Judges 13 13 13

Number of Masters 3 3/2 2

Staff numbers 69 69 61

Total civil lodgments 1 534 1 548 1 692*

Land and Valuation Division lodgments+ 28 32 27

Probate Grants of representation 4 997 4 605 4 600**

Total criminal lodgments (combined registry) 2 140 2 306 1 901

Single Judge appeals instituted+ 242 248 239

Full Court Appeals instituted+ 91 79 87

Court of Criminal Appeal appeals instituted 146 143 122

* Includes matters not recorded in the Commonwealth Productivity Commission annual Report on Government Services + Included in total civil lodgments ** Denotes finalisations of Grants of representations

Role and Function

The Supreme Court is the superior court in South Australia. The court deals with large civil claims and serious criminal charges. It is the highest Court for appeal. It sits in Adelaide and usually four times each year at Mount Gambier and Port Augusta. Under the Administration and Probate Act the Supreme Court’s Probate Registry grants probate of a will or administration of the estate of a deceased person. The 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 13 Justices and two Masters of the Supreme Court.

Justice Besanko was appointed to the Federal Court on 3 April 2006. At 30 June 2006, the vacancy had not been filled.

Registrar and Court Staff

The Registrar is the principal administrative officer of the Court and a member of the Authority’s Executive Management Committee. The Registrar manages the registry and judicial support services to ensure the needs of the Court and public are met. She is supported in this role by the 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

Achievements and Initiatives

New Supreme Court Civil Rules

New Supreme Court Civil Rules are nearing completion and will come into effect on 4 September 2006. The new Rules are written in plain English and include forms and practice directions to allow electronic filing of documents.

Electronic Transcript in the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA)

The practice of providing bound hard copy appeal books, which sometimes include many thousands of pages of transcript, to three Judges and the parties is costly and labour-intensive. The provision of trial transcript in electronic format to all parties significantly reduces production costs for the Court, enables quick and efficient searches of the transcript, and can speed up the hearing process. The possibility of providing trial transcript electronically was investigated in November 2005. It is expected that electronic transcript will be available in CCA hearings from July 2006.

Courtroom Technology

Parties involved in long and complex civil trials are increasingly seeking to use information technology in courtrooms. The Court is unable to provide a full range of technology options. However, in 2006–2007, a matter listed for between six and 12 months will use wireless technology, which will be evaluated for future use.

Organisational Review

A review of the organisation, staffing and functions for the administration division of the Court began in 2006. The aim of the review is to determine capacity to meet demands and to consider issues of workforce and succession planning. A report on the review is expected in July 2006.


Court Workload and Performance

Civil Workload

Table 1: Supreme Court Civil workload 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Total Civil Lodgments 1 534 1 548 1 692

Masters’ jurisdiction

Hearings in court 865 504 572

Hearings in chambers* 2 038 2 341 1 990

Urgent and other applications 161 204 160

Civil trials

Number of civil cases fixed for trial** 39 44 44

Cases disposed of by trial ** 26 23 22

Trials commenced as a percentage of cases fixed for trial~ 67% 52% 50%

Cases settled after being listed for trial 18 18 10

Civil cases awaiting trial as at 30 June 18 7 16

Number of civil cases finalised 863 763 1 702

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

Average for cases that proceed to judgment 4.3 4.4 2.4

Average for cases that settled 2.8 1.5 1.9

Long and complex cases

Average trial length for cases that proceeded to judgment 0 14 22

Judge sitting days during year 0 27 44

Average sitting time for cases (days) 0 14 22

New matters lodged 10 5 8

Trials listed 6 9 6

Cases awaiting trial at 30 June 18 17 13

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

The marked increase in number of civil cases finalised this year (1 702) compared to last year (763) is due to the Court undertaking a new data-checking process in the year under review. For the Supreme Court, the result was that significant anomalies were found in the way certain data were recorded. Certain categories of finalised matters were not being captured. Improved data-capture, analysis, and quality assurance processes have now been adopted to ensure greater reporting accuracy in future.

A ‘long and complex’ case is a case estimated to require more than 15 sitting days. These cases are referred to a Judge for case management. In the year under review, 12 such matters were finalised. Of those, 11 matters were resolved before going to trial, and one required 38 sitting days. Of the 13 matters awaiting trial at the end of the period, only five have been allocated an estimated trial length. The combined estimated trial length for these cases exceeds two years.

Supreme Court

COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY�0

Appellate Workload

Table 2: Supreme Court appellate workload

Appeals 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Full Court Appeals and applications to Full Court 91 79 87

Disposal by hearing 70 61 76

Setting down* to hearing (average days) 46 40 35

Hearing to judgment (average days) 73 74 72

Single Judge** Appeals to a single judge 242 248 239

Disposal by hearing 192 201 224

Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA) Applications for leave to appeal 143 141 118

Appeals and applications not requiring leave to appeal 3 2 4

Total criminal appeals 146 143 122

Application for leave, or appeal, abandoned 13 29 20

Leave refused by CCA or single judge 13 29 18

Disposal by CCA hearing 89 95 99

Total disposals 115 153 137

Leave granted to hearing (average days) 63 60 51

Hearing to judgment (average days) 42 54 55

* A matter is ‘set down’ by the parties when it is ready to be heard ** Includes civil and criminal appeals from Magistrates

There has been a slight increase in the number of Full Court appeals instituted. The disposal of matters by hearing has increased by 10%.

Combined Criminal Workload

Table 3: Combined Supreme Court and District Court criminal workload

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Total criminal lodgments 2 140 2 306 1 901

including circuit work+ 295 428 228

Criminal matters disposed of by trial 361 376 446*

Criminal matters disposed of (other than by trial) 1 753 1 813 1 270

Criminal trials listed but not heard as at 30 June 231 307 511

Trials longer than ten days awaiting hearing as at 30 June 13** 28** 79

Average length of criminal trials (includes Cat 1 trials) 8 days 9 days 6 days

Category one trials heard~ 18 15 12

Average length of Cat 1 trials only~ 24 days 33 days 11 days

+ Matters committed to circuit trial * Includes matters listed for trial, but disposed of by way of guilty pleas, nolle prosequi, bench warrants issued at trial, and disputed facts hearings ** District Court long trials not included ~ A class of cases for which the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction

Supreme Court

The Court has taken less time to bring matters on for hearing once parties have indicated readiness to proceed.

��ANNUAL REPORT 05–06

Table 3 indicates a substantial decrease in the number of criminal lodgments in 2005–2006, compared with previous years. This variation is due, in part, to the new data checking approach mentioned earlier in this report. For the first time some types of lodgment, such as bench warrants and ancillary applications, have been excluded, leaving cases committed for trial, cases committed for sentence, breach of bond matters, and applications for variations of Court orders in this year’s lodgment figure. The reduction in the figure for circuit Courts is a result of changed counting methods, which has meant that the same lodgment types (mentioned above) have been excluded.

The number of trials listed but not heard as at 30 June 2006 has increased by 59% compared with the previous year. This increase can, to some extent, be attributed to factors that limit the Court’s capacity to list its trials efficiently.

The average trial length has reduced from nine to six days. This is due largely to a number of lengthy Supreme Court trials not proceeding. There has been little change in the average trial length of District Court matters, which is 5.7 days (compared to 6.4 days last year).

Court Performance Standards

Table 4 below shows performance against standards for the Supreme Court appellate, combined Supreme and District Court criminal jurisdiction, and Supreme Court civil jurisdiction. It should be noted that the standards referred to here are not the same as those reported nationally.

Table 4: Performance against standards (Targets) for Appellate, combined Criminal and civil jurisdictions

Standards TargetActual 2003–2004

Actual 2004–2005

Actual 2005–2006

Appellate jurisdiction

Full Court One month* 100% 100% 92%

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

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

Criminal (combined jurisdiction)

Cases committed for trial disposed of or tried within 365 days of first arraignment 100% 88% 61% 51%

Cases committed for trial disposed of or tried within 180 days of first arraignment 80% 17% 4% 9%

Cases committed for sentence disposed of within 120 days of first arraignment 100% 73% 73% 64%

Cases committed for sentence disposed of within 90 days 85% 58% 59% 49%

Civil jurisdiction

Civil actions finalised by trial within 365 days of commencement of proceedings 60% 31% 40% 31%

* Appeals are listed in the month after parties have indicated they are ready to proceed ** Appeals are listed in the next monthly list following leave to institute *** Appeals are listed in the next monthly list after institution (lodgment)

Appellate Performance Standards

In its appellate jurisdiction, the Court continues to meet its target, except where parties ask for a hearing to be deferred. In the year under review, this occurred in eight matters out of a total of 95 matters set down for hearing.

Civil Performance Standards

A total of 29 matters proceeded to trial during the year. Of those, nine matters (31%) met the standard.

The time taken to get matters to trial is affected by the complex nature of many matters, the impact of inaccurate trial length estimates and availability of counsel.

Criminal Performance Standards

For criminal cases that are committed for sentence, that is, the person has pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court and has been sent to the Higher Courts (District or Supreme Court) for sentence, the standard is that 85% of cases will be disposed of within 90 days,

Supreme Court

COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY��

and 100% will be disposed of within 120 days from first arraignment in the Higher Courts. The performance against those standards is again lower than in the previous year, due to the number of cases being committed to the Higher Courts and other factors, such as parties not ready to proceed.

For cases committed for trial, performance against the 365-day standards has continued to deteriorate, while performance against the 180-day standard shows a small improvement over the previous year. This can be attributed to changes in listing procedures, in particular, increasing the ratio of matters listed to number of Judges scheduled to hear criminal trials. Notwithstanding this slight improvement, and,

as reported last year, factors such as legislative changes, the increased length of trials, the limited number of courtrooms available and delay by parties in preparing for trial continue to influence the Court’s ability to improve its performance.

Age Profile Data – Criminal

The Court’s workload is measured using the national performance standards in the Commonwealth Productivity Commission annual Report on Government Services. Two standards are applied. The first of these is that “no more than 10% of lodgments pending completion are to be more than 12 months old”. The second, is that “no lodgments pending completion are to be more than 24 months old”.

The data below indicates that 15% of non-appeal matters did not meet the 12-month standard. In its appellate jurisdiction the Court is performing better than the standard.

Criminal lodgment age profile: Supreme Court 2005–2006

Percentage of lodgments not finalised as at 30 June Non- appeal Appeal CCAAppeal

Single Judge

% more than 12 months old 25% 4% 0%

% more than 24 months old 5% 0% 0%

Age Profile Data – Civil

The Court’s civil workload is also measured using the national performance standards. The data indicates that of 10% of non-appeal matters did not meet the

Civil lodgment age profile – Supreme Court 2005–2006

Percentage of lodgments not finalised as at 30 June Non-Appeal*Appeal Full

CourtAppeal

Single Judge

% more than 12 months old 20% 7% 4.5%

% more than 24 months old 7% 3.5% 4.5%

* Excludes Probate

Civil lodgment age profile – Supreme Court 2005–2006

Numbers of lodgments not finalised as at 30 June Non-Appeal*Appeal Full

CourtAppeal

Single Judge

more than 12 months old 118 1 0


* Excludes Probate

12-month standard. In its Full Court and Single Judge appeal matters, the Court is performing well within the 12-month standard and not meeting the 24-month standard. The number of cases more than 24 months old is two.

Supreme Court

Criminal lodgment age profile: Supreme Court 2005–2006

Number of lodgments not finalised as at 30 June Non-appeal Appeal CCAAppeal

Single Judge




Probate Registry

Most of the work of the Probate Registry is the issue (in non-contentious cases) of Grants of probate or representation involving the estate of deceased persons. In making Grants, the Registrar of Probates exercises the powers of the Court in accordance with the Rules of Court.

In the year under review, there were 4 600 Grants of representation. There were 4 605 Grants in the previous year. In addition, there 38 were interstate or overseas Grants made in South Australia.

Of the 4 600 Grants of representation, 310 were from unrepresented persons. This compares with 308 last year. Unrepresented persons rely heavily on probate staff for assistance in preparing their applications.

This work occupies much of the time of registry staff. An application often involves several attendances at the Registry by the applicant. At present, the waiting time for a first appointment is six weeks, compared with one to two weeks in 2004–2005.

Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal

The Tribunal comprises legal practitioners appointed by the Attorney-General to hear and determine charges against legal practitioners by the Legal Practitioners Conduct Board or, on four occasions this year, by a member of the public. There are 15 members who sit part-time. Officers of the Supreme Court provide secretariat services to the Tribunal.

Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal workload statistics

Year 2003 – 2004 2004 – 2005 2005 – 2006

Matters instituted 10 11 7^

Proceeded to hearing 9 10 1

Dismissed at hearing 2 0 1

Applications+ 1 1 3

+ Applications for employment by disqualified persons ^ Two of these matters have not been listed at the direction of the Presiding Member, and a third matter was dismissed without hearing

Continuing Professional Development

Participation by Judges and Magistrates in continuing professional development programs is desirable because such programs help judicial officers maintain their skills and efficiency. The Committee for Judicial Education conducted a one-day conference in June 2006, with presentations and discussion covering issues affecting victims of crime, new legislative proposals on a range of subjects and management of difficult issues that may arise in a courtroom during a hearing.

Legal Practitioners’ Education and Admission Council

The Legal Practitioners Education and Admission Council (LPEAC) prescribes the qualifications for admission as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court, and the qualifications for the issue and renewal of practising certificates. In exercising this function LPEAC sets the standard for academic and practical legal training for persons seeking admission to practice in South Australia.

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

During the past year, LPEAC made a number of amendments to the LPEAC Rules. These included delegation of certain functions to the Board of Examiners

and the introduction of a requirement that a practitioner demonstrate that the practitioner is a fit and proper person to be issued a practising certificate.

For some time LPEAC has been considering the implications of the trend for providers of Practical Legal Training (PLT) in other States to offer courses that can be undertaken wholly or in part by distance education. LPEAC deferred a decision on this matter, pending the completion by the Australian Professional Legal Education Council (APLEC) of an accreditation system for PLT courses, which LPEAC believes will take account of courses offered by distance education. The APLEC Review is expected to be completed later this year. During the year LPEAC began to consider how to review degrees in law offered by Adelaide University and Flinders University, and of the Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice.

Judicial Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Committee

The cultural awareness program, which was developed in accordance with recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, continues to function successfully.

Justice Sulan is the South Australian representative of the National Indigenous Cultural Awareness Committee. He also chairs the Courts Authority’s Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Program for the Judiciary and the Courts Aboriginal Reference group.

Supreme Court


The Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Program hosted two major events this year. In November 2005, members of Aboriginal communities in the metropolitan area met with members of the judiciary and representatives of various government departments at a day-long forum. In May 2006, members of the judiciary, magistrates and associated staff visited Ceduna, Yalata and surrounding Aboriginal communities, including Koonibba, to gain first-hand knowledge of problems facing Aboriginal communities in remote areas.

Higher Court Libraries

The new position of Manager Courts Library Service was filled in October 2005, replacing two Senior Librarian positions. This marked the beginning of the melding of separate library sites into a unified Courts Library Service.

Courts Library Service

In March, the library began a six-month trial of a changed organisational structure that is based on a service-wide team model. Early indications are that the trial has been successful in enabling greater efficiencies and budgetary accountability and maintaining good standards of service.

In April, the Council approved terms of reference for a new Library Advisory Committee. The committee comprises representatives of various user groups and enables wide ranging consultation on collection development, strategic planning and the provision of services.

During the second half of the financial year analysis commenced on the nature and volume of library work. The results of this research will be used to determine appropriate levels of staffing and work processes.

Total Stock 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Supreme Court Library 111 443 112 885 114 364

Sir Samuel Way Library 64 600 65 188 65 674

Supreme Court Library

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

The main collection is housed in the Supreme Court Library Building. Additional collections are in judges’ chambers. The Court of Criminal Appeal also keeps a collection in the Sir Samuel Way Building for its use. The Supreme Court Library currently holds more than 114 300 items.

Sir Samuel Way Library

The Sir Samuel Way Library provides a comprehensive library and information service to judicial officers and staff of the Authority. The Library holds more than 65 100 items, approximately half of which are kept in the Sir Samuel Way Building. The remainder are located in satellite collections in city, suburban and country courts, judicial chambers, and Authority offices.

The Sir Samuel Way Library publishes the District Court Judgment Index, which is available by annual subscription to law firms and libraries.

Supreme Court


District Court At a Glance 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006


Number of Masters 2 3 3

Number of Staff 72 73 77

Civil lodgments* 2 105 1 967 2 151

Criminal Injuries lodgments 769 621 537

Administrative and Disciplinary lodgments 383 270 255

Lodgments (Other Courts and Tribunals) 300 258 310

Minor Civil Claims review 93 57 57

Criminal lodgments* 2 002 2 148 1 678#

Number of criminal circuit lodgments 280 424 222

* Includes matters heard on circuit # For 2005–2006 the Court has used a new system for data capture and analysis, and has excluded some data about lodgments and disposal

of cases, resulting in more accuracy of data. These cases include bench warrants, re-trials, change of venue applications and change of plea applications. Similarly, circuit data has been reduced in the same way.

Role and Function

The District Court of South Australia is constituted by the District Court Act, 1991 and is the principal trial court in the State. The Court’s work is in four Divisions: Criminal, Civil, Administrative and Disciplinary and Criminal Injuries.

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

In its Administrative and Disciplinary Division, the District Court deals with disciplinary and appeal matters under many Acts such as the Guardianship and Administration Act, the Mental Health Act, the Building Work Contractors Act and the Land Agents Act. In some of these cases, a judge sits with assessors who have expertise in the field. Judges of the Court also hear matters in the Medical Professional Conduct Tribunal and the Equal Opportunity Tribunal.

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

District Court

Judiciary

The District Court Judiciary comprises 19 judges, including the Chief Judge, and three Masters. Judges sit in all divisions. Masters hear matters only in civil, criminal injuries and administrative and disciplinary divisions. Last year it was reported that the Chief Judge had agreed to provide judges to sit in the Licensing Court following the retirement of Judge Brian Kelly. This arrangement has worked well, with District Court judges sitting in that jurisdiction regularly.

During the year, Judge Allen and Judge Lee retired and Judge Lovell was appointed.

Registrar and Other Court Staff

The Registrar manages the provision of executive, registry, judicial and other support services to ensure that policy objectives are met efficiently and effectively. The Registrar is supported by Deputy Registrars, registry staff, and judicial support staff.

Following a minor organisational restructure, a new position of Manager, Operations was established. This officer assists the Registrar in strategic planning, workforce planning and training and development.

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


Some lodgments and disposal types previously counted but which have been excluded for the current period include bench warrants, re-trials, change of venue applications and change of plea applications. Circuit figures have similarly been reduced on this basis. Because new counting rules have been applied, a comparison of percentage increases or decreases in the number of lodgments in previous years has not been done.

Separately, the workload of the District Court is set out below.

Overview of the Work of the Court

Criminal

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

In 2005–2006, the figure for lodgment reported in the criminal jurisdiction varies significantly from that reported in previous years. For 2005–2006 the Court has used a new system for data capture and analysis resulting in greater accuracy.

District Court 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Total District Court criminal lodgments (including circuit) 2 002 2 148 1 678

District Court Circuit lodgments 280 424 222

District Court Criminal matters disposed of by trial 341*** 338*** 406***

District Court Criminal matters disposed of (other than by trial) 1 297 1 321 1 084

Criminal trials listed but not heard as at 30 June 231* 307* 488**

Trials longer than ten days awaiting hearing as at 30 June* 35 58 56

Average length of criminal trials 6.4 days 6.4 days 5.7 days

* Includes Supreme Court trials. Pending Supreme and District Court trials have not previously been reported separately

** 2005–2006 data refers to trials pending only in the District Court

*** Includes matters listed for trial, but dealt with by way of guilty pleas, nolle prosequi, bench warrants issued at trial & disputed facts hearings

This year, of the 1 490 matters finalised, 73% were finalised prior to trial, with the remaining 406 matters (27%) finalised by trial. This is an increase of 20% compared with the previous year, when 338 matters were disposed of by trial.

