The Judges of the Supreme Court have assembled, as directed by Section 16 of the Supreme Court Act, 1935, and have considered the matters referred to in that section. In consequence, they furnish this Report for the year ending 31 December 2002.

On 31 December 2002 the Court was constituted of the following Judges, Masters and Principal Officers:

Chief Justice: The Honourable John Jeremy Doyle, AC
Justices: The Honourable Graham Clifton Prior
The Honourable John William Perry
The Honourable Kevin Patrick Duggan, AM, RFD
The Honourable Edward Picton Mullighan
The Honourable Bruce Malcolm Debelle
The Honourable Margaret Jean Nyland
The Honourable Bruce Thomas Lander
The Honourable Horton Clement Williams
The Honourable David John Bleby
The Honourable David Frank Wicks
The Honourable Brian Ross Martin
The Honourable Thomas Andrew Gray
The Honourable Anthony James Besanko
Masters: His Honour Judge Brian St Leger Kelly
His Honour Judge Peter Bowen Pain, AM
His Honour Judge Brendan Michael Burley

Principal Officers:
Registrar Supreme Court:
Ms Ruth Blenkiron, DipT, GradDip(Women’s Studies), GradDip(BusAdmin)

Registrar of Probates and Registrar in Admiralty:
Mr AB Faunce-de-Laune, LLB

Manager, Professional & Strategic Services:
Dr Hank Prunckun, BSc, MSocSc, PhD

Sheriff:
Mr Tim Goodes, DipAppSc, GradDip(Group Work), BSocAdmin, MPolAdmin

Deputy Registrar of Probates:
Mr Anthony Reid-Smith, LLB

Acting Deputy Registrar, Supreme Court:
Mr Terry Hobart

Deputy Registrar, Combined Criminal Registry
Ms Angela Curtis, BA, GradCertMgt

Manager, Registry Services:
Mr Errol Surman

Deputy Manager, Registry Services:
Ms Georgina Stauner, BA

Deputy Manager, Client Services:
Mr Chris Byron-Scott, BA

Assistant Registrar of Probates:
Mr Michael Prime

Clerk of Arraigns:
Mr Kevin Gleeson

Acting Senior Librarian:
Mr Robert Elson, BA, DipEd, GradDip(LibStudies)

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND RETIREMENTS

During 2002 there were no appointments to or retirements from the Supreme Court Bench.

GENERAL

The Supreme Court, as a participating Court in the Courts Administration Authority (CAA), has contributed to the Authority’s Annual Report for 2001–2002. The information contained in that report is not repeated here.

The Supreme Court buildings, although an important part of the State’s heritage, are inadequate for staff, Judges, the public and the legal profession. The buildings were designed at a time when the number of cases coming before the Court was substantially less and cases were less complex, and there was no need for the staff and support system of today. Apart from the heritage buildings on King William Street, the other buildings of the Court are a mix of styles and designs, and have little in the way of aesthetic appeal. The layout of the buildings is out of step with modern management practices and adversely affects the efficient functioning of the Court. This is particularly the case in relation to the layout of workstations, the arrangement of the client service areas, the isolation of judicial chambers and the segregation of administration staff.

With the approval of the State Treasury, the CAA is exploring the possibility of a Private Public Partnership (PPP) to redevelop the Supreme Court. The duration of such a project, from inception to completion, is likely to be at least six years. As all significant building projects have been placed on hold pending a decision on the redevelopment of the Supreme Court, the infrastructure is deteriorating, and this further impacts on efficiency and services to the public.

Another significant issue is that of security. It is practically impossible to provide a high level of security for the judiciary and court staff in the existing buildings. The cost of doing so would be very high. A decision on the redevelopment of the site is a pressing need.

Refurbishment work carried out in 2002 was modest. It consisted of essential restoration work to the façade of the National Trust listed Supreme Court building on King William Street. This work began in June and was completed in October 2002. The work involved stripping and repainting the faded and weathered painted areas and repairing the brick and stonework.

Courtroom 3 in Sir Samuel Way Building was significantly renovated and electronically upgraded to undertake the trial of R v Bunting and Wagner which commenced on 4 November 2002. This work has significantly changed the way in which the trial is to be conducted. The upgrade is designed to meet the needs of long cases and in particular cases in which a large amount of material is presented to the Court.

