2003 - Courts · functions were performed by one person. The commitment of further resources to this aspect of communication between the courts and the public reflects the importance,

A n n u a l R e p o r t2003

C O U R T S A D M I N I S T R A T I O N A U T H O R I T Y

1

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Organisation Chart 2

Introduction 3

Report from the Chairman of the State Courts Administration Council 4

Report from the State Courts Administrator 6

Reports on progress against Authority goals 8

Reports from the participating Courts 16

Supreme Court 16

District Court 22

Magistrates Court 25

Specialist courts and diversion programs 32

Environment Resources and Development Court 36

Youth Court 39

Coroner’s Court 42

Human Resources 44

Freedom of Information 55

Energy Statement 57

Financial Reports 58

Appendix A: CAA Strategic Plan 2003–2006 90

Appendix B: Workforce statistics 93

Appendix C: Occupational health safety and injury management statistics 94

Contents

October 2003

Courts Administration Authority

Education Centre

Level 14, 31 Flinders Street

Adelaide SA 5001

Telephone: + 618 8 8226 0102

Facsimile: + 618 8 8226 0111

Internet: www.courts.sa.gov.au

This report was prepared by the Communications Branch. For further information about the report,

please telephone + 618 8 8204 0403 or e-mail to [email protected]

ISSN 1443–0444

2

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Organisation Chart

Civ

il, C

rimin

al, C

rimin

al In

jury

,A

dmin

istr

ativ

e &

Dis

cipl

inar

yD

ivis

ion,

Lib

rary

Ser

vice

s

DIST

RICT

COU

RT

Spec

ialis

t Cou

rts

and

Trib

unal

sC

ourt

of D

ispu

ted

Ret

urns

Den

tal P

rofe

ssio

nal C

ondu

ct T

ribun

alLe

gal P

ract

ition

ers’

Dis

cipl

inar

y C

ondu

ct T

ribun

alM

edic

al P

ract

ition

ers’

Pro

fess

iona

l Con

duct

Trib

unal

Pet

role

um P

rodu

cts

Reg

ulat

ion

Cou

rtTo

w T

ruck

s Tr

ibun

alW

arde

n’s

Cou

rtTh

e A

ppel

late

Trib

unal

, est

ablis

hed

unde

r th

eTo

bacc

o P

rodu

cts

Act

198

6

Stat

e Co

urts

Adm

inis

trat

orEx

ecut

ive

Man

agem

ent C

omm

ittee

SUPR

EME

COU

RT

Civ

il, C

rimin

al, A

ppel

late

,P

roba

te, A

dmira

lty,

Libr

ary

Serv

ices

Civ

il, D

rug

Cou

rt, A

borig

inal

Cou

rtD

ays,

Vio

lenc

e In

terv

entio

nP

rogr

am, L

ibra

ry S

ervi

ces,

Cou

rts

Volu

ntee

r Se

rvic

e

MAG

ISTR

ATES

COU

RT

SHER

IFF’

SOF

FICE

Jury

Man

agem

ent,

Cou

rtSe

curit

y, C

ourt

Ord

erly

Serv

ice,

Ser

vice

and

Exec

utio

n of

Pro

cess

es

Educ

atio

n D

epar

tmen

tO

utre

ach

Offi

cer

Rep

ortin

g Se

rvic

es,

Mag

istr

ates

Cle

rks,

Aud

ioR

ecor

ding

, Rep

ortin

g Tr

aini

ng

Fina

nce

and

Acc

ount

ing,

Hum

anR

esou

rces

Man

agem

ent,

Pro

pert

yM

anag

emen

t, A

dmin

Ser

vice

s

App

licat

ions

Sys

tem

s,Te

chni

cal S

uppo

rt,

Use

r Su

ppor

t Ser

vice

s

Elec

tron

ic B

usin

ess

App

licat

ions

Yout

h C

ourt

, Fam

ily C

onfe

renc

eTe

am, C

are

and

Pro

tect

ion

Uni

t

Pla

nnin

g an

d D

evel

opm

ent,

Envi

ronm

ent P

rote

ctio

n,W

ater

Res

ourc

es, N

ativ

e Ti

tle

ERD

COU

RT*

YOU

TH C

OURT

INDU

STRI

ALRE

LATI

ONS

COU

RT

Empl

oym

ent L

aw, A

war

dsan

d En

terp

rise

Agr

eem

ents

,O

ccup

atio

nal H

ealth

, Saf

ety

and

Wel

fare

, Wor

kers

Com

pens

atio

nan

d R

ehab

ilita

tion,

App

ella

te

Inqu

ests

, Inv

estig

atio

ns,

Educ

atio

nCO

RON

ER’S

COU

RT

STAT

E CO

URT

SAD

MIN

ISTR

ATIO

N C

OUN

CIL

Chie

f Jus

tice

Chie

f Jud

geCh

ief M

agis

trat

e

*ER

D C

ourt

—EN

VIR

ON

MEN

T , R

ESO

UR

CES

AN

D D

EVEL

OP

MEN

T C

OU

RT

Cou

rt In

form

atio

n,C

omm

unity

Rel

atio

ns

The

Cou

rts

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Aut

horit

y is

con

stitu

ted

by th

e C

ourt

s A

dmin

istr

atio

n A

ct 1

993.

Inde

pend

ent o

f the

legi

slat

ive

and

exec

utiv

e ar

ms

of th

e G

over

nmen

t, it

is th

e m

eans

by

whi

ch th

eju

dici

ary

cont

rols

the

prov

isio

n of

the

adm

inis

trat

ive

faci

litie

s an

d se

rvic

es th

at th

e co

urts

of t

he S

tate

requ

ire to

dis

char

ge th

eir

judi

cial

func

tions

.

COU

RTS

EDU

CATI

ONOF

FICE

R

COU

RTRE

PORT

ING

CORP

ORAT

ESE

RVIC

ES

INFO

RMAT

ION

SERV

ICES

DIVI

SION

COM

MU

NIC

ATIO

NS

BRAN

CH

ELEC

TRON

ICBU

SIN

ESS

BRAN

CH

Med

ia L

iais

onM

EDIA

LIA

SON

OFFI

CER


3

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Introduction

The Courts administer justice on behalf of the people of South Australia.

The Courts Administration Authority (“the Authority”) provides

the Courts with administrative facilities and services.

The Supreme Court, District Court and Magistrates Court are

among the quickest in the nation for clearing cases in criminal,

civil and appeal matters.

This report begins with a snapshot of highlights in 2002–2003.

Reports from the Chairman of the State Courts

Administration Council and the State Courts

Administrator follow.

A report on performance against strategic goals of the

Authority appears thereafter and before individual reports

from each of the participating Courts of the Authority.

Highlights 2002–2003

Evaluation of a Drug Court pilot program. The pilot became a

permanent diversion program.

Creation of separate full-time positions for media liaison and

community relations, to enhance public understanding of the

work of the Courts and to facilitate communication with the

community.

Implementing electronic lodgement of documents in the

Magistrates Court (SA’s largest and busiest court), saving

time and money for all parties.

Appointment of a resident magistrate in Port Augusta, also

hearing matters at Coober Pedy, Oodnadatta, Roxby Downs,

Leigh Creek and Peterborough.

Enhanced alternative fine payment strategies, to strengthen

the enforcement of orders of the courts.

Continued efforts to improve the administration of justice to

indigenous Australians through closer communication

between the Judiciary and leaders of indigenous

communities, recruitment of indigenous staff and ongoing

commitment to the Authority’s landmark Statement of

Reconciliation 2001.

Federation Centenary Award medals awarded to the Chief

Justice, The Honourable John Doyle, AC, State Courts

Administrator Mr Bill Cossey, Mr Chris Vass SM,

Mr Clive Kitchin SM, and Court Volunteers, Mr Joe Lewicki,

Ms Barbara Daniel and Ms Annita Sommariva, in various

fields of endeavour.

Institute of Public Administration Australia Best Annual

Report award 2000–2001 (announced in July 2002).

4

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

The Authority continues to review the standard of facilities

and services that it provides. Where possible it makes

improvements. The Authority’s ability to do so, particularly

in relation to the standard of its premises, is limited by the

funds available to it. The Council members met with

members of the Executive Management team for a half-day

in May 2003. The meeting was used to examine the most

efficient use of staff in connection with court processes, and

to commence development of the Authority’s strategic plan

for 2003–2006 (see Appendix A).

The Council is exploring the possibility of implementing a

program of improvements to rural courts, in conjunction

with a program for improvements to rural police facilities.

The Council hopes that this will lead to much needed

improvements to court facilities in rural locations.

As to services, the Authority believes that its staff provide a

high level of service. However, this is an area that continues

to receive attention.

The Authority continues its efforts to make the best use of

advances in information technology, so as to improve

services to the Judiciary and to the public.

The Council also does all that it can to improve the

information available to the public about the work of the

courts. As I have said on many occasions, confidence in the

administration of justice depends upon the public knowing

what the courts are doing and why they do it. Under this

heading, there are two points worthy of mention. First, the

Authority’s website continues to be heavily used by the

public. Since February 2002 the Authority has placed on its

website, within a very short time after delivery, all

sentencing remarks made by judges of the Supreme Court

and District Court when imposing sentence. The aim is to

provide detailed information about the sentencing of

offenders, a topic of frequent public debate. The details are

often overlooked in public debate. This development has

been well received. Sentencing remarks and decisions of

the Environment, Resources and Development Court were

also placed on the Authority’s website this year. It is hoped

that during the coming year Supreme Court and District

Court judgments in civil matters will likewise be made

available on the Authority’s website.

The Council is a body corporate established by the Act. It is

independent of the Executive Government. During the year

ended 30 June 2003, the Council comprised me as Chief

Justice, Chief Judge Worthington of the District Court, the

then Chief Magistrate, Mr Alan Moss SM and subsequently

his replacement Mr Kelvyn Prescott SM. The Associate

members for the year ended 30 June 2003 were Justice

Martin, Judge Simpson, Mr Kelvyn Prescott as Deputy Chief

Magistrate and subsequently Dr Andrew Cannon SM as

Deputy Chief Magistrate.

The Council is responsible for providing administrative

facilities and services for participating courts. Participating

courts include most of the courts of the State and each

court is responsible for its own internal administration.

The State Courts Administrator is responsible to the Council

for the control and management of the Council staff, and for

the management of property under the Council’s control.

All court staff are staff of the Council. The Council, the

Administrator and the staff are together referred to as the

Courts Administration Authority.

Funds are provided to the Council by annual appropriation

by Parliament, to meet a budget submitted by the Council

and approved by the Attorney-General under the Act.

This is a report on how the Council discharged its statutory

responsibilities in the year ended 30 June 2003.

The work of the Authority

As I said in last year’s report, to a considerable extent the

result of the Council’s work can be seen by examining the

work of the participating courts. In this part of the report I

limit myself to matters affecting the Authority as a whole,

and some matters that affect individual courts but are of

particular significance.

The focus of the Authority continues to be on providing a

high standard of service and appropriate facilities to those

members of the public who deal with the courts, and the

provision to the Judiciary of premises and administrative

support of a high standard.

S T A T E S C O U R T S A D M I N I S T R A T I O N C O U N C I L

This is the tenth report of the State Courts Administration Council (the Council) provided as

required by s 13(1) of the Courts Administration Act 1993 (the Act).

Chairman’s Report


5

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

In my last report I mentioned that the Council had begun a

program of “Justice Roundtables”. These involve half-day

meetings between a small group comprising representatives

of the judiciary and Authority staff, and a slightly larger

group drawn from the community. During the year in

question this program continued. One “Justice Roundtable”

involved a number of representatives from the Department

of Correctional Services. The focus of discussion on this

occasion was on how the courts can make the best and

most efficient use of the resources and services provided by

that Department, and on the provision by the Department of

information about the practical working of some of the

sentencing options available to judges. On another occasion

we met with representatives of the Vietnamese and Chinese

communities, and discussed with them the manner in

which the courts and court staff deal with members of their

communities, and how communication might be improved.

During the year, despite budgetary constraints, the Council

created separate fulltime positions of Media Liaison Officer

and Communications Manager. The focus of the former

position is on dealing with representatives of the media. The

focus of the latter position is on improving communication

with the general public in all its forms, including doing what

we can to make court forms and court documents

understandable by the general public. Previously, these

functions were performed by one person. The commitment

of further resources to this aspect of communication

between the courts and the public reflects the importance,

which the Council gives to this aspect of its functions. The

work of each of these officers is overseen, in a general way,

by the Council’s Community Relations Committee, a

particularly active committee of the Council.

The poor state of the Supreme Court facilities continues to

be a matter of concern. The public do not have facilities of

the standard that they are entitled to expect, nor do our

staff. Nor are the premises consistent with the position of

the Court as the highest court of the state. With the

cooperation of the government, which I acknowledge, the

Council is exploring the possibility of a redevelopment of the

site through a “Public Private Partnership”. The Council is

also considering other possibilities.

I am pleased to report that, the Government having made a

funding commitment, plans for a new court complex at Port

Augusta are well advanced. The Council had hoped that the

project would be further advanced than it is, but apart from

delay attributable to a change of site, some of the delay is

attributable to the desire of the Council to ensure that all

needs are taken into account, including the needs of the

indigenous peoples, and that a high standard of design is

achieved.

Responding to the wishes of the current government, the

Magistrates Court has provided a resident magistrate at Port

Augusta. All indications are that this move has been well

received by the community. It is anticipated that resident

magistrates will be appointed at other locations in the near

future.

The Council continues to give a high priority to maintaining

existing communications with groups representing

indigenous peoples. Particular attention is being paid of late

to the administration of justice in remote areas of the state.

There are a number of deep-seated major problems

affecting indigenous communities in isolated parts of the

state. These impact on the ability of the courts to administer

criminal justice in particular in a satisfactory manner.

Regrettably, progress in resolving these issues has been

slow, although that is not due to any want of goodwill. This

is an area of particular concern to the magistracy, and

several magistrates are making commendable efforts to

identify problems and possible solutions, to the extent that

they can, consistent with their judicial function.

It is appropriate here to record my gratitude to the

magistrates and to the Magistrates Court for the

considerable efforts they are making to improve the manner

in which justice is administered to South Australia’s

indigenous peoples. I should mention here also the work of

the committee for Aboriginal cultural awareness for the

Judiciary, chaired by Justice Mullighan. This committee has

achieved a great deal.

The work of the Courts Administration Authority involves a

good deal of interaction with the Attorney-General and with

his Department. The Chief Judge, the Chief Magistrate and

I meet separately with the Attorney-General on a regular

basis, to discuss issues affecting our respective courts.

My meetings with the Attorney-General also give me an

opportunity to raise with the Attorney-General issues

affecting the Authority as a whole. As well, officers of the

Authority at various levels meet regularly with officers of the

Attorney-General’s Department.

Like his predecessor, the Attorney-General the Hon.

Michael Atkinson has committed a considerable amount of

time to these meetings, and I express my appreciation of

his interest in the work of the courts. I also thank his Chief

Executive, Ms Kate Lennon, for the interest she takes in the

work of the courts and for the contribution that she makes

to the excellent working relationship between the Authority

and the Attorney-General and his Department.

I record the Council’s appreciation of the fine work done by

the Administrator Mr Bill Cossey, and by our loyal and

hardworking staff.

The Honourable John Doyle ACChief Justice of South AustraliaChairman State Courts Administration Council

6

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

video conferencing facilities linking metropolitan courts,

prisons and Legal Services Commission offices. This will

reduce the number of matters requiring the transport of

people in prison to and from court. At the time of writing

this report, these two projects had begun.

In the Supreme and District Courts, the Authority has

examined procedures used for scheduling matters. Our

aim is to understand better the reasons for a significant

number of late decisions in criminal matters that

particularly impact on the use of the Authority’s resources.

Australian Bureau of Statistics reports indicate that South

Australia has a very high rate of people changing pleas

from “not guilty” to “guilty” and of matters being

withdrawn from court by the Director of Public

Prosecutions. Such events are to be expected.

We experience numbers of late decisions of this type.

These can impact negatively on resources if no other

matter can be brought forward at short notice.

During the year, a number of other activities important to

the improved operation of the Authority’s initiatives were

progressed. The Authority committed to the greater use of

electronically based library materials as a step towards

improving research services for judicial officers, staff and

the public and, in anticipation, of a reduced dependence

on paper based library materials. This has been extremely

well received in its first six months. In addition, Council

decided to redevelop the Authority’s outdated JURIS

system which is an in-house research tool for judicial

officers and their staff. The redeveloped system will be

implemented in 2003–04.

Greater use of technology continued throughout 2002–03.

In some Magistrates Courts, up to 70% of hearing

outcomes are being entered on-line in the courtroom as

they happen. Masters of the Supreme Court and District

Court also are entering outcomes in court. A long and

complex murder trial is taking place in a specially refitted

courtroom in the Sir Samuel Way Building. Valuable

lessons are being learned from that trial about future use

of technology in major trials. It is important to record that

the technology has worked well. The Authority thanks the

Attorney-General’s Department and the State Cabinet for

This year has been no exception. The South Australian

courts have been very busy with more than 300,000

hearings in locations throughout the State covering

criminal and civil matters in all jurisdictions.

By and large, matters have progressed smoothly through

the courts. This is a tribute to the dedication and

commitment of the staff of the Authority and to the

cooperation our staff receive from court users, notably the

legal profession and the staff of various government and

non-government agencies. I place on record my sincere

thanks to the staff and to those with whom we work daily.

That is not to say that each matter before the courts

proceeds as smoothly we all would like. Some matters

suffer from continual delays and adjournments for various

reasons including unavailability of witnesses, lack of

preparation by defendants in criminal cases (particularly

relating to delays in seeking legal advice) and sickness.

However, I am pleased to report that rarely is a matter

delayed in South Australia because of the unavailability of

a judicial officer, a courtroom or support staff. Where this

happens, it is generally because the court has scheduled

more matters to be heard on a given day than it is possible

for the court to hear. This is done because many matters

the courts schedule are deferred or delayed for reasons

beyond the court’s control. On rare occasions the court

can be embarrassed by not having a judge or courtroom

available but this is considered preferable to scheduling

too few matters and incurring even greater delays. The

Authority monitors the situation closely.

This year our efforts have been assisted by the work of the

Attorney General’s Department’s Business Reform Unit

with which the Authority has been cooperating through the

secondment of senior staff and in other ways. Two projects

sponsored by that Unit have the potential to assist the

Authority’s work considerably. The first project aims to

reduce significantly the number of adjournments in

magistrates courts by enabling people required to appear

in court to be better prepared and informed. The second

project aims to improve the efficiency of some aspects of

the work of the Magistrates Court by providing a network of

In previous annual reports, I have mentioned that court administration involves the delicate

balance of maintaining the day-to-day work of the courts with finding new and better ways to

conduct that work.

Administrator’s Report


7

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

providing the funding for the establishment of this

courtroom.

The Authority continues to find ways to assist court users.

Use of the internet-based pre-lodgement system

implemented by the Magistrates Court two years ago

continues to grow. A survey conducted late in the year

indicated a 70% satisfaction rate with the system.

Electronic lodgements in the Magistrates Court have

continued to increase, suggesting a similar level of

acceptance. The introduction of electronic filing in the

higher courts remains a priority. It was hoped that the

system would be operational in 2002–03 but some

unexpected complexities led to a revised schedule.

Implementation is now planned for 2003–04.

For some time, I have been concerned about the

effectiveness of the enforcement processes (and

outcomes) for people awarded a civil judgment in their

favour. This year, the Sheriff and the Adelaide Magistrates

Court introduced some new arrangements. These

arrangements have doubled the success rate. A similar

approach will be introduced in 2003–04 in all metropolitan

magistrates courts.

Also of concern is the Authority’s ability to deal

satisfactorily with the needs of disabled and culturally

diverse members of the community. This year, the

Authority implemented aspects of its Disability Action Plan

and took steps toward better managing diversity within and

outside of the organisation. Work on both plans will

continue next year.

During the year under review, the Authority contributed to

the Review of Child Protection conducted by Robyn Layton

QC. The report of the review contains a number of

recommendations of interest to the Authority and late in

the year, a working group under the leadership of Senior

Judge Alan Moss of the Youth Court, was formed to

develop a response to those recommendations.

This is my final report as State Courts Administrator, with

my contract expiring during 2003–04. I wish to place on

record my appreciation to all of the staff of the Authority

for their outstanding service during my term. I particularly

acknowledge the wonderful support I have had from the

members of the Authority’s Executive Management

Committee, including former Deputy State Courts

Administrator, Julie Baker, who left the Authority for a

position in NSW in August 2002. They have become an

excellent team and I am proud of the way in which, under

their leadership, the collaboration across the Authority has

developed and is continuing to develop.

I also place on record my sincere thanks to the people

with whom I have worked from other government and non-

government agencies. I have been privileged to be a

member of the Justice Portfolio Leadership Council under

the guidance of Kate Lennon, Chief Executive, Attorney-

General’s Department. Kate has been an inspiration in the

way she has supported the work of the Authority and

particularly the improvement initiatives that have required

cross agency collaboration.

Finally, I thank all members of the South Australian

Judiciary for enabling me to work closely and, I think,

constructively with them. The State Courts Administration

Council, and particularly Chief Justice John Doyle, have

been unwavering in their encouragement of the Authority

generally and me personally. I could not have been more

fortunate in my time as State Courts Administrator.

Bill CosseySTATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR

8

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

A G A I N S T T H E G O A L S O F T H E A U T H O R I T Y

Reports on Progress

REPORT ON STRATEGIC GOALS OF THE AUTHORITY

The State Courts Administration Council, directly and through the efforts of staff and volunteers of

the Authority aims to:

Introduce Justice Round Tables – these are half-daymeetings between judiciary, staff and members of thecommunity.

Three Justice Round Tables; one with the Attorney-General’s Department; one concerning sentencing optionsinvolving Correctional Services and the third on improvingCourts’ services for Vietnamese and Chinese communities.

Appoint a public information officer and review all aspectsof our communications.

Created separate positions of media liaison officer andcommunications manager.

Place sentencing remarks and judgments online for easieraccess by the community.

Monitored the success of placing sentencing remarksonline, as well as decisions of the Environment, Resourcesand Development (ERD) Court; developed ways andmeans to publish judgments of the Supreme and DistrictCourts online in 2003–2004.

Improve listing of cases, record storage, data entry. Implemented electronic lodgment in the Magistrates Court;entering the outcomes of cases whilst in the courtroom;and new data storage and retrieval systems in variouscourts. This included a new database for child adoptionsin the Youth Court.

Participate in Justice Portfolio initiatives including aReinvesting in Justice program.

Seconded staff to the portfolio to explore potential costsavings. Review of first appearance and remand ratesin Magistrates Courts. Video conferencing to prisonsand for court appearances in all courts being explored2003–2004.

Expand mediation services and alternative disputeresolution services

Mediation services expanded to country courts. Officessecured and refurbished to enable private mediations inAdelaide. Training for more mediators in the MagistratesCourt, ERD Court and District Court.

• 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 access to justice and improve the

performance of the justice system overall.

FORECASTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS AGAINST THESE STRATEGIC GOALS FOLLOW:

2001–2002 2002–2003Forecast Achieved


9

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

FORECASTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS AGAINST THESE STRATEGIC GOALS FOLLOW: (CONTINUED)


Improve facilities Upgraded Courtroom 3, Sir Samuel Way Building, to ahigh tech court for large criminal trials. The upgradecost $2.4m and was completed on time and $250,000under budget.

Completed façade refurbishment to Supreme CourtBuilding in October 2002, as year two of a five-year planto redevelop the precinct.

Renovated Tanunda and Mt Gambier courthouses tocreate private areas for interviews to assess an individual’scapacity to pay fines.

Commenced detailed planning for a new court complex atPort Augusta.

Commissioned new signage for all Magistrates Courts.

Replaced Youth Court video conferencing equipment toinclude a vulnerable witness facility to take evidence viaclosed circuit television. The Court is working with MagillYouth Training Centre on video links for adjournments,remands and bail applications.

Upgraded security in the Sir Samuel Way Building andHolden Hill Magistrates Court.

Continued efforts to improve the administration of justiceto indigenous Australians.

The Council of the Authority issued its ReconciliationStatement in March 2001. This year, efforts were made tomake changes that reflect the aims of the statement.

Working with the Justice Portfolio Justice Strategy Unitto expand Nunga Court concepts into the Youth Court,commencing with a pilot to begin at Port Augusta inJuly 2003.

Appointed an indigenous youth justice coordinator atPort Augusta.

Appointed an indigenous trainee in the YouthCourt Registry.

Appointed an indigenous cadet under the NationalIndigenous Cadetship Program as a trainee social workerin the Care and Protection Unit.

Expanded Nunga Court concept to Ceduna.

Appointed an indigenous interpreter (fluent in Pitjantjatjaraand other Aboriginal languages) on a continuous servicepilot at Port Augusta until April 2003, when he was offeredemployment as a Sheriff’s officer. This officer is availablefor circuit hearings in the Anangu-Pitjantjatjara Lands.

As part of the Judicial Cultural Awareness Program run byJustice Mullighan, explored “sentencing circles” andsimilar conferencing techniques for application in adultcourt hearings involving indigenous defendants.

Justice Mullighan, as co-chair of the State ReconciliationCommittee and with other members of the Judiciary, metleaders of indigenous communities to arrange variousreconciliation events throughout the year.

Took part in an awareness day for indigenous Australiansduring Drug and Alcohol Action Week, informing visitorsabout services and information for indigenous people incontact with the Courts.

The Coroner for the first time allowed an Aboriginalsmoking ceremony to be performed in Court for an inquestinto the death in custody of an Aboriginal woman.

Developed a 10–week program by Courts EducationOfficer to promote the Courts as a resource for indigenousyouth, commencing with 65 students from centralAustralian Walpirri language group.

10

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

FORECASTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS AGAINST THESE STRATEGIC GOALS FOLLOW: (CONTINUED)



Reports on Progress

Establish an e-mail contact centre. E-mail contact point established, enabling members ofthe public to access information from all courts withintwo hours (for routine enquiries).