At 30 June 2006, 1 204 criminal matters were yet to be finalised. Of these, 74% were less than a year old,

District Court

20% were less than two years old and the remaining six percent were more than two years old.

Civil

The civil jurisdiction standards in timeliness and achievement against those standards appear below.

Standard Target 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Defended cases to be disposed of or to come to trial within 365 days of the issue of proceedings

65% 36.4% 34.5% 37.6%

In 2005–2006, civil lodgments increased by 9% to 2 151 compared with 1 967 in the previous year. The number of long civil trials listed and pending as at 30 June each year continues to fluctuate. After the increase last year from 30 to 46, it dropped this year to 29.


Civil Trials 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Number of cases listed for trial* 408 413 371

Cases disposed of by trial* 80 57 47*

Cases settled after being listed for trial* 220 223 184

Long trials (10 days or more) 8 13 8

Average sitting time per long trial 12.1 23.2 16.6

Long trials awaiting trial as at 30 June 30 46 29

* Includes circuit trials

At 30 June 2006 there were 2 384 civil matters yet to be finalised. Of these, 73% were less than a year old, 15% being less than two years old, with the remaining 11% being more than two years old.

Criminal lodgment age profile: District Court

Percentage of lodgments not finalised as at 30 June 2005–2006

% more than 12 months old 20%


District Court

Age Profile Data

The Commonwealth Productivity Commission Report on Government Services outlines national performance standards for the finalisation of lodgments. The data below indicates that the finalisation rate for criminal lodgments within the District Court exceeds these standards by 10% for matters more than 12 months old and by 6% for matters more than 12 months old.

Criminal lodgment age profile: District Court

Number of lodgments not finalised as at 30 June 2005–2006

More than 12 months old 238


Civil lodgment age profile: District Court

Percentage of lodgments not finalised as at 30 June 2005–2006



Civil lodgment age profile: District Court

Number of lodgments not finalised as at 30 June 2005–2006




Criminal Injuries Compensation

Applications for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1978 and (since January 2003) the Victims of Crime Act 2001 are heard in the District Court. In the year under review, 411 applications for compensation were lodged, a decrease of 34% compared with 621 in 2004–2005 and 769 in 2003–2004. Procedures to resolve claims for criminal injuries compensation applications have changed since the introduction of the Victims of Crime Act. A large percentage of matters now settle administratively by way of an offer and acceptance to judgment rather than requiring a hearing before a Master. However, where compensation has been paid by the State, the Victims of Crime Act enables recovery from the offender. This year, 126 summonses were issued against offenders for the recovery of compensation paid to victims.

Where the Court deals with compensation applications, Masters supervise such matters, most of which settle without the need for a trial.

Administrative and Disciplinary Matters

As stated earlier, the District Court hears administrative and disciplinary matters brought under various statutes. This year, 254 matters were lodged, compared with 270 last year, a decrease of six percent.

Other Courts and Tribunals

The District Court administers files for lodgments in other Courts and Tribunals, for example the Wardens Court (concerning certain mining matters), Equal Opportunity Tribunal, Medical Professional Conduct Tribunal and Police Disciplinary Tribunal. The Courts and Tribunals are presided over by a District Court Judge or Magistrate. There were 310 matters in this category lodged in 2005–2006 compared with 258 in 2004–2005.

District Court


At a Glance 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Number of Magistrates 36 36 36

Number of staff~ 224 229 246

Civil primary lodgments* 27 337 23 922 21 384

Civil primary lodgments (via Internet)* 5 340 10 755 14 388

Civil enforcement process 47 786 49 823 53 204

Civil applications 4 664 4 519 4 493

Civil defences lodged 3 970 3 890 3 543

Criminal general lodgments**^ 79 641 81 777 77 982

Criminal expiation lodgments**#^ 125 105 131 970 140 980

Criminal hearings by Magistrates 237 492 246 086 266 258

~ Increase in staff as a result of Road Safety Initiative

* Counting methods have changed from Create file date to Lodgment date for 2005–2006 and therefore direct comparison with previous financial years cannot be made

** Counting methods have changed from Number of cases to Number of defendants for 2005–2006 and therefore direct comparison with previous financial years cannot be made

^ Counting methods have changed for Youth matters for 2005–2006. From this year, all youth matters will be reported by the Youth Court and will not be included in Magistrates Court statistics

# Unpaid expiation fines lodged with the court for enforcement

Role and Function

The Magistrates Court handles the greatest proportion of all litigation in the State. All criminal matters begin in the Magistrates Court and the civil jurisdiction hears approximately 90% of all civil disputes within the State.

The Court has four jurisdictions:

Civil (General Claims)

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

Civil (Minor Claims)

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

Civil (Consumer And Business)

This jurisdiction hears disputes over warranty claims concerning second hand motor vehicles, disputes between landlords and tenants involving shop premises and disputes about domestic buildings.

Criminal

The criminal jurisdiction deals with summary offences and minor indictable offences. Summary offences are those that can only be decided by a Magistrate.

For example, most offences under the Road Traffic Act 1961 are summary offences. Minor indictable offences are decided in the Magistrates Court unless the defendant chooses to have the charge heard in a higher (District or Supreme) Court. For major indictable offences, the Court, after reviewing the evidence, determines whether there is sufficient evidence to commit the accused person to be tried in the Supreme or District Courts.

Magistracy

Ms T Anderson was appointed as a Stipendiary Magistrate on 15 September 2005. Stipendiary Magistrate Mr A Schapel took up the permanent office of Deputy State Coroner on 1 July 2005.

Overview of Workload

Civil Jurisdiction

Civil Primary Lodgments

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

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

Magistrates Court Magistrates Court


This year 35 772 lodgments were recorded. Counting methods have changed from Create File Date to Lodgment Date for the 2005–2006 financial year therefore direct comparison with previous financial years (34 677 in 2004–2005 and 32 677 in 2003–2004) cannot be made.

Lodgments are made over the counter in court registries or via Internet. Electronic lodgement of civil matters has enabled easier access for solicitors and the public and has led to a decrease in numbers of documents lodged in person at court registries. Numbers of lodgments over the counter have decreased this year and there has been an increase in electronic lodgements.

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Civil primary lodgments lodged over the counter 27 337 23 922 21 384*

Civil electronic lodgments 5 340 10 755 14 388*

* Comparisons cannot be made with the years ending June 2004 and 2005 as the counting method has changed from Create file date to Lodgment date.

Civil Enforcement Processes

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

There were 53 204 enforcement processes this year compared with 49 823 in 2004–2005, an increase of 6.7%. There were 47 786 such processes in 2003–2004.

Civil Applications Heard by a Magistrate

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

There were 4 493 civil applications in 2005–2006, compared with 4 519 in 2004–2005 and 4 664 in 2003–2004.

Civil Defences and Counterclaims

A downward trend continues in the number of civil defences and counterclaims lodged, with 3 543 lodged this year, compared with 3 809 in 2004–2005 (7% reduction) and 3 970 in 2004–2004. Defences include those against an originating claim, a counterclaim and third party notice to join in an action.

Chronic Debtors

The Magistrates Court has introduced a system to refer debtors who continue to default on debts to the Fines Payment Unit for action.

Mediation

Three mediators are based in the Adelaide Magistrates Court and conduct mediations throughout the State.

Mediations come from minor civil matters referred from directions hearings, and general matters referred by Magistrates. Parties continue to take up the opportunity to negotiate a mutually agreeable resolution to a dispute rather than going to trial. This year, 209 matters were mediated compared with 205 and 215 respectively in the previous years. Of the mediations conducted this financial year, 71% resulted in the dispute being resolved compared to a settlement rate of 72% for the previous year and 64.5% for year prior to that.

Directions Hearings

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

In 2005–2006 only 26% of the matters defended in this jurisdiction proceeded to trial, compared to 31% the previous year. This year there were 2 563 hearings, compared with 2 417 in the previous year and 2 594 in 2003–2004.

Magistrates Court


Number of noticesMediation

conferences Settlement rate

2003–2004 4 426 105 80%

2004–2005 4 770 118 61%

2005–2006 4 864 95 60%

Court Experts

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

The experts were used 133 times for on-site inspections and mediations this year, and assisted Magistrates in seven trials compared to the previous year, when experts were used 147 times for on-site inspections and mediations and assisted Magistrates in five trials.

Adult Restorative Conferencing

The Magistrates Court Mediation Unit, in conjunction with the Youth Court’s Family Conferencing Team, developed a program for victims and offenders to meet face-to-face before sentencing, to discuss the

harm caused by the crime. The program was known as Adult Restorative Conferencing and was run as a trial scheme for 12 months, funded by the Justice Portfolio. The scheme, which was the first of its kind in Australia, dealt with 27 individuals and involved 14 conferences with victims. The scheme ceased on 30 June 2005 after further funding could not be obtained.

Flinders University completed an independent evaluation of the program in the year under review. The evaluation suggested that the process was highly valued by most victims. It had the capacity to transform negative perceptions of the criminal justice system and to assist in healing some of the harm arising from the offence.

Criminal Jurisdiction

Lodgments in the criminal jurisdiction are divided into general criminal matters and expiations (fines). Expiations originate from SA Police or other prosecuting agencies (eg local councils, Fisheries) and do not involve court appearances until such time as an unpaid expiation notice is referred to the Court for enforcement. General criminal matters usually originate from a police complaint or charge.

Criminal Lodgments

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Criminal general lodgments 79 639 81 777 77 982*^

Criminal expiation lodgments 125 105 131 970 140 980*^

All criminal lodgments 204 744 213 747 218 962*^

* Comparison increase/decreases and graphs could not be shown as the counting method has changed from Number of cases to Number of defendants.

^ Counting methods have changed for youth matters for 2005–2006. From this year, all youth matters will be reported by the Youth Court and will not be included in Magistrate Court statistics.

Magistrates Court Pre-Lodgement and Pro Bono Mediations

An online Pre-Lodgement system was introduced in July 1999, allowing individuals, businesses and organisations a series of steps to try to resolve disputes rather than resort to formal proceedings. The Pre-Lodgement system offers a free mediation service through the Magistrates Court, with mediations conducted by volunteer mediators.

The numbers of Final Notices of Claim issued, the number of resulting mediation conferences and the settlement rate are shown below (A final notice of claim is akin to a final letter of demand and is the first step in the process):


2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Criminal hearings 237 492 246 086 266 258

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

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

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

Aboriginal Sentencing Courts

Aboriginal Sentencing Courts aim to recognise the integral role of family and community in the lives of

Criminal Hearings by Magistrates

There was an increase of 8% in hearings of general criminal matters by Magistrates this year.

Applications to Review Orders to Pay Fines

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Review enforcement order 12 916 18 770 19 402

Review order for cancelled relief 1 165 1 324 1 330

indigenous people and to create a venue that is less intimidating for offenders and their families. In these Courts, Magistrates sits at eye-level with the defendant and an indigenous advisor provides advice and assistance to the Magistrate throughout the proceedings. Defendants sit alongside their legal representatives and prosecutors at the bar table and family members are encouraged to join them. Aboriginal Justice Officers assist indigenous offenders, their families and the Court. Priority processing of court outcomes by the Registry enables custody matters to be dealt with quickly.

Attendance rates by indigenous defendants at Aboriginal Sentencing Courts remain considerably higher than at other Courts.

Statistics for Aboriginal sentencing Courts operating at Port Adelaide, Murray Bridge and Port Augusta are combined. No offender has elected to go before an Aboriginal Sentencing Court at Ceduna for the past two years. The numbers of defendants are counted as individuals and are counted only once per financial year. Each charge has been counted once in each financial year in each court.

Combined Aboriginal Court statistics 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Number of defendants N/A 179 183

Number of files N/A 558 559

Number of charges N/A 1 738 1 833

Fines Payment Unit

The Fines Payment Unit manages the recovery of all criminal Court monetary penalties. The unit operates from registries in the city and country. There is also a Fines Payment Call Centre that takes payment via credit card and provides advice to callers on options available to deal with fines. In addition, Aboriginal Justice Officers assist indigenous people on all court related matters. Monies are paid into SA Government General Revenue.

Total revenue collected by the Fines Payment Unit for 2005–2006 was $44 596 817, an average of $3.7 million

per month. This equates to an increase of 11% over that collected in 2004–2005.

A secure online service allows Court users to view and make instalments on outstanding penalties and to view the financial history for penalties. A Bpay payment system was introduced in July 2005. Bill Express, Bpoint and part payments at Australia Post were introduced early in 2006. The most popular ways of paying fines continues to be over the counter, through direct debit and through arrangements with Centrelink (Centrepay) and Australia Post.

Magistrates Court


Preferred Methods of Payment of Fines and Amounts

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Australia Post $3 721 045 $4 079 759 $3 526 944

RLS 669 955 686 103 638 874

CentrePay 5 954 650 7 589 883 8 256 824

Direct debit 10 605 803 11 034 449 11 505 094

Reculver 0 1 246 294 2 186 312

Services SA 0 14 371 40 051

On-line fines 0 318 932 478 546

Credit card 2 986 210 3 309 500 2 651 824

Bpay 0 0 3 187 101

Bill Express 0 0 4 101

Receipt-other 13 170 271 11 799 440 12 121 146

Total collection 37 107 934 40 078 730 44 596 817

Magistrates Court Contact and Call Centres

The Magistrates Court and Easy Pay Fines call centres are managed centrally. The Call Centre continues to develop and improve its levels of service. The industry standard for abandoned calls is between 3% and 4%. As in previous years, both call centres this year surpassed this standard.

The Easy Pay Fines Call Centre allows easy access for court users via a Freecall telephone number (1800 659 538) nationally. Court users can arrange for applications and

Easy Pay Fines Call Centre Statistics

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Inbound calls 146 490 146 506 140 409

Outbound calls 43 467 44 876 45 512

Credit card payments $2 986 210 $3 309 500 $2 651 824

Email 350 489 498

Abandoned rate* 2.5% 2.4% 2.1%

* National abandonment rate industry standard is 3–4%

court forms to be sent to them to organise payment of outstanding fines. The centre is also proactive in following up outstanding fines and arrangements, making 45 512 outbound calls this year.

Credit card payments have decreased over the year with the introduction of alternative methods of payment. In 2005–2006, $2.65 million was paid via credit card, compared with more than $3 million the previous year. Court users contacting the call centre by e-mail increased slightly this year.

Magistrates Court Call Centre

The Magistrates Court Call Centre operates from 8.30am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday. It handles all criminal and civil enquiries and responds to three electronic mailboxes. These are:

e-response centre: Used by court users for any court query, including those related to other courts.

e-registration: Used by court users who wish to register for the civil pre-lodgment scheme.

e-lodgement queries: Used by court users who have a query with the pre-lodgement site.

There has been a significant increase in court users contacting the centre through e-mail. The e-response centre received almost 1800 queries, a 35% increase on the previous year.

The Magistrates Court Call Centre handles outcomes of applications for a review of an enforcement order for the Adelaide Magistrates Court within 24 hours of receipt. More than 9 000 applications were actioned this financial year, an increase of 6.4% from the previous year, which was almost 100% more than in the previous year.

Magistrates Court


Magistrates Court Call Centre Statistics

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Inbound calls 107 206 112 106 120 125

E-response centre mailbox 800 1 328 1 791

E-registration mailbox 892 808 1 171

E-lodgement queries mailbox 450 688 491

Enforcement order review results 4 266 8 515 9 062

Abandoned rate* 2.4% 2.0% 1.8%

* National abandonment rate industry standard is 3–4%

Other Matters

Public Private Partnerships (PPP)

The Authority and SAPOL are in partnership with Plenary Justice Pty Ltd, (a consortium of firms in the private sector) to develop new or refurbish police and court facilities worth a combined capital value of $40m at Port Pirie, Berri, Victor Harbor and Port Lincoln. Contractual obligations began in June 2005 and cover ownership, design, construction and maintenance of these facilities. A courthouse at Port Pirie was completed in March 2006. Facilities at Victor Harbor (co-located Court and police facilities) and Berri (new courthouse) were completed in April 2006. A Court facility at Port Lincoln (to be co-located with police facilities) remains to be developed, and is due for completion in December 2006.

Outcomes in Court

A process where court outcomes are entered by Magistrates Clerks in the courtroom was introduced to Mount Barker, Murray Bridge, Port Augusta and Mount Gambier this year. This process speeds up recording of data.

Regional Matters

The Chief Magistrate, following consultation with the Attorney-General, agreed to provide a resident Magistrate at Berri to cover the Riverland. Mr P Snopek SM commenced sitting at Berri in April 2006.

A process of upgrading job classifications for support staff in country areas was completed in October 2005, bringing parity between country and city-based staff.

Four people were recruited for country Registries to improve financial management, business continuity and to reduce risks to safety inherent in working alone. These staff are also used to deal with overflow of work in metropolitan and city Registries, therefore ensuring efficiencies.

Road Safety Initiative

One of the components of the State Government’s Road Safety initiative is the installation of additional red light and speed cameras at metropolitan and country sites over four years. The Authority began recruiting extra staff to manage the increased workload this financial year. However, commencement of the operation of the cameras was delayed. The extra staff members were used to increase follow-up of existing penalties and contributed significantly to the increase in the amount of fines recovered this financial year.

Community Service Orders Project

Late last year, the Magistrates Court prepared a report that highlighted inefficiencies in community service orders. By way of response, the Justice Strategy Division of the Attorney-General’s Department this year ran a workshop to consider issues that had been raised in the report. A pilot project has been introduced at Elizabeth Magistrates Court and will be evaluated in late 2006.

Cross Border (SA, WA NT) Project

In October 2005, a paper about the legislative and management structures of the South Australian Magistrates Courts and Youth Court was prepared for a Cross border project team. Each participating State and Territory (Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory) has held workshops and teleconferences throughout the year to better understand administrative processes and procedures used in each State and Territory. The outcome is expected to be an Intergovernmental Agreement and enabling legislation. The ability of one State being able to deal with offences prescribed in another State is planned for late 2006.

Court Volunteer Service

This Service provides a vital link between the Court and court users. Volunteers are available to assist any court user in any circumstance; as a witness, defendant, plaintiff, victim, lawyer or someone wishing to observe proceedings and learn more about the Courts.

Magistrates Court


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

This year, the service handled 62 011 enquiries and served 4 203 refreshments, compared with 58 516 enquiries and 7 136 refreshments in the previous year.

Specialist Sentencing Courts and Court Assessment Referral Drug Scheme (CARDS)

In addition to Aboriginal Sentencing Courts there are three other specialist sentencing Courts operating within the Magistrates Court jurisdiction. These are the Drug Court, the Magistrates Court Diversion Program and the Family Violence Court. These Courts provide access to intervention programs to deal with underlying causes of offending such as substance abuse, behavioural problems associated with mental impairment or abusive attitudes and behaviours within families. CARDS is an intervention program that operates within the general criminal lists in the Magistrates Court and the Youth Court and provides referral to counselling for substance abuse.

The aim of intervention is to reduce the likelihood of future offending. A defendant’s participation and success in a program is a matter that can be taken into consideration in sentencing.

In December 2005 the Bail Act 1985 and the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 were amended to expressly include the intervention programs operating with the Specialist Courts and the CARDS program. Previously, the programs operated within general provisions of these Acts. The amendments define an intervention program as a program that provides supervised

treatment, supervised rehabilitation, supervised behaviour management, supervised access to support services, or a combination of any these. The changes to the Bail Act 1985 enable a Court to adjourn proceedings to allow a defendant to be granted bail to participate in an intervention program.