This renovation and upgrade was funded through a special grant by the Government. It was the subject of considerable negotiation between CAA staff, the Attorney-General’s Department and the Government. The Cabinet approved the expenditure with the express purpose of reducing the sitting time and making optimum use of all the Court’s resources (including the judiciary and counsel). The cost of the work was $2.4 million.

The Judicial Education Committee is chaired by Justice Margaret Nyland. It met on a regular basis throughout the year to consider programs for the continuing education of judicial officers of all jurisdictions.

The other members of the committee during 2002 were Judge Barry Jennings, representing the District Court, Ms Sue O’Connor, Stipendiary Magistrate representing the Magistrates Court, Associate Professor Kathy Mack, Faculty of Law at Flinders University, Associate Professor John Keeler, Faculty of Law at Adelaide University, Ms Ruth Blenkiron, Registrar of the Supreme Court, and Dr Andrew Cannon representing the local chapter of the AIJA.

On 29 August 2002, a one-day conference was held which involved judicial officers from all courts. The theme of the conference was Community Corrections. Mr Greg Weir, the Director of Strategic Services, provided an overview of the Department of Community Corrections and discussed key strategic issues that included some discussion as to future directions. Mr Lange Powell, the Director of Community Corrections, together with some regional managers, the program manager of Community Corrections and the Systems Administrator for Home Detention, presented an information session on a number of topics which included such matters as the preparation of court ordered reports, sentencing options and home detention. There was considerable debate as to the best possible use of the resources and expertise available within the Department for the provision of reports to the court. Home detention was discussed at length and covered such matters as supervised bonds, front-end home detention as a sentencing option and the strength and weaknesses of the current home detention program.

Sentencing was also a focus of discussions throughout the day and Professor Kate Warner of the Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania presented a paper dealing with the role of guideline judgments.

Professor Arie Freiberg the head of the Department of Criminology of the University of Melbourne also attended the conference. Professor Freiberg is the author of Pathways to Justice — Sentencing Review 2002, a review of Victorian sentencing laws. Professor Freiberg participated in discussions throughout the day and contributed to the debate about guideline judgments and other sentencing issues.

A number of judges attended the annual conferences of the Supreme Court and Federal Court judges held in Melbourne in January 2002. In addition, throughout the year, judges of the Court attended a range of conferences dealing with issues relevant to their judicial work.

An Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Program for the judiciary of South Australia began in 1996. This program was introduced in accordance with recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.

In addition to continuing the Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Program for the judiciary, the CAA has made available $20,000 from its own funds to the Courts of the State for a range of initiatives aimed at improving court services to Aboriginal persons, including improving Aboriginal cultural awareness amongst its staff. Each division of the Authority, including the Supreme Court, has been asked to develop appropriate proposals.

A judicial representative of the Supreme Court in each State and Territory, and of the Federal Court, has been nominated as a point of reference for matters of mutual interest and concern regarding Aboriginal matters and people. The Judges of the different Courts will continue to assist each other in the development of programs to improve the administration of justice in relation to the Aboriginal peoples.

The Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Program continues to operate. Each year a meeting between representatives of the Aboriginal people, members of the Judiciary and court staff is held to consider policies and programs, and the problems facing Aboriginal people when dealing with the legal system generally and the Court system in particular.

In 2002, work commenced on a directory of available Aboriginal services and programs to which Judges sitting in the north of the State may refer when dealing with Aboriginal persons. Later in the year, the Authority sponsored a film evening held by the John Bray Law Chapter. The film, Black and White, depicts an Aboriginal man’s experience in the criminal justice system during the 1950s. Judges, Court staff, law students and academics attended the evening which concluded with a discussion panel exploring the many issues raised by the film.

The Court has assisted the Aboriginal Interpreting Working Group to develop strategies for improving Aboriginal interpreting services. An eight-week trial using the services of an Aboriginal interpreter for each general day in the Magistrates Court commenced in January 2003. The interpreter is also retained for the Aboriginal Sentencing Court and the Youth Court (two days each week). Initial feedback from court users indicates strong support for this initiative. It is hoped that this initiative will lead to training and employment opportunities for Aboriginal people.