Produce and distribute a Courts Charter. Achieved, with distribution in public areas and in courtvisitor information packs.

Explore with Legal Services Commission contributions toTAFE interpreting curricula to train interpreters for courthearings.

SA Law Foundation funds obtained to train interpreters tonationally accredited interpreting standards in Arabic,Dari, Bosnian, Persian, Albanian, Somali and Kurdish.Course begins July 2003.

Introduce a new payroll system. Implemented appropriate software (CHRIS).

Review medical records storage procedures in courts. Achieved. New procedures being implemented inMagistrates Courts.

Conduct feasibility studies for networked digital audiorecording systems to replace analogue systems in courtreporting.

In principle approval given to conduct digital audio pilot tocommence in 2003–04.

Implement transcript management system to enable fullelectronic archiving of transcripts.

Achieved March 2002. Hard copy archiving ceased 30June 2003.

Evaluate pilot scheme involving computer voicerecognition software.

Fourteen members of the Judiciary now use voicerecognition software to prepare judgments, e-mails, notes,rulings, etc, in court and on country circuits.

Consider upgrades for computer network systems,including Computer Case Management System (CCMS)and Judicial Research and Information System (JURIS).

With assistance from Microsoft Innovation Centre, where apossible replacement to JURIS was developed and trialled,a six-month project has commenced to replace JURIS.

A record number of outcomes entered on one criminalcase file (R v Bunting and Ors) led to a temporary collapseof CRIMCASE as the system had been designed only tomanage 999 entries per file. Incidents such as this,coupled with data blocks and generally slow processingtimes associated with computer memory shortfallshighlight the need to replace this informationmanagement system.

Continually improve services by involving staff. Held an in-house conference in October 2002 oncustomer service and needs of members of thecommunity with culturally diverse backgrounds.


11

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Since the Authority’s landmark study “Courts Consulting

the Community” in 2000, the judiciary and staff of the

Authority continue to work on ways to enhance

community trust and confidence in the Courts and the

level of services provided by the Courts.

In the year under review, a number of initiatives continued

or were introduced.

Community Relations Committee (CRC)

This standing committee of the Council was expanded to

include more judicial officers and the Communications

Manager was appointed as executive officer to the

committee. Since January, the CRC has developed and

implemented elements of a three-year community

involvement plan.

The plan has five themes: Sentencing, Processes, User-

Friendly Courts, Judicial Independence and Technology.

These underpin a range of activities.

Examples of the projects arising from the plan underway

this year include:

• Development of a pilot of “You be the Judge”, an

instructive interactive (soft and hard copy) resource to

provide participants with facts, legislation, relevant

legal precedents and associated materials to deliver a

sentence and to compare the sentence with that

delivered by a judge or magistrate.

• Development of a Court Reference Group or similar; a

group comprising some members of the Courts and

representatives of the community meeting regularly to

provide a forum for voices not heard by the Courts

through routine means.

• More educational ‘roadshows’ for regional South

Australia. This follows a successful pilot roadshow to

Eyre Peninsula, in March 2002, involving 600

students and 100 members of the public in

workshops, mock court hearings and mock

parliamentary debates. A roadshow to the South East

was held in March 2003, involving 350 students and

40 members of the community. Another is planned for

the Riverland in August 2003.

• A review of information and services available to self

represented litigants in all jurisdictions, including a

“clinic” run by the University of Adelaide and Flinders

University law schools and hosted by the Adelaide

Magistrates Court.

Education

The Authority has a strong commitment to education about

the courts. A full-time Courts Education Officer coordinates

visits for students of all ages and community groups,

provides expert advice to teachers and develops resources

for schools. This year, a senior project officer assisted with

tours for community groups. Groups participate in

workshops, mock cases and observe court process.

In 2002–2003 more than 9110 students and about 620

community members were escorted through the courts.

This compares with 10,855 students and 473 community

members last year.

During the year, the education officer supplemented mock

trials during Law Week with additional mock Magistrates

Court hearings at Adelaide during the second school

semester.

The education officer involved members of the judiciary,

Aboriginal justice officers and other court staff, police

prosecutors and representatives of the Legal Services

Commission in training and development opportunities for

teachers, including the Legal Education Teachers

Association of SA (LETASA) conference and teacher groups.

Judicial officers attended the LETASA pre-conference

dinner for the first time in a move designed to enhance

communication between courts and educators.

Around 190 staff attended a screening of the film

“Whale Rider” as a cultural awareness activity.

The Authority’s web site provides interactive and

educational support material for schools and the

community. The education officer is finalising a virtual

tour of the Adelaide Magistrates Court.

Secondary and tertiary students continue to gain work

experience placements in various courts.

Law week

The Authority continued its community involvement through

strong support for Law Week. More than 1200 members of

the community attended the annual Courts Open Day and

around 100 young people participated in a Youth Court

event at Adelaide SK8 skate park. The Family Conference

Team was also instrumental in events in Port Lincoln,

Whyalla and Port Augusta. About 100 people visited a

Courts’ information stand set up at Arndale Shopping

Centre as part of a Justice Porfolio event.

12

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Media

A media liaison officer was appointed in November.

Previously, the Communications Manager also performed

this role. The media liaison officer arranged several

interviews and live radio talk-back sessions, involving

judges, magistrates and senior court staff, on topics ranging

from sentencing to the work of various Courts and key

appointments.

The media liaison officer produced a video of interviews

with judicial officers about their work. It is available as

resource to schools and community groups. A second

media liaison officer, appointed in 2002 to manage media

interest in R v Bunting and Others, continues to provide

valuable service to media by arranging smooth access to

transcript, exhibits and information about processes.

Court Volunteer Service

Volunteers continue to provide a valuable service to those

attending courts. This year, volunteers dispensed more than

10,000 cups of tea/coffee and provided information

assistance and directions to more than 51,000 clients.

A court service has been established to help those with

special needs. The support has been offered to defendants

appearing in the Court Diversion Program (Mental

Impairment) and in the Family Violence Court. Negotiations

are continuing to provide court support volunteers to

Aboriginal Courts and the Fines Payment Unit.

Volunteers began providing refreshments and help to

clients in the Youth Court from May 2003. A family

conference team youth help liaison committee continued to

grow this year, providing a link between the Youth Court and

the community.

The Authority greatly appreciates the contribution of all

volunteers. It has an ongoing commitment to ensure that

the role remains meaningful to the volunteer and responsive

to client needs. Information days for volunteers were held in

August 2002. A training day was held in March 2003, to

ensure consistency of practice. Celebrations also took place

during National Volunteer Week, when presentations were

made to volunteers who had attained significant periods of

service to the Courts.


Reports on Progress

Cross agency and community consultative forums

The Authority seeks involvement with the community

through participation and collaboration with external

agencies and associations such as Victim Support Services

Inc, Legal Services Commission, Aboriginal Legal Rights

Movement, South Australia Police, the Office of the Director

of Public Prosecutions, Child and Youth Health, Department

of Human Services, Registration and Licensing and

Transport SA in a range of community consultative forums.

The Magistrates and Youth Courts have also established

local issues-based community court user forums meeting

regularly in metropolitan suburbs (north and south of the

CBD) and in regional areas.

Juries

The Sheriff is responsible for the provision of juries to the

Courts and this year improvements to the induction and

welfare arrangements for jurors continued.

A juror induction information booklet was developed for

Adelaide jurors. The booklet provides answers to frequently

asked questions from jurors once sworn in, a copy of notes

for jurors displayed in jury deliberation rooms, copies of

juror expense claim forms, sheriff’s office contact telephone

numbers and the juror’s section number for easy reference.

Recommendations from the internal review of the jury

system undertaken during the last reporting period have

been discussed at length with the Judiciary and State

Courts Administration Council.

The Attorney-General has been advised of a

recommendation arising from the review that requires a

change to legislation to ensure the confidentiality of juror

details. Further consultation on this matter will be

necessary.

To assist with the confidentiality of juror information the

Judges of the Supreme Court and District Court have

modified the procedure for selecting jurors. Jurors are now

referred to in open court by number only. Their name is no

longer used. Parties are shown (not given) a list that shows

a juror’s name, juror number, the suburb in which they

reside and their occupation. The street and house number

no longer appear on this list.


13

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Counselling continues to be made available for jurors who

may have been subject to trauma during court proceedings

in which they have been involved.

Changes to the Regulations under the Juries Act 1927 came

into operation in August 2002. These provide for the

Minister, on the advice of the Court, to declare a criminal trial

by notice in the Government Gazette to be a ‘long trial.’

This allows for a juror who is empanelled for a ‘long trial’ to

be paid an amount equal to their monetary loss up to a

maximum of $200 per day. A declaration was made by the

Attorney-General in September 2002 for the criminal trial

R v Bunting and Wagner. Nine (9) of the fifteen (15) jurors

selected for the trial were paid more than the standard

$100 per day.

Surveys of jurors who have completed their service have

been done in Adelaide, Port Augusta and Mount Gambier.

The surveys measure the usefulness of information provided

prior, at induction and during their service, the facilities

provided, payments and whether, by serving as a juror, they

felt they had made any contribution to the administration of

justice in South Australia. The surveys showed:

• 90% of Adelaide jurors and 87% of country jurors said

the information provided in the new juror information and

employer brochures was extremely helpful;


the induction address and judicial induction video were

extremely helpful;


the facilities provided were very comfortable;


they were not out of pocket by the amount of expenses

covered; and


they had made a real contribution to the administration

of justice in South Australia.

Surveys will be run quarterly to provide a means of feedback

for improvement.

Prisoner handling

The first twelve months of a second five-year Prisoner

Movement and In-Court Management contract with Group 4

has been completed. Conformance audits of the contract are

being conducted by representatives from the Justice Portfolio

Contract Management Group and the Manager Sheriff’s

Officers – Regional at all sites associated with the contract.

Enforcement

An audit was done of the skill levels of Sheriff’s Officers

performing civil enforcement activities within the

metropolitan area. A training module on operational safety

and risk assessment strategies was subsequently

developed and implemented.

A working party comprising the Deputy Chief Magistrate,

the Sheriff and representatives from the Magistrates Court

and Sheriff’s Office has been formed to review the

Magistrates Court civil enforcement processes. Several

areas for improvement have been identified and are being

researched with a view to making recommendations

for change.

A client survey was done of stakeholders of the

Magistrates Court civil jurisdiction. The survey allowed for

comment on various aspects of the civil jurisdiction and

client service issues. Follow up interviews were held with

individual stakeholders and the results of the survey and

interviews have been provided to the working party for

further consideration.

The Sheriff initiated a pilot program on 1 July 2002 to

manage centrally warrants of sale issued from the

Adelaide Magistrates Court. The pilot proved successful,

with improvements in rates of recovery of outstanding

debts. The program will be extended to warrants of sale

from all metropolitan Magistrates Courts. Job profiles for

two additional administrative staff to manage this workload

are being prepared.

The Sheriff has initiated discussions with the South

Australian Police Department (SAPOL) to target fine

defaulters during police traffic blitz operations. The aim is

to enable fines assessors to speak to drivers about

outstanding fines while they are being interviewed by

police. The Manager, Enforcement and Manager, Fines

Payment Unit have participated in information/training

sessions with SAPOL to provide a better understanding of

the role of the Courts, the Fines Payment Unit and the

Sheriff’s Office as well as improving data collection

between the agencies on outstanding fine defaulters.

The Sheriff and Commissioner of Police have signed a

Memorandum of Understanding that formalises processes

for giving police officers the powers of a security officer

pursuant to the Sheriff’s Act, 1978.

14

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Location Number of Searches Conducted2000–01 2001–02 2002–03

Sir Samuel Way Building 226 189 320 759 361 103

Adelaide Magistrates Court 328 610 262 889 288 010

Coroners Court # N/A 3 202 6 016

Adelaide Youth Court 50 653 59 828 91 977

Holden Hill Magistrates Court 105 815 94 733 108 426

Elizabeth Magistrates Court 162 540 155 451 170 333

Pt Adelaide Magistrates Court 136 091 131 808 124 909

Christies Beach Magistrates Court 93 161 114 029 109 053

Mt Gambier Magistrates Court ** 26 206 56 205 52 823

Supreme Court ++ 0 0 40 382

TOTAL 1 129 265 1 198 904 1 353 032

The total number of weapons/inappropriate items detected through the point of entry search arrangements has increased in

comparison to last financial year by 33% but remains relatively constant at less than 1% of the total number of searches

conducted across all locations.


Reports on Progress

Security

To manage risk and enhance the safety of persons within

the court precincts:

• Prisoner docks in selected court rooms in the city and

metropolitan area have been increased in height by the

addition of toughened glass

• The Sir Samuel Way Building electronic security system

was upgraded in December 2002. The upgrade

included installation of closed circuit television (CCTV)

cameras in criminal courtrooms, public waiting areas,

registry counters and additional cameras in prisoner

movement areas.

• The Holden Hill Magistrates Court electronic security

system was upgraded in July 2002, with the installation

of CCTV cameras in courtrooms and public waiting

areas.


15

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

PersonsItems leaving court

temporarily precinct priorremoved at to a point of

Location Items confiscated point of entry entry search

(A) (B)

2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2002–03 2002–03

Sir Samuel Way Building 993 869 0 903 12

Adelaide Magistrates Court 1742 1687 1 2553 31

Coroners Court # N/A 1 0 0 0

Adelaide Youth Court 339 231 4 258 22

Holden Hill Magistrates Court 1275 1049 1 1160 0

Elizabeth Magistrates Court 1515 1202 2 1738 3

Pt Adelaide Magistrates Court 884 770 3 641 1

Christies Beach Magistrates Court 1136 851 11 1471 0

Mt Gambier Magistrates Court ** 105 312 2 349 8

Supreme Court ++ 0 0 0 150 5

TOTAL 7989 6971 24 9223 82

# Statistics for Search and Items Confiscated at the Coroners Court during financial year 2000–01 were included under Adelaide Magistrates Court.

** Mt Gambier Magistrates Court point of entry searches were not undertaken for the full financial year 2000–01.

++ Supreme Court point of entry searches commenced from December 2002.

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

Comparative statistical data relating to violent encounters and arrest/reports over the past three years continue to indicate a

downward trend. The continued decrease is believed to be as a result of the point of entry searches, greater visibility of

Sheriff’s Officers at the entry of court facilities and awareness of security issues by Authority staff. However, there has been an

increase in the total number of incidents, compared with the previous year.

Incident 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03

Needles found 127 70 149

Bomb threats 5 0 2

Duress alarms 534 358 580

Escapes 0 1 0

Attempted escapes 1 3 0

Security attendance 724 466 712

Emergency alarms 7 7 14

First aid emergency 17 16 30

Violent encounters 20 12 4

Removal from court 19 18 28

Remand in custody escorts 223 76 135

Weapons found 5 6 0

Courtroom door searches 1 5 3

Prisoner production 110 27 98

Witness protection 15 11 31

Arrest/Report 15 12 9

TOTAL 1823 1088 1795

16

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

F R O M T H E PA R T I C I PAT I N G C O U R T S O F T H E A U T H O R I T Y

Court Reports

SUPREME COURTAT A GLANCE 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03

Number of judges 14 14 14/13

Number of masters 3 3 3

Staff numbers 73 73 73

Total civil lodgments 1 501 1 472 1 662

Land and Valuation division lodgments + 24 37 48

Probate grants of representation 4 675 4 712 4 754

Total criminal lodgments (combined registry) ~ 1 517 1 876 1 999

Single judge appeals instituted + 198 248 216

Full Court appeals instituted + 122 79 84

Criminal appeals instituted 134 160 132

~ Excludes circuit courts

+ Included in total civil lodgments

* One position has not been filled (see reference to Judiciary below)

Role and function

The Supreme Court is the highest court in South Australia.

The Supreme Court hears civil claims and serious criminal

charges. It sits in Adelaide and periodically at Mount

Gambier and Port Augusta.

In its appellate jurisdiction, the Court deals with appeals from

decisions in civil and criminal cases heard by the Supreme

Court, the District Court, the Magistrates Court, and certain

boards and tribunals. The Full Court, in civil matters, and the

Court of Criminal Appeal, in criminal matters, decide appeals

against decisions of the Supreme Court and District Court.

Three judges usually constitute these courts. A single judge

hears appeals from the Magistrates Court.

Acting under the Administration and Probate Act, the

Probate Registry legislation 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 Supreme Court judiciary comprises 14 Judges, including

the Chief Justice, and three Masters. The Judges sit in all

divisions. Masters conduct hearings in the civil jurisdiction of

the Supreme Court.

During 2002–03, Justices Williams and Wicks retired. The

vacancy left by Justice Wicks was filled by the appointment

of Justice Sulan from the District Court. Justice Williams

was not replaced, reflecting a decision by the government

to reduce the number of judicial positions funded by it.

Registrar and court staff

The Registrar manages the executive, registry, and judicial

support services. Deputy Registrars, managers, registry

staff, judicial support staff, and librarians support the

Registrar. Associates, all of whom are legally trained, and

some of whom are admitted barristers and solicitors, assist

the Justices with research and in-court duties.

Overview of judicial workload

The courts measure performance against timeliness

standards. The work on criminal matters for the Supreme

Court and District Court is managed on the basis of

combined lists. The figure below sets out the standards in

the Supreme Court (civil) and the Supreme Court and

District Court (criminal) and results against those

standards for the past three years.

The standard for the Full Court and Court of Criminal

Appeal (CCA) refers to the period between the time when

the parties have done all they need to make the appeal

ready to proceed and the time when the registry lists it for

hearing. The standard for appeals by a single judge refers

to the period between lodgment of appeal documents and

hearing. There is little or no delay in these lists.


17

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

TARGET STANDARDS AND ACTUAL ACHIEVEMENTS

STANDARDS TARGET ACTUAL ACTUAL ACTUAL2000–01 2001–02 2002–03

APPELLATE

Full Court Next List Next List Next List Next Listto 2 months

Court of Criminal Appeal Next List Next List Next List Next Listto 1 month to 1 month

Appeals to a single judge of the Supreme Court Next List Next List Next List Next List

CIVIL

Civil actions disposed of or come to trial within 365 days 60% 43% 45% 42%of commencement of proceedings

CRIMINAL (combined jurisdiction)

Cases committed for trial disposed of or tried within 100% 74% 94% 92%365 days of first arraignment

Cases listed for trial disposed of or tried within 180 days 80% 45% 46% 29%of first arraignment

Cases committed for sentence disposed of within 120 days 100% 80% 79% 75%of first arraignment

Cases committed for sentence disposed of within 90 days 85% 65% 65% 63%

Performance against the 180 day standard for criminal matters is disappointing and continues to worsen, although

performance against the 365 day standard remains good. The Chief Justice and the Chief Judge are examining the possible

reasons for the performance against the 180 day standard deteriorating.

Appellate work

The number of appeals disposed of by the Full Court remained almost unchanged compared with the previous years, as did

the number of appeals disposed of by the Court of Criminal Appeal and the number of Single Judge Appeals.

APPEALS 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03

Full Court Appeals and applications to Full Court 122 79 84

Disposal by hearing 74 75 73

Setting down* to hearing (average days) 45 49 54

Hearing to judgment (average days) 56 58 57

Court of CriminalAppeal (CCA) Total applications and appeals to the CCA^ 134 160 132

Applications for leave to appeal 127 153 124

Appeals and applications not requiringcourt leave to appeal 7 7 8

Disposal by hearing 71 107 85

Leave refused by CCA or single judge 27 20 40

Application for leave, or appeal, abandoned 19 21 20

Leave granted to hearing (days) 36 62 51

Hearing to judgment (days) 27 35 62

Single Judge Disposal by hearing+ 190 240 226

* A matter is “set down” when it is ready to be heard

^ Includes appeals by the Director of Public Prosecutions, appeals as of right, on certificate

of trial judge, petitions and cases stated

+ Includes Supreme Court circuit statistics

18

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3


Court Reports

Civil work

The number of civil trials listed for trial remained about the

same this year for the third year in a row. The percentage of

matters listed and disposed of by trial also remained about

the same – around 50%. During the year under review, 10

long and complex cases were added to the outstanding 22

matters. Four trials commenced during the year, one settled

during trial after three weeks of sitting. The overall average

duration was almost 30 days. Ten matters (both with and

without a trial date fixed) settled during the year resulting in

a slight decrease in numbers at the end of the period.

Of the unresolved cases, 11 have estimates totalling

108 sitting weeks and seven were still at a stage where

an estimate could not be given. This compares with 131

weeks of estimated hearing length outstanding at 30

June 2002. The pre-trial management of each case

requires a number of hearings before a matter is listed

or is resolved, and substantial judicial time is spent in

pre-trial management of these cases.

CIVIL JURISDICTION 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03

Masters’ jurisdiction

Hearings in court 819 707 692

Hearings in chambers* 2 227 2 549 2 353

Urgent and other applications 180 188 155

Civil trials

Number of civil cases listed for trial ** 58 44 49

Cases disposed of by trial ~ ** 38 17 25

Trials commenced as a percentage of cases listed for trial 62% 57% 51%

Cases settled after being listed for trial 21 15 28

Civil cases awaiting trial as at 30 June 6 12 27

Number of civil cases finalised 817 736 814

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

Average for cases that proceeded to judgment only 8 6 3

Average for cases that settled 4 2 1

Long and complex cases

Average trial length for C# cases that proceeded to judgment (days) 8 26 33

Judge sitting days during year on C# cases 73 216 115

Average sitting time for C# cases (days) 18 27 29

Long complex cases awaiting trial as at 30 June 30 22 18

* Possession applications

** Includes Supreme Court circuit trials

~ Includes matters settling after trial commences

C# Long and complex cases

SUPREME COURT


19

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Criminal work

Criminal matters in the Supreme Court and in the District Court are managed on the basis of a combined list.

Lodgments and trial work have increased in the past two years.

COMBINED CRIMINAL JURISDICTION 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03

Total criminal lodgments 1 517 2 120* 1 999

Criminal trials disposed of 324 349 369

Criminal matters disposed of 1 246 1 675 1 953

Criminal trials listed but not heard as at 30 June 101 137 187

Trials longer than ten days awaiting hearing as at 30 June 32 25 12

Average length of criminal trials 8 days 6 days 7 days

Category one trials~ 11 14 19

* includes matters heard on circuits in SA

~A class of cases for which the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction

MANAGEMENT STATISTICS

During the year the Chief Justice reviewed the manner inwhich the work of the Supreme Court is recorded andreported. The statistics relating to the work of the SupremeCourt have been in use for some time. They are not easy toabsorb. To some extent the complexity of the statisticsreflects the variety of work handled by the Court.

The Chief Justice is considering adopting a model of keyperformance indicators (KPIs) promoted by the New SouthWales Law Reform Commission, and used by the courts ofthat state.

The KPIs present a briefer and clearer picture than do thestatistics presently provided by the Court. It is argued thatthey give court administrators and others a better idea ofthe manner in which the Court is coping with its work. Theiraim is stated as providing the maximum amount of usefulinformation with a minimum amount of data, in an easy tounderstand form. The aim of the KPIs is to inform thereader whether or not a court is coping with its work.

The KPIs used by the Supreme Court of New South Walesinvolve three measures. Backlog is related to the court’sperformance against its own time standards. It records thenumber of pending cases that are taking too long comparedto those standards. It measures whether the court ismeeting its time standards. Overload records the number ofcases on hand in excess of the number the court can beexpected to process within its own time standards.This indicates whether the court will continue to meet itstime standards. Clearance ratio is the ratio of lodgmentsto finalisations over the reporting period. This measureindicates whether the court is heading for, keeping out of,or getting out of trouble in terms of meeting its timestandards in the future.

Examples of the KPIs, in relation to the caseload of the SASupreme Court in its criminal jurisdiction, are presentedbelow to provide an illustration of the information providedby the KPIs.

Figure 1 (above) shows that for matters committed for sentencethe Supreme Court is performing well against its standard.

Figure 2 (above) indicates that for matters committed for trial, theSupreme Court is not performing well against its target for disposalswithin six months of lodgment. On the other hand, the Court isperforming well in relation to its target for disposals within a year.Figure 2 indicates that the Court’s performance against the sixmonths’ standard has worsened slightly during the year.

Figure 1 Supreme Court Backlog –Criminal Matters Committed for Sentence

Jul–

02

Aug–

02

Sep–

02

Oct–

02

Nov–

02

Dec–

02

Jan–

03

Feb–

03

Mar–

03

Apr–

03

May–

03

Jun–

03

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Backlog (>3 months)Backlog (>4 months)

Figure 2 Supreme Court Backlog –Criminal Matters Committed for Trial

Jul–

02

Aug–

02

Sep–

02

Oct–

02

Nov–

02

Dec–

02

Jan–

03

Feb–

03

Mar–

03

Apr–

03

May–

03

Jun–

03

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Backlog (>6 months)Backlog (>1 year)

20

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Figures 3 and 4 (above) record overload. These tables reflect a drop inlodgments in the second half of the year, and indicate that the Court’sperformance against time standards should improve slightly.


Court Reports

PROBATE REGISTRY

The Probate Registry is managed by the Registrar of

Probates and is a part of the Supreme Court. The main

work of the Registry is the issue (in unopposed cases) of

grants of representation for the estate of deceased

persons. The Registrar of Probates has statutory authority

in all non-contentious probate matters. However, the

Registrar may – where a matter is unusually complicated,

there is opposition to the order sought, or where it is

necessary to give other persons affected the opportunity to

be heard – require the application to be made by

summons to a Justice of the Supreme Court.

In the year under review, there were 4 754 grants of

representation, compared with 4 712 in the year before.

There also were 41 interstate grants sealed in

South Australia, compared with 33 in the previous year.

The Probate Rules 1998 and information sheets for

members of the public are available via the Authority’s

website (www.courts.sa.gov.au).

Figure 5 also indicates, by reference to the clearance ratio, that theCourt’s performance was improving during the second half of theyear. The average clearance ratio for the year is 100%, indicatingthat the Court was finalising cases at the rate of which newlodgments were received.