The changes to the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 enable a Court to defer sentencing to allow time for a defendant to participate in an intervention program. In the case of someone who suffers from a mental impairment, who is found guilty of a minor or summary offence, the changes enable a Court to dismiss the charges if it is satisfied that the person has successfully participated in an intervention program. Participation in an intervention program can also be made a condition of a bond imposed as a sentence.

The amendments also define the role and functions of an intervention program manager. These include making assessments for eligibility to programs and monitoring and reporting to the Court on a person’s compliance with an order and/or progress on a program. Ms Sue King, Manager, Specialist Courts was appointed as the Intervention Program Manager and her functions were delegated, in accordance with the amendments, to various members of staff working within the Specialist Courts.

The Drug Court

The Drug Court program is a 12-month intensive drug rehabilitation program that aims to reduce future offending behaviour. Defendants must plead guilty to be accepted onto the program and must be facing serious charges with a likely sentence of imprisonment. Participants’ progress for a year is monitored and supervised by a Magistrate and by the program staff, who provide clinical advice and support. At present there are four staff from the Authority working in the Drug Court and four from the Department of Correctional Services.

In October 2005, the 100th participant completed the program, which began in May 2000. Since 2000 more than 1000 defendants have been referred to the program.

Drug Court Referrals, Assessments and Acceptances

2004–2005 2005–2006

Male Female Total ATI* Male Female Total ATI*

Total referrals 116 17 133 7 148 17 165 14

% Accepted for assessment 90% 10% 7% 87% 13% 10%

% Accepted onto program 89% 11% 8% 92% 8% 9%

Numbers of participants completed 25 25

* Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Magistrates Court


Drug Court Completion Rates

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Numbers accepted 63 62 91

Numbers completed 31 25 25

Percentage completed 38% 40% 40%

The table below demonstrates shifts in primary drug of dependence among Drug Court participants over the past three years. The incidence of amphetamine as the primary drug of dependence of participants has increased by 19% and opiates as the primary drug of dependence has decreased by 10%. There has been a 3% increase in the use of benzodiazepines but overall usage of this drug remains at very low levels in comparison to opiates and amphetamines.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Opiates Amphetamines Benzodiazepines

Jul 2003 – Jun 2004Jul 2004 – Jun 2005Jul 2005 – Jun 2006

Shift in Primary Drug of Dependence

48%46%

38%

41%

44%

60%

3%

0%1%

Magistrates Court Diversion Program (MCDP)

This program provides a therapeutic approach to dealing with people with mental impairment, as a result of a mental illness, intellectual disability, acquired brain injury, or neurological disorder who have committed minor indictable or summary offences. Sentencing is adjourned for six months to enable eligible defendants to be referred to and receive relevant treatment and other services provided by government and non-government agencies to deal with the behaviours that caused their offending.

The aim of the program is reduce the likelihood of future offending and to provide alternative to traditional sentencing options. The program operates at Adelaide and suburban Magistrates Courts and bimonthly at Berri, Port Augusta, Whyalla and Mount Gambier. This is the only intervention program operating in Australia for people with mental impairment and it has attracted a lot of interest from other jurisdictions interstate.

As the following table demonstrates, the number of people referred to the program has increased in the past year and the number of people completing the program has also increased. There has also been an increase in the number of women being referred and accepted onto the program. However the completion rate for females has decreased. This is also the case for indigenous people.

Magistrates Court


Number of Referrals, Assessments and Participants in MCDP

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005 – 2006

Male Female Total ATI* Male Female Total ATI* Male Female Total ATI*

Referrals 208 87 295 27 260 82 342 24 286 109 395 25

Assessed 167 66 233 30 180 69 249 22 245 81 326 19

Accepted 126 64 190 18 166 69 235 17 188 71 259 20

Completed 71 33 104 5 133 68 201 17 153 59 212 13

* Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Primary Mental Diagnosis

The table below is a breakdown of the primary diagnosis of defendants assessed and accepted onto the program from 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006. It shows that the most prevalent diagnosis is a mental health issue.

0

50

100

150

200

250

Mental Illness Substance Related Disorder Intellectual Disability Acquired/Organic Brain Injury0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Primary diagnosis of all defendants assessed for and accepted onto MCDPbetween 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006

2.6%

6

8.6%

206.0%

14

73.8%

192

Magistrates Court

Six percent suffer from acquired organic brain dysfunction and 8.6 % from intellectual disability. A further breakdown by primary diagnosis indicates that almost a quarter of participants suffer from schizophrenia, and slightly fewer have a major depressive illness.

The breakdown of the primary mental illness diagnosis types in the following table shows that the two most prevalent diagnoses are schizophrenia and major depressive disorder followed by personality disorder and bipolar disorder.


0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

18.5% – Schizophrenia

18.0% – M

ajor Depressive Disorder

12.0% – Personality Disorder

11.6% – Bipolar Disorder

8.6% – Intellectual Disability

6.1% – Anxiety Disorder

6.0% – Acquired/Organic Brain Dysfunction

4.7% – Psychotic Disorder

3.9% – Post Traum

atic Stress Disorder

2.6% – Substance Related Disorder

2.1% – M

ood Disorder

2.1% – Developm

ental Disorder

1.7% – Im

pulse Disorder

1.7% – Other

Primary mental health diagnosis of defendants assessed for and accepted onto MCDPbetween 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006

18.5%18.0%

12.0%11.6%

8.6%

6.4%6.0%

4.7%

3.9%2.6% 2.1% 2.1%

1.7% 1.7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Larceny

Assault Non-Family

Driving offences

Assault Police

Other

Trespass

Property damage & environmental offence

Alternative Good Order Offence

Assault Family M

ember

Disorderly Behaviour

Fraud and misappropriation

Fail to Comply With Restraining Order

Drug offences

Comm

on Assault

30%

Comparison of Primary Offence CategoriesJuly 2004 – June 2005 and July 2005 – June 2006

Jul 2004 – Jun 2005Jul 2005 – Jun 2006

Receiving

Sexual Assault/Offence

Robbery and extortion

Police withdrew charges against most participants, 36%, who successfully completed the Magistrates Court Diversion Program. One of the amendments to the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (mentioned above) allows the Court to dismiss charges where a person who suffers from a mental impairment has participated satisfactorily in an intervention program.

Magistrates Court

Around 13% of the participants had charges dismissed in these circumstances. The next most common outcome was a suspended sentence. The percentage of participants who received a prison sentence remains relatively low at 0.9%. However, this is a slight increase on 0.5% during 2004–2005.


Court Assessment and Referral Drug Scheme (CARDS)

This joint State and Commonwealth Government funded three-year program has been operating since May 2004 and enables Magistrates to refer defendants with drug-related offences into drug counselling voluntarily or as a condition of a bail or bond. It is an early intervention program, which aims to reduce illicit drug taking and related criminal behaviour. Participants have their matters adjourned for three months and must agree to attend four counselling sessions within that period. The Magistrate receives a report on the participant’s progress and can take this into account in sentencing.

The scheme has assessors at Adelaide, Port Adelaide, Elizabeth, Murray Bridge and Mount Barker Magistrates Courts, who provide an on-the-spot assessment of a person’s suitability for the scheme.

In December 2005 the scheme commenced in the Youth Court. An assessment can also be undertaken as part of a Family conference undertaking.

CARDS from 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006 2005 – 2006

Male Female Total ATI

Referrals 163 52 215 31

Assessed 144 41 185 27

Recommended 124 37 161 23

Accepted 120 35 155 20

Completed 63 13 76 9

Magistrates Court

12.8% Magistrate dismissal

13.3% Bond – supervised

2.4% No conviction – no penalty

0.9% Prison term

5.7% No conviction – bond

4.3% Return to normal court – for sentencing

34.6% Police withdrawal of charges

1.4% Fine

14.7% Suspended sentence

0.5% Other

3.3% Bond – unsupervised

0.5% Return to normal court – S269 application*

Final court outcomes MCDP1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006

1.4%

2.4%

14.7%

0.9%0.5%

5.7%3.3% 5.7%

0.5%4.3%

12.8%

34.6%

13.3%

* S269 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935


Number of participants referred to Youth CARDS from 1 December 2005 to 30 June 2006

2005 – 2006

Male Female Total ATI

Referrals 32 8 40 7

Assessed 21 5 26 5

Recommended 18 5 23 4

Accepted 10 1 11 1

Completed 7 1 8 1

Assessment Outcomes for Youth CARDS

Number of Participants AcceptedNumber of Participants

Not AcceptedNumber of Participants Awaiting Acceptance

27 11 1

Family Violence Court

Family Violence Courts (FVC) are held at Adelaide and Elizabeth Magistrates Courts. Operating within these courts are violence intervention programs, which provide a co-ordinated approach to keep families safe from Domestic Violence and to help with anger management. A 12-week Stopping Violence group program is offered to men. Partners and ex-partners are provided with

information on restraining orders, court processes, support, safety planning and other options.

The Adelaide FVC works together with the Salvation Army and DCS and the Elizabeth FVC works in partnership with Northern Community Health Service and DCS.

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Adelaide Elizabeth Adelaide Elizabeth Adelaide Elizabeth

Number defendants–female 58 75 58 28 43 45

Number defendants–male 447 604 453 460 383 463

Total 505 679 511 488 426 508

Magistrates Court


ERD Court At a Glance 2003 – 2004 2004 – 2005 2005 – 2006


Number of full-time Commissioners 3 3 3

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

Number of part-time Commissioners 26 25 27

Number of staff 10 10 11

Appeals 446 499 457

Enforcement applications 17 28 38

Criminal 9 6 6

Other categories* 2 11 14

Total 474 544 515

* Other Categories include – Native Title Applications, Warden’s Court appeals, Contempt and applications lodged under Section 41 of the Development Act

Role, Structure and Legislation

The Environment, Resources and Development Court (ERD Court) was established under the Environment, Resources and Development Court Act 1993, effective from 15 January 1994. The Court has jurisdiction over development, heritage, environment protection, natural resources, irrigation, mining, native vegetation and Native Title matters. The Court’s business falls into five general categories:

• Appeals against the decision of, or a notice or order issued by, an authority

• Applications for enforcement orders, compensation and damages

• Criminal charges

• Appeals from judgments and orders of the Warden’s Court

• Native title applications

The Natural Resources Management Act 2004 took effect from 1 July 2005. This Act repealed the Water Resources Act 1997, and the Animal and Plant Control (Agricultural Protection and Other Purposes) Act 1986 and the Soil Conservation and Land Care Act 1989 previously administered by the District Court. The ERD Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals, enforcement applications and criminal proceedings under the new Act.

The Court has two Judges, who are also Judges of the District Court, three Masters who also work in the District Court, three Commissioners and 27 part-time Commissioners who sit in various jurisdictions according to their expertise. Judge Michael Bowering and Judge Andrew Wilson were appointed as Auxiliary Judges from 1 July 2005 until 30 June 2006.

The ERD Court has a Registrar and 11 members of staff who provide administrative, registry and judicial support. A new position of Associate, commencing on 1 January 2006, was introduced to assist both ERD Court Judges.


Workload

While the number of matters lodged in the Court this year was down slightly compared with 2004–05 (by 5.3%) the volume of work completed was consistent with that of the previous year. The number of matters finalised within the year was greater than the number of matters lodged and consistent with the previous financial year, as the following table shows:

Workload 2004 – 2005 2005 – 2006

Matters lodged 544 515

Matters finalised from matters lodged 293 299

Matters finalised from previous years 182 242

Total finalised 475 541

Approximately 78% of total lodgments this year involved applications made under the Development Act compared with 80% in 2004–05. Applications for enforcement orders have increased, particularly those made under the Native Vegetation Act, as have applications for an order directing a relevant authority to decide an application (s41 Development Act).

Almost 1 200 conferences were listed this year, with approximately 59% of those proceeding as listed. Hearings proceeded on approximately 40% of the hearing days listed. Over recent years the Court has taken various measures to promote refinement of issues to be argued at a hearing and early resolution of matters, better use the resources of the Court and in the interests of the parties. While the Court will continue to review its practice and procedure with the assistance of the legal profession, it will be difficult for the court to achieve more efficient use of resources, as much also depends on the parties.


The work of the Court has been completed without any addition to the complement of full-time members, but with the assistance of part-time commissioners and Auxiliary Judges. However, there is doubt about the ability of the Court to maintain levels of disposal of matters should its present complement of full-time members be reduced and the Court be expected to call on part-time members more often. Regrettably, the remuneration of part-time members, who are expected generally to perform the same duties as full-time members but on a sessional basis has not been increased in the past 10 years.

Total lodgments TotalAverage

per month

2003–2004 474 39.5

2004–2005 544 45.3

2005–2006 515 42.9

Native Title

The figure above does not include all statistics for Native Title cases. Thirty notices under mining legislation initiating negotiations with Native Title parties were lodged during the year, compared to five in 2004–2005 and four in 2003–2004. There were two searches of the State Native Title Register, compared with four in 2004–2005 and seven in 2003–2004. Two applications for determination were made. Mediations were conducted by the Court at the request of the parties in these matters.

Conferences

Pursuant to Section 16 of the Environment, Resources and Development Court Act 1993, conferences must be held in all matters with the exception of criminal proceedings, unless dispensed with by the Court. Of 541 matters finalised during the reporting period, 454 matters were listed for one or more conferences. This compares with 475 matters finalised and 391 proceeding to conference the previous year. Eighty seven matters did not proceed to conference: 32 were withdrawn before conference and in 55 matters the Court dispensed with the conference. The settlement rate for conferences has decreased slightly, with 178 matters (39%) having settled this year directly as a result of the conference process, compared with 181 matters (46%) in the previous year.

Hearings

The Court sits primarily in Adelaide, but can sit anywhere in the State. For the year under review, 128 matters proceeded to hearing, compared with 134 in 2004–2005 and 77 in 2003–2004. Of those 128 matters, 23 were hearings by a full bench of the Court comprising a judge and one or two commissioners, more than in the previous year. There were 105 matters heard by a single member of the Court, either a judge or commissioner sitting alone, six less than for 2004–2005. Of the 128 matters, there were no building dispute hearings, compared with 10 in the previous financial year.

Country Conferences/Hearings

The Court generally views the subject land either immediately before or in the early stages of the hearing of an appeal involving a development. The Court will sit at a location as near as practicable to the subject of the dispute. This measure saves all involved time and money. However, the Court is regularly asked to split the hearing between city and country in complex larger matters because of the expense to parties of having expert witnesses travel to the country.

Recently the Court has increased the use of telephone conferencing for the initial conference in country matters. This has reduced cost and time of travel, and has been of benefit to parties. Favourable comments have been received from selected country Councils. These have endorsed telephone conferencing as a preferred option where possible. This year, the Court travelled to Mount Gambier, Kingston, Naracoorte, Port Pirie, Kangaroo Island, Port Augusta, Whyalla, Renmark and Ceduna.

Time Standards

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

Time standards Percentage Compliance (2005–2006)

From lodgment to conference Four weeks 54%

Conference to single bench hearing (metro) Six weeks 18%

Conference to single bench hearing (country) Eight weeks 18%

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

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



Conferences: The Court aims to progress a matter to conference within four weeks of its lodgment. During the year under review 54% of matters were listed for conference within the four weeks. Conferences were held within the set time standard in 48% of matters (both metropolitan and country) compared to 38% 2003–2004 and 15% in 2002–2003 when the standard was three weeks. Eighty percent of conferences were metropolitan matters.

Hearings: The Court aims to list hearings within particular timeframes dependent on the constitution of the bench and the location of the hearing. However, the Court is not always able to achieve these standards as the listing of hearings is influenced by a number of factors beyond the control of the Court, such as the availability of counsel and difficulties in the timely provision of complex expert reports. Of the single bench hearings (metropolitan) 18% were listed within six weeks of the last day of conference compared to 23% in 2004–2005 and 33% in 2003–2004.

Judgments: The Court attained the standard of two months from the close of hearing to delivery of the judgment in 62% of matters, compared with 80% in the previous year and 88% in 2003–2004. The median number of days from finalisation of hearing to judgment is 46 days.

Achievements and Initiatives in Support of the Authority’s Strategic Plan

For the year under review, 52% of appellants appeared unrepresented at the conference stage. At hearings, 19% did not have legal representation. Members of staff of the Court continue to provide comprehensive and detailed procedural advice to assist unrepresented parties with the Court process. In addition, the website is updated when changes to procedures have been made, encouraging greater understanding about the work of the Court.

A sub-web page for part-time commissioners has been developed. It is accessible via password and contains relevant information, forms, procedures, rules of court and a news page. This has proven successful in providing information to the part-time commissioners simultaneously.

A revised electronic calendar is in development for listing matters. The calendar will allow commissioners access to listing availability via Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) while off-site, either on views and/or at country locations. This will eventually replace the hard copy listings calendar currently in use by the Registry.

Revised ERD Court Practice Directions were introduced in September 2005 to encourage the use of electronic applications.

Plans have been initiated for the re-development of the combined ERD/District Court counter area to improve access for court users with.

Training and sharing knowledge

A total of 18 Indonesian Judges and associates visited the ERD Court in November. The Court also participated in the education of law graduates in the practice of environmental law.

Various presentations have been given by judicial officers in training courses for environment and natural resources enforcement officers and generally, to increase community awareness about the work of the Court.

A protocol has been entered into between the ERD Court and National Environmental Lawyers Association (SA Division) to maintain good understanding of the Courts.

ERD Court


At a Glance 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Number of Judges# 2 2 2

Number of Magistrates# 2 2 2

Staff numbers 32 32 33 **

Criminal lodgments*^ 3 033 2 943 7 967

Criminal expiation lodgments*> 2 701

Child protection applications to the Youth Court+ 544 630

Number of children involved in Care and Protection applications to the Court 910 1 057 1 169

Number of children adopted++ 53

Family conference matters 1 403 1 315 1 271(1)

Youths dealt with at family conference 1 577 1 463 1 429(2)

Child protection referrals (families) to Care and Protection Unit 394 431(2) 451(2)

Number of children referred to Care and Protection Unit 666 736(2) 795

# Judges and Magistrates designated as members of the Youth Court’s principal Judiciary during the 2005–2006 financial year. An additional auxiliary Judge was appointed for 10 months.

* Counting methods have changed from Number of cases to Number of defendants for 2005–2006

^ Counting methods have changed for Youth matters for 2005–2006. All youth matters are now reported by the Youth Court and not included in metropolitan and country Magistrates Courts statistics as they had been in previous years

> Unpaid expiation fines lodged with the court for enforcement

+ Counting methods have changed from Number of child protection applications to the Youth Court to Number of children involved in Care and Protection applications to the Court

(1) Counting unit for Family conference team is derived from an electronic database

(2) Manually derived statistic

++ Manually derived statistic not reported previously

** 33 staff equates to 31.2 full time equivalent personnel

Youth Court

The Youth Court incorporates the Adelaide Youth Court and all suburban and regional Youth Courts in South Australia and two diversion arms of the Court, the Family Conference Team and The Care and Protection Unit.

Role and function

The Youth Court comprises two District Court judges (one designated as a Senior Judge) and two Magistrates, all of which are proclaimed by the Governor as Judges and Magistrates of the Youth Court. The Judges preside over major indictable matters whilst minor indictable and summary matters are dealt with by Magistrates of the Adelaide Youth Court in suburban locations and by resident and circuit (general) Magistrates in regional areas.

A judge may impose a sentence of up to three years’ detention. A magistrate may sentence a young offender to no more than two years’ detention. In sentencing, the Court considers the need for young offenders to be made aware of their obligations under the law, the protection of the community, the deterrent effect of any sanction on the young person, the need to preserve family and cultural relationships and, where possible,

the provision of compensation or restitution to the victim of an offence. In this way, sentencing differs from adults, where the principle of general deterrence (not individual deterrence) is applied.