Following the Aboriginal Community Justice Seminar in Port Augusta in July 2000, the various Courts have continued to try to establish appropriate facilities for Aboriginal people attending the courts and to modify, where possible, some court procedures to assist Aboriginal people involved in the justice system.

Consideration is being given to developing a collection, to be housed within the Supreme Court Library, of publications about Aboriginal people, their culture and other matters.

In the 2001 Report reference was made to the refurbishment of Court 11 and to its being equipped as an electronic courtroom for the Southern Equities Corporation Ltd (In Liquidation) v Arthur Andersen & Co. That action was settled in May 2002 and the equipment leased for that trial was removed. The trial demonstrated, however, the benefits that can be obtained through the use of well-planned user-friendly information technology in a long and complex trial.

The Joint Rules Advisory Committee (JRAC) comprises two Judges, a Master and the Registrar of the Supreme Court and three Judges, a Master and the Registrar of the District Court, two Magistrates and four legal practitioners. JRAC has the responsibility of monitoring the Rules of Court made under the Supreme Court Act and the District Court Act. These rules regulate the practice and procedure in the two Courts.

JRAC monitors and considers the appropriateness of the rules of the two Courts having regard to the volume and type of litigation which comes before the respective Courts. In particular it is the responsibility of JRAC to ensure that the Rules of Court are appropriate for contemporary litigation and provide, as is their intended function, procedural fairness in the courts.

Work has continued on a complete revision of the Rules of Court for both Courts. A fourth draft has been considered by a Judge of this Court and a Judge of the District Court and more recently by JRAC. A fifth draft of the proposed new rules is expected to be to hand by February 2003 and under consideration by JRAC by April/May. It is hoped that a final draft may be considered by the Judges of this Court by the end of 2003. In September 2002 the rules were amended to allow for e-business transactions.

The rules now allow for authorised electronic communications to and from the Court and in certain circumstances for the electronic filing of proceedings in the Court. It is expected that in due course e-business transactions will become the manner in which documents are filed in this Court. The Judges are keen to ensure that the rules permit e-business transactions.

JRAC has continued to liaise directly with the legal profession to ensure that the profession, and those interested in the practice and procedure of the Court are acquainted with any amendments. Members of JRAC speak directly with client professional organizations to acquaint those clients with the current practices of the Court.

The National Harmonisation Rules Committee, which has been convened by Justice Lindgren of the Federal Court, has agreed upon a rule relating to subpoenas which is to be submitted to the superior courts throughout Australia for those courts’ agreement. The Committee will address the practices of the Court step by step. While it will be a very lengthy process the aim is to make the practices and procedures of all superior courts as nearly the same as possible. In the case of this Court the proposed subpoena rule will be contained in the proposed new rules to be considered by the Judges later this year.

The committee, under the Chairmanship of Judge Allan Moss, again sponsored an open day for Members of Parliament and Electoral Commission staff, featuring presentations from various judicial officers, a mock trial performed by school students and a question and answer session. The committee reviewed services for self-represented litigants, producing a report with specific recommendations for action. In December, membership of the Committee was reviewed, as a result of Judge Moss standing down as Chair. The current Chair of the Committee is Judge Christine Trenorden.

In 2002 the Supreme Court provided assistance to the producers of the film Black and White. The film revisited the 1959 case of Rupert Max Stuart, which, although over 40 years old, remains controversial, raising legal and ethical questions that still resonate today.

The Supreme Court Library’s Historical Collections Librarian, Mr Bruce Greenhalgh, produced an exhibition on the case timed to coincide with the Adelaide screening of the film in late-2002. The exhibition was seen as a way of identifying changes in the criminal justice system, changes in the way in which the Courts deal with indigenous people, and demonstrating that the Courts are responsive to community changes.

The exhibition was well received. The exhibition also produced a valuable historical record. Not only were existing records identified and collected, but records were made of the memories of people connected with the case.

In 2002 the State Courts Administration Council decided to convene several Justice Roundtable meetings with groups of people who have an involvement in the work of the Courts or a particular interest in the work of the Courts. These meetings flowed on from the November 2000 "Courts Consulting the Community" Conference. The 2000 Conference was a success from a number of points of view, and in particular, because of the suggestions made for improving the manner in which the courts of the State deal with people.