More work is required in this area, and only certain areas of theCourt’s work are suitable for reporting in this fashion.

Jul–

02

Aug–

02

Sep–

02

Oct–

02

Nov–

02

Dec–

02

Jan–

03

Feb–

03

Mar–

03

Apr–

03

May–

03

Jun–

03

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

–10%

–20%

Figure 3 Supreme Court Overload –Criminal Matters Committed for Sentence

Jul–

02

Aug–

02

Sep–

02

Oct–

02

Nov–

02

Dec–

02

Jan–

03

Feb–

03

Mar–

03

Apr–

03

May–

03

Jun–

03

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

–10%

–20%

Figure 4 Supreme Court Overload –Criminal Matters Committed for Trial

Jul–0

2

Nov–

02

Apr–

03

Aug–

02

Sep–

02

Oct–0

2

Dec–

02

Jan–

03

Feb–

03

Mar–

03

May–

03

Jun–

03

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

110%

120%

130%

Figure 5 Supreme Court Criminal Cases Cleared


21

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

State testamentary record

All wills, grants of probate and letters of administration inSouth Australia are held on the testamentary record.A grant of probate is the authorisation for an executor toadminister an estate; a letter of administration is theauthorisation to administer an estate if a person dies withouthaving made a will. The contents of testamentary record arepublic documents, and copies may be purchased by visitingor writing to the Probate Registry.

A project to scan the testamentary record from 1980 onwardsis nearing completion. When the database is complete,people will be able to search for a document via theAuthority’s website, and after entering their credit carddetails, will be able to download a grant of probate or letterof administration.

SUPREME COURT LIBRARY

The Supreme Court Library is a public library providing acomprehensive legal reference and research service tojudges, staff, lawyers, litigants-in-person, governmentagencies, interstate courts, law students and membersof the public.

The main collection is housed in the Supreme Court LibraryBuilding. Additional collections are in judges’ chambers.The Court of Criminal Appeal also keeps a collection in theSir Samuel Way Building for its use. The library at presenthas more than 109, 000 books. Use of library facilitiesremains steady, with an average 180 telephone calls and 505inquiries at the reference desk per month. The averagenumber of people entering the library exceeded 2600 permonth. Revenue generated by the library has declinedbecause the Supreme Court Judgment Subject Index andInternet Guide is no longer being published (see table below).

Some of the major library initiatives this year include:

• Adding four new personal computers to the publicreading area;

• Installing a new color photocopier for library users;

• Making Westlaw legal database available to the public;and

• Reorganising the library’s public access web page tomake the electronic resources presented easier to findand more accessible.

The library is moving away from CD-ROM technology andplacing its emphasis on on-line (ie Intranet and Internet)service delivery. Web resources are now one of the major

2000–01 2001–02 2002–03

Total book stock 106 584 108 269 109 669

Volumes bound and repaired 557 515 551

Monographs and bound volumes added 1 802 1 685 1 400

Loans to judiciary 2 719 2 551 1 631

Loans to practitioners 959 845 625

sources of information for library users. This has beengreatly facilitated by users accessing this informationdirectly from the library’s Spydus catalogue and webresearch pages.

CONTINUING JUDICIAL EDUCATION

Justice Margaret Nyland chairs the Judicial EducationCommittee, which meets regularly. The other members ofthe committee are Judge Barry Jennings, representing theDistrict Court, Ms Sue O’Connor SM, Associate ProfessorKathy Mack, Faculty of Law, Flinders University, ProfessorPaul Fairall, Dean of the Faculty of Law, AdelaideUniversity, Ms Ruth Blenkiron, Registrar of the SupremeCourt, and Dr Andrew Cannon, Deputy Chief Magistrate,representing the South Australian chapter of the AIJA.

On 29 August 2002, a one-day conference was heldinvolving judicial officers from all courts. Topics coveredincluded the relationship with Correctional Services,sentencing and guideline judgments.

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS’ EDUCATION ANDADMISSION COUNCIL

The Legal Practitioners’ Education and Admissions Council(LPEAC) sets the standards for academic and practicallegal training for those seeking admission to practice inSouth Australia. The Chief Justice chairs the Councilwhich comprises judicial officers of the Supreme andFederal Courts, the Attorney-General, the Deans of theState’s two law schools, representatives of the legalprofession and a law student representative.

During the year, the Council reviewed the LLB degreeoffered by Adelaide University. It also considered aproposal for mandatory continuing legal education foradmitted lawyers. The Council decided againstimplementing the proposal but resolved to keep thematters under consideration. The Council revised LPEACAdmissions Rules, making new Rules that will take effectfrom 1 January 2004.

ABORIGINAL CULTURAL AWARENESSPROGRAM

In September 2002 the Chair of the Chief Justice’sStanding Committee to promote Aboriginal CulturalAwareness, Justice Mullighan, was invited to visitHiruharama Marae in New Zealand. The visit enabled himto explore models of justice and processes involvingsentencing and customary law.

22

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

DISTRICT COURTAT A GLANCE 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03

Number of Judges 19 19 19/18

Number of Masters 2 2 2

Number of Staff 74 73 71

Civil Lodgments 1 842 1 976 1 750

Administrative & Disciplinary Lodgments 493 642 599

Criminal Injuries Lodgments 799 958 919

Minor Civil Claims Review 96 82 84

Criminal Lodgments 1 413 1 721 1 997*

* Includes matters heard on circuit


Court Reports

Role and Function

The District Court is the principal trial court in South

Australia. The Court’s work is in four Divisions: Criminal,

Civil, Administrative and Disciplinary, and Criminal

Injuries.

Except for Probate, Admiralty, Judicial Review, and areas

that come under specified statutes, the civil jurisdiction of

the Court is the same as that of the Supreme Court. In its

criminal jurisdiction, the District Court hears serious

criminal matters except for offences related to murder

and treason. It also has jurisdiction over criminal injuries

compensation claims.

The District Court deals with matters under specific Acts

such as the Guardianship and Administration Act, the

Mental Health Act, the Building Work Contractors Act

and the Supported Residential Facilities Act. In some of

these cases, a judge sits with assessors who have

expertise in the field. The Court also handles

administrative and disciplinary matters in the Medical

Practitioners Professional Conduct Tribunal and the

Equal Opportunity Tribunal.

The Court sits in Adelaide and conducts civil circuits

regularly to Mount Gambier and Berri, and to Port Pirie,

Whyalla and Port Lincoln as required. It also conducts

circuits to Mount Gambier and Port Augusta for criminal

matters.

Judiciary

The District Court judiciary usually comprises 19 judges,

including the Chief Judge, and two Masters. Judges sit in all

of the divisions and Masters hear matters in the civil,

criminal injuries and administrative and disciplinary

divisions. More than 100 part-time lay expert members are

available to sit with a judge to hear matters in the

administrative and disciplinary division.

During the year, Judge Noblet retired and Judge Sulan was

appointed to the Supreme Court. Judge Simpson, who had

been Senior Judge of the Youth Court, replaced Judge

Hume who retired in June 2002, and Judge Clayton was

appointed to replace Judge Sulan. Because of a decision by

the government to reduce funding for the judiciary, it has

not been possible yet to have Judge Noblet replaced.

By an arrangement between the Chief Judge and the Chief

Justice, Judge Burley, a Master in the Supreme Court, has

assisted in the District Court whenever possible.

Registrar and other court staff

The Registrar manages the provision of executive, registry,

judicial and other support services to ensure that

government and court policy objectives are met in the most

efficient and effective manner. The Registrar is supported

by the Senior Deputy Registrar, Deputy Registrars, registry

staff, judicial support staff and librarians in the Sir Samuel

Way Library. 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.


23

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

OVERVIEW OF THE WORK OF THE COURT

The District Court measures its performance againsttimeliness standards. The Supreme Court and District Courtcriminal jurisdictions are managed on a combined basis.The time standards and achievement against the standardsappear in the figure shown in the Report of the SupremeCourt earlier.

CRIMINAL WORK

For the District Court alone, the number of lodgmentsincreased slightly (by 1.6%), with 1997 matters lodgedduring the reporting period, compared with 1965 in theprevious year.

However, although the number of lodgments remainedrelatively steady, the profile of trials has changed in that therehas been an increase in numbers of long trials listed – 145listed at 30 June 2003 compared with 89 listed at 30 June2002 (an increase of 63%); and an increase in ‘average’ triallength – from 5.6 days in the previous year, to 7.3 days inthis year. Long trials are defined as any matter with a trialduration of more than 10 days.

CIVIL WORK

Civil lodgments decreased by 11.5% to 1750 in 2002–2003,but this does not necessarily have an impact on the numberof matters needing a listing for trial. It was noted last yearthat there had been an increase in the number of long trialslisted, (17 to 23) but this year that has risen from 23 to 47,an increase of 100% (see table below).

Civil trials 2000–2001 2001–2002 2002–2003

Number of cases listed for trial * 510 441 431*

Cases disposed of by trial 125 95 57*

Cases settled after being listed for trial N/A 249 209*

Long trials (more than ten days) 7 7 9

Average sitting time per long trial 10.5 15 14.1

Long trials awaiting trial as at 30 June 17 23 47

* Includes circuit trials

ADMINISTRATIVE AND DISCIPLINARYMATTERS

The District Court hears administrative and disciplinarymatters brought under various statutes. A total of 599matters were lodged in the past year, a decrease of 7%from 2001–2002. There has been an increase inResidential Tenancies Act appeals from 57 to 85during the reporting period.

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION

All applications for compensation under the CriminalInjuries Compensation Act 1978, and since January 2003the Victims of Crime Act 2001, are heard in the DistrictCourt. During the reporting period, 919 applicationswere lodged, a decrease of 4% compared with 958 in2001–2002. Masters supervise the list for these matters,holding directions hearings early in the proceedings.Most matters settle without the need for a trial.

MEDIATION

Since closure of the pilot court-annexed scheme, the ChiefJustice and the Chief Judge have consulted with a workinggroup of legal practitioners and other interested parties toestablish a system whereby the Court can refer cases formediation to private mediators. It is intended that the Courtwill provide the amenities and administrative support and,as at 30 June 2003, discussions were well advanced. Asuite of mediation rooms has been completed for use bymediators involved in the scheme.

Figure 6 Criminal Lodgments – Cumulative totals

Figure 7 Civil Lodgments – Cumulative totals

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun0

250

500

750

1 000

1 250

1 500

1 750

2 000

2 250

2 500

00–01 01–02 02–03

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

1 600

1 800

2 000

00–01 01–02 02–03

24

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

REGISTRY MATTERS

Registry management, in conjunction with the Judiciary,

continually seek to improve processes. The administrative

processing of some aspects of Criminal Injuries

Compensation work has resulted in the speedier return of

orders to parties and a reduction of administrative

processing by the Masters.

Two reviews were done this year; one examined work

practices in the criminal registry, and the other reviewed

the organisational structures of the civil registry and the

ERD Court registry.

Significant outcomes of the criminal registry review

including greater certainty concerning attendances for

persons serving on juries and the establishment of forums

to enable the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

and criminal registry staff to work more closely on

improvements in processing criminal trials towards

disposition.

The civil registry/ERD Court registry review should result in

service delivery improvements in both the registries,

improved career opportunities for staff and greater

resource sharing, particularly in technology.

SIR SAMUEL WAY LIBRARY

The Sir Samuel Way Library provides a comprehensive

library and information service to the judiciary and staff of

the Authority. A limited service is also provided to the legal

profession, government agencies, libraries and the wider

community. It is not a public library.


Court Reports

The library holds almost 64,000 items, half of which are

housed in the Sir Samuel Way Building. The remainder

are located in collections in city, suburban and country

courts, judicial chambers, and Authority offices. Revenue

is generated by the Sir Samuel Way Library by the

publication of the District Court Judgment Index, which

is available on annual subscription to law firms and

libraries.

Details of the collection, and usage are shown in the

table below.

YEAR 2000–2001 2001–2002 2002–2003

Total book stock 62 280 62 928 63 717

Volumes bound and repaired 94 225 447

Monographs and bound volumes added 705 648 789

Loans to judicial officers and staff 9227 9504 7954

Loans to practitioners, litigants and others 1633 2007 1588

The loan statistics do not reflect the increased use of

materials within the library itself, nor the research

conducted by library staff on behalf of clients. The use of

electronic sources of information, such as Internet and CD-

Rom databases, is also not included in these statistics.

The major initiative undertaken by the Sir Samuel Way

Library this year has been to work in conjunction with the

Supreme Court Library to provide access to, and training in

the use of, the Thomson and Westlaw online databases for

judicial officers and support staff throughout the Authority,

and for lawyers and public users of the Supreme Court

Library. Internet and Intranet resources are becoming

increasingly significant sources of information for library

users, and the incorporation of these electronic resources

and services is an important part of the library’s future

development plans.


25

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

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 almost all are finalised there.

There are four jurisdictions of the Magistrates Court:

Civil (General claims) Jurisdiction

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 are for amounts greater than $6000 and less

than $40 000. The Supreme Court and District Court deal

with higher amounts.

Civil (Minor Claims) Jurisdiction

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 $6000 and minor neighbourhood

and fencing disputes.

Civil Consumer and Business Jurisdiction

This jurisdiction hears disputes over warranty claims relating

to second hand motor vehicles, disputes between landlord

and tenant relating to shop premises and disputes about

domestic buildings.

Criminal Jurisdiction

The criminal jurisdiction deals with summary offences and

minor indictable offences. For major indictable offences, the

court, after reviewing the evidence, determines whether there

is sufficient evidence to commit the accused person to trial in

the Supreme or District Courts. Major indictable offences are

those punishable by imprisonment in excess of five years.

MAGISTRATES COURTAT A GLANCE 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03

Number of magistrates 35 36 36

Number of staff 174.7 182.4 176.7

Civil lodgments 34 681 30 373 31 760

Civil enforcement processes 49 122 47 647 51 590

Civil enforcements applications heard by magistrates 4 396 4 500 4 766

Civil defences lodged 3 468 4 041 4 262

Criminal lodgments (excluding expiation matters) 76 083 82 670 84 194

Criminal lodgments (including expiation matters) 191 123 198 070 206 352

Total hearings by magistrates 214 290 231 591 240 713

Fines Payment Unit

The Fines Payment Unit manages the recovery of all

criminal court monetary penalties and is comprised of

Magistrates Court staff operating from registries in the city

and country. There is also a Fines Payment Call Centre

that takes payment via credit card and advises callers on

options available to deal with fines. In addition, Aboriginal

Justice Officer’s assist indigenous people on all court

related matters.

Magistracy

Following the appointment of the Chief Magistrate, Mr

Alan Moss, to the Youth Court, the Deputy Chief

Magistrate, Mr Kelvyn Prescott was appointed as the

Chief Magistrate on 5 August 2002. Dr Andrew Cannon,

Supervising Magistrate, was appointed as Deputy Chief

Magistrate on 12 December 2002.

Ms Cathy Deland, Mr Clive Kitchin and Mr Paul Foley

were appointed Stipendiary Magistrates from 3 March

2003, following the appointment of Mr Moss as Senior

Judge of the Youth Court and the retirement of Mrs Jay

Sanders and Mr Lyn Myers (shortly before his untimely

death).

Overview of workload

Data for the past five years has been used in this

reporting period to show trends in the various

jurisdictions of the Magistrates Court.

26

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Civil Jurisdiction

1. Primary civil lodgments

Examples of such lodgments include:

claims for debt, personal injury, motor vehicle property,workers’ liens, second hand vehicle dealer matters, de factorelationships and miscellaneous claims,

appeals on point demerits, provisional licences, firearmlicences and similar;

applications about birth, death and marriage registration;

judgments transferred from other courts, tribunalscommissions (eg Liquor Licensing Commission); and, minorstatutory proceedings, including disputes arising undervarious statutes; involving such matters as fencing, shopleases, builders’ works.


Court Reports

2. Civil enforcement lodgments are shown in the chart below.

Civil enforcement lodgments include summons for investigationof a debtors assets, summons to a witness, summons for anabsconding debtor; warrants of arrest, warrants of sale or goodsor property and similar; garnishee orders.

3. Civil applications

Examples of these applications include applications to thecourt to set aside a judgment, set aside a warrant,applications to decide matters without formal courtappearances and similar.

MAGISTRATES COURT

1998

–199

90

6 000

12 000

18 000

24 000

30 000

36 000

42 000

48 000

54 000

60 000

1999

–200

0

2000

–200

1

2001

–200

2

2002

–200

3

Figure 8 Primary civil lodgementsJuly 1998 to June 2003

Figure 9 Secondary civil-enforcement processesJuly 1998 to June 2003

1998

–199

90

8 000

16 000

24 000

32 000

40 000

48 000

56 000

64 000

72 000

80 000

1999

–200

0

2000

–200

1

2001

–200

2

2002

–200

3

Figure 10 Civil Applications heard by MagistratesJuly 1998 to June 2003

1998

–199

90

520

1 040

1 560

2 080

2 600

3 120

3 640

4 160

4 680

5 200

1999

–200

0

2000

–200

1

2001

–200

2

2002

–200

3


27

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Mediation

Mediations continued to be conducted by two mediatorsbased in the Adelaide Magistrates Court until February 2003when a third mediator was appointed to meet increasingdemand for mediations and increased administrationgenerated in the civil pre-lodgment scheme. (The pre-lodgment scheme is an internet-based service offered by theCourts that enables individuals and organisations to issuedebtors with a final notice to pay or be sued in court.)

Mediations come from two sources – minor civil mattersreferred from directions hearings and general mattersreferred by magistrates. Mediation is also provided tometropolitan courts on request. More parties are taking upthe opportunity to negotiate a mutually agreeable resolutionto a dispute rather than going to trial. This year 187mediations were entered into compared with 144 in theprevious year. This represents an increase of 30%. Of themediations conducted this financial year, 59% have resultedin the dispute being resolved.

4. Civil defences lodged. These include counter claims fordamages, third party notices.

OUTCOMES FROM MEDIATIONS CONDUCTED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002–2003Referred

No. of Adjourned Default to DutyMediations to mediation Judgment Dismissed Settled Trial Magistrate

Total 187 46 2 1 110 21 7

Percentage 100 25 1 1 59 11 4

Approval has been given for the expansion of mediation in the coming financial year so that all Magistrates Courts (suburban

and country) will be serviced from a centralised mediation unit based in Adelaide.

Directions hearings

Directions hearings are held in almost all courts by registrars or deputy registrars. In some country courts magistrates conduct

directions hearings.

The parties are then given the following options:

• discuss the dispute at the directions hearing with or without the assistance of the registrar/deputy registrar to endeavour to

reach a settlement of the matter

• list the matter for mediation – both parties must agree to go to mediation

• list the matter for trial

Statistics show that only 30% of the matters defended in this jurisdiction proceed to trial.

MINOR CIVIL DIRECTIONS HEARINGS OUTCOMES – METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATES COURTSAdjourned ReferredDirection Default Dismissed to Duty

Court Total Hearing Judgment Claim Settled Mediation Trial Magistrate

Adelaide 1684 537 100 96 255 84 475 136

Christies Beach 209 62 20 21 13 1 81 11

Elizabeth 258 51 19 52 61 0 74 1

Holden Hill 244 63 10 17 34 2 79 39

Mt Barker 57 15 5 0 14 0 22 0

Pt Adelaide 228 88 9 15 49 1 65 1

TOTAL 2680 816 163 201 426 88 796 188

PERCENTAGE 100 30 6 8 16 3 30 7

Registrars have been conducting directions hearings in country courts.

Figure 11 Defences – Civil lodged July 1999 to June 2003

0

500

1 000

1 500

2 000

2 500

3 000

3 500

4 000

4 500

5 000

1999

–200

0

2000

–200

1

2001

–200

2

2002

–200

3

28

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

MINOR CIVIL DIRECTIONS HEARINGS OUTCOMES – COUNTRY COURTSAdjourned ReferredDirection Default Dismissed to Duty

Court Total Hearing Judgment Claim Settled Mediation Trial Magistrate

Berri 18 10 1 0 0 0 6 1

Kadina 15 3 2 0 4 0 6 0

Mt Gambier 10 1 0 1 2 0 5 1

Murray Bridge 25 6 0 4 8 1 4 2

Naracoorte 20 5 2 2 6 0 5 0

Port Lincoln 19 4 3 3 5 0 4 6

TOTAL 107 29 8 10 25 1 30 10

PERCENTAGE 100 27 7 9 23 1 28 9

Pre-lodgment system and pro bono mediations

The pre-lodgment scheme was introduced in South Australia in July 1999.

The scheme

• is simple to use

• is accessible 24 hours a day 7 days a week

• allows parties to resolve disputes themselves rather than resorting to formal proceedings

• also enables the use of a confidential process through mediation

Individuals, businesses and organisations that would not usually pursue civil claims because of costs have readily accepted

the scheme. The Internet site www.claims.courts.sa.gov.au was upgraded this year to improve its efficiency and user-

friendliness.

The number of Final Notices of Claim which have been lodged since its inception are shown below:

July 1999 to June 2000 3477 notices




The Magistrates Court offers to people who have used the pre-lodgment scheme a mediation service, provided by accredited

voluntary mediators. The number of mediations conducted since the scheme was introduced is shown below. The dedication

of these voluntary mediators is greatly appreciated.

July 1999 to June 2000 82 mediation conferences 63% settled


July 2001 to June 2002 127 mediation conferences 64 % settled



Court Reports

MAGISTRATES COURT


29

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Electronic lodgment website

The electronic lodgment of Magistrates Court Civil Claim formscontinued during the year, with the number of claims beinglodged via the internet more then double the number of theprevious year. The electronic lodgment web site and the pre-lodgment web site were merged into one site, resulting inimproved statistical and financial reporting and enablingeasier access to the public.

Criminal Jurisdiction

Criminal lodgments are divided into those relating toexpiation (fines) and general criminal matters. The formeroriginate from police or other prosecuting agencies (eglocal councils) and do not involve court appearances untilsuch time as a reminder notice to pay the fine is ignored.This usually originates from a police complaint or charge.New expiation of offences legislation came into effect inFebruary 1997, when a fines payment unit wasestablished to handle these matters.

Hearings by Magistrates (Criminal)

These are files handled by a magistrate. A person chargedwith a criminal offence may have one or more files. Hence,not each file represents a person. As there was an increaseof 8282 lodgments this year and each lodgment generatestwo or three hearings in court, the 27,122 increase inhearings this year resulted from the increased number oflodgments.

The magistrates in all courts strive to complete 70% of all

criminal cases within six months of the first hearing date. In

2002–2003 the following results were achieved.

All cases finalised includingappeal & committal Cases %

Less than or equal to six months 46 753 79

Greater than six months 12 373 21

Fines Payment Unit

The Fines Payment Unit (FPU) continues working

with SA Police, Transport SA, Department of Correctional

Services and Family and Youth Services to improve the

service provided to the community.

Representatives from Family and Youth Services and

the Fines Payment Unit have begun a review of fines

payment community service orders for youths.

Total revenue collected by the FPU for 2002–2003

was $33 207 628 at an average of $2 767 302 million

per month.

FINES PAYMENT UNIT REVENUE COLLECTED

2000–2001 2001–2002 2002–2003

Total Revenue $32 381 279 $31 680 432 $33 207 628

Average per month $2 698 439 $2 640 036 $2 767 302

Figure 12 Primary Civil lodgments via websiteJuly 2001 to June 2003

0

400

800

1 200

1 600

2 000

2 400

2 800

3 200

3 600

4 000

2001

–200

2

2002

–200

3

Figure 13 Criminal lodgmentsJuly 1998 to June 2003

1998

–199

90

25 000

50 000

75 000

100 000

125 000

150 000

175 000

200 000

225 000

250 000

1999

–200

0

2000

–200

1

2001

–200

2

2002

–200

3

Expiation Total (excl. Expiation) Total (incl. Expiation)

Figure 14 Total criminal hearings by Magistrates July 1998 to June 2003

1998

–199

90

30 000

60 000

90 000

120 000

150 000

180 000

210 000

240 000

270 000

300 000

1999

–200

0

2000

–200

1

2001

–200

2

2002

–200

3

30

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Centrepay has enabled clients to pay fines directly from their Centrelink benefit. Clients can now pay fines in full at Australia

Post, Registration and Licensing or at 20 courts around the State. They can arrange direct debit or cash payments, cheque,

EFTPOS, money order or credit card in person. The Easy Pay Fines Call Centre can also accept payment by credit card over

the telephone.

PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH EXTERNAL AGENCIES2000–2001 2001–2002 2002–2003

Number of Total Number of Total Number of TotalPayments Payments ($) Payments Payments ($) Payments Payments ($)

Australia Post 12 741 3 083 615 13 693 3 303 961 13 497 3 434 482

Registration & Licensing 2 938 687 780 3 371 794 760 3 214 782 877

Direct Debit 216 862 8 402 835 236 342 8 984 525 314 390 11 446 407

Centrepay – – – – 41 408 1 179 148

Total 232 541 12 174 230 253 406 13 083 246 372 509 16 842 914

In October 2002, the FPU began data matching with SA Police, Tenancies Branch and Births, Deaths and Marriages. The

data-matching program aims to search for up-to-date addresses for clients who cannot be located. The FPU and the local

representative of Microsoft have developed a prototype data exchange system to enable data exchange between various

government agencies according to South Australian Privacy Committee approvals. It is planned that the prototype will be put

into production in early 2003–2004.

The FPU will proceed with the creation of an online payment and enquiry web site. Clients will be able to enquire about

outstanding fines and make payments via the Internet.

Easy Pay Fines Call Centre

The Easy Pay Fines Call Centre, located at the Port Adelaide Magistrates Court, allows easy access for clients via a Freecall

telephone number (1800 659 538) nationally. Clients can arrange for applications and court forms to be sent to them to

arrange payment of outstanding fines.