The Court has civil jurisdiction in applications for the care and protection of children. The Court may make Investigation and Assessment Orders and Care and Protection Orders for a period of up to one year or in some cases place a child under the guardianship of the Minister until the child turns 18 years. The Court also processes applications for the adoption of children.

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. Youth Justice Coordinators convene these meetings.

A family conference allows the young person who has committed an offence to meet the victim of the offence to better understand the consequences of their offending behaviour. It also enables the young person to try to make amends and provides an opportunity to restore relationships between the young offender, people close to them and others affected by the offence.

Youth Court


Those who must attend the conference are the offender, a police representative and a Youth Justice Co-Ordinator. Other participants may include the offender’s parents or guardians, the victim and a person to support the victim. The conference aims to find a suitable outcome for the offence, for example, a caution, community service, payment of compensation, an apology, a promise to work at the site of the damage or to do anything else that might be appropriate in the circumstances. These outcome options are provided for in the legislation and are individually mandated by a decision of the conference.

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

Family Care Meetings

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

A referral to a family care meeting is made when a child is thought to be at risk or to have suffered harm, and is mandatory before an application is made to the Court for a Care and protection order. Most referrals are made by Families SA, although the Court may also refer matters to the Unit.

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

Overview of workload

As a result of the significant increase in child protection workload directly related to the implementation of recommendations from the Layton Review (Our best investment, a State Plan to protect and advance the interest of children) and the State Government’s child protection reform program (Keeping them safe) and legislative issues that have arisen, an auxiliary Judge was appointed to the Youth Court for the period 17 November 2005 up until 30 June 2006. An additional 0.5 full time employee (FTE) was appointed to the Court registry as well as an additional Care and Protection Coordinator through internal CAA funding to manage the increased workload in child protection applications to the Court and referrals for family care meetings.

Youth Court

Due to changes in the counting methods for the 2005–2006 financial year, the Youth Court now reports on all young people dealt with by the Court in its criminal jurisdiction, including metropolitan and regional areas. The Court is therefore unable to provide comparisons with last year. The Court recorded a high disposal rate of 78% of cases within six months of initiation.

There has been a further increase this financial year of 10% in the number of children involved in care and protection applications to the Youth Court, with an overall increase of 57% over the past five years.

An increase in care and protection applications, has also impacted on the number of matters proceeding and awaiting trial, exacerbating the Court’s inability to comply with the requirements of s39 (a) Children’s Protection Act, where the period between the lodging of the application and the commencement of the hearing cannot exceed 10 weeks. The Court has been assisted in improving its capacity to meet this requirement through the appointment of the auxiliary Judge mentioned earlier in this report.

Family Conference Team

The total number of referrals received by the Family Conference Team during this period was marginally less than for the same period in the previous year. This comprises a slightly higher number of referrals received directly from SA Police and a slight decrease in referrals from Court.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2001–2002 2002–2003

Child Protection Applications

1200

1400

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

The team has continued to receive victim impact meeting referrals from the Youth Court. Victim impact meetings are a Youth Court initiative that provide for an offender to meet the victim of the offence in a controlled environment, to discuss the impact of the offence. Victim impact meetings differ from family conferences in that the matter is not diverted from the Court. The meeting usually takes place pre-sentence. A Youth Justice Coordinator manages this process and generates a report about the meeting for the Court’s consideration.

Youth Court


In approximately half of family conference matters, a victim, or a victim’s representative, attended the conference.

The Family Conference Team continues to deal with 70% of family conference matters within eight weeks of receiving the referral despite having had significant staffing issues throughout 2005–2006.

Compliance (offender completion of conference outcome requirements) remains consistently very high, at 90%, including compliance with individual undertakings such as participating in community service, or paying compensation.

* JPET: Job placement and Employment Training# DASSA: Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia

Mary Street: Mary Street Adolescent Sexual Abuse Prevention Program

These services/agencies accept referrals from Family Conferences for

program involvement.

0

50

100

Compensation

2005–2006 % Undertaking Compliances

Comm

. service

Verbal apology

Letter of regret

JPET *

DASSA #

Mary Street

Other

0

100

200

300

400

2000–2001

Referrals to CPU Children/Families

500

600

700

800

900

2001–2002 2002–2003 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Layton Report2003

Keeping ThemSafe initiative

2004

LegislationchangesDec 2005

477

301

451

795

431

736

ChildrenFamilies

Youth Court

Care and Protection Unit

This year, the Care and Protection Unit received referrals for 795 children, from 451 families, an increase of 8% from the previous financial year. For the past six years there continues to be a trend towards a higher average number of children per family. This places extra demands on Care and Protection Coordinators and on child advocates. Almost 71% of referrals proceeded to a meeting, similar to the previous year. The Unit convened 330 family care meetings and 76 review meetings. Country referrals have increased slightly to 36% of all cases. Referrals for aboriginal children have remained high, at 27% of all children referred.

As in the previous financial year, an increase in referrals has contributed to some delays in convening Family care meetings within agreed timelines. There is an ongoing need to prioritise. Referrals involving high-risk infants and those where no order has yet been sought have been given priority. Despite workload pressures, 82% of matters have had a family care meeting or been otherwise finalised within eight weeks of receipt of the referral.

A major factor contributing to delays is the unavailability of required assessment reports because of backlogs in other government agencies, which impacts on compliance with s32 (2) of the Children’s Protection Act. The ability of families to make informed decisions is severely jeopardised if family care meetings are held prior to reports becoming available, whilst if the meeting is held over until reports become available then the family’s opportunity to make timely decisions before Court orders are granted may be jeopardised. In either case the intention of the Act is not fulfilled.


Approximately 84% of meetings resulted in “valid decisions” under provisions of the Children’s Provision Act 1993, an increase of 4% from the previous year. A valid decision means that arrangements for the care and protection of the child that satisfy the concerns held by Families SA have been agreed to by family members and the care and protection coordinator. Throughout the year the Unit has encouraged earlier referrals for family care meetings through training and liaison with Families SA District Centres throughout the state, its High Risk Infant Program and the Relative and Kinship Care Program, to enhance the likelihood of families taking responsibility for their children without the need for Court orders. Currently, many referrals are received after the decision to seek Court orders has already been made by Families SA.

Difficulties have arisen throughout the year in obtaining cultural representation for aboriginal children referred to family care meetings. Under the Children’s Protection Act s31(h) a cultural representative nominated by a gazetted Aboriginal organisation must be invited to the meeting, but owing to a lack of gazetted organisations and funding issues within Aboriginal organisations this role has not always been fulfilled.

Other matters

Select Committee Juvenile Justice

The parliamentary select committee on Juvenile Justice delivered its final report on 4 July 2005, containing 41 recommendations. The Youth Court, Family Conference Team and Care and Protection Unit were pleased to note that the Committee adopted a number of their recommendations.

Keeping Them Safe Initiatives

The Attorney General approved the application of unspent funds ($60 000) from the Keeping Them Safe initiatives, which included a commitment to “Assist the Youth Court in initiatives that result in a more child and youth friendly environment”. This relates to recommendations 112 and 115 of the Layton Report. Funding was “one off” in nature.

Through this funding, the Youth Court determined its priorities for improvement including the separation of juvenile justice from child protection waiting areas, the provision of an additional interview room including furnishings, upgrading of furnishings in the witness waiting room, new computers with games for children in the Youth Court and Care and Protection Unit waiting areas, and the purchase of a small selection of aboriginal art and children’s books. All improvements were undertaken during the financial year.

Juvenile Justice Senior Officers Group

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

Cross Border Initiative – Juvenile Justice

The Youth Court has participated in the cross-border (SA, NT and WA) justice initiative mentioned earlier in the Magistrates Court report.

Child Protection Review

Recommendations of the Layton Report 2003 have been incorporated in the Government’s Keeping Them Safe child protection reform program. The Justice Portfolio has been given responsibility to ensure delivery of aspects of the program, including promotion of a child and youth friendly environment within the Youth Court. Amendments have also been drafted to the Children’s Protection Act, which are expected to give additional powers to the Youth Court. Relevant changes will be enacted in November 2006.

Youth Court Strategic interface meeting

A leadership team within the Youth Court continues to participate in an inter-agency work group that deals with strategic and operational issues. The work group was restructured to include Families SA, Juvenile Justice and Child Protection Directors, Manager, Aboriginal Services, and a Juvenile Justice Coordinator from South Australia Police.

Children of Offenders and Prisoners project

The Senior Care and Protection Coordinator represented the Authority on this Justice portfolio project, evaluating the impact on children of parental custody. These children are often the subjects of care and protection referrals to the Unit. Recommendations were made to increase support for these children and their carers and for information about parental responsibilities to be included in pre-sentence reports prepared for the adult criminal jurisdiction by the Department of Children’s Services.

Youth Court


Youth Court

Training and sharing knowledge

All areas of the Youth Court contribute to training for Families SA staff. Care and Protection Unit staff participated in four joint training sessions for Families SA, including one at Port Augusta for Families SA regional staff.

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

The Family Conference team continued to maintain a national electronic network for conference coordinators Across Australia. There are approximately 40 subscribers to the network. In addition, Youth Justice Coordinators gave presentations at a Tasmanian State Conferencing Forum. The Family Conference Team continues to deliver presentations to the Law Society of South Australia, Flinders University Law School, University of SA School of Psychology and TAFE and provides training to Victim Support Service Inc. volunteers, Families SA, youth workers and SA Police.

This year, the Family Conference Team reviewed its practice manual, which remains in demand from other conferencing jurisdictions and educational facilities as a source document.

The Care and Protection Unit held two networking sessions for child advocates on changes to the Children’s Protection Act, and the role and functions of the Office of the Guardian for Children and Young People. Presentations also were made during the year to the Flinders University Law School and Social Work School.

The Unit was well represented at an invitational national seminar held by the Australian Centre for Child Protection in Adelaide in November. The Unit has continued to liaise with similar programs in the ACT and Tasmania and has contributed to a national comparison of family group conferencing in child protection.

Internationally, one care and protection coordinator gave a keynote presentation at a conference in Manila, at the invitation of the Child Protection Unit Network of the Philippines. The senior care and protection coordinator gave a presentation at the Asia Pacific Social Work Conference in Korea, and to a group of Child Welfare practitioners in Hiroshima, Japan. Both presenters received external financial support for these visits.

All Youth Court staff participated in cultural awareness training about Vietnamese families and young people this year.

Youth Court Assessment Referral Drug Scheme (Youth CARDS)

In 2004, the Australian Government directed funds to develop a Youth CARDS program (a description of the CARDS program appears in the Report from the Specialist Courts earlier in this report). A youth CARDS coordinator is based in the Youth Court. A youth CARDS steering committee, chaired by a Youth Court judicial officer, continues to monitor the impact and effectiveness of the program. Youth CARDS began in November 2005 and is being evaluated, with results of the evaluation expected in January 2007.

Records management

After finalising the Youth Court of South Australia’s records disposal schedule in late April 2005, archiving of Youth Court files to State Records began in the year under review. This has been a high priority for the Youth Court due to a chronic lack of storage space available for the expanding court records on site. As most Youth Court records have now been deemed by State Records for permanent retention, yearly archiving will be necessary. However, the backlog of files remains an issue that needs to be addressed in future budgets. Whilst approximately six years of court files and two years of Family Conference files were archived in 2005–2006 financial year there remains a significant backlog of approximately 18 years outstanding.


Coroner’s Court At a Glance 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Staff numbers* 11 (plus 1 trainee) 12 15**

Number of deaths reported 3 962 4 024 2 070

Number of post mortems 1 291 1 337 1 368

Number of inquest findings delivered 37 36 23

Number of court sitting hours 200 258 917***

* Does not include judicial officers ** Plus two Counsel Assisting *** There was a large increase in sitting hours in 2005–2006 which is attributable to the lengthy inquest in to the deaths of nine people

on 11 January 2005 during the Eyre Peninsula bushfires.

Description

The introduction of the Coroner’s Act 2003 on 1 July 2005 brought a number of changes to the coronial process. It broadened the range of deaths reportable to the State Coroner and established the Coroner’s Court as a court of record. The new Act also requires the State Coroner to provide an annual report to the Attorney General and to Parliament and requires a relevant Minister to report on action taken in response to findings and recommendations made on an inquest into a death in custody.

Mr Wayne Chivell ceased to hold the office of State Coroner on 9 June 2005 when he was appointed a Judge of the District Court. Mr Tony Schapel was appointed as the acting State Coroner prior to the appointment on 1 September 2005 of Mr Marks Johns as the State Coroner. Mr Schapel was appointed as the Deputy State Coroner on 1 July 2005 and began to hear the Wangary Bushfires Inquest. This long and complex inquest demanded Deputy State Coroner Schapel’s full time commitment. For the Court to manage a backlog of already pending and listed inquests, the Governor appointed Mrs Elizabeth Sheppard as a Coroner on 8 December 2005. A second Counsel Assisting the Coroner was also appointed.

Workload

There was a significant decrease in the number of deaths reported to the Coroner in 2005–2006. There were 12 152 deaths registered with the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages. Of those, 2 070 deaths were reported to the State Coroner, representing a decrease in reported deaths of 1 954 or 48.56%.

Coroner’s Court

The noticeable decrease in deaths reported to the Coroner largely reflects the exclusion from the Coroner’s Act 2003 deaths where the deceased was accommodated in an institution and the deceased was suffering from mental illness or intellectual retardation or impairment. This requirement under the (former) Coroner’s Act 1975 resulted in approximately 1 800 deaths being reported per year These deaths were, in the main, residents of nursing homes who had been diagnosed with dementia.

Numbers of inquest findings delivered has increased this year, representing an increase in Court activity due to the addition of a second Coroner and Counsel Assisting. It is envisaged that activity in this area will increase over the next year. The number of court sitting hours has increased by 658.72 hours reflecting the increased activity and the lengthy inquest into the Wangary Bushfires.

As at 30 June 2006, The Wangary Bushfires Inquest had heard evidence from 66 witnesses, resulting in almost 13 500 pages of transcript and approximately 500 exhibits. The Inquest has viewed the scene of the fires twice and sat in Port Lincoln and Adelaide.

Listing Delays

There are 53 inquests awaiting hearing in the Coroner’s Court, including 28 cases involving a death in custody. At present there are 1 283 open cases pending inquiry. These cases are at varying levels of investigation and may progress to review by Counsel Assisting the State Coroner and the Coronial Investigation Section. As at 30 June 2006, the Senior Counsel Assisting has directed that 164 cases be moved to high-level investigation.


Recommendations

In inquest findings, the Coroner may include recommendations that advocate measures to reduce the likelihood of the occurrence of a similar event.

In the year under review, the Court heard 48 inquests and delivered 23 findings. Of the inquests heard, 12 were inquiries into deaths in custody.

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

• That the Royal Adelaide Hospital ensures that nursing staff, who are caring for patients with swallowing disorders, fully understand the risk factors associated with the individual patients in their care so as to enable them to more readily identify situations in which a patient has been provided with a meal of inappropriate consistency.

• That the Department of Correctional Services forthwith remove or modify the hanging points in Cell 20, Unit 4 of the Adelaide Remand Centre, and identify and remove all other hanging points in all other cells in the Centre, to eliminate or minimise to the greatest extent possible the risk of use by an inmate for the purpose of self-harm or suicide.

• That the Department of Correctional Services implement an audit system which facilitates regular inspections of all South Australian prisons to identify and eliminate potential hanging points where possible, not only within cells, but also in unsupervised areas and areas without clear camera surveillance.

Coroner’s Court

• Doctors in emergency settings are to personally use the services of poison information centres, such as telephone services provided by specialist clinical toxicologists, for information for the treatment of drug overdoses;

• That the Department of Health consider devising a strategy in Early Management Severe Trauma (EMST) whereby rural medical practitioners, trained, or otherwise, who are capable of rendering emergency medical assistance at rural trauma scenes and are willing to do so, be identified and that their identities be made readily available to the South Australian Ambulance Service and relevant rural hospitals.

• That the Minister for Health give consideration to certain specified evidence with a view to considering the introduction of appropriate standards in South Australia for child-proofing blister packaging for hazardous pharmaceuticals.

• That the Commissioner of Police take steps to ensure that investigations into deaths in custody are conducted in a timely fashion and, in any event, that such investigations are completed within a year of the date of death.

Other Matters

Throughout the year in review the State Coroner and senior staff have been invited to many speaking engagements and have provided information and education about the requirements under the new Act to medical practitioners, nurses, funeral directors, police and members of the general public.


Sheriff’s OfficeRole and function of the Sheriff

The Sheriff is a statutory officer appointed pursuant to the Sheriff’s Act on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Office of the Sheriff can be traced back in English history for more than 1000 years. The Sheriff’s Office was first established in South Australia 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 the judgments and other orders. These functions have expanded to include the following:

• Administration of the Juries Act

• In-Court support service

• Court security service

• Prisoner security service

• Service and execution of civil and criminal processes

The Sheriff has 128 uniformed officers trained in all aspects of the work of the Sheriff, including provision of emergency services, security, prisoner production and in-court support. The Sheriff also has 110 Enforcement Sheriff’s Officers who serve and execute civil and criminal orders throughout South Australia.

Prisoner movement

The South Australian Prisoner Movement and In-Court Management Contract is in its fourth year of a renewed contract. Global Solutions Pty Ltd (GSL), as the contractor, is responsible for prisoner movement and in-court management for all Courts in South Australia except

in the Supreme Court and District Court sitting in the Sir Samuel Way Building, where the Sheriff manages prisoners. Representatives from the Justice Portfolio, Contract Management Group and the Sheriff’s Office meet monthly to monitor the contract and to conduct site compliance audits.

In 2005–2006 there were a total of 13 487 Department of Correctional Services prisoners transported to various Courts in South Australia. GSL provided in-court management for 10 316 prisoners and Sheriff’s Officers undertook the in-court management for 3 171 prisoners. There were 1 861 young offenders in custody transported and managed by GSL at the Adelaide Youth Court.

Enforcement

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

In 2005–2006 the total number of civil summonses issued increased by 23% on the previous year while warrants issued decreased by 20%. (See table Civil Summonses and Civil Warrants). Rule changes in the Magistrates Court were introduced in late 2004 requiring the first enforcement process in a minor civil action, (not arising from a business) to be an investigation summons (whereas previously a warrant could have been issued). The first full year effect of the rule changes in 2005–2006 was a major reason for a percentage increase in the numbers of summonses being equivalent to the percentage decrease in the number of warrants.

Civil Summonses and Civil Warrants

Year Summonses*Summons

successfully served Warrants**Warrants

successfully executed

2003–2004 15 750 80% 8 369 73%

2004–2005 15 925 83% 6 985 73%

2005–2006 19 696 76% 5 532 77%

* Summonses include investigation/examination summonses and summons to witness

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

Fines Payment Unit Warrants

Year Order for Sale – Warrant of arrestOrder for Sale – Warrant of arrest

successfully executed

2003–2004 1 543 66%

2004–2005 1 427 73%

2005–2006 1 919 65%

Sheriff’s Office


As part of the ongoing review into the civil enforcement system, the Sheriff engaged the Crown Solicitor’s Office to develop a new service agreement for all enforcement officers. The agreement clarifies the officer’s responsibilities and defines the services and obligations for the parties.

The new agreement will run for three years from 1 July 2006 and may be extended each year by notice in writing from the Sheriff.

Security

A new X-ray unit was installed at Elizabeth Magistrates Courts, replacing the first unit purchased in 1999.

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

A Sheriff’s Officer Trainer provided training to staff in the Magistrates Court Specialist Courts and Youth Court in aspects of non-violent crisis intervention and breakaway techniques.