The first Justice Roundtable was held in April 2002. The Council invited a small group from those who attended the "Courts Consulting the Community" Conference. It included community representatives, CAA staff and judicial officers. The purpose was to report on changes made as a result of the Conference and to hear comment on these changes. The second meeting focussed on the Courts’ working relationship with the Attorney-General’s Department and the police force. Both meetings were productive.

During 2002, as in previous years, there were a number of occasions on which committees involving Judges of this Court considered legislative proposals, or made suggestions for changes in the law. On a number of occasions when, for one reason or another, it was not convenient to refer a legislative proposal to a committee, the Chief Justice provided a comment on a legislative proposal after informal consultations with members of the Court and with the Chief Judge of the District Court.

In accordance with their usual practice, the Judges and the Chief Justice endeavoured to confine their comments to matters relevant to the application of legislation and proposed legislation, as distinct from matters of policy which are properly for Parliament to decide.

There are a few matters worthy of mention in particular.

You have not yet indicated your attitude to proposals for the reform of criminal procedure, resulting from a "Deliberative Forum on Criminal Trial Reform" which was sponsored by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. In December 2001, the Chief Justice sent to your predecessor in the previous Government a report of a committee convened by a Judge of this Court, canvassing possible changes. This is an area in which it is desirable that changes initiated by the Court complement changes initiated by you. The Court looks forward to hearing your views on these matters, so that changes which might improve the efficiency of the administration of criminal justice can be made.

On 26 February 2002 the Chief Justice wrote to your predecessor in the previous Government in relation to a proposal to change the law to require disclosure by the defence of expert reports and proposed expert evidence in certain situations in criminal cases. The letter recognised that the proposal raised important questions of principle, and stated that the Judges would welcome an opportunity to comment on any proposed legislation. The letter suggested legislation that might be proceeded with relatively quickly, dealing with the calling of expert evidence and the obtaining of expert reports with a view to challenging the admissibility of prosecution evidence. This is a more limited area than the use of expert evidence generally by the defence. The Judges remain of the view that these are important issues and await your views on them.

During the year the Chief Justice raised with you possible changes in the law relating to the identification of jurors. This issue has been considered by the Sheriff as part of a review of procedures relating to jurors. The Sheriff should soon be in a position to present to you the findings of this review, with proposals for a number of changes.

During the year the Chief Justice raised with you the provisions of s 74C to s 74G of the Summary Offences Act, and in particular difficulties that might arise because of the manner in which "interview" is defined.

The Chief Justice provided you with some comments on proposed legislation relating to sentencing guidelines and on model laws for the regulation of the legal profession. He also commented on possible changes to the law relating to self-defence.

Apart from commenting on proposed and possible changes in the law, a number of Judges of this Court, with Judges of the District Court and members of the Magistracy, continue to serve on and to assist committees that in one way or another are reviewing legislation, developing legislative proposals or dealing with the impact of the administration of justice on the community. Members of the judiciary are pleased to contribute to the public good in this way, by providing information and informed comment. As you will appreciate, it remains necessary for members of the judiciary to avoid any appearance that they are part of the Executive Government, advisors to the Executive Government or answerable to it. On occasions this will mean that members of the judiciary must observe restrictions that will not apply to others involved in the process.

Despite having a set of comprehensive statistics for the work of the Court, a finely tuned management information system is lacking. This is not only true for this Court but for most courts in Australia. This topic was the subject of a report by the Justice Research Centre of the NSW Law Foundation. The report proposed such a model. In its report the Justice Research Centre recommended four Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that were narrower than the statistics in general use by court administrators, but that provided a comprehensive picture of how well the Court is coping with its caseload.