EASY PAY FINES CALL CENTRE STATISTICS

2000–2001 2001–2002 2002–2003

Inbound calls 110 229 139 877 140 557

Outbound calls 22 952 39 805 41 320

Credit card payments ($) 2 213 549 2 753 917 2 962 182

Abandoned call rate 6% 3.2% 3.5%*

* The national standard for a call centre of this size is an abandonment rate of 4%


Court Reports

MAGISTRATES COURT


31

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Magistrates Court Call Centre

The call centre continues to develop and improve its level of

service delivered. The abandoned call rate continues to fall.

Whilst this is in part attributable to the 18% reduction in

calls it is also a significant reflection of the success of two

new initiatives introduced, viz, the e-mail contact centre

and the automated answering system.

The e-mail contact centre commenced on the 4 November

2002. There have been 420 messages received and dealt

with up to the 30 June 2003.

The automated answering system commenced in

September 2002. Callers can choose to access details for

fines, the Courts Web Site, the Contact Centre, the District

Court and the Supreme Court.

Number AbandonedTotal Calls Abandoned Rate %

2000–2001 155 341 9 181 5.91

2001–2002 138 260 5 461 3.95

2002–2003 113 817 3 343 2.94

Court Improvement Unit

The Court Improvement Unit (CIU) formulates, develops

and implements the Magistrates Court’s strategic plan.

It also manages statistical data, workflow, productivity and

service level agreements.

This year a senior project officer (communications) position

was created within the CIU to develop technologically-based

information materials for the community about the work

of the Courts and to assist in educating groups visiting

the courts.

This year the CIU undertook 30 projects, including:

• A review of the management and structure of the

Adelaide Magistrates Court and FPU.

• Formalising arrangements for in-court support for

registrars hearing minor civil directions hearings, and

investigation and examination summonses.

• A review of existing administrative practices and

procedures involving subpoenaed medical records.

• A review of the Sheriff’s service level agreement with the

Magistrates Court.

• Creation of information kiosks in waiting areas.

• Development of specifications for a review of tenders for

outsourcing divisional banking requirements.

• Investigation of communications computing equipment

and supporting software to enable access to mainframe

applications from remote locations.

The status of those projects undertaken is as shown below:

Other Matters

Legal Advice Clinic

The AMC agreed to host a legal advice clinic for people

wanting to recover debts for up to $6 000. The clinic is a

joint venture of the University of Adelaide and Flinders

University Law Schools.

About 10 appointments per day are made at the clinic.

Available appointments fill quickly and clients are on average

booked in within one to two weeks.

Resident Magistrate at Port Augusta

The Attorney-General, consistent with government policy, has

requested the reintroduction of country resident magistrates.

A pilot was conducted by Mr Field SM at Port Augusta and

because of the success of the pilot, country residencies to

service the South East and Whyalla will be introduced from 1

January 2004. An additional magistrate will reside at Pt

Augusta to conduct courts at Whyalla and other locations as

required.

Online Procedure Manuals

Early in 2002, the Magistrates Court decided to publish its

procedure manuals electronically via the intranet, enabling

more efficient management of information and knowledge

within the organisation. A pilot version was created and by

mid-November 2002 the manual was in use. Since this time

the manual has been accessed over 2000 times. Feedback

from staff has been very positive. The concept has attracted

much attention from other jurisdictions including from the

Western Australian Family Court, which is utilising the

manual to assist in designing its own online manual.

The Changing Role of the Magistrates Court Project

The Court continues to co-operate in a national research

project called The Changing Role of the Magistrates Court

being conducted by Flinders University.

3% On Hold70% Completed

27% Active

Figure 15 Profile of Projects

32

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Specialist Courts

The Magistrates Court has a number of intervention courts

for members of the community who have a functional

impairment as a result of a mental illness, intellectual

disability or acquired brain injury, those who have an illicit

drug dependency or who have been charged with a

domestic violence offence.

The Drug Court

The Drug Court has in the past financial year received

ongoing funding with a further increase to allow more

eligible offenders to participate in this court based program.

The increase in funding resulted from the Drug Summit

held in Adelaide in June 2002. The ongoing funding has

enabled the Court to continue to work with those

defendants who are committing offences in order to support

a drug habit. The program aims to reduce or stop

participants’ drug taking behaviours and prevent further

offending. The program staffing has increased to include a

further case manager, a 0.5 FTE clinical psychologist, and

an additional clinical advisor.

A new Drug Court Program Management Committee has

been formed and is chaired by the Chief Magistrate. The

Committee is working with the Program Manager to develop

policies and monitor the work of the Drug Court Program.

Because of increased demands being experienced by the

Director of Public Prosecutions in the management of Drug

Court participants through the court, the Drug Court

Program Management Committee has amended the criteria

to exclude those defendants who are facing major

indictable charges.

A Drug Court Manual is near completion and will be

available for staff and others involved with service provision

to the Drug Court. The manual will be available

electronically.


Court Reports

MAGISTRATES COURT Statistics

Statistics are kept for all Drug Court participants.

There has been a slight decrease from 192 to 173 in the

numbers of referrals to the Drug Court in the 2002–03

reporting period. Despite this decrease, the percentage of

acceptances has steadily increased from 68 in 2001–02 to

82, which indicates an increase in the appropriateness of

referrals to the program. Since the program began, there

have been a total of 39 individuals who have graduated

successfully from the program. This equates to 21% of

those accepted onto the program. The success rate

remains consistent with other programs both interstate

and overseas.

ACTUAL REFERRALS, ASSESSMENTS AND ACCEPTANCES

2001–2002 2002–2003

Referrals 192 173

Assessments 125 123

Psychological Assessments 22 9

Acceptances 68 82

(Note: These are actual figures, ie assessments and

acceptances for that year, not assessments and

acceptances generated from the financial year’s referrals.)

Of those who identified opiates as their primary drug of

dependence, 36% also regularly used other illicit drugs.

For people for whom amphetamines were their primary drug

of dependence, 21%, also regularly used other illicit drugs.

Figure 16 Shift in primary drug of dependence

Opiat

e

Amph

etam

ines

Benz

odiaz

epine

s

Othe

r

Not d

epen

dent

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Prior to July 2002 Jul 2002 – Jun 2003


33

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

The figure above indicates the sentencing outcomes for theDrug Court since its inception. No one who has successfullycompleted the program has been incarcerated. This is agood outcome given that the Drug Court is working withthose individuals who were facing a probable term ofimprisonment if they had not chosen to address theirdifficulties using the Drug Court Program.

The Magistrates Court Diversion Program (MCDP)(Mental Impairment)

This program has continued to work with individuals whohave a functional impairment, as a result of a mental illness,or intellectual disability, acquired brain injury or neurologicaldisorder.

The program has received 271 referrals during the pastfinancial year and 107 individuals have successfullycompleted the program during that time. At the time ofwriting, 123 people were either participating in the programor involved in the assessment process.

The Diversion Program is available at Adelaide, PortAdelaide, Christies Beach, Holden Hill, Elizabeth, PortAugusta and Whyalla.

Figure 18 illustrates the major diagnostic groups of thoseassessed for participation in the Diversion Program.Approximately 75% of these people have more thanone diagnosis, as well as social and economic and drugdependence issues.

The figure above indicates the primary offence of thosereferred to the MCDP in the past financial year. The mostfrequently occurring offences were larceny and propertyoffences.

The figure below illustrates the primary outcome fordefendants who have successfully completed the program.Approximately 68% of individuals have had no furthercontact with the criminal justice system.

The program staff continue to work with a range ofgovernment and non-government agencies to promote theprogram and provide information and education sessions.

The program has been experiencing an increase in referralsand pressure on the court listings that has necessitated awaiting list particularly in the Adelaide Magistrates Court.

Figure 17 Sentencing outcomes for Drug Court participants on program completion as at 30 June 2003

3% Good behaviour bond AMC3% Not yet sentenced AMC3% Not yet sentenced Drug Court76% Suspended sentence AMC16% Suspended sentence Drug Court

Figure 18 Primary Diagnosis of thoseassessed for the program 1 July 2002 – 30 June 2003

Perce

ntage

of th

ose a

sses

sed

Major

Dep

ressiv

e Diso

rder

Mood

Diso

rder (

other)

Bipola

r Diso

rder

Schiz

ophre

nia

Psyc

hotic

Diso

rder (

other)

PTSD

Anxie

ty Di

sorde

r

Perso

nality

diso

rder

Acqu

ired/o

rganic

brain

dysfu

nctio

n

Intell

ectua

l Disa

bility

Subs

tance

relat

ed di

sorde

rNo

Impa

irmen

t Evid

ent

Not k

nown

Othe

rDe

velop

menta

l diso

rder

Diss

ociat

ive di

sorde

r

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

Perce

ntage

of th

ose r

eferre

d0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Diso

rderly

Beh

aviou

rPr

opert

y dam

age a

nd en

viron

menta

l offe

nce

Alter

nativ

e Goo

d Orde

r Offe

nce

Comm

on A

ssau

lt

Assa

ult Fa

mily

Memb

er

Assa

ult N

on-F

amily

Assa

ult Po

lice

Larce

ny

Fraud

and m

isapp

ropria

tion

Drivi

ng of

fence

s

Fail t

o Com

ply W

ith R

estra

ining

Orde

r

Sexu

al As

sault

/Offe

nce

Othe

rUn

know

n

Tresp

ass

Figure 19 Primary offence for thosereferred to the program 1 July 2002 – 30 June 2003

47% Withdrawal of charges8% Conviction recorded (no penalty)1% Fine without conviction6% Bonds unsupervised

20% Bonds supervised11% Suspended prison sentence6% Magistrate dismissal1% Prison term

Figure 20 Final court outcomes MCDPJuly 2002 – June 2003

34

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3


Court Reports

MAGISTRATES COURT

The Central Violence Intervention Program (CVIP)

The CVIP operates from the Adelaide Magistrates Court.

The Adelaide Magistrates Family Violence Court has

referred 60 men to the program over the last year. The

program also accepts referrals from other sources with a

total of 148 referrals for assessment being received by the

program overall. The Family Violence Court has had 325

contacts with men who have been charged with domestic

violence offences and 241 women who are appearing

before the court in regard to domestic violence orders. The

program also works with the partners and ex-partners

choosing to participate and their children; this accounts for

80 women and 33 children.

Family Violence Court Activities

The violence intervention program staff have worked

extensively over the last year on strategies to inform both

the community and those involved in the Justice system on

matters associated with domestic violence. These include:

• Working with the Magistrate, Mr Newman SM and other

court officers to produce two information sheets on

restraining orders, which are being attached to all

orders processed in the State.

• A pamphlet for lawyers about the Family Violence Court

and Violence Intervention Program.

• Training for the Sheriff’s officers and volunteers about

working with people experiencing domestic violence

who attend Adelaide Magistrates Court.

• The production of a Guide for Family Violence Court

volunteers on their support role in the Violence Intervention

Program and as a complementary element of the work of

the Court.

The Family Violence Court Magistrate Mr Newman SM and

the Central Violence Intervention Program Coordinator, Ms

Julie Felus, formed part of a Human Rights and Equal

Opportunities Commission Delegation to China in July of

2002. The five person delegation from Australia discussed

the setting up of integrated programs involving the criminal

justice system.

The Central Violence Intervention Program is an integrated

program funded by the Attorney General’s Department,

administered by the Department of Human Services, with

service provision by the Salvation Army.

Northern Violence Intervention Program (NVIP)

The Northern Violence Intervention Program operates in the

Elizabeth Magistrates Court. Seventy men were referred

from the courts from July 2002 to June 2003. Program staff

have been working closely with Mr Millard SM to develop a

number of protocols and procedures for the operation of

that court. Initiatives have included:

• a court support program for women and the provision of

facilities within the court precinct to assist women with

applications for Domestic Violence Restraining Orders

(DVRO).

• a process for the court referral for assessment of

defendants by the program’s men’s worker.

• development of a court information pamphlet for

women.

• collection of data to evaluate the interface between the

NVIP and the Court.

The Northern Violence Intervention Program has seen an

increase in the number of families being referred by the

court from culturally diverse backgrounds, such as

Vietnamese, Bosnian, Laotian and Persian. There were no

referrals last year from culturally diverse backgrounds but

six referrals from the court between April and June 2003.

Joint Initiative

The Central and Northern Violence Intervention Programs

have worked together with the young people from the

program to produce a video on domestic violence.


35

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Indigenous Courts

Indigenous Courts were designed to recognise the

integral role of the family and the community in the lives

of indigenous people and to create a venue that is less

intimidating for offenders and their families. The

magistrate sits at eye-level with the defendant(s). An

indigenous advisor provides advice and assistance to the

magistrate throughout the proceedings. Defendants sit

alongside their legal representatives and police

prosecutors at the bar table and family members are

encouraged to join them. Processing of court outcomes

by the registry is given priority, enabling custody and

other matters to be dealt with quickly. Aboriginal Justice

Officers assist indigenous offenders, their families and

the court. Margaret Woods, Norm Woods and Coral

Wilson are regular advisors who assist the magistrate and

play an important role in ensuring the success and

acceptance of the court within the indigenous

community. Attendance rates by defendants at these

courts have remained considerably higher than for

indigenous defendants attending other courts.

Port Adelaide (Nunga Court)

The first special Court for hearing Magistrates Court

matters involving indigenous persons, was held at Port

Adelaide in June 1999. Named by the local community,

the Nunga Court sits every second Tuesday at Port

Adelaide.

Murray Bridge

An indigenous court was established at Murray Bridge in

March 2001 and is held one Wednesday each month.

Aboriginal Justice Officers from Port Adelaide or Adelaide

Magistrates Court travel to Murray Bridge to assist. This

process is proving to be very effective and has received

the support of the indigenous community.

Port Augusta

The indigenous court at Port Augusta has been well

supported by a panel of prominent local indigenous

people who have given generously of their time. Their

participation in the sentencing process has assisted the

court to communicate more effectively with offenders and

their families. The attachment of a semi-circular extension

to the bar table has enhanced the process.

A pilot of this court will be introduced to the Youth Court

sessions at Port Augusta in July 2003.

Ceduna

The magistrate in charge of indigenous courts, Mr Boxall

SM, has commenced planning with the indigenous

community at Ceduna to introduce an indigenous court

there. It is anticipated this will commence in July 2003.

0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

1 600

Jan01–Dec01 Jan02–Dec02

Number of defendants Number of cases

Figure 21 Indigenous Courts – number ofdefendants and cases from January 2001 to December 2002

36

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Role, structure and legislation

The Environment, Resources and Development Court

(ERD Court) was established under the Environment,

Resources and Development Court Act 1993, and began

operation on 15 January 1994. It is a court established at

District Court level and has jurisdiction over development,

heritage, environment protection, water resources,

irrigation, mining, native vegetation and native title matters

which are found in the following statutes:

• Development Act 1993

• Environment Protection Act 1993

• Water Resources Act 1997

• Heritage Act 1993

• South Eastern Water Conservation & Drainage Act 1992

• Upper South East Dryland Salinity & Flood

Management Act 2002

• Native Vegetation (Miscellaneous) Amendment

Act 2002

• Native Vegetation Management Act 1991

• Irrigation Act 1994

• Mining Act 1971

• Native Title (SA) Act 1994

• Land Acquisition Act 1969

• Opal Mining Act 1995

The court comprises two full-time judges, who are also

judges of the District Court, three full-time commissioners

and 24 part-time commissioners. It has 10 administrative,

registry and judicial support staff.


Court Reports

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COURTAT A GLANCE 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03

Number of judges 2 2 2

Number of full-time commissioners 3 3 3

Number of masters (shared with District Court) 2 2 2

Number of part-time commissioners 23 24 24

Number of staff 10 10 10

Appeal lodgments (including applications) 360 410 460

Enforcement applications (Section 85) 18 11 19

Complaints lodged 23 19 22

Members of the court

Judge Christine Trenorden was appointed as Presiding

Member of the court on 5 August 2002, following the

retirement of Judge Bowering on 20 April 2002.

Judge Susanne Cole was appointed a judge of the court

on 5 August 2002.

Acting Judge Michael Bowering and Acting Judge Andrew

Wilson were appointed judges of the court, on an auxiliary

basis, on 18 July 2002.

Part-time commissioners Charles Jackson and Henry

Rankine were reappointed as Native Title commissioners

for a further term of two years from 26 June 2003.

Overview of judicial work

The greater part of the work of the Court continues to be

the conduct of conferences and the hearing of appeals

under the Development Act. In the course of the year the

Court has attempted to provide a more timely service in

this area, by engaging part-time commissioners where

necessary, for conferences and hearings. However, the

Court often finds itself constrained in attempting to list in a

timely fashion, so as to deal with matters promptly, by the

preferences conveyed by the legal representatives of

parties. The work of the Court fluctuates and it has been

necessary to ensure that it has a body of experienced

part-time members to assist during busy periods.

The Court has been given new jurisdictions during the

year. The number of criminal proceedings lodged, and

being listed for trial has also increased significantly.


37

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Acting Judge Wilson was able to provide valuable judicial

assistance during part of the period of Judge Trenorden’s

absence on long service leave.

The Court has welcomed the results of a user survey and a

comprehensive review (the Hender Report) referred to

elsewhere in this report, and embraced most of its

recommendations. As a result of the Court’s desire to be

more “user-friendly”, after consultation with members of the

legal profession who practise in the jurisdiction, the Court

amended its Rules of Court and Practice Directions.

Achievement and initiatives

In September 2002 the court hosted the Fourth

Australasian Conference of Planning and Environment

Courts and Tribunals (ACPECT). Some 60 delegates from

Australia and New Zealand attended.

The Court commissioned a review of services to its

self-represented litigants, whose numbers have increased

steadily and represent 65% of court users. The review

was completed in October 2002 and generated 30

recommendations. Some initiatives this year include:

• The Court’s judgments and sentencing remarks are now

placed on the website (www.courts.sa.gov.au), with an

information kiosk in the registry waiting area, to provide

members of the public with easy access to information,

in the form of a Powerpoint presentation, to answer

questions about court processes, fees, access to legal

advice and lodgement of appeals.

• A review of court documents to ensure they are written

in plain language.

• Improved signage throughout the Sir Samuel Way

building.

• The provision of on-line self-help material for the self-

represented litigant.

Implementation of the Hender report recommendations is

expected to continue in the year ahead, including:

• wider application of e-business, commencing with e-

lodgment facilities.

• upgrading in-court technology to enable electronic

presentation of witness statements, the Development

Plan, exhibits and, in complex cases, 3-D imaging of

proposed developments. This initiative would reduce

the often considerable amounts of hard-copy document

production by parties prior to hearing.

• strengthening the court’s consultative process with

legal practitioners and other professional bodies

who regularly appear before the court, to enhance

service delivery.

• production of an instructive video for self-represented

litigants.

The registry shares many facilities with the District Court

civil registry. A review of the structure of both registries was

done with a view to improving overall service delivery across

both areas and to address longer-term workforce planning

issues. Common functions and roles were integrated where

appropriate, providing learning opportunities for staff and

improved career progression. The benefits of multi-skilled

staff will flow to the users of those services in the form of

more efficient conduct of the business of both registries.

Workload of the Court

The table below provides lodgment figures for the year

under review and comparisons with the previous two years.

There was a 12% increase in lodgments for the year

under report.

LODGEMENTS FOR 2003Average

Total per month

2000–01 383 31.92

2001–02 429 35.75

2002–03 482 40.17

Native Title

The figure above does not include statistics for Native

Title cases. Twenty notices initiating negotiations with

Native Title parties were lodged during the year, compared

with 10 in 2001–2002 and 12 in 2000–2001. There were

four searches of the State Native Title Register, compared

with eight in the previous year and 10 in 2000–2001.

No applications for determination were made.

No mediations were sought or held.

Conferences

All matters (other than criminal proceedings and appeals

from the Warden’s Court) must, in the first instance,

proceed to a conference, unless an application to dispense

with the conference has been granted. A member of the

court convenes the conference and aims to assist parties

find a resolution of the matters in dispute.

Of the 382 matters finalised during the reporting period,

325 conferences were held. This compares with 286

matters finalised and 243 conferences held in the previous

year. Fifty-seven matters did not proceed to conference

(30 were withdrawn before conference and 27 dispensed

with the conference).

The settlement rate for conferences remains steady, with

142 (44%) settled this year, compared with 104 (43%) in

the previous year.

38

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Hearings

The composition of the bench for any matter before the

court, except criminal proceedings (which must be heard

by a judge or magistrate) is determined by the Presiding

Member. This year, 108 matters proceeded to hearing,

compared with 81 matters in 2001–2002 and 90 matters in

2000–2001. Of those 108 matters, 17 were heard by a full

bench of the court, comprising a judge and two

commissioners, nine more than in the previous year. There

were 91 matters heard by a single bench of the Court –

either a judge or commissioner sitting alone – representing

an increase in 18 hearings by single benches over the year.

The court has made greater use of part-time commissioners

during 2002–2003. Of the 17 full bench hearings, 10

comprised of at least one part-time commissioner. Part-time

commissioners sat as a single bench seven times this year.

Circuits

Generally, the court takes a view of the land in contention at

the start of a hearing, and the court travels to country

locations, as required, to minimise travelling time and costs

incurred by country parties. This year, the court travelled to

Minlaton, Maitland, Port Lincoln, Mount Gambier, Port

Augusta, Clare, Port Pirie, Kingston, Kadina, Berri,

Kangaroo Island, Millicent and Streaky Bay.

Time standards

It is a matter of regret that in many instances standards

have not been met this year. The standards for the disposal

of cases need to be reviewed in light of changes to practice

and procedure made during the year. The court is able to

list matters within the time standards, but it is constrained

by requests by parties to delay bringing matters on. There

are a number of reasons for such requests, but where there

is a likelihood that matters in dispute can be settled or

better defined, the court usually allows parties more time to

negotiate. Another factor which impacts on realising time

standards is the relatively small number of practitioners in

the planning jurisdiction.


Court Reports

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COURT

Conferences: The Court aims to progress a matter to

conference within three weeks of its lodgement. During the

year under review, 15% of matters (both metropolitan and

country) proceeded to conference within the set time

standard, compared to 40% in 2001–2002 and 61% in

2000–2001.

Hearings: Where matters do not settle at conference, the

court aims to list matters for hearing in accordance with the

time standards set out below. Meeting these standards is

influenced by factors beyond the Court’s control. Of the

single bench hearings (metropolitan) 16% were listed within

six weeks of the last day of conference compared to 27% in

2001–2002 and 37% in 2000–2001.

Conference closure to: Time Standards

Single bench hearing (metro) six weeks

Single bench hearing (country) eight weeks

Full bench hearing (metro) eight weeks

Full bench hearing (country) 12 weeks

Judgments: The standard of two months from the close of

hearing to delivery of the judgment was reached in 97% of

matters, compared with 98% the previous year and 97% in

2000–2001. On the few occasions that the 60-day standard

was not achieved, the delay was caused by factors beyond

the Court’s control.


39

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Youth Court

The Youth Court comprises two District Court judges and two

magistrates, proclaimed by the Governor as judges and

magistrates of the Youth Court. Former Chief Magistrate Alan

Moss was appointed Senior Judge on 1 August 2002,

succeeding Senior Judge Andrea Simpson, who moved to

the District Court.

The Youth Court has criminal jurisdiction for offenders

between 10 and 17 years for all charges except murder and

manslaughter, and where, because of the gravity of the

offence or a pattern of repeated offending, the Court decides

that the young person should be dealt with as an adult.

A judge deals with major indictable offences, a serious crime

for which a person may be tried by a judge and jury, and

can impose a sentence of up to three years’ detention. A

magistrate may sentence a young offender to no more than

two years’ detention. In sentencing, the court considers the

need for young offenders to be made aware of their

obligations under the law, the protection of the community,

the deterrent effect of any sanction on the young person, the

need to preserve family and cultural relationships and where

possible, the provision of compensation or restitution to the

victim of an offence. In this way, sentencing differs from

adults, where the principle of general deterrence (not

individual deterrence) is applied.

The Court also has civil jurisdiction in applications for the

care and protection of children and in applications for the

adoption of children.

Family conferences

Under the Young Offenders Act 1993, the court is

responsible for the family conference diversionary scheme.

Family conferences are run by youth justice coordinators.

The Court and police youth officers can refer young

offenders, between 10 and 17 years, to a family conference.

YOUTH COURTAT A GLANCE 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03

Number of judges 2 2 2

Number of magistrates 2 2 2

Staff numbers 27 27 32 **

Criminal matters lodged* 3330 3546 3600

Family conference matters 1545 1410 1503

Youths dealt with at family conference 1770 1650 1708

Child protection applications to the Youth Court 441 476 508

Child protection referrals to Care and Protection Unit 297 356 360

Number of children dealt with by Care and Protection Unit 478 578 617

* Reporting of criminal matters and child protection applications to the Youth Court has now been reviewed and adjusted for the past threefinancial years.

** Includes temporary positions, trainee and cadet.

A family conference offers a young person a chance to

meet the victim of the offence, and to understand the

consequences of their offending behaviour. It also enables

the young person to try to make amends. Those who attend

the conference may include the offender, his or her parents

or guardians, the victim, a person to support the victim, a

police youth officer and youth justice coordinator.

The conference aims to find a suitable outcome for the

offence, for example, a caution, community service,

payment of compensation, an apology, a promise to work at

the site of the damage or to do anything else that might be

appropriate in the circumstances.

Family care meetings

The court also has the responsibility for family care

meetings, under the Children’s Protection Act, 1993. Family

care meetings are convened and run by coordinators,

located in the Care and Protection Units.

A referral to a family care meeting is made when a child is

thought to be at risk or harm and before an application is

made to the Court for an order granting custody of a child,

or placing a child under the guardianship of a person other

than the child’s parents. Most referrals are made by Family

and Youth Services, although the Court may also refer

matters to the Care and Protection Unit.

The aim is to enable families to participate in decision

making for their children, to take responsibility for their care

whenever possible, and to maintain family and cultural

relationships. As many family members as possible are

invited to the meeting, plus professionals who have

provided services to the child or family, a Family and Youth

Services representative, and a care and protection

coordinator. The child’s wishes may be represented by

direct participation of the child or through a child advocate.

For indigenous children, a cultural adviser must also attend.

40

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Overview of workload

The workload of the court has continued to increase

in both criminal and care and protection matters.