An independent report was provided to the Sheriff in February 2006 following a review of the electronic security systems covering Adelaide Magistrates Court, Supreme Court and Adelaide Youth Court complexes. The review team examined the electronic security systems to assess their current state, effectiveness in meeting operational requirements both current and future as well as identify what maintenance will be required to keep the system operating effectively. The report will assist with forward planning and future funding bids to upgrade the systems.

A representative from Police Security Services Branch reviewed existing security processes and facilities at the Supreme Court in February-March 2006. A report will be provided to the Chief Justice later this year.

An audit of the Sheriff’s Office prisoner security procedures in the Sir Samuel Way Building Basement Cells was conducted in March 2006 by the Attorney General’s Department Senior Contract Manager for the SA In-Court Management and Prisoner Movement contractor. A small number of minor improvements were identified and are being considered for action.

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

Location Number of searches conducted

2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Sir Samuel Way Building 353 322 342 685 326 335

Adelaide Magistrates Court 280 078 278 590 290 368

Coroners Court 3 908 4 943 9 913

Adelaide Youth Court 78 449 84 442 74 302

Holden Hill Magistrates Court 103 094 104 055 102 184

Elizabeth Magistrates Court 164 293 155 784 172 427

Port Adelaide Magistrates Court 117 804 120 833 122 971

Christies Beach Magistrates Court 103 314 106 000 109 509

Mount Gambier Magistrates Court 49 716 50 979 54 318

Supreme Court 64 369 58 635 57 038

Total 1 318 347 1 306 946 1 309 452

Sheriff’s Office


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

Report on incidents

Incident 2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

Needles found 132 236 73

Bomb threats 0 0 3

Duress alarms* 424 326 330

Escapes 0 0 0

Attempted escapes 1 1 2

Security attendance 522 346 608

Emergency alarms 3 17 3

First aid emergency 23 17 18

Violent encounters 2 4 10

Removal from court 34 29 47

Remand in custody escorts 179 98 99

Prisoner production 29 32 8

Witness protection 40 24 22

Arrest/Report 7 4 6

Total 1 396 1 134 1 229

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

Location Items confiscated (A)

Items temporarily removed at point of

entry (B)

Persons leaving court precinct prior to a

point of entry search

2004–2005 2005–2006 2004–2005 2005–2006 2004–2005 2005–2006

Sir Samuel Way Building 1 0 683 579 24 22

Adelaide Magistrates Court 4 5 2 439 2 582 64 74

Coroners Court 0 0 1 0 0 0

Adelaide Youth Court 1 1 225 164 4 19

Holden Hill Magistrates Court 5 1 624 642 0 0

Elizabeth Magistrates Court 9 13 1 406 1 632 4 0

Pt Adelaide Magistrates Court 7 9 1 168 1 184 0 9

Christies Beach Magistrates Court 3 4 712 473 4 5

Mt Gambier Magistrates Court 1 0 297 210 2 0

Supreme Court 1 140 136 3 0

Total 31 34 7 695 7 602 105 129

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

Sheriff’s Office


A comparison of data about security attendances, violent encounters and arrest/reports over the past two years indicates a trend downward in the number of incidents. The apparent increase in the year under review is as a result of the recording of incidents at Care and Protection conferences at the Adelaide Youth Court. The recording of these attendances is now undertaken in a co-ordinated manner to ensure the resource implications to the Sheriff are accurately assessed.

Representatives from the Sheriff’s Office have continued to be involved in groups working on building redevelopments at Port Pirie, Victor Harbor and Berri, developing standard operating procedures for prisoner movement and in-court management or prisoners. Work continues at Port Lincoln and Port Augusta Court complexes.

Training modules continue to be provided at induction for new Sheriffs about Aboriginal people in Court, Victims of Crime, Youth Courts and Specialist Courts.

The Sheriff’s Office has completed business continuity plans for various emergencies and continues to prepare a risk management plan and to review a training and development plan.

Juries

The Sheriff has been involved with a working group brought together by the Australian Criminology Research Centre for a national research project on juror satisfaction. A contractor will be sought to investigate and document legislation, policies and operation of jury systems in Australia and to survey jurors for their opinions, perceptions and experiences.

The Australian College of Educators (SA Branch) is undertaking a research project titled “From juror orientation to juror education” and is in the process of establishing a reference group to comment on proposed survey questions and methods of data collection for the project. The Project Manager is seeking nominations from the Judges of the Supreme Court and District Court, the Law Society, Office of the Director of Public Prosecution, and the Sheriff and is currently waiting on approval from the Attorney General to commence this work.

A budget bid was made in 2005–2006 to increase the maximum amount payable to jurors for loss of income (currently up to $100 per day) and travel expenses (currently 20c per km), which were last increased in 1989 and 1982 respectively. Unfortunately the bid failed.

Quarterly surveys have been undertaken on jurors who have completed their service in Adelaide,

Port Augusta and, Mount Gambier. The surveys measure the usefulness of information provided prior to service, at induction and during service, facilities provided, timeliness of payments and whether by serving as a juror they felt they had contributed to the administration of justice in South Australia.

The surveys showed:

• 90% of Adelaide jurors and 86% of country jurors said the information provided in the juror information and employer brochures was extremely helpful;

• 97% of Adelaide jurors and 95% of country jurors said the induction address and judicial induction video were extremely helpful;

• 74% of Adelaide jurors and 68% of country jurors said the facilities provided were very comfortable;

• 43% of Adelaide jurors and 36% of country jurors said they were out of pocket as a result of jury service;

• 99% of Adelaide jurors and 95% of country jurors said they received payments in a timely manner; and

• 97% of Adelaide jurors and 95% of country jurors said they had made a real contribution to the administration of justice in South Australia.

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

The provision of daily jury requirements to Adelaide jury panel members require jurors to either call a 1800 messaging service after 4pm each day or take directions from a notice published in the Case List section of the daily newspaper. To improve customer service by the provision of timely information greater use of technology has been investigated. A trial of sending daily jury requirements directly to juror mobile telephone numbers via Short Message Service (SMS) text messages was provided as an option to jurors by the Sheriff’s Office in the second half of the financial year. Of the jurors surveyed 100% have found this service to be useful and timely in providing the information. Other options are also being investigated.

Counselling continues to be made available for jurors who may have been subject to trauma during court proceedings in which they have been involved.

Sheriff’s Office


Human ResourcesOverview

The Human Resources Branch maintained momentum in workforce planning throughout the year. Other important projects included a review of training and development, reviewing and developing HR management policies and procedures and addressing gaps that were identified during a WorkCover Corporation gap analysis.

Workforce planning

Workforce planning workshops for executives and senior managers continued throughout 2005. During these workshops, three sub-groups were established to review recruitment practices and opportunities, management capabilities and to examine the corporate job profile.

The recruitment subgroup made a number of recommendations, most of which have been adopted, including:

• Using behavioural interviewing as a standard across the organisation.

• Purchase of a work suitability questionnaire to provide a better understanding of an individual’s work preferences before commencing employment.

• Updating the corporate Filling of Vacancies policy.

The management capabilities subgroup researched competencies for executive and mid-level management positions and recommended adopting standards used by the Office of Public Employment.

Strategic directions

In November, executives and senior managers agreed to transform the workforce planning workshops into a Strategic Directions Forum in an effort to build strategic capacity within the organization. The forum continues to consider workforce planning issues and has driven the development of a new corporate strategic plan.

Policy reviews

A review of the Office for the Commissioner of Public Employment (OCPE) resulted in significant changes to policy and delegations, including an increase in delegated authority to Chief Executives. As a result, more priority was given to review existing HR management policies and procedures in the Authority to ensure compliance with new standards.

This year there has been considerable focus on Occupational Health Safety and Welfare (OHS&W), with the WorkCover Corporation conducting a gap analysis in January 2006 as part of the requirement for self-insurers under the Occupational Health Safety and Welfare Act 1986. The Authority’s OHS&W Injury management plan has been adjusted to address the gaps.

Employment

The Authority has 767 staff members (excluding the judiciary) representing the equivalent of 700 full-time employees. Of these, 35% are male and 65% are female. This year 104 employees left the organisation and 151 were recruited.

All vacancies were advertised internally and/or through the Commissioner for Public Employment’s Notice of Vacancies. Of 122 vacancies, 74 were also advertised external to the public service due to changes in advertising protocols and because positions were specialised or in country locations.

For 2005–2006, more appointments were made from outside of the organization compared with 2004–2005. Fifty two percent of these positions ranged in classification from Administrative Services Officer Level 1 (ASO1) to ASO8. One reason for the increase has been the delegation given by the Commissioner for Public Employment to the State Courts Administrator to advertise positions externally.

Number of employees by salary bracket

Salary Bracket Male Female Total

$0 – $38 000 49 90 139

$38 001 – $49 000 122 249 371

$49 001 – $64 000 58 98 156

$64 001 – $83 000 28 60 88

$83 001+ 8 5 13

Total 265 502 767

This includes six male and two female executives, two of whom are on untenured contracts.

Leave management

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

Leave type 2003–04 2004–05 2005 –06

Sick leave taken 8.6 8.2 7.6

Family carer’s leave taken 0.1 0.8 0.9

Special leave with pay 1 0.1 0.1

The average number of days leave taken per full-time equivalent employee is reported to one decimal place to more accurately reflect the Authority’s leave usage and to meet reporting requirements to the Office of Public Employment.

Human Resources


Profile of workforce

The age profile of the Authority’s workforce, as compared to the broader public sector, over the past two years is depicted in the graph below.

An ageing workforce is an ongoing concern for the Authority, with an increasing number of employees in excess of 50 years in age compared to the state public sector. This issue was identified in the Authority’s workforce planning exercise, particularly in terms of succession planning and knowledge management. The median age group for staff continues to be 40–44 years, which is generally consistent with the public sector.

The Authority continues to support voluntary flexible working arrangements to aid staff balancing work and family life.

The Authority is reviewing its flexible working arrangements policy to provide more information on the options available and, during this financial year, started using a computer based Human Resource Information System (CHRIS) to record use of the arrangements.

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

Employees using voluntary flexible working arrangements

2004–2005 2005–2006

Purchased leave 0 0

Flexi-time 450 468

Compressed weeks 10 12

Part-time 190 104

Job share N/A 4

Working from home 11* 20*

* This figure reflects the inclusion of ad hoc (but formally approved) working from home arrangements.

0

5

10

15–19

15

20

20–24 25–29 30–34 35–39 40–44 45–49 50–54 55–59 60–64 65+

Age profile of Authority and SA public sector employees

Total % of CAA Employees 2005-2006Total % of CAA Employees 2004-2005SA Public Sector % of all SA Public Sector Employees 2004-2005

Age of employees

Part-time work and flexi-time continue to be the most commonly used options. Time off in lieu (TOIL) or overtime is also offered in selected parts of the Authority.

Indigenous employees

Over the past three years the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders employed by the Authority has remained reasonably stable. During 2006, the number of employees varied from 18 to 21, with 18 employees at June 2006. This number represents 2.2% of the workforce and continues to surpass the target of 2% set by the Premier in South Australia’s Strategic Plan.

During 2005–2006 Aboriginal employees worked in five of the six divisions within the organization and in positions classified from ASO1 to ASO7. There was also an Indigenous Trainee and a National Indigenous Cadet. These employees work in Registries and offices in suburban and country locations, in a range of roles including Sheriff’s Officer, clerical officer, project officer and Aboriginal Justice Officer. Although not employed by the Courts, a number of elders and respected persons are also involved providing services to the Aboriginal community as advisers on the bench in Aboriginal sentencing courts.

The Authority still works towards attracting Aboriginal applicants but the focus has shifted slightly this year, to retention. Activities in support of retention have included:

• Continuation of Aboriginal Cross Cultural Awareness courses. These have been run for many years and have been compulsory for new employees since early in 2005. Two Aboriginal employees run these courses quarterly.

Human Resources


• Continuation of Aboriginal Employee of the Year Award. The award was introduced in 2005 and was won by Aboriginal Justice Officer Ms Colleen Welch, in appreciation for her dedication in providing services in and outside Court to the Aboriginal community.

In July 2005 several HR Branch members attended a series of Aboriginal “Learning Circles” and in May 2006 11 managers attended a workshop, both aimed at improving understanding about recruitment, retention and management of Aboriginal employees.

The Authority also has been a party to the development and implementation of the Justice Portfolio’s Indigenous Retention and Employment plan.

Cultural and linguistic diversity

New employees are invited to record their cultural and linguistic diversity onto an online facility linked to the payroll system. The information is collected so that the needs of people from diverse cultural backgrounds are included in strategic planning.

In October 2005, a workshop on Vietnamese culture and practices was held for staff in the Elizabeth Magistrates Court, completing a series of workshops offered to employees.

Disability

The organization has 20 employees with disabilities requiring workplace adaptation, representing 2.5% of the total workforce.

Activities to support court users with disabilities

In line with the Authority’s Disability Action Plan, efforts this year were directed toward building access. In August 2005, managers from the Supreme Court, District Court, Coroner’s Court, Youth Court, Sheriff’s Office, Court Reporting and Corporate Services carried out access audits.

In March 2006, an automatic entrance door and ramp were installed at the secure staff entry from King William Street to the Adelaide Magistrates Court. In June 2006, a new automatic entrance door and accessible water fountain were installed in the Coroner’s Court.

Projects have commenced to improve access and safety at public counters in the District Court Criminal Registry, the ERD/Civil Registry and the Sheriff’s Office. In addition, consultants have finalised drawings to make witness boxes in Court 12 and the Gouger Street Supreme Court Library building more accessible.

Other projects under investigation are the automation of two entrance doors at Elizabeth Magistrates Court, modifying an accessible toilet in the Supreme Court Library building and organising appropriate signage in several other buildings.

The Diversion Court for mentally impaired court users continues to offer a service specifically aimed at making courts more accessible for people with disabilities in suburban and regional areas. This is promoted via brochures, the Authority’s website, through lawyers and other services providers.

Interpreters from the Deaf Society and Successful Employment for Deaf (SED) were used for interpreting in court and for profoundly deaf staff. In the year under review, Deaf Society interpreters were used for 35 court matters and on six occasions with staff. SED help was sought on five occasions with staff.

Twenty-two members of staff, including HR consultants, managers and counter staff have been trained in disability awareness under the Justice Portfolio’s disability awareness and discrimination training program. As part of the Authority’s induction training, all new employees attend a diversity session run by the HR Branch. Induction training is offered four times a year and is aimed at new employees.

Other steps taken to accommodate the special needs of people with disabilities have included changing venues to suit and placing wheelchair ramps as required.

Training and development

A Senior Organisational Training and Development Consultant was recruited in June 2006 to review and implement training activities that are aligned to the strategic planning process.

The corporate induction program continued to be run quarterly, with 63 employees attending during the last financial year.

Individual performance development plans

Forty one percent of all staff have negotiated an individual performance plan in the past year.

Occupational Health, Safety and Injury Management (OHS&IM)

In January 2006, WorkCover Corporation conducted a gap analysis applying its performance standards for self-insurers. Deficiencies were detected in the areas of training, risk management and internal auditing. A plan to fix these gaps has been developed as a priority. The improvement plan has been incorporated in the Authority’s OHS&W and Injury Management Plan 2006–2007.

The employee assistance program, which provides counselling and assistance to employees and immediate families for work and non-work related matters that may impact on work, continued to be offered to CAA employees.

Human Resources


Rehabilitation

The number of rehabilitation cases fell this year by 69.24%, from 13 in 2004–2005 to four in 2005–2006. Two cases resulted in a return to pre-injury duties while in the remaining cases one individual was fit to return to alternative employment and the other was not.

The Authority’s commitment to rehabilitation and return to work of its injured employees is well documented in its Rehabilitation Policy and program. High priority is given to returning injured employees to work and managers are active in identifying alternative duties where employees are temporarily unable to return to their pre-injury duties

Workers compensation

There was in decrease of around 33% in new claims compared with new claims in the previous year. The severity of all claims lodged in the financial year included 10 lost time injuries and 13 cases for medical treatment only. Disorders of muscle, tendons and other soft tissue accounted for most (40%) of the injuries in new claims, followed by sprains and strains of joints and adjacent muscles (30%), bruising (13%), mental disorders (9%), fractures (4%) and intracranial injuries (4%).

Other matters

Equal employment opportunity (EEO) programs

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

Conduct and discipline

The employment of one employee was terminated by the Governor under the provisions of section 60(1)(b) and (4)(b) of the Public Sector Management Act 1995, where the employee was convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment.

Action was taken against three employees under section 59(1) of the Public Sector Management Act 1995 (suspension or transfer where disciplinary inquiry or offence punishable by imprisonment charged). All three matters remain unresolved as at 30 June 2006 as they are proceeding through court.

Overseas travel

For the 2005–2006 financial year, nine people, including four judicial officers attended an international conference in New Zealand, costing a total of $15 180.61.

Human Resources


Information ServicesIT asset replacement

The Authority is continuing in its efforts to secure government funding to upgrade and replace ageing IT infrastructure. The planned replacement of capital assets is essential to ensure that the Authority maintains and improves its high levels of services and operations. Failure of aged equipment may result in loss of critical information or degradation of services provided by the Authority.

Courtroom technology

A Courtroom Technology Strategic Directions plan has been developed for 2006–2010.

This initiative aims to streamline and modernise the Authority’s courtrooms to enable use of supporting technology. The objective is for the Authority’s future courtrooms to be able to better facilitate the hearing of evidence, and rapid provision of access to documents, exhibits and transcript.

Higher Court eFiling

The Higher Court eFiling system began in July 2005, allowing law firms to lodge civil matters via the Internet. A working party has been formed to promote use of this application among law firms.

Bulk lodgment of civil claims in the Magistrates Court jurisdiction

The Authority has been exploring the feasibility of developing a facility to allow law firms to ‘bulk lodge’ civil claims within the Magistrates Court via the Internet. This would be an extension to existing eFiling and would improve services to law firms and minimise manual processing of civil claims.

Other achievements

Information Services has carried out various system upgrades and enhancements as part of ongoing operational work, to ensure that the Authority’s business applications remain viable and maintained at an acceptable standard.

The research and information system used by the judiciary, JURIS II, continues to be further developed to provide additional functionality, such as full text searching of sentencing remarks.

Information Services


Court Reporting is responsible for the provision of quality recording and transcription services to the participating Courts of the Authority.

There are about 60 management and administrative support staff, court reporters and audio recorders within Court Reporting.

A number of initiatives were completed or commenced during the financial year, including:

• Development of a digital audio technology business case

• Development of a Court Reporting Business Plan

• Purchase and adoption of new shorthand machines

• Use of new templates for audio recording

Significant court reporting resources were required for the Wangary Bushfires Inquest.

The Audio Recording Branch has monitored and recorded each day of the proceedings, in Adelaide and at the Port Lincoln. As at 30 June 2006, a total of 124 sitting days had been recorded, 50 of which were in Adelaide. Transcript from these tapes was largely produced by the Court Reporting Branch of the division during so-called ‘down time’ and generated almost 13 500 pages of transcript.

Court Reporting

Comparison of Court Reporting service provision

Court Sitting Hours

2004 2005 2006

CRB* ARB# CRB ARB CRB ARB

9 841 3 655 9 720 3 855 9 365 3 822

Pages of Transcript Produced

2004 2005 2006

CRB ARB CRB ARB CRB ARB

242 851 63 122 239 855 65 477 246 662 65 036

* Court Reporting Branch # Audio Recording Branch


InformationInformation Summary of the Courts Administration Authority

Number of requests received for 2005–2006 70

Total payment received for 2005–2006 $163.80

Section 1 – Policy Documents

A full list of the Authority’s policy statements is provided below.