The four KPIs deal with backlog, overload, clearance ratio, and attendance index. The NSW Justice Research Centre described these KPIs as follows:

Backlog is related directly to the Court’s performance against its case processing time standards. It is the number of pending cases that are taking too long. The backlog measure indicates whether the Court is meeting its time standard. Overload relates to the size of the Court’s caseload to its time standards. It is the number of cases on hand in excess of the number the Court can be expected to process with in time. The overload measure indicates whether the Court will continue to meet its time standards in the future (assuming existing conditions are maintained). Clearance Ratio relates to the Court’s caseload to its capacity. It is the ratio of the Court’s new lodgements to the number of finalisations over the relevant period. The clearance ration indicates whether the Court is heading for, keeping out of, or getting out of trouble, in terms of its capacity to meet its time standards in the future. Attendance index relates to the efficiency and effectiveness of the court process. The attendance index requires the court to adopt a standard for the maximum number of times it should be necessary for the parties to attend at the Court before their case is resolved. The measure itself is the number of pending cases in which there has been more than the benchmark number of attendances. The number of attendance in Court is the most easily obtained datum which is highly correlated with the cost of litigation and efficient resource utilisation.

The Chief Justice is considering whether the KPIs are a suitable measure for reporting on the work of the Court.

GENERAL STATISTICS

This section of the Report sets out 27 Tables containing statistics relating to the operations of the major jurisdictions within the Court. It may be that next year this Report will contain a set of statistics in the form of the KPIs, reflecting the performance of the Court against fixed goals, that are expressed in measurable terms.

Although these Tables are accompanied by analysis, it is important to note that there are other aspects of the Court’s work, and of the work of the three registries (Civil, Combined Criminal and Probate), that are not adequately reflected in these Tables. Nor do these numbers reflect the complexity involved in managing the work of the Court.

The Court realises that a balance must be struck between dealing with and hearing cases as quickly as possible, in order to keep administrative costs (and hence government funds) and party costs to a reasonable level, and ensuring that each case is dealt with fairly, however long that may take. The Court’s ability to despatch cases promptly is affected by the number of Judges available to it. For much of 2002 Justice Prior discharged his duties as Chairman of the Electoral Districts Boundaries Commission and was not available to perform his usual judicial duties. This placed a greater burden on the other Judges of the Court. Justice Williams will retire in April 2003. The Government has decided that he will not be replaced. These events will make it difficult for the Court to deal with its work as promptly as it wishes to.

The standard for the criminal jurisdiction of the Court is that 80% of cases committed for trial should be dealt with within 180 days (from arraignment to the start of trial). Table 1 shows that in 2002 the percentage of cases that met the standard dropped considerably from the previous two years (down 21%). However, against the 365 days standard, performance improved slightly resulting in 94% of cases being dealt with in accordance with the standard (up 8%).

Although the Supreme Court is not meeting its time standards for criminal trials, the rate of disposition compares favourably with other criminal courts in Australia. For instance, according to the Report on Government Services (2003) South Australia’s Supreme Court ranked fourth in the nation. This placed South Australia ahead of the Northern Territory, Tasmania, New South Wales and the ACT for finalising non-appeal criminal matters within twelve months.

Three Judges generally constitute the Full Court (for civil appeals) and the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA). The work in this jurisdiction has occupied the time of three Judges full-time throughout the year. The work of the Full Court and of the CCA is shared by all judges. In 2002, the number of applications for leave to appeal made to the CCA increased by 3% (n=4). Appeals and applications to the Full Court declined again this year, this time by 17% (n=16). Appeals to the CCA decreased by 6% (n=9) and the total number of matters disposed of by both the Full Court and CCA was down slightly from the previous year (10%, n=25), but this figure was about the same as 2000 (n=225). These data are displayed in Tables 2, 3 and 4 below.

Table 2: Leave to Appeal Applications to the CCA

The average time between institution and setting down for hearing of an appeal to the Full Court increased considerably in 2002 (24% or n=21 days) as displayed in Table 5 below. However, it is important to note that the time between institution and setting down is not under the control of the Court, save that appeals are automatically dismissed if they are not set down within six months. As setting down is a process controlled by parties and legal representatives, for any improvement to occur, the parties and legal representatives will have to be ready to proceed sooner than at present. The Full Court is able to hear appeals in the month following the setting down.

Table 5 also shows that there was little change in the time taken from setting down to hearing (decreased by 5 days or 11%) and from hearing to the delivery of judgment in the Full Court (increased by 2 days or 6%).

Table 5: Full Court and Court of Criminal Appeal Average Time Intervals

Table 6 shows the average length of hearings. Most appeals occupied approximately half a day of hearing time.