The registry has adopted new practices and procedures.

A new electronic adoption case management system and

a new Youth Court filing system were introduced on

1 July 2002.

The workload for the Family Conference Team has

increased by approximately 100 cases. There has

been a very slight increase in the number of families

referred to the Care and Protection Unit, but a further

increase in the number of individual children (29% over

the past two years). The number of family care meetings

held increased.

Timeliness and workload

Youth Court

Criminal and care and protection lodgements have

increased slightly over this financial year. The court has

disposed of 75.5% of cases within six months of initiation,

a small increase compared to 73.2% last year. This may

be as a result of a new practice direction about caseflow

effective from March 2003.

Family Conference Team

The Family Conference Team received 1503 referrals in

2002–2003, involving 1708 young people, representing

an increase of five percent. In approximately 50% of

cases a victim, or a victim’s representative, attended the

family conference. Approximately 76% of family

conference matters were disposed of within eight weeks.

The compliance rate (where the offender complies with

the outcome of the conference) remains very high at 90%

overall.


Court Reports

YOUTH COURTThe results of a 2001 South Australian Juvenile Justice

(Criminal Justice) study were presented at a National

Practitioners’ Forum. The nationally funded study, by

Griffith University researcher, Associate Professor Kathy

Daly, looked at whether the family conferencing model

could be applied to sexual offences. Initial results suggest

that conferencing is more effective in terms of restorative

justice than if the matter goes to court.

Care and Protection Unit

The Care and Protection Unit received 360 referrals in

2002–2003, covering 617 children. There has been a

noticeable trend towards a higher average number of

children per family over the past five years, which places

extra demands on care and protection coordinators and

on child advocates. Approximately 84% of referrals

proceeded to a meeting, a small increase on the previous

year. The unit convened 313 family care meetings and

62 review meetings. Country referrals remain at 31% of

all cases.

Timeliness of family care meetings has been maintained,

with meetings involving investigation and assessment

orders being convened within 14 days and in all other

cases within four weeks, except in situations of parental

unavailability or lack of sufficient information to make

informed decisions. Considerable delays in obtaining

reports are often experienced during Investigation and

Assessment Orders, because of backlogs in other

agencies.

Approximately 75% of meetings result in valid decisions

under the provisions of the Children’s Protection Act

1993. This means that arrangements for the care and

protection of the child that satisfy the concerns held by

Family and Youth Services have been agreed to by family

members and the care and protection coordinator.


41

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Events and initiatives

National Practitioners’ Forum

The Family Conference Team again hosted the third

National Conferencing Practitioners’ Forum, a two-day

event involving 60 delegates discussing issues of

restorative justice, recidivism, sexual assault and

conferencing practice.

Child Protection Review

A major emphasis for the Care and Protection Unit in this

year has been participation in the Review into Child

Protection in South Australia, conducted by Robyn Layton

QC. Consultation on the review recommendations is

underway, and the impact on the Unit’s work of the

recommendations of the review is not yet clear. The Unit

has undertaken a number of small projects to analyse

data and identify possible changes in the legislation with

the aim of strengthening the family decision-making

model. A focus group for child advocates was undertaken

to gain feedback about Family Care Meetings for

submission to the Layton Review.

Community service review

A review of community service ordered during family

conferences was done between December 2002 and

March 2003. Youth justice coordinators and

administrative staff from the Family Conference Team,

Family and Youth Services and Youth Help SA were

consulted. A community service coordinator has been

appointed to implement the review’s recommendations.

Exporting expertise

Youth justice coordinators gave presentations at an

international criminology conference in Queensland. They

then provided training to Queensland coordinators about

conferencing sexual assault matters. Queensland Juvenile

Justice Services has requested more training from the

South Australian Youth Court on these matters.

Care and Protection members participated in several

professional seminars, including a Practitioner Forum on

Family Decision Making held in Melbourne. The Senior

Coordinator co-presented a seminar on Denial in Child

Protection for the Australian Association of Social Workers.

Family Conference Team members delivered numerous

public education sessions to groups including the Law

Society and were guest tutors at Flinders University Law

School, University of SA School of Psychology and TAFE.

The Team also provided ongoing training to Victim

Support Service volunteers and Family and Youth Service

workers.

Youth Court management contributed to an early

intervention in crime prevention state reference group.

Pilot projects in Port Augusta and Noarlunga were

approved.

Continuous improvement

The court is considering electronic lodgements for care

and protection matters. A proof of concept is being

developed.

The Family Conference Team and SA Police have set up a

system to transfer files electronically.

Staff across all areas of the Youth Court participate in a

leadership group to enhance communication and project

development within the building.

Multi-skilling of administrative staff between all three areas

of the Court has occurred through job rotation.

42

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3


Court Reports

CORONER’S COURTAT A GLANCE 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03

Staff numbers* 12 12.6 15.6

Number of deaths reported 3379 3507 3673

Number of post mortems 1144 1072 1232

Number of inquest findings delivered 30 36 38

Number of court sitting hours 187 212 535

* Does not include judicial officers; includes one trainee.

Description

The offices of State Coroner, Deputy State Coroner, and

coroner are created by the Coroner’s Act 1975. The State

Coroner is Mr Wayne Chivell. All magistrates have been

appointed Deputy State Coroners. A Justice of the Peace,

or any other person, can be appointed a coroner. A Deputy

State Coroner, or a coroner, is tasked when the State

Coroner is on leave, or engaged in an unusually lengthy

inquest, such as the Whyalla Airlines inquest this year.

The Coroner’s Act requires deaths to be reported if the

cause was violent, unusual or unknown. The death of a

person in custody or suffering from mental illness,

intellectual retardation or impairment or dependent on the

non-therapeutic use of drugs while that person was

accommodated in an institution must also be reported.

Finally, the death of a person travelling to South Australia

on an aircraft or on a vessel must be reported.

The State Coroner considers such reports, and may

exercise powers granted by the Coroner’s Act to investigate

the cause and circumstances of the report of death, or to

coordinate and supervise that investigation by a person at

his direction, and then if it is considered necessary or

desirable to do so, to conduct an inquest to determine the

cause or circumstances of the death.

The Coroner’s Act empowers a coroner to add to his or her

finding, any recommendation that might prevent, or reduce

the likelihood of, a recurrence of a similar event.

This is a particularly important aspect of the State

Coroner’s role, since this power can be used to encourage

the avoidance of preventable death, and for community

education.

The National Coronial Information System (NCIS) is still in

its infancy. The system collects and collates the findings

and recommendations of coroners from all coronial

jurisdictions in Australia, and make this data available to

coroners, policy makers and researchers. The NCIS is

managed at the Monash University National Centre for

Coronial Information and has 168 third party users

accessing national coronial information.

A new Coroner’s Act 2003, is expected to be passed by the

South Australian Parliament early in 2003–04. Under the

new Act, the coronial role will remain substantially the

same, although significant changes in the categories of

deaths that must be reported are proposed. This will have

resource implications for the Coroner’s Court, and also

upon various agencies, particularly hospitals and agencies

whose responsibility it is to care for individuals described in

the new legislation.

Workload

There was a small increase in the number of deaths

reported in 2002–2003. There were 12 161 deaths

registered with the Registrar of Births, Deaths and

Marriages. 3 673 of the deaths were reported to the State

Coroner. This represents an increase of 166 or 3.2%.

There was a small increase in the number of inquests

completed in 2002–2003, from 36 to 38. However, there

was a large increase in court sitting hours from 212 to 535

which is attributed to the lengthy inquest into the deaths of

eight people on 31 May 2000 aboard a Whyalla Airlines

flight. This was a major focus of the Coroner’s Court this

year. Preparation for the inquest took six months,

and a research officer, barrister and solicitor were

appointed to assist the State Coroner. Hearings began

on 22 July 2002, and ended on 28 February 2003.


43

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

The State Coroner is expected to deliver his findings in July

2003. The court sat for about 220 hours, heard from 64

witnesses, received 595 exhibits and generated 4815 pages

of transcript.

A State budget allocation of $723,000 was set aside to

conduct the inquest. A courtroom in the Adelaide

Magistrates Court was furnished with additional television

monitors to enable public viewing of exhibits. The inquest

took evidence in Adelaide, Whyalla, New York and

Oklahoma, involving expert engineering, metallurgical and

aviation evidence.

Barrister Mr Anthony Schapel performed the duties of a

coroner from 22 July 2002 to 28 March 2003 and held 18

inquests, eight of which involved deaths in custody. The

State Coroner conducted 12 inquests other than the

Whyalla Airline matter. Findings in three are yet to be

delivered.

Recommendations

The State Coroner held an inquest into the deaths of three

people from petrol sniffing in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara

Lands in late May and early June 2002. The finding was

delivered in September 2002. Significant recommendations

were made about Federal and State Government responses

to indigenous health, socio-economic factors, law

enforcement and levels of services across a broad

spectrum. The recommendations were mentioned in the

Treasurer’s State Budget speech, and extra resources were

allocated to address a number of these issues.

Recommendations arising from other inquests have

included:

• Practices and procedures to be adopted by surgeons

when performing surgery in rural and remote areas and

the need for appropriate emergency plans to deal with

complications of surgery where the surgeon is no longer

present in the area;

• Triage practices in emergency departments of hospitals;

• The appropriate handling of patients with mental

illnesses in emergency departments;

• Management of patients with deep vein thrombosis;

• Practices and procedures at Glenside Hospital in

relation to detained patients;

• The need for a separate facility for detained patients;

• The need for a public warning in relation to butane

inhalation;

• The need to restrict the sale of butane, propane,

methane and ethane to minors;

• The use of shark-repellant devices by commercial and

recreational divers;

• Practices and procedures to be adopted by District

Councils when engaging in roadwork;

• Practices and procedures to be adopted in relation to

separation of prisoners;

• The need for elimination of hanging points in cells;

• Practices and procedures to be adopted in relation to

checking of prisoners;

• The need for amendments to the Firearms Act

regarding persons suffering from a mental illness;

• A reminder to the medical profession about their

obligations imposed by the Firearms Act.

Listing Delays

There are 42 inquests awaiting hearing in the Coroner’s

Court, including 13 cases involving a death in custody.

There are 106 cases currently under investigation. The

backlog of cases (some from 2001) for investigation and

listing for inquest is a matter of significant concern to the

State Coroner. The current resources, consisting of the

State Coroner and one Counsel Assisting, do not permit

inquests to be heard at a greater rate. More resources,

including an extra coroner, counsel assisting, and

appropriate administrative support, will be needed to

reduce the backlog.

44

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

O F T H E A U T H O R I T Y

Reports on Human Resources

HUMAN RESOURCES

This was a busy year for human resources management,

complicated at times by a shortage of qualified human

resource practitioners and payroll staff.

Nontheless, there were several highlights. In particular,

the Human Resources Branch, in conjunction with other

elements of the management of the Authority

• accommodated a WorkCover audit concerning injury

management;

• reduced the number and cost of workers’

compensation claims;

• increased the number of indigenous employees;

• reviewed Occupational Health Safety and Welfare

business plans and policies. The Authority’s Central

Occupational Health and Safety committee reviewed

14 of its 23 policies and drew up a new strategic plan;

• created avenues for greater collaboration with the

Justice Portfolio on policy, strategic planning, and

shared services in the areas of human resource

management, occupational health and safety,

organisational development and diversity;

• agreed to participate in a Justice Portfolio Safety and

Injury Management Shared Service Centre;

• implemented the final three modules of a computer-

based Complete Human Resources Information System

(CHRIS). As in the previous year, the Authority was a

pilot agency for two of the modules.

WORKFORCE

There are 729 employees within the Authority, excluding

judicial officers.

Details by stream, level, appointment type and gender

appear as Annex A to this annual report.

The age and gender of our staff, compared with the general

SA public sector workforce, is shown below:

AGE SA PS Workforce Authority 2001–2002 Authority 2002–2003

GROUP Total Total

% allSA PS % all % all

Workforce Male Female Total Employees Male Female Total Employees

15–19 7.3 3 5 8 1.1 0 4 4 0.5

20–24 10.3 18 56 74 10.4 19 54 73 10.0

25–29 10.7 34 59 93 13.1 26 58 84 11.5

30–34 11.5 28 46 74 10.4 30 52 82 11.2

35–39 11.4 29 53 82 11.5 30 63 93 12.8

40–44 13.1 34 57 91 12.8 34 58 92 12.6

45–49 12.1 42 69 111 15.6 47 53 100 13.7

50–54 10.8 43 60 103 14.5 44 70 114 15.6

55–59 7.6 23 30 53 7.4 25 34 59 8.1

60–64 3.7 10 8 18 2.5 10 10 20 2.7

65+ 1.5 4 1 5 0.7 5 3 8 1.1

Total 100 268 444 712 100.0 270 459 729 100.0


45

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Executive Appointments

This year, the Deputy State Courts Administrator resigned and the position was not filled. One Executive’s contract was

renewed for another five years. The table below excludes the State Courts Administrator.

Level Location Gender Status Review Date

EX –A Magistrates Court Male Tenured March 2007

EX –A District Court Male Tenured January 2007

EX –A Sheriff’s Office Male Tenured September 2005

EX –A Supreme Court Female Tenured March 2006

EX– A Corporate Services Male Tenured August 2005

Organisational restructure and remuneration

There was no major restructure of the workforce this year

but some changes were made. The Supreme Court (Civil)

and Probate registries were amalgamated and a small

number of positions were reclassified. The Magistrates

Court began an amalgamation of Fines Payment Unit and

Registry staff. This is likely to provide more career

opportunities for staff and utilise resources better. Focus

groups are in place to ensure proper consultation in this

matter. Payroll and facilities management were reviewed.

One executive contract was renewed for a further five years

at the same time as the remuneration level of the contract

was reviewed. Three executives have sought a review of

executive positions in line with agreed guidelines for the

Justice Portfolio. The results of these requests will be

available next year.

Indigenous Employment

The Authority emphasises recruitment and retention of

indigenous staff because of the high proportion of

indigenous court users, to implement recommendations of

the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody

and as part of its reconciliation with indigenous Australians.

Several positions for indigenous persons have been

created, some within indigenous sentencing Courts. Three

positions have been allocated to the Youth Court and in

Port Augusta (yet to be filled).

The Sheriff’s Office has been particularly successful in

recruiting indigenous Sheriff’s Officers, with 5.1% of

Sheriff’s Officers now being indigenous. The success is in

part attributable to consultation with indigenous

communities (to increase job application rates), the work

that has been done to improve cultural understanding of

other employees and the ongoing development and career

opportunities available for indigenous employees in the

Sheriff’s Office.

This year, two indigenous trainees and one indigenous

cadet (Social Work) have been employed by the Youth

Court. This is the first time that the Authority has

participated in the National Indigenous Cadetship

Program. This program may be expanded next year, with

the District Court considering employing a Law cadet.

The figures below show the numbers and some details of

indigenous employment.

INDIGENOUS EMPLOYEES IN THE AUTHORITY% all

Indigenous Employees Male Female Total Employees

SA Workforce 2000–01 260 462 722 0.86

Authority 2000–01 7 8 15 2.22

SA Workforce 2001–02 320 570 890 1.06

Authority 2001–02 10 5 15 2.11

Authority 2002–03 13 7 20 2.74

46

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3



EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF INDIGENOUS EMPLOYEESLong Short

Ongoing Casual contract contract Cadetship Trainee

Employees 2001–2002 8 3 2 2

Employees 2002–2003 11 6 – – 1 2

Total employees Indigenous EmployeesMale Female Total

Executives 9 0 0 0

Senior Managers* 20 0 0 0

Middle Managers* 127 1 0 1

First Line Supervisors * 233 4 3 7

Others 340 7 5 12

TOTAL 729 12 8 20

* Senior Managers ASO7 & ASO8 and equivalent, irrespective of any supervisory role

* Middle Managers ASO5 & ASO6 and equivalent, irrespective of any supervisory role

* First Line Supervisors ASO3 & ASO4 and equivalent, irrespective of any supervisory role

Diversity Profiling

Members of staff were invited to participate in an Office of the Commissioner of Public Employment (OCPE) employee

profiling exercise, gathering cultural and linguistic data. Fifty-six percent of employees completed the survey and the

results are as follows:

CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY OF CAA EMPLOYEES

Total Those whostaff completednumbers survey Country of Birth Main Language spoken at home

Australia Other English Other(No of Employees) (No of Employees) (No of Employees) (No of Employees)

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

729 406 101 223 30 52 122 253 9 22

These figures closely match data gathered from 49 new employees in June 2002, namely, that 18% of respondents were born

outside of Australia and 6% of respondents spoke a language other than English at home.


47

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Disability Discrimination Act (1992)

To fulfil reporting requirements, data was gathered from divisional managers regarding the numbers of employees with a

permanent disability. Although the Authority has a number of employees with disabilities, data was collected only on those

whose disability restricted the type of work they could do, the hours they worked, the environment in which they worked,

the equipment they used or any assistance they required to carry out their duties. The table below summarises this data.

Total employees Employees with a permanent disabilityMale Female Total

Executives** 9 0 0 0

Senior Managers* 20 0 0 0

Middle Managers* 127 0 1 1

First Line Supervisors * 233 0 0 0

Others 340 3 0 3

TOTAL 729 3 0 4

** Executives are defined as those with a salary over $80,000 per annum

* Senior Managers ASO7 & ASO8 and equivalent

* Middle Managers ASO5 & ASO6 and equivalent

* First Line Supervisors ASO3 & ASO4 and equivalent

Youth Recruitment

There was a large intake of young people in previous years and this year, managers devoted time to ensuring integration of

young people into the workforce through formal and on-the-job training. Whilst the Authority is keen to continue this strategy,

there has to be a balance between recruitment and retention of the young people. A conscious effort was made to find on-

going employment for last year’s intake of graduates rather than recruit more who could not be retained. Of the 38 graduates

and trainees recruited in 2001–2002, the Authority was able to retain and permanently appoint 24. Once again, the Authority

exceeded the government’s nine percent Youth Recruitment target.

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES RECRUITED THROUGH YOUTH RECRUITMENT INITIATIVES

Scheme 2000–2001 20001–2002 2002–2003

NTW Trainees 9 16 7

Graduates 6 22 2

Totals 15 38 9

RECRUITMENT OF YOUTH IN THE AUTHORITY

Age Group 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03Number % Number % Number %

15–19 8 1.15 8 1.12 4 0.55

20–24 65 9.33 74 10.40 88 12.0

TOTAL 73 10.47 82 11.52 92 12.6

Staffing

Over the past three years strategic decisions were made to up-skill the workforce by taking advantage of the Government’s

rejuvenation package that allowed graduates to be employed where voluntary redundancy packages were given. This was

a demanding exercise for many managers because of the need to induct and train new staff. Consequently, this year has

been one of consolidation of the workforce. Recruitment to lower classified positions (ASO1/OPS1–ASO3) continues to be a

major activity.

48

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Vacancies filled during the year

All vacancies were advertised internally and/or through the Commissioner for Public Employment’s Notice of Vacancies.

The table below provides information on the outcome of the selection processes.

No No Position PositionsYear Vacancies Appointments nominations withdrawn readvertised

2000–01 186 159 20 6 1

2001–02 206 180 15 10 1

2002–03 118 105 11 2 0



Of the (17%) new staff members recruited from outside of

Government, most were recruited to OPS1 or ASO1 level

position. The 13 (12%) staff recruited from other State

Government agencies filled various classifications, from

ASO1 to ASO6/PSO2. The trend appears to be for external

recruitment to fill specialised professional positions.

There has been increased recruitment from within the

Authority this year compared with 2001–2002. Last year

43% of recruits were from sources external to the State

Government, compared with 29% this year.

The table below shows the appointments made from within

the Authority. These figures suggest that the Authority is

successfully preparing a small pool of staff for middle

management positions through succession planning and

lateral movement to gain experience.

APPOINTMENTS MADE FROM WITHIN THE AUTHORITY

Level ASO 1 ASO 2 ASO 3 ASO 4 ASO 5 ASO 6 OPS 1 PSO 1 PSO 2 EXA

No. 14 16 23 7 7 2 1 1 1 1

Figure 23 demonstrates that of the 105 appointments made

in the past year 71% were appointed from within the

Authority and shows the relative age groups. The graph

below also compares the ages of those appointed and

terminated but it does not take into account recruitment

through equal opportunity programs as these are not

advertised positions.

Figure 23 Termination and Recruitment by Age

Figure 22 Source of recruits from Notice ofvacancies and external media

12% External71% Internal17% Outside of Govt.

Age

Number of Staff

Terminated Recruited

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

15–19

20–24

25–29

30–34

35–39

40–44

45–49

50–54

55–59

60–64

65+


49

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

RESPONSIVE EMPLOYMENT CONDITIONS

Flexible Working Arrangements (FWA)

To assist employees balance work and family life and to

attract and retain the best staff, the Authority has a flexible

working arrangements policy. Managers must give serious

consideration to all employee applications for flexible

working arrangements. Authority job profiles also compel

managers to consider flexible working arrangements when

reviewing jobs for recruitment and for performance

management interviews.

The figures below summarise some of the data. It should

be noted that, in addition to flexitime, employees are

offered the opportunity to bank extra hours (banked time)

and take longer blocks of time off than would normally be

allowed under flexitime guidelines. Where flexitime is not

available, some areas offer time off in lieu of overtime

when it is needed (approximately 20% of staff have access

to time off in lieu of overtime).

USE OF FLEXIBLE WORKING ARRANGEMENTS

Type of arrangement Total employees Number of employees using a voluntary flexible working arrangementExecutive Non-Executive

Male Female Male Female

Purchased Leave 0 0 0 0 0

Flexitime 392 0 0 129 263

Compressed Weeks 10 0 0 8 2

Part-time & Job Share 145 0 0 40 105

Working from Home 14 3 1 6 4

TOTAL 561 3 1 183 374

Because of the nature of their work (eg interaction with

clients and/or judiciary) some members of staff cannot

access most types of FWA. But interest in, and acceptance

of, flexible working arrangements is increasing. Some

employees have tried flexible working arrangements but

found them unsuitable and have reverted to normal working

hours or chosen another form of flexible working

arrangements.

Figure 24 Status of Successful Applicants

13% Casual60% Contract27% Ongoing

Figure 25 Employment Status of Authority andSA Public Sector employees

SA Public Sector 2000/01 CAA 2000/01CAA 2001/02 CAA2002/03

Full time Part timeEmployment Status

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

50

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

FLEXIBLE LEAVE ARRANGEMENTSEmployee numbers

Paid maternity accessing Paid adoption Family carer’sleave (days) maternity leave leave (days) leave (days)

2002–2003 266 18 0 429.19

2001–2002 127 10 0 863.67

Employees can access special leave, maternity leave and family carer’s leave to assist in balancing work and home life. The

following table indicates the degree to which these have been used by staff.

Hours taken 1999–2000 2000–2001 2001–2002 2002–2003

Average number of sick leavehours taken per FTE 60.75 55.5 47.25 49.16

Average number of family carer leavehours taken per FTE 0.75 3.0 9.75 4.74

Average number of special leave withpay hours for individual needs &responsibilities taken per FTE* N/A N/A N/A 30.04

* This leave could have been taken for bereavement purposes, to care for a sick child, to move house, to attend to ANZAC duties or to attend toother urgent pressing necessities.



PLANNED HUMAN RESOURCEDEVELOPMENT

This year, there was extensive consultation with the Justice

Portfolio about sharing human resource development. This

remains an agenda item for the portfolio.

Skills defined by core capabilities

The Authority has developed new job profiles. These list

core capabilities for all employees as determined by the

Authority’s Executive. The capabilities include customer

service, effective problem solving, team orientated, effective

communicating, goal focused, respect for others and the

ability to learn continually. These capabilities align with

Australian National Competencies.

Career Management

So as to combine career opportunities and skills’

enhancement for staff at lower classification levels, the

Magistrates Court has undertaken a competency and

classification project. The parameters of this project are:

1. Identify the competencies, for each classification level

from ASO1, ASO2 and ASO3;

2. Develop staff to meet accredited competencies, using a

planned and accredited approach;

3. Assess employees’ competencies and remunerate

accordingly.

A consultative working party was established to determine

the generic job profiles and align the competencies, where

possible, with national competencies. Funding has been

provided by the Commissioner for Public Employment to

align the Authority’s established capabilities with national

competencies. The Magistrates Court has also developed a

policy on staff rotation to provide opportunities for wider

experience within the Courts and greater opportunity for

career enhancement.

Training

A Training and Development Officer vacancy was filled on a

permanent basis in December 2002. The position had been

occupied by a series of short-term appointments for almost

a year while discussions were held about sharing resources

with other agencies. The past six months have been

challenging in assessing the training needs for the Authority

and meeting prescribed targets. The training officer is a

qualified workplace assessor and can deliver accredited

training programs that meet the specific requirements of

the public sector.

Training initiatives this year

• An Office for the Commissioner for Public Employment

(OCPE) project to align Sheriff’s Officer training to a

qualification of Certificate III in Government

advanced this year. An integrated performance

development system is a key component of the project.


51

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

This will enhance coaching and mentoring opportunities

for staff and trainees.

• Completion of Certificate IV in Management program by

18 staff.

• Delivery of courses (Train Small Groups and Workplace

Assessor within Certificate IV in Workplace Assessment

and Training) for 32 staff. Two members completed

Certificate IV internally.

• Monthly network meetings for supervisors and

managers. These attracted attendances totaling 421.

Sessions included motivation, e-business, teamwork,

client service, workplace bullying and performance

management.

• Participation in Justice Portfolio Organisational Learning

Framework courses. This year, there has been a greater

choice and more flexibility with stand-alone courses

delivering specific competency-based training in

particular skills. Sixteen staff participated in accredited

courses and 22 staff took part in non-accredited

workshops. There were 85 attendances at senior

executive forums and 202 at staff development

seminars.

• Introduction of an on-line manual on human resources

issues for managers.

• Continuation of a Short Course Calendar offering

programs in policy and legislation, management and

leadership, core capabilities, and personal and

professional development. There have been 508 staff

attendances at the range of forums and workshops

provided.