• Accident/Incident Investigation Policy

• Additional Duties Allowance

• Anti-Corruption Policy

• Assignment Policy

• CAA External Web Site Policy

• Charging for the Non-Court Use of the Authority’s Facilities

• Code of Practice for Contractors

• Communicable and Infectious Disease Policy

• Complaints Policy

• Consultation Policy

• Continuing Improvement Policy

• Court Security Policy Statement

• Court User Incident Policy

• Courts Volunteer Service Policy Guidelines

• Critical Incident Policy

• Email Policy

• Election Kit for Election of OHS&W Officers

• Email Address on Documents Policy

• Emergency Evacuation Policy

• Employee Assistance Policy

• Entertainment Policy

• Ethical Research Policy Guidelines

• Equal Employment Opportunity Policy

• External Release of Court Statistics

• Filling for Vacancies Policy

• Financial Budgets Policy

• First Aid Policy

• Flexi Time Policy

• Flexible Working Arrangements Policy

• Greenhouse Gas Policy

• Grievance Policy & Procedures

• Guidelines for Ethical Conduct

• Guidelines for the Recruitment of Staff to Temporary Vacancies

• Guidelines for Requesting Legal Services

• Hazardous Management Policy/Procedures

• HR Data – Capture, Maintenance & Reporting

• Information Technology and Telecommunications Security Policy and Standards

• Internal Remuneration Panels – Terms of Reference

• Internet Access and Usage Policy

• Leave Policy

• Long Distance Driving Policy/Procedures

• Manual Handling & Occupational Overuse Policy

• Managing for Good Performance Policy/Procedures

• Managing for Improved Performance

• Maternity Leave Guidelines

• Media Policy

• Networked Personal Computers Policy and Standards

• No Smoking in the Workplace Policy

• OHS Policy

• OHS&W Policy/Procedures

• OHS&W Committee Policy

• Policy Guidelines for Public Speaking for Staff of the Authority

• Policy Management

• Procedures for OHS&W Record Keeping

• Procedures for the Supply of Hepatitis B Serum

• Pregnancy Guidelines

• Psychological Health Policy

• Purchasing Policy

• Purchasing Practice Guidelines

• Rehabilitation Policy

• Remuneration of Positions Policy

• Risk Management Policy Statement

• Screen-based Keyboard Equipment Policy

• Sexual Harassment Policy

• TOIL Policy

• Whistleblowers Policy and Procedures

• Work Experience

• Workers’ Compensation Policy

• Working from Home Policy

Freedom of Information Act 1991


Section 2 – Information Statements

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

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

Section 3 – Contact Arrangements

Applications under the Freedom of Information Act 1991 for access to documents held by the Courts Administration Authority should be accompanied by a $24.70 application fee and directed to:

The Freedom of Information Officer Courts Administration Authority GPO Box 1068 Adelaide SA 5001

A reduction in the fee payable may be applicable in certain circumstances.

Enquiries can be directed to the Freedom of Information Officer during business hours on:

Telephone: (08) 8226 0103 or (08) 8226 0102 Facsimile: (08) 8226 0111

CAA Energy ReportFreedom of Information Act 1991


Energy GJ Expenditure $GHG Emissions

(t Co2)

Base Year 2000–2001 37 023 1 065 011 8 918

Year 2005–2006 29 096 1 042 949 6 343

Agency Target for 2005–2006 34 161 N/A 8 229

Agency Target for 2010 31 470 N/A 7 580

Note:

1. Figures presented in the above table reflect energy (natural gas & electricity) consumed only in leased and owned by the Authority.

2. The greenhouse gas emissions in the Authority do not represent the same percentage change as the energy, primarily due to an increase in the Co2 emissions coefficient of the electricity supply system. The emissions coefficient is dependent upon a number of factors, most importantly, the mix of primary fuels used to generate electricity that is supplied in South Australia. Decisions about the mix of fuels are made as a function of the National Electricity Market and are therefore beyond the control of the Authority.

3. The final 2005–2006 energy accounts for four sites were estimated due to non receipt of invoice at the time of this report.

CAA Energy ReportCAA Energy Report

Energy Management Achievements

The Authority has undertaken several initiatives over the past year to reduce energy consumption including continuing the Authority’s re-lamping program with more efficient triphosphor lamps.

Energy Management Activities

• Distribution of regular energy bulletins titled “Watt About Energy” across the Authority to raise awareness and communicate new initiatives.

• Active participation in a Justice Energy Managers Network.

• Conducted energy efficiency reviews of Elizabeth and Port Adelaide Magistrates Courts.


Asbestos Management

The table below provides a summary of management of asbestos within the Authority

Section 1: Priority and removal activities

Site asbestos presence status

Priority for risk assessment

No of sites in priority for

assessment

Risk reduction program:

activities conducted 2005–2006

Quantification of activities (by item/

by area/by $)

Insufficient data Urgent 0

Unstable^, accessible; or unstable~, damaged or decayed Urgent 0 Removal of ACM* $7 625

Unstable, inaccessible; or unstable, partly accessible High 3

Stable, accessible; or stable, accessible, initial signs of decay Medium 12 Removal of ACM $1 000

Stable, inaccessible; or stable, partly accessible Low 7

Asbestos free Not applicable 8

* ACM: Asbestos containing material ^ Unstable denotes non-friable ACMs of poor condition, or friable ACMs of medium or poor condition ~ Stable denotes non-friable ACMs of good or medium condition, or friable ACMs of good condition

Section 1: Priority and removal activities

Site asbestos presence status:

• Indicates what types of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) are present.

Priority for risk assessment:

• Indicates the associated priority for further whole of site risk assessment, based on type of ACM present at each site.

Number of sites in priority for assessment category

• Indicates how many sites have at least one item of ACM of that type present.

• Provides an initial summary of what ACM items are present over a portfolio.

Risk reduction program: activities conducted during 2005–2006

• A brief, qualitative description of work undertaken over the year, including analyses, removals and targeted ACMs (roofing/eaves, damaged cladding on walls/partitions/ceilings, equipment fittings – insulation or gaskets etc).

Quantification of activities: ACMs removed (by item/ by area/by dollar amounts)

• Quantitative totals of removals of ACMs by number of items and/or by square metres (or linear metres, cubic metres etc), and/or by expenditure for removal.


Section 2: Risk reductions

Site category scale: site performance score

• Based on risk assessment of ACMs present at the site, using a scale of 1 to 5, including a category for sites that are being assessed but are not yet categorised.

Site category scale: site risk level

• The assessed asbestos risk level for the site as a whole, based on the recommended actions of the ACMs at that site.

Percentage of sites in category at year’s commencement

• The percentage of sites in the portfolio assessed at each risk level.

Adjusted % after annual reduction activity

• The percentage of sites in the portfolio assessed at each risk level.

Section 2: Risk reductions

Sit

e

cate

go

ry

Sca

le

Site performance score 1 2 3 4 5

Not assessed

Site risk level Severe Major Moderate

Minor (threshold category)

No risk (target category)

% of sites in category at year’s commencement 0% 10% 16.7% 43.3% 26.7% 3.3%

Adjusted % after annual reduction activity 0% 13.3% 13.3% 46.7% 26.7% 0%

Asbestos

COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY56

Financial Overview

2005–2006 Financial Performance

The Authority’s operations for the year ended 30th June 2006 resulted in a net deficit of $1.0 million after a cash alignment payment to the SA Government of $1.3 million. Delays in the implementation of the Government’s Road Safety Reform initiative once again offset the Authority’s long standing and significant operational cost pressures that were reflected in previous year’s net operating deficits.

Revenue increased by $1.4 million in 2005–06. Revenue from fees and charges increased by $1.1 million mainly due to an increase in fees associated with the recovery of bailiff costs as well as fees levied for licence disqualification and fine reminder notice administration. Increases in Targeted Voluntary Separation Package (TVSP) recoups (Other revenue – financial statement Note 12) and interest earned on deposit funds was slightly offset by a reduction in grants related to the Hayden matter and a loss associated with the Public Private Partnership (PPP) related sale of the old Berri Court site.

Salary and wage related costs were approximately $3.9 million higher than the previous year’s costs,

mainly due to wage increases of $1.2 million, as well as the appointment of additional resources for the new Coroner’s Act ($0.7 million), the Eyre Peninsular Bushfire Inquest ($0.3 million), TVSP payments ($0.6 million) and appointments related to the Government’s Road Safety initiative ($0.4 million).

Goods and services costs increased during the year when compared to the previous financial year mainly due to an increase in IT related equipment purchases of $0.7 million, costs related to the Eyre Peninsular Bushfire Inquest of $0.5 million and unitary charges associated with the new PPP court sites ($0.3 million – refer financial statement note 1.5).

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

2006–2007 Budget

The activities of the Authority in 2006–07 will again be primarily funded through Parliamentary appropriations. In addition to normal funding requirements, the budget for 2006–2007 also provides continuing capital funding for the Port Augusta Courts Development of $6.8 million.

Account Payment Performance Numberof Valuein$Aof Particulars accountspaid % accountspaid %

Paid by due date 203 132 90 $131 126 433 88 Paid late & paid < 30 days from due date 18 058 8 $15 203 793 10 Paid late & paid > 30 days from due date 5 250 2 $2 664 927 2

Financial Overview

The above table highlights that the Authority paid 98% of all invoices within 30 days of the invoice date. This percentage is consistent with previous years accounts payable performance.

Consultancies

Expenditure on consultancies amounted to $84 000 during 2005–2006 compared to $22 000 the previous year.

Refer to note 3 to the Financial Statements for more detail.

Contractual Arrangements

There were no new major contractual arrangements entered into during 2005–2006. However, in June 2005 the Minister for infrastructure entered into a 25 year service contract with Plenary Justice Pty Ltd (Plenary) for the sale and lease back of courts for the Authority and regional police stations for South Australia Police.

Refer to note 22 to the Financial Statements for more detail on the PPP commitments.

Corporate Governance Statement

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

The Authority has developed policies and procedures in accordance with the State Government’s Financial Management Framework (FMF) and has established an Internal Audit Committee. A Risk Management Committee also has been established and has developed a risk management framework consistent with prescribed elements of the FMF. The CAA Risk Management Committee has discussed the main critical business processes and the preparation of business continuity plans commenced in February 2006.

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

57ANNUAL REPORT 05–06

FinancialIncome StatementFor the Year Ended 30 June 2006 2006 2005 Note $’000 $’000

Expenses

Employee benefits costs 2 43,772 39,909 Supplies and services 3 26,133 23,971 Depreciation and amortisation expense 4 4,020 4,466 Finance lease 5 1,297 1,341 Other expenses 6 891 795

TotalExpenses 76,113 70,482

Income

Grants 7 589 861 Sale of goods and services 8 812 811 Revenues from fees & charges 9 4,161 3,105 Interest Revenue 10 785 616 Net (loss)/gain from the disposal of assets 11 (164) 2 Other revenue 12 625 –

TotalIncome 6,808 5,395

Netcostofprovidingservices (69,305) (65,087)

Revenuesfrom/PaymentstoSAGovernment:

Revenues from SA Government 13 69,618 65,678 Payments to SA Government 13 1,304 244

NetRevenuesfromSAGovernment 68,314 65,434

NetResultisattributabletotheSAGovernmentasowner 13 (991) 347

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


Financial Overview

Balance SheetAs at 30 June 2006 2006 2005 Note $’000 $’000

CurrentAssets:

Cash and cash equivalents 14 17,534 15,113 Receivables 15 827 579 Non-current assets classified as held for sale 16 1,013 483

TotalCurrentAssets 19,374 16,175

Non-currentAssets:

Property, plant and equipment 16 129,890 106,768

TotalNon-CurrentAssets 129,890 106,768

TotalAssets 149,264 122,943

CurrentLiabilities:

Payables 17 2,411 1,544 Short-term and long-term employee benefits 18 4,374 3,116 Short-term provisions 19 501 453 Other current liabilities 20 814 769

TotalCurrentLiabilities 8,100 5,882

Non-currentLiabilities:

Payables 17 969 780 Long-term employee benefits 18 7,333 6,597 Long-term provisions 19 2,005 2,339 Other non-current liabilities 20 21,876 22,698 #

TotalNon-CurrentLiabilities 32,183 32,414

TotalLiabilities 40,283 38,296

NetAssets 108,981 84,647

Equity:

Contributed Capital 3,140 – Retained earnings 76,286 77,278 Asset revaluation reserve 29,555 7,369

TotalEquity 21 108,981 84,647

TheTotalEquityisattributabletotheSAGovernmentasowner.

Commitments for expenditure 22 Contingent assets and liabilities 23



FinancialCash Flow StatementFor the Year Ended 30 June 2006 2006 2005 Inflows Inflows (Outflows) (Outflows) Note $’000 $’000

CashFlowsfromOperatingActivities:

CashOutflows

Employees benefit payments (41,626) (37,822) Supplies and services (25,468) (23,946) GST Paid on Purchases (3,200) (2,070) GST remitted to ATO (127) (112) Finance Lease (1,297) (1,340) Other Payments (734) (790)

Cashusedinoperations (72,452) (66,080)

CashInflows

Grants 589 861 Receipts from fees and charges 5,647 4,198 GST receipts on receivables 153 119 GST input tax credits 2,885 2,028 Other receipts 625 594

Cashgeneratedfromoperations 9,899 7,800

CashFlowsfromSAGovernment

Receipts from SA Government 72,758 65,678 Payments to SA Government (1,304) (244)

CashgeneratedfromSAGovernment 71,454 65,434

Netcashprovidedbyoperatingactivities 8,901 7,154

CashFlowsfromInvestingActivities:

CashOutflows

Purchases of property, plant and equipment (5,733) (1,265)

Cashusedininvestingactivities (5,733) (1,265)

CashInflows

Proceeds from sales of property, plant and equipment 30 2

Cashgeneratedfrominvestingactivities 30 2

Netcash(usedin)investingactivities (5,703) (1,263)

CashFlowsfromFinancingActivities:

CashOutflows

Repayment of finance lease (777) (735)

Cashusedinfinancingactivities (777) (735)

Netcash(usedin)financingactivities (777) (735)

NetIncreaseincashandcashequivalents 2,421 5,156

Cashandcashequivalentsatthebeginningofthefinancialyear 15,113 9,957

Cashandcashequivalentsattheendofthefinancialyear 24 17,534 15,113



Financial Overview

Statement of Changes in EquityFor the Year Ended 30 June 2006 Asset Contributed Revaluation Retained Note Capital Reserve Earnings Total No. $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Balance at 30 June 2004 – 10,697 76,931 87,628 Loss on revaluation of plant and equipment during 2004–2005 – (3,328) – (3,328)

Totalrecognisedincomeandexpensefor2004–2005 – – 347 347

Balance at 30 June 2005 – 7,369 77,278 84,647

Restated balance at 30 June 2005 – 7,369 77,278 84,647 Gain on revaluation of property during 2005–2006 16 – 22,186 – –

Totalrecognisedincomeandexpensefor2005–2006 – – (991) (991)

Equity contribution from SA Government 3,140 – – 3,140

Balance at 30 June 2006 21 3,140 29,555 76,286 108,981

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



FinancialProgram Schedule of Expenses and IncomeFor the Year Ended 30 June 2006 1 2 3 Total $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Expenses

Employees benefit costs 38,083 2,016 3,673 43,772 Supplies and services 23,702 456 1,975 26,133 Depreciation and amortisation expense 3,919 31 70 4,020 Borrowing costs 1,297 – – 1,297 Other expenses 769 73 49 891

Totalexpenses 67,770 2,576 5,767 76,113

Income

Grants 584 – 5 589 Sale of goods and services 783 – 29 812 Regulatory fees 425 – 3,736 4,161 Interest Revenue 717 – 68 785 Net gain/(loss) from the disposal of assets (164) – – (164) Other 540 – 85 625

Totalincome 2,885 – 3,923 6,808

Netcostofservices (64,885) (2,576) (1,844) (69,305)

RevenuesfromSAGovernment 61,987 2,356 5,275 69,618 PaymentstoSAGovernment 1,161 44 99 1,304

Netoperatingsurplus/(deficit)fromoperatingactivities (4,059) (264) 3,332 (991)

Program 1: Court and Tribunal Case Resolution Services

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

Program 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.

Program 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 Authority does not track Assets and Liabilities at a program level and therefore figures can not be reliably measured.


Financial Overview

Schedule of Administered Income and ExpensesFor the Year Ended 30 June 2006 2006 2005 Note $’000 $’000

Expenses

Judicial benefits 26 26,545 24,288 Administered expenses 6,169 7,461 Payments to Consolidated Account 39,985 36,075 Other expenses 848 802

TotalExpenses 73,547 68,626

Income

Revenues from SA Government 26,781 24,683 Fines 20,459 17,844 Court fees 18,650 17,182 Administered revenues 6,184 7,461 Transcript fees 920 1,181 Other income 22 3

TotalIncome 73,016 68,354

OperatingSurplus/Deficit (531) (272)

The operating surplus/deficit is attributable to SA Government as owner.

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


FinancialSchedule of Administered Assets and LiabilitiesAs at 30 June 2006 2006 2005 Note $’000 $’000

CurrentAssets:

Cash and cash equivalents 27 1,917 11,438 Receivables 28 3,391 911

TotalCurrentAssets 5,308 12,349

CurrentLiabilities:

Payables 29 5,243 12,996 Short-term and long-term Judicial benefits 30 1,859 2,972

TotalCurrentLiabilities 7,102 15,968

Non–CurrentLiabilities:

Payables 29 1,053 564 Long-term Judicial benefits 30 4,958 3,091

TotalNon-CurrentLiabilities 6,011 3,655


NetAssets (7,805) (7,274)

Equity:

Accumulated deficit 31 (7,805) (7,274)

TotalEquity (7,805) (7,274)



Financial Overview

Schedule of Administered Cash FlowsFor the Year Ended 30 June 2006 2006 2005 Inflows Inflows (Outflows) (Outflows) Note $’000 $’000

CashFlowsfromOperatingActivities:

CashInflows

Fines 20,916 17,844 Receipts from SA Government 23,999 24,683 Court fees 18,627 17,050 Administered revenue 6,066 5,938 Transcript fees 929 1,181

TotalCashInflows 70,537 66,696

CashOutflows

Judicial salary and related payments (25,791) (23,880) Payments to consolidated account (36,304) (35,099) Administered expenses (17,115) (6,376) Other payments (848) (802)

TotalCashOutflows (8,058) (66,157)

NetCashInflows/Outflowsfromoperatingactivities 32 (9,521) 539

Netincreaseincashheld (9,521) 539

Cash at the beginning of the financial year 11,438 10,899

Cashattheendofthefinancialyear 1,917 11,438



FinancialStatement of Changes in Administered EquityFor the Year Ended 30 June 2006 Asset Contributed Revaluation Retained Note Capital Reserve Earnings Total No. $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Balance at 30 June 2004 – – (7,002) (7,002) OperatingSurplus/Deficit – – (272) (272) Balance at 30 June 2005 – – (7,274) (7,274) Restated balance at 30 June 2005 – – (7,274) (7,274) OperatingSurplus/Deficit – – (531) (531) Balance at 30 June 2006 31 – – (7,805) (7,805)

AllchangesinequityareattributabletotheSAGovernmentasowner


Financial Overview

Program Schedule of Administered Income and ExpensesFor the Year Ended 30 June 2006 1 2 3 Total $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Income

Revenues from SA Government 26,781 – – 26,781 Fines 11 – 20,448 20,459 Court fees 8,723 – 9,927 18,650 Administered revenues 701 – 5,483 6,184 Transcript fees 920 – – 920 Other income 4 – 18 22

TotalIncome 37,140 – 35,876 73,016

Expenses

Judicial salary and related expenses 26,545 – – 26,545 Administered expenses 701 – 5,468 6,169 Payments to Consolidated Account 9,643 – 30,342 39,985 Other expenses 841 – 7 848

TotalExpenses 37,730 – 35,817 73,547

Operatingsurplus/(deficit) (590) – 59 (531)

Program1:CourtandTribunalCaseResolutionServices

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

Program2:AlternativeDisputeResolutionServices

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

No Administered activity under this program – Controlled only activity

Program3:PenaltyManagementServices

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 Authority does not track Assets and Liabilities at a program level and therefore figures can not be reliably measured.