Table 6: Full Court — Average Hearing Lengths

The work of this jurisdiction occupied the time of about two Judges for the whole of the year. Most of the cases are appeals from Magistrates in the criminal (summary) jurisdiction. The other cases comprise appeals from Masters of this Court, against interlocutory orders in the District Court, from Magistrates in the civil jurisdiction, and from various Tribunals and Boards. Table 7 below shows the number of appeals that were disposed of by way of judgement.

The number of Single Judge Appeals disposed of was down slightly from 2001 (decrease of 8%). This is part of a trend that shows a steady decrease for the years 1996 to 2002.

Table 7: Disposals — Single Judge Appeals

Table 8 shows the number of matters instituted in the civil jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. There was a significant decline in lodgements in 1997, which was due to the transfer of Housing Trust possession applications (under the Real Property Act) to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. The numbers of summonses has increased since that year reaching its highest level this year since 1996. The actual court time required for possession applications was not great, and so the reduction in lodgements in this respect has had little effect on the need for judicial resources. Company liquidation applications increased in all years except 2000, peaking in 2002 at 240 matters.

Table 8: Civil Jurisdiction — Matters Instituted

* Housing Trust possession applications ceased to be heard in the Supreme Court.

The Land and Valuation Division (LVD) is the only specialist division of the Court. Three judges (Debelle, Bleby and Besanko JJ) hear actions in the Division. The Division hears a variety of actions relating to land issues. The greater proportion of its work comprises planning appeals from the Environment, Resources and Development Court and revenue appeals. The following is an analysis of the Division’s work in 2002.

Table 9: Land and Valuation Division

 

	2000	2001	2002
LVD Summons Issued	18	22	58

The specialist nature of this Division enables speedy determination of actions. This capacity for quick resolution is significant given the increasing number of applications for judicial review which come before the Court and which frequently involve developments for which a planning consent has been given.

Civil Trials

The number of civil cases ordered to proceed to trial (excluding "long and complex" cases) decreased by 14% (n=7) during 2002 (Table 11). There was a 21% decrease (n=8) in the number of cases disposed of by trial and after fixing a trial date. The number of cases awaiting trial as at 31 December 2002 was up 138% on the number awaiting trial in 2001 but was equivalent to the average for the years 1996 to 2002 (average=20.7).

Table 11: Civil Trials

* The number of cases disposed of by trial is included in the figure of Disposals after fixing of trial date.

As at 31 December 2002, Listing Conferences were able, on average, to provide trial dates two to three months ahead (longer for long and complex trials). Table 12 shows the average trial length (for cases tried to judgment) has remained the same for the past three years. The number of trials that exceeded five days duration also remained the same as last year (n=5).

Table 12: Civil Trial Details

* This figure does not include 1 long/complex case completed in January 1998 after 472 hearing days spanning all of 1997.

+ 1996 figure relates to the 6 months to December 1996.

There were no cases that were classified as "not reached" during 2002. A not reached case is one that the Court is unable to hear on the appointed trial date. In order to achieve this outcome, court administrators limit the number of cases they list on any given day. Listing more cases, while increasing the risk of cases not being reached, would improve the rate of case disposition over a year. This is one area in which a balance has to be struck between the interests of the parties in a definite trial date and the best use of the Court’s resources.

Long and complex cases are defined as cases that are expected to take more than fifteen consecutive hearing days or that involve complex issues. Long and complex cases require intensive management in the pre-trial stages in order that to bring them to trial in a reasonably expeditious manner. Such cases are assigned to one of three Judges who form a pool and who oversee the management of these cases (i.e. preparation for trial and, as appropriate, examination of alternative dispute resolution options).

This system of judicial management ensures a rapid identification of the issues, the minimisation of costly processes including discovery of documents and other interlocutory steps, and the bringing of these cases to trial at the earliest possible time. During 2002, the Court worked hard to reduce the number of long and complex cases and to minimise delay. As a consequence, a number of matters were either settled or discontinued during the year under review. This work is not reflected in the Tables of this Report, but it occupies a considerable amount of the Judges’ and Masters’ time.