• Implementation and training of all staff for CHRIS Kiosk

(software) and a CHRIS and Training and Development

module.

• Staff training in e-business, Internet and Intranet

processes.

• Continuation of a Study Assistance Policy. This year, the

Authority supported 28 members of staff in accredited

vocational and university programs.

Following a pilot of e-learning in which the benefits and

costs of the program were assessed, the Authority will

maintain a watching brief on developments within this area.

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Development plan and qualifications(non-Public Sector Management Act employees)

Percentage of employees with a documented Number of employees enrolled or who haveindividual development plan which was either completed a qualification (or a unit from aimplemented or revised during the past year qualification) from an accredited training package

Target Outcome Target Target Outcome Target00–01 01–02 02–03 02–03 03–04 00–01 01–02 02–03 02–03 03–04

TOTAL 50% 65.4% 70% 56% 70% 56 60 77 125

Note: Information regarding levels of management not available

Training expenditure(non-Public Sector Management Act employees)

Percentage of training expenditure on leadershipand management training relative to total

Percentage of training expenditure remuneration costs (Benchmark of 2%relative to total remuneration costs determined by Senior Management Council)

Target Outcome Target Target Outcome Target00–01 01–02 02–03 02–03 03–04 00–01 01–02 02–03 02–03 03–04

TOTAL 2.72% 2.74% 3.0% 2.70% 3.0% 1.95% 1.40% 2.0% 1.77% 2.0%

Note: Information regarding levels of management not available

Individual performance development

The Authority has two policies governing individual

performance development.

Forty-six percent (46%) of staff has an individual

development plan, with reviews performed throughout the

year. Managers incorporate the Authority’s strategic

corporate plan as well as key core capabilities in planning

and conducting performance management with their

employees.

Training for managers included human resource

management skills and practices, requirements of OHS&W

and rehabilitation legislation, ongoing development for career

progression and meeting future needs of the Authority.

52

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

MERIT, EQUITY AND DIVERSITY

Human Resources personnel offer guidance across the

Authority in the pursuit of fair and equitable treatment for all

staff. This is done through a specialist diversity consultant

and through policies that explain standards and merit and

equity principles contained in the Public Sector

Management Act. The policies also cover equal opportunity

and grievance matters. All Human Resource policies can be

accessed by staff via the intranet. Induction processes and

training courses ensure staff are made aware of these

policies.

Disciplinary Processes

One staff member was suspended from duty with pay

pursuant to S59 of the Public Sector Management Act.

Following investigations, the State Courts Administrator

determined that there were grounds to pursue the

disciplinary processes and the employee was cautioned

formally about standards of behaviour.

Grievance Appeals

The State Courts Administrator did not approve one

personal reclassification. The staff member appealed to the

Grievance and Appeal Remuneration Tribunal and the State

Courts Administrator’s decision was upheld.

Diversity

Employees continued to be offered activities to increase

awareness of equity and diversity issues. The focus this

year was on indigenous matters, in particular:

• Aboriginal Cultural Awareness training courses. Two

courses were run this year, involving 47 participants.

The program was offered to other Justice Portfolio

agencies and three employees from the Attorney

General’s Department attended. Over the past five

years, a facilitator has been hired to run this course and

indigenous employees have helped in the presentation.

However, a recent influx of indigenous staff, many of

whom have some experience in cross cultural training,

has meant the Authority is now using in-house expertise

to run the course.

• Aboriginals in Court training is conducted by Aboriginal

Sheriff’s officers and offered to all Sheriff’s officers to

supplement the course outlined above.



• All Senior Sheriff’s officers attend Managing Services for

Diverse Populations, facilitated by COPE.

• Seven staff attended a Manage Effective Service to

Diverse Clients program, offered by the Justice Portfolio.

• Indigenous employees were offered specific courses.

Four attended a Navigator for Indigenous Men course

and two attended a Springboard for Indigenous Women

course. The Justice Portfolio offered both programs.

Other cultural diversity activities this year included:

• A lunch-time presentation in March 2003 involving a

Muslim cleric talking about Muslim practices and

expectations concerning Courts. About 80 employees

(including members of the judiciary and staff from other

Justice agencies) attended.

• A panel discussion/presentation in May 2003 on the

use of legal interpreters, arranged by the Authority,

Australian Institute of Judicial Administration,

Legal Services Commission and the Adelaide Institute

of TAFE.

Disability Action Plan

Report of progress against the five outcomes of Promoting

Independence – Disability Action Plans for South

Australians is as follows:

Outcome 1. (Portfolios and their agencies are to ensure

access to their services to people with disabilities). Some

resources have been committed to this outcome and

managerial responsibilities have been assigned to the

process to achieve this aim.

The Authority’s Disability Action Plan specifies audits that

are to occur in 2003–2004, including audits of the provision

of car parking facilities, routes to and around court

buildings to avoid barriers or hazards, layout of buildings,

access to facilities inside buildings and functional

accessibility (eg handles, basins). This year, signage was

audited and results are being considered.

The Authority offers a Diversion Program that caters

exclusively to those with mental illness or impairment and is

training court volunteers to assist in this and other diversion

programs for those with special needs.

The Authority has consulted with people with

disabilities in the preparation of its disability plan.


53

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Organisations involved include the SA Deaf Society, Brain

Injury Options Coordination, National Federation for Blind

Citizens, SA Mental Health, SA Association for the Deaf,

Disability Action, Intellectual Disability Services Council and

Royal Society for the Blind.

The Authority has not allocated funds for audits as they will

occur in 2004–05. However, some minor works funds have

been used to improve access ramps and handrails at Clare

Magistrates Court and for disabled car parking, installation

of automatic electric doors to entrances and tactile

indicators in the foyer of the Mount Gambier Court house.

Six percent of the Authority’s buildings have been audited

for access.

Outcome 2. (Portfolios and their agencies ensure that

information about their services and programs is inclusive

of people with disabilities.) As for Outcome 1.

Interpreters from the Deaf Society are used for interpreting

in Court and with staff. In 2001–2002, interpreters were

used for 59 court matters and 25 times with staff. These

figures decreased this year to 38 court matters and three

times with staff.

The Authority referred to the Royal Society for the Blind

directional maps of the court precinct in Victoria Square for

comment. The maps were altered in line with the Society’s

recommendations.

No publications are provided in alternative formats although

the Authority’s website enables remote access to certain

outcomes of the Courts.

Outcome 3. (Portfolios and their agencies deliver advice or

services to people with disabilities with awareness and

understanding of issues affecting people with disabilities).

The Authority has a plan and can demonstrate knowledge

of its basic responsibilities to deliver appropriate advice and

services to people with disabilities with awareness and

understanding of issues and needs.

Outcome 4. (Portfolios and their agencies provide

opportunities for consultation with people with disabilities

concerning service delivery and in the implementation of

complaints and grievance mechanisms). The same

comments as for Outcomes 1 & 2 apply.

Outcome 5. Each portfolio chief executive will ensure that

their portfolio has met the requirements of the Disability

Discrimination Act 1992 and the Equal Opportunity Act

1994.) Reporting systems have been established within the

Authority to identify activities that work toward meeting the

requirements of the legislation.

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF HUMANRESOURCE MANAGEMENT

The Authority has a culture of innovation and creativity and

policies to underpin continuous improvement.

Particular Human Resource initiatives this year included:

• Publication of a comprehensive Human Resource

manual for managers and employees online.

• Review and publication to the intranet of the HR Staff

Handbook, with links to the OCPE Internet site.

• A redesign of a line managers’ HR guide, to ensure a

consistent approach by managers in the Authority to

human resource practices across the Authority.

RESPONSIVE AND SAFE EMPLOYMENTCONDITIONS

Ethical Conduct and Fraud

The Authority has guidelines and policies concerning

ethical conduct and staff are also made aware of the

Commissioner for Public Employment’s Code of Conduct

through the Authority’s induction program, where a half a

day is set aside to discuss the Commissioner’s

Determinations concerning conditions of employment.

Examples of these policies include an anti-corruption policy,

ethical research policy, intranet access and usage policy

and an e-mail policy.

The Authority this year audited staff usage of email and the

Internet and provided reports to all jurisdictional Registrars

and divisional heads who took appropriate action to counsel

staff about possible breaches of policy requirements. The

government investigator was consulted in one case.

OVERSEAS TRAVEL

One employee travelled to Thailand this year to the

Authority, under an Ausaid consultancy to Thai Courts. All

costs were reimbursed.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH SAFETY ANDWELFARE (OHS&W)

All staff are involved in identifying, assessing and controlling

risks and overhauling faulty systems and programs. As a

result, the numbers and costs of all new claims have

reduced considerably.

54

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

MEETING WORKCOVER PERFORMANCESTANDARDS FOR SELF-INSURERS

Occupational Health and Safety Audit

As a result of a preliminary WorkCover audit in January

2003, OHS&W systems are being reviewed, to ensure

policies and systems are relevant and performance

indicators are measurable. This year, a new OHS&W

strategic plan was developed. The Workcover Auditor, whilst

pleased with the plan, suggested improvements for greater

compliance with WorkCover Standards.

Injury Management Audit

A WorkCover audit of injury management systems took

place in April 2003 and the auditors praised the Authority’s

achievements involving injury management systems.



Priority is given to rehabilitating injured employees.

Managers actively search for alternative duties when

employees are unable temporarily to return to their pre-

injury duties. The Authority’s rehabilitation policy is

underpinned by a system that has been developed to

support the intent of the policy. Both the rehabilitation

policy and the Authority’s workers compensation polices

and manual meet WorkCover performance standards.

There were six new rehabilitation cases for the 2002–03

financial year. Three injured workers were returned to pre-

injury duties. Three returned to modified pre-injury duties

and at pre-injury hours. The Government’s targeted

performance indicator for a 10% reduction in new claim

numbers and cost was met.

There was a reduction of nearly 30% for all new claims and

approximately a 70% reduction for the costs for new claims

this year compared with the previous year. Details appear in

the table below:

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY STATISTICSCriteria 2000–01 2001–02 2002–03

Number of new workers compensation claims: 29 37 26

Number of new workers compensation claims that 5 12 6resulted in an incapacity of five days or more:

Number of employees who joined rehabilitation programs: 6 7 6

Number of employees rehabilitated to their original duties: 1 2 3

Details of types of injuries sustained in the Authority appear in the figure below:

Full details of the Authority’s health, safety and injury

management statistics appear at Appendix B to this report.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2000–01 2001–02 2002–03

Lace

ration

Bruis

ing/S

oft Ti

ssue

Injur

y

Sprai

ns an

d Stra

ins

Occu

patio

nal O

verus

e

Bodil

y Flui

d Con

tact

Stres

s Rela

ted C

ondit

ion

Dislo

catio

n

Fractu

res

Toxic

Reac

tion

Nedd

le Sti

ck In

jury

Othe

r

Figure 26 Comparison of Injury Type


55

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Number of Totalrequests paymentsreceived received

2001–02 4 Nil

2002–03 16 Nil

In the year under review, 16 FOI requests were received.

There was no obvious reason for this four-fold increase. Most

requests were to search court records that are exempt under

Freedom of Information legislation. Six of these were from

prisoners who were referred to relevant registries each of

which has specific legislation governing access to files. One

of the 16 requests was refused and the decision is under

review by the State Ombudsman. Two requests were

successful. One application was transferred to another

agency as the Authority was not the holder of the document.

One FOI request from the previous year that involved

proceedings arising from a case under the Child ProtectionAct 1993 was appealed in the District Court in February

2003. The Court held that the Authority’s decision to deny

the request was lawful and dismissed the appeal.

Information statement

The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 1991 gives members

of the public a legally enforceable right to access documents

held by State Government agencies, subject to certain

restrictions and exemptions.

Structure and functions of the CourtsAdministration Authority

The Authority was established on 1 July 1993 by the CourtsAdministration Act 1993. The Authority is governed by the

State Courts Administration Council, a body corporate and

instrumentality of the Crown. The Council is independent of

the Executive Government. The State Courts Administrator is

responsible for managing the Council’s assets and staff. The

Council, Administrator and staff are collectively referred to as

the Courts Administration Authority. There are seven

participating Courts of the Authority: The Supreme Court of

South Australia, District Court, Magistrates Court,

Environment, Resources and Development Court, Youth

Court, Coroner’s Court and Industrial Court of SA.

Effect of agency’s function to members of the public

The Authority’s functions directly impact on thepublic through the Authority’s provision of court,registry, enforcement and juvenile justice servicesthroughout the State. Ultimate decision-making power

Freedom of Information (FOI)

regarding the functions of the Authority is vested in theState Courts Administration Council, which must workwithin the provisions of the Courts Administration Act 1993.

Public participation in agency policy

There are no formal arrangements that enable members ofthe public to participate in the formulation of the Authority’spolicies and the exercise of its functions. Publicconsultation occurs however on an ad hoc basis throughdirect contact with the court in person, by mail or throughthe website contact center (www.courts.sa.gov.au), surveysand community liaison activities.

Description of the kinds of documents held by theAuthority

The Authority holds a range of documents includingadministrative files, financial reports, discussion andbackground papers, reviews, evaluations, proceduremanuals, kits, user and reference guides, brochures,registers and policy statements. A list of policy statementsis shown below.

It should be noted that pursuant to Schedule 1 of the FOIAct, documents relating to judicial functions of courts andtribunals are exempt documents. Public access to evidenceis governed by the Supreme Court Act 1935 (s131), theDistrict Court Act 1991 (s54), the Magistrates Court Act1991 (s51), the Environment, Resources and DevelopmentCourt Act 1993 (s47) and Coroner’s Act 1975 (s29).

Documents can be inspected during business hours. Policystatements are free. Fees are charged for other documents.

Access arrangements, procedures and pointsof contact

Applications for access to documents held by the Authority

should be accompanied by a $22.30 application fee and

directed to:

The Freedom of Information Officer

Courts Administration Authority

GPO Box 1068

ADELAIDE SA 5001

Fees may be reduced or waived in certain circumstances.

Enquiries can be directed to the Freedom of Information

Officer during business hours on:

Telephone: (08) 98226 0103 or (08) 8204 0687

Facsimile: (08) 8226 0111

56

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Policy statements

• Accident/Incident Investigation Policy and Procedures

• Additional Duties Allowance

• Anti-Corruption Policy

• Assignment Policy

• Charging for the Non-Court Use of the

Authority’s Facilities

• Code of Practice for Contractors

• Communicable and Infectious Disease Policy

• Constitution and Rules of OHS&W Committee

• Consultation Policy/Guidelines OHS&W

• Continuing Improvement Policy

• Court Security Policy Statement

• Courts Volunteer Service Policy Guidelines

• Critical Incident Policy/Procedures

• Dealing with Difficult and Aggressive Clients

Policy/Procedures

• Election Kit for Election of OHS&W Officers

• Email Policy

• Email Address on Documents Policy

• Emergency Evacuation Policy

• Employee Assistance Program Policy/Procedures

• Ethical Conduct for members of staff of the

CAA Guidelines

• Ethical Research Policy Guidelines

• Equal Opportunity Policy Statement

• External Web Site Policy

• Filling for Vacancies

• 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

Freedom of Information (FOI)

• Hazardous Substances Policy/Procedures

• Information Technology and Telecommunications

Security Policy and Standards

• Internal Remuneration Panels – Terms of Reference

• Internet Access and Usage Policy

• Internet Rules

• Long Distance Driving Policy/Procedures

• Long Service Leave

• Manual Handling & Occupational Overuse Policy/

Procedures

• Managing Good Performance Policy/Procedures

• Managing for Improved Performance

• Media Policy

• Networked Personal Computers Policy and Standards

• No Smoking in the Workplace Policy/Procedures

• OHS&W Policy/Procedures

• Performance Management

• Policy Guidelines for Public Speaking for Staff

of the Authority

• Pregnancy Guidelines

• Procedures for the Supply of the Hepatitis B Serum

• Psychological Health Policy

• Purchasing Policy

• Purchasing Practice Guidelines

• Rehabilitation Policy/Procedures

• Remuneration of Positions Policy/Procedures

• Risk Management Policy Statement

• Screen Based Keyboard Equipment Policy

• Sexual Harassment Policy

• TOIL Policy

• Whistleblowers Protection Policy and Procedures

• Work Experience

• Workers’ Compensation Claims Policy

• Working from Home Policy


57

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

ENERGY STATEMENTEnergy GJ Expenditure $ GHG Emissions (t Co2)

Base Year 2000–01 37 023 1 065 011 8 918

Year 2002–03 28 666 1 031 027 7 626

Agency Target for 2002–03 36 186 N/A 8 716

Agency Target for 2010 31 470 N/A 7 580

Note:

1. Figures presented in the above table reflect energy (gas & electricity) consumed in Authority’s buildings.

2. In the base year, the CO2 emissions coefficient was 1.1098kg CO2 per kWh. However, this increased to 1.1860kg in

2002–2003, representing an increase of almost 7%. With 77% of the energy use in the Authority being electricity, this

change in emissions coefficient has had an impact on the figures presented above. It is equally possible that the

emissions coefficient may be decreased in any given future year.

Energy Statement

Significant energy management achievements

The Authority has progressed a reduction in energy

consumption in the year under review by:

• Replacing the air conditioning system at Holden Hill

Magistrates Court with a more efficient system that

incorporates heat recovery principles to reduce running

costs. The plant is controlled and monitored by a digital

building management system.

• Completing an energy audit of Adelaide Magistrates

Court and Sir Samuel Way Building, which are the

Authority’s largest energy consumers.

• Implementing energy saving strategies for the Adelaide

Magistrates Court that include:

– Installation of room sensors to turn off lighting and

air conditioning in vacant courtrooms.

– Alterations and reprogramming of the building

management system.

– Installation of automated control of public lighting

to court waiting areas and car park exhaust fans.

– Refinements to the existing building management

system.

The strategies were commissioned in March 2003.

Energy management activities

During the year the Authority:

• Replaced the Authority’s outdated Greenhouse Gas

Policy with a new Energy Efficiency Policy;

• Initiated regular energy bulletins (“Watt About Energy”)

to inform staff about energy matters;

• Integrated energy efficiency into the Courts Service

Charter;

• Participated in Justice Portfolio Energy Managers’

Network meetings.

58

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Financial Overview

2002–03 Financial Statements

The financial statements are prepared using the accrual basis of accounting. However, a cash flow statement is also included

in accordance with accounting standards.

The following table summarises the cash flows for the 2002–03 financial year. Cash flows for 2001–02 are also disclosed for

comparative purposes.2002–03 2001–02INFLOWS INFLOWS

(OUTFLOWS) (OUTFLOWS)$’000 $’000

Cash Flows from Operating Activities

Payments (65,935) (65,319)

Receipts 5 772 9 813

Appropriation and Grants 63,238 55,913

Net Cash provided by Operating Activities 3 075 407

Cash Flows from Investing Activities

Payments (1 619) (4 076)

Receipts 208 1

Net Cash used in Investing Activities (1 411) (4 075)

Cash Flows from Financing Activities

Payments (664) (621)

Net Cash used in Financing Activities (664) (621)

Net decrease in cash held 1 000 (4 289)

Cash at the beginning of the financial year 6 013 10,302

Cash at the end of the financial year 7 013 6 013

The above table illustrates:

• Operating payments increased in 2002–03, mainly due

to wage increases and payments for the R v Bunting

and others matter. The variation was partially offset by

payments made in 2001–02 relating to ETVSP’s.

• Operating receipts reduced in 2002–03, mainly due to

the effect of recoups in 2001–02 relating to ETVSP’s.

• Investing Payments decreased in 2002–03, mainly due

to the effect of payments made in 2001–02 relating to

the Christies Beach Magistrates Court Development.

Payments made in 2002–03 relate to the Supreme Court

Refurbishment Works, Port Augusta Courts Complex

Development and annual provisions for asset purchases.

The asset base of the Authority increased to $126.453m

compared to $122.229m in the previous year due to the

revaluation of building assets.

Refer to the Statement of Financial Position for

further details.

2003–04 Budget

The activities of the Authority in 2003–04 will again be

primarily funded through Parliamentary appropriations. In

addition to normal funding requirements, the 2003–04

budget also provided continuing capital funding for the

Port Augusta Courts Complex Development of $7.4m over

three years.

During 2003–04, costs incurred in relation to the

R v Bunting et al murder case will continue to be subject to

a recoup process from the Attorney-General’s Department.


59

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

ACCOUNT PAYMENT PERFORMANCE

NUMBER OF VALUE IN $A OFPARTICULARS ACCOUNTS PAID % ACCOUNTS PAID %

Paid by due date 179,621 93% 30,955,563 65%

Paid late & paid < 30 days from due date 9 179 5% 14,667,627 31%

Paid late & paid > 30 days from due date 4 391 2% $1,823,037 4%

The above table highlights that the Authority paid 98% of all

invoices within 30 days of the invoice date. The variation in

the percentage of the value of invoices paid relates to a

number of disputed payments of substantial value or where

the invoice date is much earlier than the date the invoice

was received by the Authority.

Consultancies

Expenditure on consultancies amounted to $60,000 during

2002–03 compared to $110,000 the previous year.

Refer to note 25 to the Financial Statements for more detail.

Contractual Arrangements

No major contractual arrangements were entered into

during 2002–03.

Corporate Governance Statement

In relation to Risk Management and Performance

Monitoring the Authority is a member of the Justice

Portfolio’s Risk Management Committee. This committee

ensures that a committed portfolio approach to risk

management is undertaken.

Internally the Authority has developed policies and

procedures in accordance with the Financial Management

Framework and has established an Internal Audit Committee.

Asset planning, management and budgeting enable the

Authority to meet the required service levels by ensuring

staff and court users are given access to safe and user

friendly work and business environments. The Authority has

been active in promoting the prescribed elements of the

Financial Management Framework by holding discussion

sessions with the operating divisions of the Authority.

Procurement training has been conducted for divisional

heads, managers and personnel involved in the

procurement process. A Procurement Guide has been

developed by the Strategic Contracts Branch, Department

of Justice and distributed to personnel attending the

training sessions.

The Procurement Guide is in two volumes, Volume 1 covers

Procurement Policies and Guidelines, Volume 2 covers

Procurement Instructions and Document Templates.

60

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Financial Reports

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

for the year ended 30 June 2003

2003 2002NOTE $’000 $’000

Revenues from ordinary activities

Grants 2 2,909 3,278

Fees for service 3 3,307 3,140

Proceeds from disposal of assets 4 208 1

Other 5 833 4,209

Total revenues from ordinary activities 7,257 10,628

Expenses from ordinary activities

Employees 6 37,297 36,866

Supplies and services 7 25,801 23,501

Depreciation and amortisation 8 4,852 4,606

Finance Lease 1,420 1,453

Disposal of assets 4 56 1

Other 9 648 626

Total expenses from ordinary activities 70,074 67,053

Net cost of services (62,817) (56,425)

Revenues from Government 60,329 52,635

Adjustment for write down and recognition of non current assets 10 95 (8,975)

Net operating deficit from operating activities (2,393) (12,765)

Net credit to asset revaluation reserve 19 5,900 –

Total revenue, expenses and valuation adjustments recogniseddirectly in equity 5,900 –

Total changes in equity other than those resulting fromtransactions with the State Government 3,507 (12,765)

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


61

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION

as at 30 June 2003

2003 2002NOTE $’000 $’000

CURRENT ASSETS:

Cash on hand and on deposit 11 7,013 6,013

Receivables 12 1,090 652

Prepayments 13 433 419

Inventory – 6

Total Current Assets 8,536 7,090

NON-CURRENT ASSETS:

Property, plant and equipment 14 117,917 115,209

Total Non-Current Assets 117,917 115,209

Total Assets 126,453 122,299

CURRENT LIABILITIES:

Payables 15 1,369 2,124

Employee entitlements 16 2,423 1,787

Finance lease 17 698 657

Other 18 373 276

Total Current Liabilities 4,863 4,844

NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES:

Payables 15 601 537

Employee entitlements 16 4,993 4,622

Finance lease 17 24,210 24,905

Other 18 1,797 909

Total Non-Current Liabilities 31,601 30,973

Total Liabilities 36,464 35,817

NET ASSETS 89,989 86,482

EQUITY:

Accumulated surplus 79,292 81,685

Asset revaluation reserve 10,697 4,797

19 89,989 86,482

Commitments 20


62

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Financial Reports

STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS


2003 2002NOTE $’000 $’000

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES

Receipts

Appropriations 60,329 52,635

Grants 2,909 3,278

Fees for service 3,032 3,179

GST receipts from taxation authority 2,127 2,425

Other 613 4,209

Total receipts 69,010 65,726

Payments

Employees (35,132) (37,099)

Supplies and services (26,665) (23,896)

GST payments on purchases (2,070) (2,226)

Finance Lease (1,420) (1,473)

Other (648) (625)

Total payments (65,935) (65,319)

Net cash provided by operating activities 21 3,075 407

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES

Receipts

Proceeds from sales of property, plant and equipment 208 1

Total receipts 208 1

Payments

Purchases of property, plant and equipment (1,619) (4,076)


Net cash used in investing activities (1,411) (4,075)

CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES

Payments

Repayment of finance lease (664) (621)

Total payments (664) (621)

Net cash used in financing activities (664) (621)

Net increase/(decrease) in cash held 1,000 (4,289)

Cash at the beginning of the reporting period 6,013 10,302

Cash at the end of the reporting period 7,013 6,013



63

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

PROGRAM SCHEDULE OF THE AUTHORITY’S REVENUES AND EXPENSES


1 2 3 TOTAL$’000 $’000 $’000 $’000


Grants 2,909 – – 2,909

Fees for service 926 – 2,381 3,307

Proceeds from disposal of assets 208 – – 208

Other 833 833

Total revenues from ordinary activities 4,876 – 2,381 7,257


Employees 32,448 1,492 3,357 37,297

Supplies and services 23,221 516 2,064 25,801

Depreciation and amortisation 4,658 145 49 4,852

Borrowing costs 1,420 – – 1,420

Disposal of assets 56 – – 56

Other 629 – 19 648

Total expenses from ordinary activities 62,432 2,153 5,489 70,074

Net cost of services (57,556) (2,153) (3,108) (62,817)

Revenues from Government 54,296 1,207 4,826 60,329

Net revenues from write-down and recognition of 87 – 8 95

non-current assets and adjustments

Net operating deficit from operating activities (3,173) (946) 1,726 (2,393)

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 ofdebts, and the administration and execution of warrants.