FinancialNote 1: Summary of significant accounting policies

1.1 Objectives and funding

The Authority operates within the Courts Administration Act 1993. Its principal objective is to provide quality administration to the Judiciary and to ensure an effective and accessible courts system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.2 Financial arrangements

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

• Sheriff’s officer fees;

• reminder fees;

• sale of electronic information.

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

Refer to Notes 1.19 and 1.20 for accounting arrangements relating to Administered Items.

1.3 Basis of accounting

The financial report is a general purpose financial report. The accounts have been prepared in accordance with applicable Australian Accounting Standards and Treasurer’s Instructions and Accounting Policy Statements promulgated under the provision of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987(PFAA).

These financial statements are the first statements to be prepared in accordance with Australian equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards (AIFRS).

AASB 1 First time adoption of AIFRS has been applied in preparing these statements. Previous financial statements were prepared in accordance with Australian generally accepted accounting principles.

Assets and liabilities are recognised in the Balance Sheet when and only when it is probable that future economic benefits embodied in the asset, or sacrifices, will eventuate and the amounts of the assets or liabilities can be reliably measured. Assets and liabilities arising under agreements equally proportionately unperformed are not recognised unless required by an accounting standard. Liabilities, which are unrecognised, are reported as commitments in Note 20.

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

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

The Schedules of Administered Revenues and Expenses, Assets and Liabilities and Cash Flows are prepared on the same basis and using the same policies as for operating items, except where otherwise stated at Notes 1.19 and 1.20.

1.4 Changes in Accounting Policy

Impact of Adopting Australian Equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards

Australia will be adopting Australian equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards (AIFRS) for reporting periods commencing on or after 1 January 2005. The Authority will adopt these standards for the first time in the published financial report for the year ended 30 June 2006.

AASB 108 Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors, requires disclosure of any key differences in accounting policies, and known or reliably estimable information about the impact on this financial report had this report been prepared using the Australian equivalents to the IFRS.

Financial ReportsNotes to and forming part of the Financial Statements



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

The adoption of AIFRS has not resulted in any material adjustments to the Income Statement or Cash Flow Statement.

In accordance with AASB 5 Non-Current Assets Held for Sale and Discontinued Operations, non-current assets available for sale have been disclosed as a separate class of assets on the balance sheet. Assets classified as non-current assets classified as held for sale are not depreciated and are measured at the lower of carrying amount and fair value less selling costs. The Authority has identified items of property, plant and equipment that are available for sale and disclosed the details in Note 15.

In addition, a number of Australian Accounting Standards have been issued or amended and are applicable to the Authority but are not yet effective. The Authority has assessed the impact of the new and amended standards and there will be no impact on the accounting policies of the Authority.

1.5 Public Private Partnership

In May 2005, Cabinet approved the execution of a 25-year service contract with Plenary Justice Pty Ltd (Plenary) for regional police stations for South Australia Police and courts for the Authority.

In June 2005, the Minister for Infrastructure signed a Project Agreement detailing the design, construction, maintenance, operation and ownership of facilities by a private sector contractor (Plenary).

The bundled PPP project involved the sale of the land at unimproved market value to Plenary and lease back by the Government of new police stations and courts at:

Port Lincoln (Court and Police station) Victor Harbor (Court and Police station) Port Pirie (Court) Berri (Court and Police station) Mt Barker (Police station) Gawler (Police station)

For accounting purposes the lease has been determined to be an operating lease.

The move to the PPP model will impact on the Authority’s financial performance through additional lease costs. Under the PPP agreement SAPOL is responsible for paying lease payments to Plenary for

sites occupied by both SAPOL and the Authority. SAPOL invoices the Authority for the sites that they occupy. (Refer Note 20.)

The PPP agreement required Plenary to pay into Consolidated Account the unimproved market value of the above stated locations. As a part of this process the Authority disposed of the Berri PPP site for nil consideration during 2005–06. The impact of this action has resulted in the recognition of a loss on disposal of assets (Refer Note 11). This has also resulted in a decrease in the total carrying value of Buildings and Improvements as at 30 June 2006 (Refer Note 15) and a reduced depreciation expense in 2005–06 (Refer Note 3). The remaining PPP sites identified for disposal are now included in the Balance Sheet under Current Assets and have been classified as “Non-current assets classified as held for sale”.

1.6 Comparative Figures

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

1.7 Rounding

Amounts have been rounded to the nearest $1 000.

1.8 Taxation

CAA is liable for payroll tax, fringe benefits tax, goods and services tax, emergency services levy, land tax equivalents and local government rate equivalents.

Income, expenses and assets are recognised net of the amount of GST except where the amount of GST incurred by the Authority as a purchaser is not recoverable from the Australian Taxation Office. Receivables and payables are stated with the amount of GST included.

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

1.9 Income and Expenses

Income and expense are recognised in the Authority’s Income Statement when and only when it is probable that the flow of economic benefits to or from the entity will occur and can be reliably measured.

Income and expenses have been classified according to their nature in accordance with Accounting Policy Framework II General Purpose Financial Reporting Framework APS 3.5 and have not been offset unless required or permitted by a specific accounting standard.

In accordance with Accounting Policy Framework II General Purpose Financial Reporting Framework paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 the financial report’s noted


Financialdisclose income, expenses, financial assets and financial liabilities where the counterparty/transaction is with an entity within the SA Government as at the reporting date, classified according to their nature.

Transactions with SA Government entities below the threshold of $100 000 have been included with the non-government transactions, classified according to their nature.

Revenues

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

(a) Revenue from Government-Agency Appropriations

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

(b) Other Revenue

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

• Sheriff’s officer fees;

• reminder fees;

• sale of electronic information.

The Authority also recovers the costs of good and services incurred where appropriate.

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

1.10 Current and non-current classification

Assets and liabilities are characterised as either current or non-current in nature. The Authority has a clearly identifiable operating cycle of 12 months. 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 12 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 12 months and more than 12 months, the Authority has separately disclosed the amounts expected to be recovered or settled after more than 12 months.

1.11 Cash

Cash comprises Deposit Accounts with the Department of Treasury and Finance as well as cash on hand.

1.12 Financial Instruments

Accounting policies for financial instruments are stated at Notes 23 and 31.

1.13 Acquisitions of assets

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

1.14 Property (Land and Buildings), plant and equipment

Asset Recognition Threshold

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

Revaluations

Land, buildings and improvements controlled by the Authority are recorded at amounts based on valuation and cost. Valcorp Australia Pty Ltd, licensed valuers, has prepared the valuations. Land, buildings and improvements are re-valued every three years, with the current valuations reflecting valuations performed as at 30 June 2006.

The Authority has applied the Accounting Standard AASB116 Property, Plant and Equipment for the valuation of land, buildings and improvements at fair value.

Rushton Valuers Pty Ltd, licensed valuers, valued works of art and collections. These are measured at fair value and are not depreciated. The valuations currently brought to account for works of art and collections were made as at 30 June 2006. Heritage assets are not disclosed by a specific heritage type but form part of the aggregate value of property, plant and equipment and are included within the category “Works of art and collections”.

The balance brought to account for library collections represents the fair value as at 30 June 2006 based on information provided by Valcorp Australia Pty Ltd, licensed valuer.

Depreciation and Amortisation

All non-current assets, with the exception of land, works of art and collections have a limited useful life and are systematically depreciated in a manner, which reflects the consumption of service potential. The depreciation rates are reviewed annually.



The major asset categories are subject to straight-line depreciation over the following periods:

Years

Buildings and Improvements 30–60 Computing 3–10 Office furniture and equipment 10 Library collections – other 20 Leasehold improvements Life of Lease Other (general equipment) 5–10

1.15 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

(a) Leave

Liability for salaries and wages are measured as the amount unpaid at the reporting date at remuneration rates current at reporting date. The annual leave liability is expected to be payable within 12 months and is measured at the undiscounted amount expected to be paid. In the unusual event where salary and wages and annual leave are payable later than 12 months, the liability will be measured at present value.

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

The liability for long service leave is recognised after an employee has completed seven years of service in accordance with Accounting Policy Framework IV Financial Asset and Liability Framework. An actuarial assessment of Long Service Leave undertaken by the Department of Treasury and Finance based on a significant sample of employees throughout the South Australian public sector determined that the liability measured using the short-hand method was not materially different from the liability measured using the present value of expected future payments. This calculation is consistent with CAA’s experience of employee retention and leave taken.

Employment on-costs relating to employee benefits owing, are recognised as liabilities in the Balance Sheet. Employee benefits and employment on-costs accruing during the reporting period are treated as an expense in the Income Statement.

(b) Superannuation

The Authority made contributions of $9.7 million ($8.7 million) to Employer Contribution Accounts administered by the South Australian Superannuation Board, in respect of future superannuation liabilities.

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.

(c) Workers Compensation

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

The workers compensation provision is based on an actuarial assessment prepared by Taylor Fry Consulting Actuaries. For the 2006 valuation, the Justice, DETE, DHS and all other portfolios have been analysed separately. The Authority’s liability is an allocation of the Justice Portfolio’s total assessment.

1.16 Leases

The Authority has entered into a number of operating lease agreements for the provision of photocopiers and some office and IT equipment where the lessors effectively retain all of the risks and benefits incidental to ownership of these items. Equal instalments of the lease payments are charged to the Income Statement over the lease term, as this is representative of the pattern of benefits to be derived from the leased property. Refer to Note 1.4 for details relating to the PPP operating lease. Details of commitments under non-cancellable operating leases are disclosed in Note 20.

The Authority’s rights and obligations under finance leases, which are leases that effectively transfer to the Authority substantially all of the risks and benefits incidental to ownership of the leased items, are initially recognised as assets and liabilities equal in amount to the nominal value of the minimum lease payments. The assets are disclosed as “Building under finance lease” and are amortised to the Income Statement over the period during which the Authority is expected to benefit from the use of the leased assets.

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

1.17 Foreign Currency

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


Financial1.18 Insurance

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

1.19 Administered Revenue

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

(a) Revenue from Government-administered appropriations

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

(b) Fines

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

(c) Court fees

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

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

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

The administered funds receivable balance, recorded in the Schedule of Administered Assets and Liabilities, includes amounts due in respect of sales of transcript and certain court fees. The remaining administered receivables are not recorded in the Schedule of Administered Assets and Liabilities, as there is significant uncertainty as to the amount, which will be collected. Total administered receivables owing to the Authority, but not recognised were $112.1 million ($100.5 million).

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

1.20 Administered Expenses

(a) Payments to Consolidated Account

Administered fees and fines collected by the Authority are paid directly to the Consolidated Account.

(b) Judicial Expenses

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

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



2006 2005 $’000 $’000

Note 2: Employee Benefits Cost

Employee benefits for the reporting period comprised: Salaries and wages 35,267 31,954 Payroll tax and superannuation expenses 6,298 5,526 Long service leave expenses 1,482 1,435 TVSP 625 – Other 100 994

Total 43,772 39,909

TargetedVoluntarySeparationPackages(TVSPs)

Amount paid to these employees TVSP payments 625 – Annual and long service leave paid during the reporting period 469 – Recovery from the Department of the Treasury and Finance (625) – Number of employees who were paid TVSPs during the reporting period 6 –

2006 2005 Numberof Numberof Employees Employees

Remunerationofemployees

Remuneration includes salary and non-monetary benefits. The number of employees whose remuneration received or receivable fell within the following bands were:

Recurrent Salaries $100 000 to $109 999 4 2 $110 000 to $119 999 3 3 $120 000 to $129 999 – 2 $130 000 to $139 999 4 – $140 000 to $149 999 1 1 $150 000 to $159 999 1 – $210 000 to $219 999 – 1 $220 000 to $229 999 – 3 $230 000 to $239 999 3 – $240 000 to $249 999 2 – $250 000 to $259 999 1 – $290 000 to $299 999 – 1

Totalnumberofemployeesinthesebands 19 13

The aggregate remuneration for all the employees referred to above was $3 million ($2 million).

RelatedPartyDisclosures

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


Financial 2006 2005 $’000 $’000

Note 3: Supplies and Services

Supplies and services expenses for the reporting period comprised: Accommodation expenses – SA Gov 9,056 8,493 Administration expenses – Non SA Govt 7,906 7,453 Administration expenses – SA Govt 188 255 Computing and communications –Non SA Govt 3,061 2,392 Computing and communications – SA Govt 958 749 Coronial Charges – Non SA Govt 1,990 1,845 Coronial Charges – SA Govt 735 681 Jurors’ expenses 1,140 1,348 Sheriff Officer Payments 1,099 755

Total* 26,133 23,971

* The total includes other expenses paid or payable to SA Government entities where the amount paid or payable to the SA Government was less than $100,000. Expenses over $100,000 are separately disclosed.

Consultancies

Total expenditure on consultancies amounted to $84,000 ($22,000). Individualconsultanciescostingmorethan$50,000 – – Individualconsultanciescostingbetween$10,000and$50,000 29 10

Project Consultant

Digital Audio Technology Business Case Lizard Drinking Asset Revaluation VALCORP Australia

Totalcostofconsultancieslessthan$10,000 55 12 14 Consultancies

Note 4: Depreciation and Amortisation Expenses

Depreciation and amortisation expenses for the reporting period were charged in respect of: Buildings and improvements 1,849 1,847 In-house developed computer software – 1,058 Computing 425 365 Finance lease on building 830 830 Office furniture and equipment 240 92 Works of Art 375 – Library collections 199 172 Leasehold improvements 102 102

Total 4,020 4,466

Note 5: Finance Lease

Finance lease on building 1,297 1,341

Total 1,297 1,341



2006 2005 $’000 $’000

Note 6: Other Expenses

Other expenses for the reporting period comprised: Operating lease payments 526 518 Other 262 196

Total* 788 714

* The total includes other expenses paid or payable to SA Government entities where the amount paid or payable to the SA Government was less than $100.000.

Auditor’sRemuneration

Audit fees paid/payable to the Auditor-General 103 81

Totalauditfees–SAGovernmententities 103 81

No other services were provided by the Auditor-General.

Note 7: Grants

Grants for the reporting period comprised: Hayden Matter 11 409 Court Assessment Referral Drug Scheme (CARDS) 341 230 Youth Court CARDS 84 22 Industrial Court – Sheriff’s Officer services 47 41 Guardianship Board 27 27 Other 79 133

Total 589 861

Note 8: Sale of Goods and Services

Fees and charges for the reporting period comprised: Sale of electronic information 155 295 Recoups for services 431 339 Rent recoups 226 177

Total 812 811

Note 9: Revenues from Fees & Charges

Licence disqualification and reminder fees 2,183 1,759 Sheriff’s officer fees 1,055 994 Photocopying 99 105 Other regulatory fees 824 247

Total 4,161 3,105

Note 10: Interest Revenue

Investment Revenue 785 616

Total 785 616

Note 11: Net gain/(loss) from the disposal of assets

Proceeds from disposal of assets 25 2 Total value of PPP assets disposed (Berri) (189) –

Total (164) 2


Financial 2006 2005 $’000 $’000

Note 12: Other Revenue

TVSP 625 –

Total 625 –

Note 13: Revenues from/Payments to Government

Revenues from SA Government Appropriations from Consolidated Account pursuant to the Appropriation Act 69,618 65,678

TotalrevenuesfromSAGovernment 69,618 65,678

Payments to SA Government Return of surplus cash pursuant to cash alignment policy 1,304 244

TotalpaymentstoSAGovernment 1,304 244

Note 14: Cash and cash equivalents

Cash on hand and on deposit comprised: Deposit account with Department of Treasury and Finance 5,898 4,104 Deposit account with Department of Treasury and Finance (Accrual Appropriation) 11,606 10,979 Cash on hand (including petty cash) 30 30

Total 17,534 15,113

Note 15: Receivables

Receivables comprised: GST receivable 182 55 Fees for service 469 327 Interest Receivable 14 22

Prepayments comprised: Supplies and Services 162 175

Total* 827 579

* The total includes other expenses paid or payable to SA Government entities where the amount paid or payable to the SA Government was less than $100,000.

2006 Accumulated Written Cost/ Depreciation/ Down Valuation Amortisation Value $’000 $’000 $’000

Note 16: Property, Plant and Equipment

Note16(a):Summaryofbalances Land at fair value 22,669 – 22,669 Buildings and improvements at fair value 75,365 – 75,365 Building under construction at cost 5,246 – 5,246 Building under finance lease at fair value 33,191 (19,085) 14,106 Leasehold improvements at cost 1,033 (523) 510 Computing at cost 3,886 (3,365) 521 Office furniture and equipment at cost 883 (680) 203 In-house developed computer software at cost 7,688 (7,688) – Library collections at fair value 11,200 – 11,200 Works of art and collections at fair value 70 – 70

Total 161,231 (31,341) 129,890



2006 Accumulated Written Cost/ Depreciation/ Down Valuation Amortisation Value

Non-CurrentAssetsClassifiedasheldforsale Land 430 – 430 Buildings and improvements 3,493 (2,910) 583

Total 3,923 (2,910) 1,013

As a result of PPP projects several items of Land and Buildings will be surplus to requirements in the next twelve months

2005 Accumulated Written Cost/ Depreciation/ Down Valuation Amortisation Value $’000 $’000 $’000

Land 15,913 – 15,913 Buildings and improvements 104,398 (35,606) 68,792 Building under construction 891 – 891 Building under finance lease 33,191 (18,255) 14,936 Leasehold improvements 1,033 (421) 612 Computing 5,068 (4,432) 636 Office furniture and equipment 1,484 (1,052) 432 In-house developed computer software 7,688 (7,688) – Library collections 4,713 (172) 4,541 Works of art and collections 498 – 498

Total 174,877 (67,626) 107,251

Note16(b):ReconciliationofNon-CurrentAssets

The following table shows the movement of Non-Current Assets during 2005–06 Building In-house

Buildings– Under Building Total Office Developed Works TotalPlant, Buildings& Leasehold Finance Under Land& Furniture& Computer Library ofArt& Equipment Land Improvements Improvements Lease Construction Buildings Computing Equipment Software Collections Collections &Collections TOTAL $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Carryingamount atthebeginningofthefinancialyear 15,913 68,792 612 14,936 891 101,144 637 432 – 4,541 498 6,108 107,251

Additions 475 – – – 4,405 4,880 313 14 – 527 – 854 5,734

Assets reclassified to assets held for sale (430) (583) – – – (1,013) – – – – – – (1,013)

Disposals (60) (128) – – – (188) (4) (2) – – – (6) (194)

Revaluation Increment/ (Decrement) 6,721 9,133 – – – 15,854 0 – – 6,331 (54) 6,277 22,132

Depreciation & amortisation – (1,849) (102) (830) – (2,781) (425) (240) – (199) (375) (1,239) (4,020)

Other Changes 50 – – – (50) – 0 (1) – – 1 – –

Carryingamountattheendofthefinancialyear 22,669 75,365 510 14,106 5,246 117,896 521 203 – 11,200 70 11,994129,890


Financial 2006 2005 $’000 $’000

Note 17: Payables

Current: Creditors and accruals 389 257 Accrued expenses 1,418 795 On-costs on provision for employee entitlements 1,573 1,272

Total* 3,380 2,324

* The total includes other expenses paid or payable to SA Government entities where the amount paid or payable to the SA Government was less than $100,000.