64

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Financial Reports

SCHEDULE OF ADMINISTERED REVENUES AND EXPENSES


2003 2002NOTE $’000 $’000


Fines 15,444 14,895

Revenues from Government 20,777 19,387

Court fees 13,743 12,681

Transfer revenues 4,310 3,994

Transcript fees 1,278 967

Total revenues from ordinary activities 55,552 51,924


Judicial salary and related expenses 28 20,165 18,903

Transfer expenses 4,320 3,994

Other judicial expenses 817 840

Total expenses from ordinary activities 25,302 23,737

Cash transferred to Consolidated Account 30,385 28,532

Net decrease in administered net assets (135) (345)

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


65

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

SCHEDULE OF ADMINISTERED ASSETS AND LIABILITIES


2003 2002NOTE $’000 $’000

Administered Assets:

Current:

Cash 29 484 363

Receivables 30 505 422

Total Administered Assets 989 785

Administered Liabilities:

Current:

Payables 31 1,079 1,169

Judicial entitlements 32 1,188 1,203

Non-current:

Payables 31 834 767

Judicial entitlements 32 4,200 3,823

Total Administered Liabilities 7,301 6,962

Equity:

Accumulated surplus 33 (6,312) (6,177)

Total Equity (6,312) (6,177)


66

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Financial Reports

SCHEDULE OF ADMINISTERED CASH FLOWS


2003 2002NOTE $’000 $’000

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES

Receipts

Fines 15,444 14,895

Receipts from Government 20,777 19,387

Court fees 13,663 12,670

Transfer receipts 4,440 3,994

Transcript fees 1,278 967

Total receipts 55,602 51,913

Payments

Judicial salary and related payments (19,960) (18,547)

Payments to Government (30,385) (28,532)

Transfer payments (4,319) (4,006)

Other judicial payments (817) (840)


Net cash used in operating activities 34 121 (12)

Net decrease in cash held 121 (12)

Cash at the beginning of the reporting period 363 375

Cash at the end of the reporting period 484 363



67

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

PROGRAM SCHEDULE OF ADMINISTERED REVENUES AND EXPENSES


1 2 3 TOTAL$’000 $’000 $’000 $’000


Fines – – 15,444 15,444

Revenues from Government 20,777 – – 20,777

Court fees 6,597 – 7,146 13,743

Transfer revenues 502 – 3,808 4,310

Transcript fees 1,278 – – 1,278

Total revenues from ordinary activities 29,154 – 26,398 55,552


Judicial salary and related expenses 20,165 – – 20,165

Transfer expenses 508 – 3,812 4,320

Other judicial expenses 817 – – 817

Total expenses from ordinary activities 21,490 – 3,812 25,302

Cash transferred to Consolidated Account 7,785 – 22,600 30,385

Net decrease in administered net assets (121) – (14) (135)

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 ofdebts, and the administration and execution of warrants.

68

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Financial Reports

Note 1: Summary of Significant AccountingPolicies

1.1 Objectives and Funding

The Courts Administration Authority (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;

• to improve court facilities and other aspects of dealing

with the courts;

• to foster an environment and a management

framework wherein judicial officers, staff and

volunteers can contribute to improved performance of

the courts system;

• to keep up to date with technological developments and

apply those that are appropriate to the improved

performance of the courts system;

• to cooperate with other parts of the justice system to

improve access to justice and to improve performance

of the justice system overall.

Financial Arrangements

The Authority is predominantly funded by Parliamentary

appropriations. However, some services are provided on a

fee for service basis. The major activities conducted on a

fee for service basis include:

• sheriff’s officer fees;

• reminder fees;

• sale of electronic information.

The financial activities of the Authority are primarily

conducted through a Deposit Account with the Department

of Treasury and Finance pursuant to section 21 of the

Public Finance and Audit Act 1987. The Deposit Account is

used for funds provided by Parliamentary appropriation

together with revenues from fees for service.

N O T E S T O A N D F O R M I N G P A R T O F T H E F I N A N C I A L S T A T E M E N T S

The Government is considering introducing a new policy

with respect to aligning agency cash balances with

appropriation and expenditure authority. At this point in

time the Authority is unable to estimate the potential effect

this may have on its financial position. The policy is

expected to come into effect during the course of 2003–04

and, depending on implementation arrangements, the

Authority may be required to transfer a portion of its cash

balance to the Consolidated Account effective on or after

June 2004.

Refer to Notes 1.17 and 1.18 for accounting arrangements

relating to Administered Items.

1.2 Basis of Accounting

The general purpose financial report has been prepared in

accordance with:

• Australian Accounting Standards and Accounting

Interpretations issued by the Australian Accounting

Standards Boards;

• Statements of Accounting Concepts;

• Consensus Views of the Urgent Issues Group;

• Treasurer’s Instructions and Accounting Policy

Statements issued by the Department of Treasury

and Finance.

The Statements of Financial Performance and Statement of

Financial Position have been prepared on an accrual basis

and are in accordance with historical cost convention,

except for certain assets, which, as noted, are at valuation.

No allowance is made for the effect of changing prices on

the results or the financial position.

Assets and liabilities are recognised in the Statement of

Financial Position when and only when it is probable that

future economic benefits embodied in the asset, or

sacrifices, will eventuate and the amounts of the assets or

liabilities can be reliably measured. Assets and liabilities

arising under agreements equally proportionately

unperformed are not recognised unless required by an

Accounting Standard. Liabilities and assets, which are

unrecognised, are reported as commitments in Note 20.

Revenues and expenses are recognised in the Statement of

Financial Performance when and only when the flows or

consumptions or loss of economic benefits has occurred

and can be reliably measured. Some revenues are

recognised when cash is received because only at this time


69

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

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 1.17

and 1.18.

1.3 Changes in Accounting Policy

(a) Land and Buildings Valuation

Land and buildings and improvements controlled by the

Authority are recorded at amounts based on valuations.

During 2002–03 the Authority employed Colliers

International, licensed valuers, to undertake the revaluation

of its land and buildings as at 30 June 2003. In accordance

with AASB 1041 Revaluation of Non Current Assets, land

and buildings have been recognised at their fair value.

This has resulted in a revaluation increment of $5 900 000

for this class of assets.

All other accounting policies used in the preparation of

these financial statements are consistent with those used in

2001–02.

1.4 Revenue

The revenues described in this Note are revenues relating

to the core operating activities of the Authority.

(a) Revenue from Government-AgencyAppropriations

Control over appropriations and grants is normally obtained

upon their receipt.

(b) Resources Received Free of charge

Assets donated, gifted or bequeathed are recorded as an

asset at their fair values at the time control passes to the

Authority. Assets received in this way are disclosed as

revenue in the Statement of Financial Performance.

(c) 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. 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 and sheriff’s officer

fees. However, some revenues are recognised at the time

the service is provided.

1.5 Employee Entitlements

(a) Leave

A provision is raised at the end of the reporting period to

reflect employee entitlements when payment is expected to

be made for annual leave and long service leave. These

entitlements are calculated by multiplying each employee’s

entitlement by the remuneration rate current at the

reporting date. Where leave loadings are paid, they are

included in the calculation.

In calculating long service leave entitlements the Authority

takes into account, as a benchmark, an actuarial

assessment prepared by the Department of Treasury and

Finance based on a significant sample of employees

throughout the South Australian public sector. The

benchmark is currently seven years.

The Authority’s employees’ entitlement to sick leave is non-

vesting. Sick leave is only recognised as a liability at reporting

date to the extent it is probable that sick leave expected to be

taken in future periods will be greater than entitlements

which are expected to accrue in those future periods.

Employment on-costs relating to employee entitlements

owing, are recognised as liabilities in the Statement of

Financial Position. Employee entitlements and employment

on-costs accruing during the reporting period are treated as

an expense in the Statement of Financial Performance.

70

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Financial Reports

(b) Superannuation

The Authority made contributions of $6.6million

($6.1 million) to Employer Contribution Accounts

administered by the South Australian Superannuation

Board, in respect of future superannuation liabilities.

(c) Workers Compensation

A liability has been reported to reflect workers

compensation claims. The workers compensation liability,

which was based on an actuarial assessment, was

provided by the Public Sector Occupational Health and

Injury Management Branch of the Department of Premier

and Cabinet.

The workers compensation provision is based on an

actuarial assessment prepared by Taylor Fry Consulting

Actuaries. For the 2003 valuation, the Justice, DETE,

DHS and all other portfolios have been analysed

separately. In previous years, the Justice Portfolio was

analysed together with all other non-DHS agencies. The

new valuation methodology has resulted in the Justice

Portfolio’s liability being more specifically measured. The

Authority’s liability is an allocation of the Justice Portfolio’s

total assessment.

It is important to note that the new methodology adopted

for this valuation has significantly contributed to the large

increase. Applying the new methodology to the previous

year’s data would have resulted in the Justice Portfolio’s

June 2002 liability being 25 percent larger than reported.

1.6 Leases

The Authority has entered into a number of operating

lease agreements for the provision of photocopiers and

some office and IT equipment where the lessors

effectively retain all of the risks and benefits incidental to

ownership of these items. Equal instalments of the lease

payments are charged to the Statement of Financial

Performance over the lease term, as this is representative

of the pattern of benefits to be derived from the leased

property. Details of commitments under non-cancellable

operating leases are disclosed in Note 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

present value of the minimum lease payments. The assets

are disclosed as ‘Building under finance lease’, and are

amortised to the Statement of Financial Performance over

the period during which the Authority is expected to benefit

from the use of the leased assets.

Minimum lease payments are allocated between interest

expenses and reduction of the lease liability, according to

the interest rate implicit in the lease. Details of finance

leases are disclosed in Note 17.

1.7 Cash

Cash comprises Deposit Accounts with the Department of

Treasury and Finance as well as cash on hand.

1.8 Financial Instruments

Accounting policies for financial instruments are stated at

Notes 27 and 35.

1.9 Acquisitions of Assets

Assets are recorded at cost on acquisition except as stated

below. The cost of acquisition includes the fair value of

assets transferred in exchange and liabilities undertaken.

1.10 Property (Land and Buildings), Plantand Equipment

Asset Recognition Threshold

Purchases of property, plant and equipment are recognised

initially at cost in the Statement of Financial Position, except

for purchases with an individual value of less than $1,000

which are expensed in the Statement of Financial

Performance at the time they are acquired.

Revaluations

Land and buildings and improvements controlled by the

Authority are recorded at amounts based on valuation and

cost. Valuations are prepared by Colliers Jardine, licensed

valuers. Land and buildings and improvements are revalued

every three years, with the current valuations reflecting

valuations performed as at 30 June 2003.

The Authority has applied the Accounting Standard

AASB1041 “Revaluation of Non-Current Assets” for the

valuation of land and buildings and improvements at

fair value.



71

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Valuations of works of art and collections were performed

by Theodore Bruce Auctions Pty. Ltd., licensed valuers.

Works of art and collections are measured at their market

value and are not depreciated. The valuations currently

brought to account for works of art and collections were

made as at 30 June 1996. Heritage assets are not disclosed

by a specific heritage type but form part of the aggregate

value of property, plant and equipment and are included

within the category ‘Works of art and collections’.

The balance brought to account for library collections

represents the fair value as at 30 June 2003 based on

information provided by Michael Treloar, Licensed Valuer.

Depreciation and Amortisation

All non-current assets, with the exception of land, works of

art and collections and library collections, 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 3-5

Office furniture and equipment 10

Library collections Infinite

Leasehold improvements 10-25

In-house developed computer software 10

Other (general equipment) 5-10

1.11 Inventories

Stationery is now expensed.

1.12 Goods and Services Tax

In accordance with the requirements of UIG Abstract 31

“Accounting for the Goods and Services Tax (GST)”,

revenues, expenses and assets are recognised net of the

amount of GST except that:

• the amount of GST incurred by the Authority as a

purchaser that is not recoverable from the Australian

Taxation Office is recognised as part of the cost of

acquisition of an asset or as part of an item of expense;

and

• receivables and payables are stated with the amount of

GST included.

The net GST receivable due from the Australian Taxation

Office has been recognised as a receivable in the Statement

of Financial Position.

GST does not apply to the finance lease liability of

the Authority.

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.

1.13 Foreign Currency

Transactions denominated in a foreign currency are

converted at the exchange rate at the date of the

transaction. No foreign currency receivables and payables

existed as at balance date.

1.14 Insurance

The Authority has insured for risks through the South

Australian Government Captive Insurance Corporation

(SAICORP).

1.15 Comparative Figures

Where applicable, comparative figures have been adjusted

to conform to changes in the current year.

1.16 Rounding

Amounts have been rounded to the nearest $1,000.

1.17 Administered Revenue

All revenues described in this note are revenues relating to

the operating activities performed by the Agency on behalf

of the Government and other Government agencies.

(a) Revenue from Government-AdministeredAppropriations

Appropriations for Administered Expenses represents

funding required to meet Judicial expenses and are

recognised upon their receipt.

(b) Fines

The Authority receives revenue from infringements 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.

72

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Financial Reports

(d) Revenue Received on behalf of/for OtherGovernment 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

totalled $80.5 million ($72.2 million). However,

arrangements associated with the Fines Payment Unit will

increase the percentage of revenue recovered in respect of

this debt.

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.

1.18 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.

1.19 Programs of the Authority

Information about the programs to which the Authority

contributes is provided as follows:

Program 1: Court and Tribunal Case Resolution ServicesThe resolution of criminal, civil, appellate,

coronial and probate matters in the State’s

courts and tribunals.

Program 2: Alternative Dispute Resolution ServicesServices for resolving disputes between

citizens, and disputes between citizens and

the State; as well as the education, training,

information and advice processes, which aim

to prevent disputes.

Program 3: Penalty Management ServicesThe management of penalties arising from

court orders, the enforcement of court orders

as well as the recovery of debts, and the

administration and execution of warrants.



73

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

2003 2002$’000 $’000

Note 2: GrantsGrants for the reporting period comprised:

Fines Payment Unit – 2,379

R v Bunting et al 2,491 391

Drug Court 355 249

Other 63 259

Total 2,909 3,278

Note 3: Fees for ServiceFees and charges for the reporting period comprised:

Licence disqualification fees 909 903

Reminder notice fees 762 758

Sheriff’s officer fees 753 688

Rent recoups 166 191

Sale of electronic information 236 129

Library levy 131 124

Photocopying 92 92

Sheriff’s fees 63 46

Coronial recoups 7 12

Other 188 197

Total 3,307 3,140

Note 4: Proceeds and Expenses from Disposal of AssetsRevenue (proceeds) from sale 208 1

Written down value of property sold 56 1

Total 152 –

Note 5: Other RevenueOther revenues for the reporting period comprised:

TVSP Recoup 235 3,620

Interest revenue 237 365

Recovery of supplies and services 340 176

Miscellaneous commissions 11 13

Other 10 35

Total 833 4,209

Note 6: Employee ExpensesEmployee expenses for the reporting period comprised:

Salaries and wages 29,757 27,242

Payroll tax and superannuation expenses 5,186 4,423

Long service leave expenses 910 1,254

Targeted Voluntary Separation Packages 235 3,620

Other 1,209 327

Total 37,297 36,866

74

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Financial Reports

2003 2002$’000 $’000

Note 7: Supplies and Services ExpensesSupplies and services expenses for the reporting period comprised:

Accommodation expenses 10,125 8,104

Administration expenses 8,328 7,796

Computing and communications 3,558 4,006

Coronial Charges 1,954 1,868

Jurors’ expenses 1,202 1,037

Bailiff fee reimbursements 634 690

Total 25,801 23,501

Note 8: Depreciation and AmortisationDepreciation and amortisation expenses for the reporting periodwere charged in respect of:

Buildings and improvements 1,624 1,628

In-house computer developed software 1,357 1,153

Computing 857 859

Finance lease on building 830 830

Office furniture and equipment 109 105

Leasehold improvements 75 31

Total 4,852 4,606

Note 9: Other ExpensesOther expenses for the reporting period comprised:

Operating lease payments 441 460

Other 207 166

Total 648 626

Note 10: Net Write-Down of Non-Current AssetsNet write-downs for the reporting period comprised:

Revaluation decrement/change in valuation policy on Library Collections – (8,488)

Change in capitalisation policy on Office Furniture and Equipment – (351)

Adjustment to Leasehold improvements to recognise assets * 144 –

Stocktake ** (49) (136)

Total 95 (8,975)

* In 2001–02 $144 000 was spent on Leasehold improvements to the Sir Samuel Way Building. This amount was expensed in 2001–02. Anadjustment has now been processed in 2002–03 to recognise this amount as an asset.

** During 2001–02 and 2002–03, the Authority undertook stocktakes of Office Furniture and Equipment and Computing Equipment. The stocktakeresulted in the updating of the Asset Register for assets which had previously been salvaged as well as other assets being retired.



75

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

2003 2002$’000 $’000

Note 11: Cash on hand and on depositCash on hand and on deposit comprised:

Deposit accounts with Department of Treasury and Finance* 6,973 5,980

Cash on hand (including petty cash) 40 33

Total 7,013 6,013

* Includes accrual appropriation of $1.218m

Note 12: ReceivablesReceivables comprised:

GST receivable 536 594

Fees for service 319 44

TVSP Receivable 235 –

Employee expenses – 14

Total 1,090 652

Note 13: PrepaymentsPrepayments comprised:

Finance Lease 382 372

Supplies and Services 51 47

Total 433 419

76

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Financial Reports

Note 14: Property, Plant and Equipment

(a): Summary of balances2003

ACCUMULATED WRITTENCOST/ DEPRECIATION/ DOWN

VALUATION AMORTISATION VALUE$’000 $’000 $’000

Land at valuation 15,913 – 15,913

Buildings and improvements at valuation 104,354 (31,962) 72,392

Buildings and improvements at cost (1) – – -

Building under construction at cost 3,489 – 3,489

Building under finance lease 33,191 (16,595) 16,596

Leasehold improvements at cost 1,033 (218) 815

Computing at cost 7,244 (6,083) 1,161

Office furniture and equipment at cost 1,470 (876) 594

In-house computer developed software at cost 7,688 (4,983) 2,705

Library collections at valuation 3,292 – 3,292

Library collections at cost 462 – 462

Works of art and collections at valuation 498 – 498

Total 178,634 (60,717) 117,917

2002ACCUMULATED WRITTEN

COST/ DEPRECIATION/ DOWNVALUATION AMORTISATION VALUE

$’000 $’000 $’000

Land at valuation 11,151 – 11,151

Buildings and improvements at valuation 101,137 (33,919) 67,218

Buildings and improvements at cost 5,814 (99) 5,715

Building under construction at cost 3,199 – 3,199

Building under finance lease 33,191 (15,766) 17,425

Leasehold improvements at cost 509 (143) 366

Computing at cost 6,969 (5,310) 1,659

Office furniture and equipment at cost 1,405 (781) 624

In-house computer developed software at cost 7,688 (3,626) 4,062

Library collections at valuation 3,292 – 3,292

Works of art and collections at valuation 498 – 498

Total 174,853 (59,644) 115,209

(1) The 2002 valuation relates to the construction of Christies Beach Magistrates Court which is now recognised under Buildings and improvementsat valuation.



77

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Note 14: Property, Plant and Equipment (continued)

(b): Analysis of Property, Plant and Equipment

IN-HOUSEBUILDINGS & BUILDING BUILDING BUILDINGS – TOTAL OFFICE COMPUTER LIBRARY WORKS TOTAL PLANT,

LAND IMPROVEMENTS UNDER UNDER LEASEHOLD LAND & COMPUTING FURNITURE & DEVELOPED COLLECTIONS OF ART & EQUIPMENT &FINANCE LEASE CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS BUILDINGS EQUIPMENT SOFTWARE COLLECTIONS COLLECTIONS

ITEM $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 TOTAL

Gross value as at 1 July 2002 11,151 106,951 33,191 3,199 509 155,001 6,969 1,405 7,688 3,292 498 19,852 174,853

Additions: Purchases of assets – – 290 524 814 407 80 – 462 – 949 1,763

Revaluation – refer Note 19 4,794 (2,309) – – – 2,485 – – – 2,485

Disposals/stocktake write-offs (32) (288) – – – (320) (132) (15) – – – (147) (467)

Gross value as at 30 June 2003 15,913 104,354 33,191 3,489 1,033 157,980 7,244 1,470 7,688 3,754 498 20,654 178,634

Accumulated Depreciation/

Amortisation as at 1 July 2002 n/a (34,018) (15,765) – (143) (49,926) (5,310) (781) (3,626) – – (9,717) (59,643)

Depreciation/Amortisation for year n/a (1,624) (830) – (75) (2,529) (857) (109) (1,357) – – (2,323) (4,852)

Revaluation – refer Note 19 n/a 3,415 – – – 3,415 – – – – 3,415

Disposals/stocktake write-offs n/a 265 – – – 265 84 14 – – – 98 363

Accumulated Depreciation/

Amortisation as at 30 June 2003 – (31,962) (16,595) – (218) (48,775) (6,083) (876) (4,983) – – (11,942) (60,717)

Net book values as at 30 June 2003 15,913 72,392 16,596 3,489 815 109,205 1,161 594 2,705 3,754 498 8,712 117,917

Net book values as at 30 June 2002 11,151 72,933 17,425 3,199 366 105,074 1,659 624 4,062 3,292 498 10,135 115,209

2003 2002$’000 $’000

Note 15: PayablesCurrent:

Creditors and accruals 994 1,859

On-costs on provision for employee entitlements 375 265

Total 1,369 2,124

Non-Current:

On-costs on provision for employee entitlements 601 537

Note 16 (a): Employee EntitlementsCurrent:

Accrued Salaries and Wages 116 –

Long service leave 644 608

Annual leave 1,663 1,179

Total 2,423 1,787

Non-Current:

Long service leave 4,787 4,507

Annual Leave 206 115

Total 4,993 4,622

78

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Financial Reports

2003 2002$’000 $’000

Note 16 (b): Employee entitlements and related on-costs liabilitiesAccrued Salaries and Wages

On costs included in Payables – Current (Note 15) 18 –

Provision for Employee Entitlements – Current (Note 16) 116 –

134 –

Annual Leave

On costs included in Payables – Current (Note 15) 257 175

Provision for Employee Entitlements – Current (Note 16) 1,663 1,179

1,920 1,354

On costs included in Payables – Non Current (Note 15) 25 13

Provision for Employee Entitlements – Non Current (Note 16) 206 115

231 128

Long Service Leave

On costs included in Payables – Current (Note 15) 100 90

Provision for Employee Entitlements – Current (Note 16) 644 608

744 698

On costs included in Payables – Non Current (Note 15) 576 524

Provision for Employee Entitlements – Non Current (Note 16) 4,787 4,507

5,363 5,031

Aggregate employee entitlements and related on-cost liabilities 8,392 7,211

2003 2002NUMBER NUMBER

Average number of employees during the year 655.2 641.7

2003 2002$’000 $’000

Note 17: Finance LeaseFinance Lease commitments:

Payable no later than one year 4,838 4,599

Payable later than one year and not later than five years 19,352 18,395

Payable later than five years 72,570 73,580

Minimum lease payments 96,760 96,574

Less: Future finance charges and contingent rentals 71,852 71,012

Lease Liability 24,908 25,562

Classified as:

Current 698 657

Non-Current 24,210 24,905

24,908 25,562

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



79

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

2003 2002$’000 $’000

Note 18: Other LiabilitiesWorkers compensation liabilities advised by the Public Sector Occupational Healthand Injury Management Branch of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, comprised:

Current:

Income maintenance 273 176

Other 100 100

Total 373 276

Non-Current:

Income maintenance 1,345 574

Other 452 335

Total 1,797 909

Note 19: EquityACCUMULATED ASSET REVALUATION TOTAL EQUITY

Equity Table SURPLUS RESERVEITEM 2002–03 2001–02 2002–03 2001–02 2002–03 2001–02

$’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000

Balance at 1 July 81,685 94,450 4,797 4,797 86,482 99,247

Net deficit from operating activities (2,393) (12,765) – – (2,393) (12,765)

Adjustment to prior years revaluationincrement (consisting of): – 5,900 – 5,900 –

Revaluation Increment to Land 4,794

Revaluation increment to Buildings 1,106

Balance at 30 June 79,292 81,685 10,697 4,797 89,989 86,482

2003 2002$’000 $’000

Note 20: CommitmentsBY TYPE

CAPITAL COMMITMENTS

Land and buildings (1) 7,590 8,933

Total capital commitments 7,590 8,933

OTHER COMMITMENTS

Operating leases (2) 828 306

Total other commitments 828 306

Net commitments 8,418 9,239

BY MATURITY

All net commitments

One year or less 3,003 2,005

From one to five years 5,415 7,234

Net commitments 8,418 9,239

Operating lease commitments

One year or less 363 112

From one to five years 465 194

Total operating lease commitments 828 306

NB: 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.

80

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Financial Reports

2003 2002$’000 $’000

Note 21: Cash Flow ReconciliationReconciliation of Cash per Statement of Financial Position to Statement of Cash Flows

Cash at year end per Statement of Cash Flows 7,013 6,013

Statement of Financial Position item comprising above cash: ‘Cash on hand and

on deposit’ 7,013 6,013

Reconciliation of operating deficit to net cash provided by operating activities:

Net deficit (2,393) (12,765)

Depreciation/Amortisation 4,852 4,606

Net revenue from write-down and recognition of non-current assets/Asset adjustment (95) 8,975

Profit on disposal of assets (144) –

(Increase)/Decrease in receivables (438) 243

Decrease in inventories 6 12

Increase in prepayments (14) (1)

Increase in employee entitlements 1,007 105

Decrease in payables (691) (834)

Increase in other liabilities 985 66

Net cash provided by operating activities 3,075 407

Note 22: Executive and Judicial Remuneration

ExecutiveRemuneration includes salary, termination payments and non-monetary benefits.

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

2003 2002NUMBER OF NUMBER OFEMPLOYEES EMPLOYEES

Recurrent Salaries

$100,001 – $110,000 1 1

$120,001 – $130,000 – 2

$130,001 – $140,000 1 2

$160,001 – $170,000 – *3

$170,001 – $180,000 *4 –

$180,001 – $190,000 1 –

$200,001 – $210,000 – 1

$210,001 – $220,000 *1 –

$230,001 – $240,000 1 –

* Includes employees who received accrued leave and TVSP entitlements upon resignation.

Note that the above figures include the State Coroner and three ERD Commissioners who served during 2002–03.

The aggregate remuneration for all the employees referred to above was $1.6 million ($1.3 million).



81

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Note 22: Executive and Judicial Remuneration (continued)

JudiciaryRemuneration includes salary, termination payments and non monetary benefits:

The number of judicial officers whose remuneration received or receivable fell within the following bands were:

NUMBER OF NUMBER OFJUDICIAL JUDICIAL

2003 2002OFFICERS OFFICERS

Special Acts

$100,001 – $110,000 1 –

$120,001 – $130,000 – *1

$140,001 – $150,000 – 1

$150,001 – $160,000 *1 8

$160,001 – $170,000 1 13

$170,001 – $180,000 9 7

$180,001 – $190,000 12 5

$190,001 – $200,000 6 3

$200,001 – $210,000 *6 1

$210,001 – $220,000 1 1

$220,001 – $230,000 2 –

$240,001 – $250,000 1 –

$250,001 – $260,000 – 24

$260,001 – $270,000 20 –

$270,001 – $280,000 3 –

$280,001 – $290,000 – 12

$290,001 – $300,000 1 *2

$300,001 – $310,000 10 –

$310,001 – $320,000 *1 –

$320,001 – $330,000 1 –

$330,001 – $340,000 – 1

$390,001 – $400,000 *1 –

* Includes officers who received accrued leave entitlements upon retirement.

The aggregate remuneration for all the judicial officers referred to above was $19.4 million ($17.3 million).

2003 2002$’000 $’000

Note 23: Targeted Voluntary Separation PackagesTVSPs paid to employees during the reporting period were:

TVSP payments 235 3,620

Recovery from the Department of the Premier and Cabinet in respect of TVSPs 235 3,620

Annual and long service leave accrued over the period of employment paid toemployees who received TVSPs 131 769

2003 2002NUMBER OF NUMBER OFEMPLOYEES EMPLOYEES

The number of employees who received TVSPs. 2 59

Note 24: Related Party DisclosuresNo transactions have been entered into by the Authority with any board/staff member of a company in which a board/staffmember has either a direct or indirect pecuniary interest.

82

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Financial Reports

2003$’000

Note 25: ConsultanciesTotal expenditure on consultancies amounted to $60,000 ($110,000).

Individual consultancies costing more than $50,000No consultancies exceeded $50,000. –

Individual consultancies costing between $10,000 and $50,000Project ConsultantLand and Buildings Revaluation Colliers International 29

Total cost of consultancies less than $10,0007 consultancies 31

Note 26: Remuneration of AuditorsAuditor’s Remuneration – auditing services 97 90

Internal Audit function 21 –

118 90

No other services were provided by the Auditor-General.

Note 27: Financial Instruments(a) Terms, conditions and accounting policies

Financial Instrument Note Accounting Policies and Methods (includingrecognition criteria and measurement basis)

Nature of underlying instrument (includingsignificant terms and conditions affecting theamount, timing and certainty of cash flows)

Financial Assets Financial assets are recognised when controlover future economic benefits is establishedand the amount of the benefit can be reliablymeasured.

Cash 11 Deposits are recognised at their nominalamounts. Interest is credited as it accrues.

Cash comprises Deposit Accounts at theDepartment of Treasury and Finance.Interest is earned on the average dailybalance based on the average of the 90 daybank bill.Interest rates fluctuated between 4.59%and 4.6% for the year ended 30 June 2003.

Receivables 12 These receivables are recognised at theirnominal amounts less any provision fordoubtful debts.

Credit terms are net 30 days.

Financial Liabilities Financial liabilities are recognised when apresent obligation to another party is enteredinto and the amount of the liability can bereliably measured.

Finance lease liabilities 17 Liabilities are recognised at the present valueof the minimum lease payments at theinception of the lease.The discount rate used was an estimate ofthe interest rate implicit in the lease.

At the reporting date, the Authority had afinance lease with a 40 year term which expireson 30 June 2023.The interest rate implicit in the lease at itsinception was 5.61%.Rental payments under the lease arrangementsare indexed by the Consumer Price Index.Rental payments for 2002–03 equate to 13.8%of the value of the lease at its inception.

Payables 15 Creditors and accruals are recognised attheir nominal amounts, being the amountsat which the liabilities will be settled.Liabilities are recognised to the extent thatthe goods or services have been received.

Settlement is normally made net 30 days.



83

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Note 27: Financial Instruments(b) Interest Rate Risk

WEIGHTED AVERAGEFLOATING INTEREST RATE NON-INTEREST EFFECTIVE

1 YEAR OR LESS 1 TO 2 YEARS 2 TO 5 YEARS >5 YEARS BEARING TOTAL INTEREST RATEFINANCIAL 02–03 01–02 02–03 01–02 02–03 01–02 02–03 01–02 02–03 01–02 02–03 01–02 02–03 01–02

INSTRUMENT NOTE $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 % %

FinancialAssets

Cash 11 6,973 5,980 – – – – – – 40 33 7,013 6,013 4.6% 4.3%

Receivables 12 – – – – – – – – 1,090 652 1,090 652 n/a n/a

TotalFinancialAssets 6,973 5,980 – – – – – – 1,130 685 8,103 6,665

Total Assets 126,453 122,299

FinancialLiabilities

Financelease 17 698 657 735 695 2,468 2,334 21,007 21,876 – – 24,908 25,562 5.6%* 5.6%*

Payables 15 – – – – – – – – 994 1,859 994 1,859 n/a n/a

TotalFinancialLiabilities 698 657 735 695 2,468 2,334 21,007 21,876 994 1,859 25,902 27,421

TotalLiabilities 36,484 35,817

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

Financial Assets

The net fair values of cash and non-interest bearing monetary financial assets approximate their carrying amounts.

Financial Liabilities

The net fair value for trade creditors is approximated by their carrying values.

* The net fair value of the finance lease at 30 June 2003 was $71.7million. This reflects the indexation of the rental payments by the CPI and thatas at 30 June 2003 the interest rate implicit in the lease is higher than at its inception.

(d): Credit Risk Exposures

The Authority’s maximum exposure to credit risk at the reporting date in relation to each class of recognised financialassets is the carrying amount of those assets as indicated in the Statement of Financial Position.

The Authority has no significant exposures to any concentrations of credit risk.

2003 2002$’000 $’000

Note 28: Judicial Salary Related ExpensesJudicial salary related expenses comprised:

Salaries and wages 14,271 13,080

Payroll tax and superannuation expenses 4,445 4,168

Long service leave expenses 863 1,137

Other 586 518

Total 20,165 18,903

Note 29: Administered CashAdministered cash comprised:

Deposit account with the Department of Treasury and Finance 484 363

84

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Financial Reports

2003 2002$’000 $’000

Note 30: Administered ReceivablesCurrent:

Fees 394 314

Transfer expenses yet to be claimed 104 98

GST receivable 7 10

Total 505 422

Note 31: Administered PayablesCurrent:

Creditors and accruals 191 421

Transfer revenue received and not forwarded 593 462

On-costs on provision for judicial entitlements 295 286

Total 1,079 1,169

Non-Current:

On-costs on provision for judicial entitlements 834 767

Note 32

(a): Judicial Entitlements

Current:

Accrued Salaries and Wages 86 –

Long service leave 459 562

Annual leave 643 641

Total 1,188 1,203

Non-Current:

Long service leave 4,069 3,587

Annual leave 131 236

Total 4,200 3,823



85

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

2003 2002$’000 $’000

Note 32 (continued)

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

Accrued Salaries and Wages

On-costs included in payables – Current (Note 31) 21 –

Provision for Judicial Entitlements – Current (Note 32) 86 –

107 –

Annual Leave

On-costs included in payables – Current (Note 31) 160 152

Provision for Judicial Entitlements – Current (Note 32) 643 641

803 793

On-costs included in payables – Non Current (Note 31) 26 47

Provision for Judicial Entitlements – Non Current (Note 32) 131 236

157 283

Long Service Leave

On-costs included in payables – Current (Note 31) 114 134

Provision for Judicial Entitlements – Current (Note 32) 459 562

573 696

On-costs included in payables Non – Current (Note 31) 808 720

Provision for Judicial Entitlements – Non Current (Note 32) 4,069 3,587

4,877 4,307

Aggregate employee benefit and related on costs liabilities 6,517 6,079

2003 2002NUMBER NUMBER

Average number of Judiciary during the year 78.8 81

2003 2002$’000 $’000

Note 33: Administered EquityBalance at 1 July (6,177) (5,832)

Net decrease in administered net assets (135) (345)

Balance at 30 June (6,312) (6,177)

Note 34: Administered Cash Flow ReconciliationReconciliation of Cash per Statement of Financial Position to Statement of Cash Flows

Cash at year end per Statement of Cash Flows 484 363

Statement of Financial Position item comprising above cash: ‘Cash’ 484 363

Reconciliation of net decrease in administered net assets to net cash used in administered activities:

Net Decrease in administered net assets (135) (345)

Increase in receivables (83) (59)

Increase in judicial entitlements 362 410

Decrease in payables (23) (18)

Net cash provided by/(used in) administered activities 121 (12)

86

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Financial Reports

Note 35: Administered Financial Instruments(a) Terms, conditions and accounting policies

Financial Instrument Nature of underlying instrument(including significant terms andconditions affecting the amount, timingand certainty of cash flows)

Note Accounting Policies and Methods (includingrecognition criteria and measurement basis)

Financial Assets Financial assets are recognised whencontrol over future economic benefits isestablished and the amount of the benefitcan be reliably measured.

Cash 29 Deposits are recognised at their nominalamounts.

Cash comprises a Deposit Account at theDepartment of Treasury and Finance.The administered cash balance is non-interest bearing.

Receivables 30 These receivables are recognised at theirnominal amounts less any provision fordoubtful debts.

Credit terms are net 30 days.

Financial Liabilities Financial liabilities are recognised when apresent obligation to another party is enteredinto and the amount of the liability can bereliably measured.

Payables 31 Creditors and accruals are recognised attheir nominal amounts, being the amountsat which the liabilities will be settled.Liabilities are recognised to the extent thatthe goods or services have been received.

Settlement is normally made net 30 days.

(b) Interest Rate Risk

WEIGHTEDFLOATING AVERAGE

INTEREST RATE FIXED INTEREST RATE NON-INTEREST EFFECTIVE1 YEAR OR LESS 1 TO 2 YEARS 2 TO 5 YEARS >5 YEARS BEARING TOTAL INTEREST RATE

FINANCIAL 02–03 01–02 02–03 01–02 02–03 01–02 02–03 01–02 02–03 01–02 02–03 01–02 02–03 01–02 02–03 01–02

INSTRUMENT NOTE $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 % %

FinancialAssets

Cash 29 – – – – – – – – – – 484 363 484 363 n/a n/a

Receivables 30 – – – – – – – – – – 505 422 505 422 n/a n/a

TotalFinancialAssets – – – – – – – – – – 989 785 989 785

Total Assets 989 785

FinancialLiabilities

Payables 31 – – – – – – – – – – 784 883 784 883 n/a n/a

TotalFinancialLiabilities – – – – – – – – – – 784 883 784 883

TotalLiabilities 7,301 6,962



87

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Note 35: Administered Financial Instruments (continued)(c): Net Fair Values of Financial Assets and Liabilities

Financial Assets

The net fair values of cash and non-interest bearing monetary financial assets approximate their carrying amounts.

Financial Liabilities

The net fair values for the trade creditors are approximated by their carrying values.

Note 36: Trust MoneysIn addition, the Authority holds monies pending the outcome of court decisions. These monies are excluded from thefinancial statements as the Authority cannot use them for the achievement of its objectives. The following is a summary ofthe transactions in the jurisdictions’ trust accounts.

2003 2002$’000 $’000

Supreme Court Suitor Account

Balance at 1 July 19,930 19,823

Receipts 5,740 6,589

25,670 26,412

Less: Payments 2,516 6,482

Balance at 30 June 23,154 19,930

District Court Suitor Account

Balance at 1 July 1,716 499

Receipts 706 1,674

2,422 2,173

Less: Payments 1,099 457


Sheriff’s Office Trust Account

Balance at 1 July 317 267

Receipts 795 933

1,112 1,200

Less: Payments 1,007 883

Balance at 30 June 105 317

Magistrates’ Courts Suitor Accounts

Balance at 1 July 1,733 946

Receipts 9,783 7,292

11,516 8,238

Less: Payments 9,690 6,505


88

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Financial Reports

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 2003.

The financial report comprises

• A Statement of Financial Performance;

• A Statement of Financial Position;

• A Statement of Cash Flows;

• A Program Schedule of Expenses and Revenues;

• A Schedule of Administered Revenues and Expenses;

• A Schedule of Administered Assets and Liabilities;

• A Schedule of Administered Cash Flows;

• A Program Schedule of Administered Revenues and Expenses;

• Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements;

• Certificate by the State Courts Administrator and Director, Corporate Services.

The State Courts Administration Council is responsible for the financial report. I have conducted an independent audit of the

financial report in order to express and 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 that the financial report is free of material misstatement.

Audit procedures include 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, its financial performance and its cash flows.

The audit opinion expressed in this report has been formed on the above basis.

Qualification

The Authority has not been able to reconcile its general ledger bank account to the records of the Authority’s bank as at

30 June 2003. As a result, Audit was unable to obtain assurance that all transactions processed by the Authority during the

year are accurately reflected in the Financial Statements.

Audit Opinion

In my opinion, except for the effect on the financial report of the matter referred to in the qualification paragraph, 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 2003, its financial performance and its cash flows

for the year then ended.

I N D E P E N D E N T A U D I T R E P O R T

S O’NeillDeputy Auditor-General20 November 2003


89

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Statement by the Courts Administration Authority

The financial statements and notes to the statements are to the best of our knowledge drawn up so as to present fairly in

accordance with Statements of Accounting Concepts, applicable Accounting Standards and Treasurer’s Instructions

promulgated under the Public Finance and Audit Act 1987, as amended, the financial position of the Courts Administration

Authority as at 30 June 2003 and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended.

In addition, internal controls over financial reporting have been effective throughout the reporting period.

Bill CosseyState Courts Administrator

6 November 2003

Trevor O’RourkeDirector, Corporate Services

6 November 2003

90

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

1 INTRODUCTION

The South Australian Courts exist to administer justice on

behalf of the people of South Australia.

The State Courts Administration Council recognises that:

• it is difficult for South Australians to have complete

confidence in the State’s Courts system if they do not

have a reasonable understanding of it;

• attendance at Court is, for many people, a difficult

experience, contributed to by the conventions and

traditions, including language, which underpin the

operations of the Courts;

• the community’s perceptions of acceptable service

levels are continually changing and this has an impact

on the expectations of Court users;

• the Courts, though independent of Executive

Government, are part of the overall justice system and

changes in the way the Courts operate can have a major

impact on the rest of the justice system; conversely,

decisions made by other entities and individuals can

affect the efficient use of the Courts’ resources;

• we are living in an era of unprecedented technological

development and the Courts and their supporting

administration need to take advantage of relevant

technologies as and when they are proven and can be

clearly demonstrated as improving access to, and

delivery of, justice;

• resources are limited and the Courts have an obligation,

without impairing the administration of justice, to

implement efficient ways of achieving that end; and

• the skills, attitudes and commitment of staff and

volunteers who work in the Courts Administration

Authority are vital to continued excellence in the

administration of justice.

STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATION COUNCIL AND THE COURTSADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY

Strategic Plan 2003 – 2006 (amended September 2003)

2 OVERALL STRATEGIES

In light of the above, the State Courts Administration Council

will, directly and through the efforts of all of the staff and

volunteers of the Courts Administration Authority aim to:

2.1 Increase the Community’s Understanding of the

Operations of the Courts & Provide More Avenues for

Community Feedback into the Operations of the Courts

This will be pursued primarily through a Community

Relations Strategy which will be overseen by the

Community Relations Committee of Council and

will include:

• regular and frequent communications with the

community generally and with groups of South

Australians involving a variety of media (talk-

back radio, presentations to community groups,

media interviews, publications of the Authority);

• surveys of the community involving both regular

users and non-users of the Courts;

• occasional reviews of the continued relevance of

the various practices of the Courts system;

• ongoing development of documents and other

media which describe, in easy to understand

language and in languages other than English,

the processes of the Courts; and

• continuing and, where appropriate, extended use

of the Authority’s Internet site to provide

information to the community in a timely manner;

during the period, the Internet site’s structure and

content will be reviewed to ensure that it

facilitates easy and efficient access to information.

The Community Relations Committee will maintain

and update a Community Relations Strategy that will

include more detail on the above (and other) matters.

Appendix A


91

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

2.2 Improve Court Facilities and Other Aspects of Dealing

With the Courts

This will be pursued through:

• attention to the needs of all people, recognising

that for people from some groups the Courts

system can be particularly daunting. There will

be continued emphasis on providing more

culturally appropriate processes for Aboriginal

people, including expansion of Aboriginal

Sentencing Courts and encouraging the

establishment of a better system for providing

Aboriginal interpreters;

• continued development of alternative dispute

resolution methods wherever practicable and

ensuring that these methods are well supported;

this will include the establishment of a Court

annexed mediation program in the Higher Courts

and a pilot project of Adult Conferencing in the

Magistrates Court;

• further improvement of Specialist Courts already

established as part of the Magistrates Court; this

includes Family Violence Courts, Mental

Impairment Courts and the Drug Court;

• the efficient management of the Authority’s

capital works program with an initial emphasis on

the redevelopment of the Supreme Court, the

commissioning of a new complex at Port Augusta

and improvements to country Court facilities;

• further refinement of listing procedures and

communication links with key participants to

ensure that cases flow through the Courts as

quickly and efficiently as practicable;

• continuing attention to the needs of all

participants in Court proceedings;

• ongoing development, particularly in country

locations of security procedures to ensure the

safe operation of the Courts; and

• improvements to the processes for enforcement

of civil judgments, particularly in the

Magistrates Court.

2.3 Foster an Environment and a Management Framework

through which Judicial Officers, Staff & Volunteers

can Contribute to Improved Performance of the

Courts System


• ensuring that the Authority’s approach to

occupational health, safety and welfare is not

just compliant with current legislation but has

the objective of achieving best practice in policy

development, staff training, hazard identification,

accident prevention and injury management;

• encouraging ideas for improving the

performance of the Authority and by making

available simple mechanisms for having ideas

considered and, where appropriate,

implemented;

• strengthening the processes of cooperation

between Judicial Officers and senior managers

of the Authority as improvement opportunities

are identified, researched and implemented;

• implementing programs through which people

can develop their knowledge and skills, not just in

the operations of the Courts but in creative and

lateral thinking and in understanding changes in

community expectations and attitudes;

• enabling staff to experience the Authority as a

whole by the pursuit of intra-agency activities

which improve consistency of policies

and practices;

• ensuring that there is a greater understanding of

the costs of all existing activities as a basis for

exploring more cost effective ways of delivering

the Authority’s services; and

• streamlining the Authority’s processes for

collecting, analysing and reporting information,

particularly statistical information, relating

its activities.

92

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

2.4 Keep up to Date with Technological Developments and

Apply those that are Appropriate to the Improved

Performance of the Courts System

This will be pursued through the maintenance and

updating of an Information Technology Plan by the IT

Committee of Council which will:

• provide opportunities for all Judicial Officers and

Authority staff to become familiar with new

technologies, notably those that are Internet

based, and, where practicable, to use them;

• encourage staged implementation of

improvements to existing case management

systems involving new technologies particularly

those related to business applications using the

Internet;

• provide for the continuing introduction, where

appropriate and generally based on pilot

projects, of new technology into the Courtroom

to enable:

• more extensive use of video conferencing,

• transcript recording in a wider range

of Courts,

• more appeals to be handled electronically,

• the Courts to benefit from the experience

of using technology in Court 3 of the

Sir Samuel Way Building;

• monitor developments in computerised case

management systems so that the Authority’s

existing systems can be replaced as soon as a

suitable system is identified; and

• encourage continuing expansion of the

electronic research materials (JURIS

Replacement system, electronic library

materials) available to Judicial Officers, Authority

staff and, as appropriate, all Court users.

STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATION COUNCIL AND THE COURTSADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY

Strategic Plan 2003 – 2006 (amended September 2003)

2.5 Cooperate with other parts of the Justice System to

Improve Access to Justice & to Improve Performance

of the Justice System Overall


• appropriate participation at a variety of levels in

initiatives of the Justice Portfolio including those

related to drugs in the community, overall

custodial remand rates, child protection,

improved access to justice for people with

mental impairment and victims of crime;

• the development of an updated financial charter

with the Justice Portfolio which acknowledges

that the improved operations of the Courts can

contribute to improved management and

application of resources in other justice agencies

and vice versa;

• involvement with the activities of the Justice

Business Reform Unit to ensure that the Courts

obtain maximum benefit from these activities

without compromising the independence of the

Judiciary, the Council or the Authority; and

• continuing analysis of situations in which the

efficient use of Courts’ resources are adversely

impacted by the actions of users of the Courts so

that appropriate action can be taken by the

Council.

Appendix A


93

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

WORKFORCE STATISTICS

AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES BY STREAM, LEVEL, APPOINTMENT TYPE AND GENDERContract Contract

STREAM Ongoing long term short term Casual Total

M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total

ADMINISTRATIVE

AdministrativeServices Officers

Trainees 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 7 0 0 0 4 3 7

ASO1 15 54 69 0 0 0 1 11 12 0 0 0 16 65 81

ASO2 31 75 106 0 1 1 2 9 11 0 0 0 33 85 118

ASO3 25 98 123 0 0 0 1 4 5 0 0 0 26 102 128

ASO4 27 47 74 1 0 1 4 3 7 0 0 0 32 50 82

ASO5 15 24 39 5 3 8 1 1 2 0 0 0 21 28 49

ASO6 14 41 55 2 0 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 17 42 59

ASO7 8 7 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 8 8 16

ASO8 1 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3

Managers Admin Services

MAS3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2

Total

ADMINISTRATIVE 136 348 484 10 4 14 14- 33 47 0 1 1 160 385 545

Operational

OPS1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 4 12 8 4 12

OPS2 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 25 91 66 32 98

OPS3 8 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 9

Total OPERATIONAL 8 8 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 29 103 82 37 119

Professional

PSO1 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 3 4

PSO2 4 10 14 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 5 11 16

PSO3 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3

Total PROFESSIONAL 5 13 18 0 1 1 2 2 4 0 0 0 7 14 23

Executive

EXA 0 0 0 4 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 5

EXB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EXD 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

LEC5 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2

MLS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Total EXECUTIVES 1 0 0 4 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 9

Other 0

GSE3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

JA1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 5 0 0 0 2 3 5

JA2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 13 16 0 0 0 3 13 16

JA3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 8 10 0 0 0 2 8 10

JUA8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LEC3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

COMM1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total OTHER 2 0 1 0 0 0 7 24 31 0 0 0 9 24 33

Appendix B

94

AN

NU

AL

R

EP

OR

T 2

00

2 –

2

00

3

Appendix C

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY AND INJURY MANAGEMENT STATISTICAL TABLE

2000–2001 2001–2002 2002–2003

1 OHS legislative requirements

Number of notifiable occurrences pursuant 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0to OHS&W Regs Div 6.6

Number of notifiable injuries pursuant to 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0OHS&W Regs Div 6.6

Number of notices served pursuant to 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0OHS&W Act S 35, 39 and 40

2 Injury Management legislative requirements

Total number of employees who participated 6 7 6in the rehabilitation program

Total number of employees rehabilitated and 5 3 3reassigned to alternative duties

Total number of employees rehabilitated back to 1 2 3their original work

3 WorkCover Action Limits

Number of open claims as at 30 June 94 66 44

Percentage of workers compensation 0.78% N/A 1.16%expenditure over gross annual remuneration

4 Number of injuries

Number of new workers compensation claims 29 37 26in the financial year

Number of fatalities, lost time injuries, 0, 11, 18 0, 12, 25 0, 13, 13medical treatment only

Total number of whole working days lost 1377 1122 61

5 Cost of workers compensation

Cost of new claims for financial year 39,609 97,135 29,966

Cost of all claims excluding lump sum payments 232,556 283,305 311,412

Amount paid for lump sum payments 77,549 182,068 135,499;(S42, S43, S44) 46,111; 0

Total amount recovered from external 0 0 0sources (S 54)

Budget allocation for workers compensation 264,714 266,713 271,000

6 Trends

Injury frequency rate for new lost-time 7.82 8.42 11.02injury/disease for each million hours worked

Most frequent cause (mechanism) Body Stressing Body Stressing Body Stressingof injury

Most expensive cause (mechanism) Falls, trips and Body Stressing Body Stressingof injury slips of a person

7 Meeting the organisation’s strategic targets

Targets and results from the organisation’s The OHS&W, IM Plan The OHS&W, IM Plan2000–2001 contains 2002–2004 contains

action plan are provided performance measuresperformance measures in the in the areas of Injury areas of Injury Management Management and

and Hazard Management Hazard Management

Education Centre

Level 14, 31 Flinders Street

Adelaide SA 5001

Telephone: + 618 8 8226 0102

Facsimile: + 618 8 8226 0111

Internet: www.courts.sa.gov.au