Note 18: Short-term and Long-term Employee Benefits

Current: Accrued Salaries and Wages 782 505 Accrued TVSP 625 – Short term long service leave 653 533 Annual leave 2,314 2,078

Total 4,374 3,116

Non-Current: Long term long service leave 7,003 6,359 Annual Leave 330 238 Total 7,333 6,597

Totalemployeebenefits 11,707 9,713

The total current and non-current employee expense (ie aggregate employee benefit plus related on costs) for 2006 is $4,978,000 and $8,303,000 respectively.

Note 19: Provisions

Workers compensation liabilities advised by the Public Sector Workforce Relations Branch of the Department for Administrative and Information Services, comprised:

Current: Income Maintenance 205 318 Other 296 135

Total 501 453

Non-Current: Income Maintenance 825 1,660 Other 1,180 679

Total 2,005 2,339

Totalprovisions 2,506 2,792

Carryingamountatthebeginningoftheperiod 2,792 2,114

Increase in the provision – 678 Decrease in the provision (286) –

Carryingamountattheendoftheperiod 2,506 2,792

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 Occupational Health and Injury Management Branch of the Department of Administrative and Information Services.



2006 2005 $’000 $’000

Note 20: Other Liabilities

Finance Lease commitments: Payable no later than one year 5,185 5,029 Payable later than one year and not later than five years 20,741 20,115 Payable later than five years 62,223 65,372 Minimum lease payments 88,150 90,516 Less: Future finance charges and contingent rentals 65,452 67,041

LeaseLiability 22,698 23,475

Classified as: Current – Finance Lease 822 783 Current – Other (8) (6) Non-Current 21,876 23,475

22,698 24,252

A finance lease exists in relation to the Sir Samuel Way building. The lease is non-cancellable for a term of 40 years.

Accumulated Contributed Assetrevaluation surplus capital reserve TOTALEQUITY

2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Note 21: Equity

EquityTable

Balance at 1 July 2005 77,277 76,931 – – 7,369 10,697 84,646 87,628 Net surplus (deficit) from operating activities (991) 347 – – – – (991) 347 Contributed Capital – – 3,140 – – – 3,140 – Revaluation Reserve – – – – 22,186 (3,328) 22,186 (3,328)

Balanceat30June2006 76,286 77,278 3,140 – 29,555 7,369 108,981 84,647

2006 2005 $’000 $’000

Note 22: Commitments

ByType

Capital commitments Land and buildings (1) 6,824 10,845

Totalcapitalcommitments 6,824 10,845

Remuneration commitments Employment Contracts 3,178 4,007

Totalremunerationcommitments 3,178 4,007

Other commitments Operating leases (2) 565 688 PPP lease (3) 44,388 – Miscellaneous 1 4

Totalothercommitments 44,954 692

Netcommitments 54,956 15,544


Financial 2006 2005 $’000 $’000

Note 22: Commitments (continued)

ByMaturity

CapitalandOthernetcommitments Within one year 9,790 6,526 Later than one year but no longer than five years 8,012 9,018 Later than five years 37,154 –

CapitalandOtherNetcommitments 54,956 15,544

Commitments are GST inclusive where relevant

(1) Outstanding contractual arrangements for building under construction. (2) Operating leases are effectively non-cancellable and relate to photocopiers, IT, and other leased equipment used by the Authority. Rental is payable monthly in arrears

generally for a four year term with an option to renew at the end of the term. (3) PPP Operating lease is for 25 years. (4) Remuneration commitments relate to payment of salaries under employment contracts.

Note 23: Contingent Assets and Liabilities

The Authority has no material contingent assets or liabilities as at 30 June 2006

Note 24: Cash Flow Reconciliation

ReconciliationofCash–Cashatyearendasper

Statement of Cash Flows 17,534 15,113

BalanceSheetitemcomprisingabovecash:‘Cashandcashequivalents’ 17,534 15,113

ReconciliationofNetCostofprovidingservicestoNetCashbyOperatingActivities:

Netcashprovidedby(usedin)operatingactivities 8,901 7,154 Less Revenues from SA Government (69,618) (65,678) Add Payment to SA Government 1,304 244 Add/Lessnoncashitems Depreciation/Amortisation (4,020) (4,466) Revaluation increments/decrements (3,359) 2 ChangesinAssets/Liabilities Increase (Decrease) in Receivables 261 (260) (Decrease) in Other Assets (13) (420) (Increase) in Employee Entitlements (1,994) (1,266) (Increase) Decrease in Payables (1,057) 273 Decrease (Increase) in Other Liabilities 289 (670)

NetCostofprovidingServicesfromOrdinaryActivities (69,305) (65,087)



Note 25: Financial Instruments

a)Terms,conditionsandaccountingpolicies

FinancialInstrument Note

AccountingPoliciesandMethods(includingrecognitioncriteriaandmeasurementbasis)

Natureofunderlyinginstrument(includingsignificanttermsandconditionsaffectingtheamount,timingandcertaintyofcashflows)

FinancialAssets Financial assets are recognised when control over future economic benefits is established and the amount of the benefit can be reliably measured.

Cash 14 Deposits are recognised at their nominal amounts. Interest is credited as it accrues.

Cash comprises Deposit Accounts at the Department of Treasury and Finance.

Interest is earned on the average daily balance based on the average of the 90 day bank bill.

The average 90 day Bank Bill rate for the year ended 30 June 2006 was 5.7%.

Receivables 15 These receivables are recognised at their nominal amounts less any provision for doubtful debts.

Credit terms are net 30 days.

FinancialLiabilities

Financial liabilities are recognised when a present obligation to another party is entered into and the amount of the liability can be reliably measured.

Finance lease liabilities

20 Liabilities are recognised at the present value of the minimum lease payments at the inception of the lease.

The discount rate used was an estimate of the interest rate implicit in the lease.

At the reporting date, the Authority had a finance lease with a 40 year term which expires on 30 June 2023.

The interest rate implicit in the lease at its inception was 5.61%.

Rental payments under the lease arrangements are indexed by the Consumer Price Index.

Rental payments for 2005–06 equate to 15.2% of the value of the lease at its inception.

Payables 17 Creditors and accruals are recognised at their nominal amounts, being the amounts at which the liabilities will be settled. Liabilities are recognised to the extent that the goods or services have been received.

Settlement is normally made net 30 days.

b)InterestRateRisk FloatingInterestRate Non-Interest WeightedAverage 1yearorless 1to2years 2to5years >5years Bearing TOTAL EffectiveInterestRate

2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005FinancialInstrument Note $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 % %

FinancialAssets

Cash 14 17,504 15,083 – – – – – – 30 30 17,534 15,113 5.7% 5.6%

Receivables 15 – – – – – – – – 665 404 665 404 n/a n/a

TotalFinancial

Assets 17,504 15,083 – – – – – – 695 434 18,199 15,517

TotalAssets 149,264 122,943


Finance lease 20 822 777 869 1,599 2,920 2,761 18,087 19,115 – – 22,698 24,252 5.6%* 5.6%*

Payables 17 – – – – – – – – 1,807 1,052 1,807 1,052 n/a n/a

TotalFinancial

Liabilities 822 777 869 1,599 2,920 2,761 18,087 19,115 1,807 1,052 24,505 25,304



FinancialNote 25: Financial Instruments (continued)

Note25(c):NetFairValuesofFinancialAssetsandLiabilities

FinancialAssets

The net fair values of cash and non-interest bearing monetary financial assets approximate their carrying amounts.


The net fair value for trade creditors is approximated by their carrying values.

* The net fair value of the finance lease at 30 June 2006 was $65.5m ($67m). This reflects the indexation of the rental payments by the CPI and as at 30 June 2006 the interest rate implicit in the lease is higher than at its inception.

Note25(d):CreditRiskExposures

The Authority’s maximum exposure to credit risk at the reporting date in relation to each class of recognised financial assets is the carrying amount of those assets as indicated in the Balance Sheet.

The Authority has no significant exposures to any concentrations of credit risk. 2006 2005 $’000 $’000

Note 26: Judicial Benefits

Judicial salary related expenses comprised: Salaries and wages 19,022 17,615 Payroll tax and superannuation expenses 5,859 5,094 Long service leave expenses 1,002 953 Other 662 627

Total 26,545 24,288



2006 2005 Numberof Numberof Judicial Judicial Officers Officers

Remunerationofjudiciary

Remuneration includes salary and non monetary benefits: The number of judicial officers whose remuneration received or receivable fell within the following bands were:

SpecialActs

$120 000 to $129 999 – 1 $130 000 to $139 999 2 – $140 000 to $149 999 – 3 $150 000 to $159 999 – 1 $160 000 to $169 999 – 1 $170 000 to $179 999 – 1 $180 000 to $189 999 1 – $190 000 to $199 999 – 1 $200 000 to $209 999 – – $210 000 to $219 999 – 4 $220 000 to $229 999 3 6 $230 000 to $239 999 4 12 $240 000 to $249 999 8 6 $250 000 to $259 999 8 5 $260 000 to $269 999 10 2 $270 000 to $279 999 5 1 $280 000 to $289 999 2 – $290 000 to $299 999 – 1 $300 000 to $309 999 – 1 $310 000 to $319 999 2 1 $320 000 to $329 999 – 3 $330 000 to $339 999 – 16 $340 000 to $349 999 5 – $350 000 to $359 999 18 1 $360 000 to $369 999 – 2 $370 000 to $379 999 – 10 $380 000 to $389 999 1 – $390 000 to $399 999 10 – $400 000 to $409 999 1 – $410 000 to $419 999 – 1 $430 000 to $439 999 – 1 $440 000 to $449 999 1 –

TOTALNUMBEROFJUDICIARYINTHESEBANDS 81 81

The aggregate remuneration for all the judicial officers referred to above was $24.6 million ($22.8 million).

2006 2005 $’000 $’000

Note 27: Administered Cash and Cash Equivalents

Administered cash comprised:

DepositaccountwiththeDepartmentofTreasuryandFinance 1,917 11,438


Financial 2006 2005 $’000 $’000

Note 28: Administered Receivables

Current: Debtors and accruals 3,378 808 Transfer expenses yet to be claimed – 96 GST receivable 13 7

Total 3,391 911

Note 29: Administered Payables

Current: Net transfers payable to Consolidated Account – 11,392 Creditors and accruals 4,739 621 Transfer revenue received and not forwarded – 336 On-costs on provision for judicial benefits 504 647

Total 5,243 12,996

Non-Current: On-costs on provision for judicial benefits 1,053 564

Note 30: Judicial Benefits

Current: Accrued Salaries and Wages 392 436 Long service leave 453 1,540 Annual leave 1,014 996

Total 1,859 2,972

Non-Current: Long service leave 4,639 2,836 Annual leave 319 255

Total 4,958 3,091

The total current and non-current employee expense (ie aggregate employee benefit plus related on costs) for 2006 is $2,362,000 and $6,011,000 respectively.

Note 31: Administered Equity

Balance at 1 July (7,274) (7,002) Net decrease in administered net assets (531) (272)

Balance at 30 June (7,805) (7,274)

Note 32: Administered Cash Flow Reconciliation

ReconciliationofCash–Cashatyearendasper Statement of Cash Flows 1,917 11,438 Balance Sheet item comprising above cash: ‘Cash and cash equivalents’ 1,917 11,438

ReconciliationofNetCashprovidedbyAdministeredActivitiestoNetCostofprovidingservices:

Netcashprovidedby(usedin)operatingactivities (9,521) 539 ChangesinAdministeredAssets/Liabilities Increase (Decrease) in Receivables 2,480 139 (Increase) in Judicial Entitlements (754) 51 Decrease in Payables 7,264 (1,001)

Operating(Deficit) (531) (272)



Note 33: Administered Financial Instruments

(a)Terms,conditionsandaccountingpolicies

FinancialInstrument Note

AccountingPoliciesandMethods(includingrecognitioncriteriaandmeasurementbasis)

Natureofunderlyinginstrument(includingsignificanttermsandconditionsaffectingtheamount,timingandcertaintyofcashflows)

FinancialAssets

Financial assets are recognised when control over future economic benefits is established and the amount of the benefit can be reliably measured.

Cash 27 Deposits are recognised at their nominal amounts. Cash comprises a Deposit Account at the Department of Treasury and Finance.

The administered cash balance is non-interest bearing.

Receivables 28 These receivables are recognised at their nominal amounts less any provision for doubtful debts.

Credit terms are net 30 days.


Financial liabilities are recognised when a present obligation to another party is entered into and the amount of the liability can be reliably measured.

Payables 29 Creditors and accruals are recognised at their nominal amounts, being the amounts at which the liabilities will be settled. Liabilities are recognised to the extent that the goods or services have been received.

Settlement is normally made net 30 days.

Note 33: Administered Financial Instruments

(b)InterestRateRisk FloatingInterest FixedInterestRate Non-Interest WeightedAverage Rate 1yearorless 1to2years 2to5years >5years Bearing TOTAL EffectiveInterestRate

2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 2006 2005 FinancialInstruments Note $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 % %

FinancialAssets

Cash 27 – – – – – – – – – – 1,917 11,438 1,917 11,438 n/a n/a

Receivables 28 – – – – – – – – – – 3,391 911 3,391 911 n/a n/a

TotalFinancialAssets – – – – – – – – – – 5,308 12,349 5,30812,349

TotalAssets 5,30812,349


Payables 29 – – – – – – – – – – 6,296 13,560 6,296 13,560 n/a n/a

TotalFinancialLiabilities – – – – – – – – – – 6,296 13,560 6,29613,560

TotalLiabilities 13,11319,623


Financial 2006 2005 $’000 $’000

Note 34: Trust Monies

In addition, the Authority holds monies pending the outcome of court decisions. These monies are excluded from the financial statements as the Authority cannot use them for the achievement of its objectives. The following is a summary of the transactions in the jurisdictions’ trust accounts.

SupremeCourtSuitorAccount

Balance at 1 July 7,331 22,952 Receipts 1,548 2,706

8,879 25,658 Less: Payments 6,066 18,327

Balanceat30June 2,813 7,331

DistrictCourtSuitorAccount

Balance at 1 July 943 1,881 Receipts 616 928

1,559 2,809 Less: Payments 798 1,866

Balanceat30June 761 943

Sheriff’sOfficeTrustAccount

Balance at 1 July 301 242 Receipts 737 1,089

1,038 1,331 Less: Payments 838 1,030

Balanceat30June 200 301

Magistrates’CourtsSuitorAccounts

Balance at 1 July 3,470 3,170 Receipts 12,073 10,827

15,543 13,997 Less: Payments 11,458 10,527

Balanceat30June 4,085 3,470

We certify that:

– the attached General Purpose Financial Report for the Courts Administration Authority presents fairly, in accordance with the Treasurer’s Instructions promulgated under the provisions of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987, applicable Australian Accounting Standards and other mandatory professional reporting requirements in Australia, the financial position of the Courts Administration Authority as at 30 June 2006, the results of its operation and its cash flows for the year then ended;

– the attached financial statements are in accordance with the accounts and records of the Authority and give an accurate indication of the financial transactions of the Authority for the year then ended; and

– internal controls over the financial reporting have been effective throughout the reporting period and there are reasonable grounds to believe the Authority will be able to pay its debts as and when they become due and payable.

Signed in accordance with a resolution of the State Administration Council

Gary Thompson

State Courts Administrator

DATE: 25 September 2006

Trevor O’Rourke

Director, Corporate Services

DATE: 25 September 2006

Certificate of Financial Report


Audit Report

TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE

SCOPE

As required by section 31 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 and section 27 of the Courts Administration Act, 1993 I have audited the financial report of the Courts Administration Authority for the financial year ended 30 June 2006. The financial report comprises:

• An Income Statement;

• A Balance Sheet;

• A Cash Flow Statement;

• A Statement of Changes in Equity;

• A Program Schedule of Expenses and Income;

• A Schedule of Administered Income and Expenses;

• A Schedule of Administered Assets and Liabilities;

• A Schedule of Administered Cash Flows;

• A Statement of Changes in Administered Equity;

• A Program Schedule of Administered Income and Expenses;

• Notes to each of the Financial Statements;

• Certificate by the State Courts Administrator and the Director, Corporate Services.

The members of the State Courts Administration Council are responsible for the financial report. I have conducted an independent audit of the financial report in order to express an opinion on it to the Chief Justice.

The audit has been conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987 and Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards to provide reasonable assurance whether the financial report is free of material misstatement.

Audit procedures included examination, on a test basis, of evidence supporting the amounts and other disclosures in the financial report and the evaluation of accounting policies and significant accounting estimates. These procedures have been undertaken to form an opinion whether, in all material respects, the financial report is presented fairly in accordance with Treasurer’s Instructions promulgated under the provisions of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987, Accounting Standards and other mandatory professional reporting requirements in Australia so as to present a view which is consistent with my understanding of the Courts Administration Authority’s financial position, the results of its operations and cash flows.

The audit opinion expressed in this report has been formed on the above basis.

Audit Opinion

In my opinion, the financial report presents fairly in accordance with the Treasurer’s Instructions promulgated under the provisions of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987, applicable Accounting Standards and other mandatory professional reporting requirements in Australia, the financial position of the Courts Administration Authority as at 30 June 2006, the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended.

K I MacPherson Auditor-General 28 September 2006

Independent Audit Report

9th Floor State Administration Centre 200 Victoria Square Adelaide SA 5000

DX 56208 Victoria Square

Tel +618 8226 9640 Fax +618 8226 9688

ABN 53 327 061 410

[email protected] www.audit.sa.gov.au


2003–2004 2004–2005 2005–2006

1 OHS legislative requirements

Number of notifiable occurrences (OHS&W Regulations Div 6.6) 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0

Number of notifiable injuries (OHS&W Reg Div 6.6) 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0

Number of notices served (OHS&W Act s35, s39 and s40) 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0

2 Injury management legislative requirements

Total number of employees who participated in rehabilitation program 4 13 4

Total number of employees rehabilitated and reassigned to alternative duties 0 7 1

Total number of employees rehabilitated to original work 4 5 2

3 WorkCover action limits

Number of open claims as at 30 June 33 40 34

Percentage of worker’s compensation expenditure over gross annual remuneration 0.79% 0.83% 0.84%

4 Number of claims

Number of new worker’s compensation claims in the financial year 19 34 23

Number of fatalities, lost time injuries, medical treatment only

(F) 0 0 0

(MTO) 12 17 13

(LTI) 7 17 10

Total number of whole working days lost 135 134 373

5 Cost of worker’s compensation

Cost of new claims for financial year 39 998 51 111 131 682

Cost of all claims excluding lump sum payments 447 926 413 536 492 113

Amount paid for lump sum payments

s42 Nil 8 000 3 000

s43 Nil 0 0

s44 Nil 0 0

Total amount recovered from external sources (s54) 0 0 0

Budget allocation for workers compensation 280 000 283 560 309 486

6 Trends

Injury frequency rate for new lost-time injury/disease for each million hours worked 6.79 13.05 7.23

Most frequent cause (mechanism) of injuryBody

StressingBody

StressingBody

Stressing

Most expensive cause (mechanism) of injuryBody

StressingBody

StressingBody

Stressing

Appendix AOccupational Health Safety And Injury Management Statistics


SPINE

SPINE

SPINE

SPINE

Annual ReportAnnual Report 2005–2006

Level 14 Education Centre

31 Flinders Street Adelaide South Australia 5000

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

Internet www.courts.sa.gov.au

Courts Administration Authority Annual Report 2005–2006

Annual Report - Courts · 2011-06-30 · SPINE SPINE Annual Report Annual Report 2005–2006 Level...

Documents

Transcript of Annual Report - Courts · 2011-06-30 · SPINE SPINE Annual Report Annual Report 2005–2006 Level...