The number of cases classified as long and complex decreased by five in 2002. Fourteen cases were disposed of by trial or settlement with seven new cases being added during the year. The number of cases that were estimated to require six weeks or more to hear increased slightly. Table 13 shows that the range of estimated case lengths, as at 31 December 2002, was between 2–11 weeks, shorter than previous years. Nevertheless, these matters consumed a large amount of judicial time underscoring the significant load placed on the Court in managing these cases.

There are insufficient judges to list these cases as early as the Court would like. In particular, it is not possible to list more than three such cases at any one time, having regard to the demand on resources for the normal civil, criminal and appellate jurisdictions. Accommodating these cases causes difficulty. Listing a long and complex case for trial means that the Court must commit a Judge to the case for as long as it takes. If a case does not proceed when listed, judicial time that could have been used to deal with other matters is lost. Often such cases last longer than estimated, causing further roster difficulties. The Judges of the Court continue to work with the Registrar to achieve the most efficient way of dealing with these cases.

Table 13: Long and Complex Cases

* as at 31 December

Masters’ Jurisdiction

During 2002 hearings in court increased but chambers and specially returnable applications before Masters decreased. Overall, the total number of applications was down only slightly from 2001 (decrease of 5%).

Table 14: Applications Dealt with by Masters

Caseflow Management in the Civil jurisdiction changed as from 3 June 2000. Prior to that date, the approach had been to deal with all pre-trial matters and then bring the matter of a Pre-Trial Conference. At the Pre-Trial Conference the parties were expected to use their best endeavours, with the assistance of the Master, if necessary, to negotiate a settlement.

As from 3 June 2000, the system was reversed. The Status Hearing (the first hearing) is used to arrange a Settlement Conference as soon as possible. At the Settlement Conference, the parties are expected to use their best endeavours to reach a "commercial resolution" of the action. If the parties are unable to resolve the matter, then they are required to complete the interlocutory procedures as quickly as possible.

Under the former system, the Case Evaluation Conference was used as the vehicle to supervise the interlocutory steps. Under the present system, the Final Directions Hearing serves this function.

The statistics for 2000 and 2001 are to some extent unreliable, because they reflect the transition from the old to the new system. The only really comparable statistics are the Case Evaluation Conferences compared with the Final Directions Hearings, or the total number of interlocutory hearings for all types for all actions. The value of the latter statistic is doubtful, unless related to the total number of current actions during the same period.

Under the former system, if parties were unable to settle at the Pre-Trial Conference, they were given the opportunity to conciliate either within or outside the Court system. Under the present system, if the parties do not settle at the Settlement Conference, but wish to conciliate they have to do this privately outside the Court system. This explains the dramatic drop in the number of conciliation conferences in the past two years.

Table 17A#: Number of Conferences

# From 3/6/2000 conference procedures changed, see text for details.

* A "first hearing" is defined as the number of cases involving a first hearing of the relevant conference type (i.e. each case is counted only once for this figure, it is counted at the time of the first conference of this type).

The primary responsibility for the case flow management system rests with the Masters of the Court. They oversee all cases in the general civil list and ensure that solicitors appearing for the parties, as far as possible, meet the prescribed time standards.

The joint listing procedures for the Supreme Court and the District Court continued to work reasonably well during 2002. The Authority’s Annual Report indicates that the volume of work has been greater than the two courts could manage within time standards set. Although there was also a decline in the percentage meeting the 180 day standard for the third year in a row, the percent of matters finalised within 365 days increased for the third year running (see Table 22). There has been a steady increase in lodgements (Table 19) since 1998 and the number of lodgements for 2002 increased again by 324. The number of lodgements for 2002 exceeded the 1996 peak of 1,676 and is up 30% on the average for the years 1996 to 2002 (average = 1,519).

* Does not include transfers between Supreme and District Courts (effective as from January 1997).

The number of cases disposed of (Table 20) decreased by 5% (n=20) in 2002, and the number of trials outstanding as at 31 December 2002 increased (33%; n=47). In addition, the average length of trial appears to have "levelled off" at 6.3 days (average for the years 1997 to 2002 was 6 days). Although the rate of disposal remains lower than would be expected in light of the changes introduced to the case management system in 1998, the Courts continue to examine processes and procedures in order to find ways of improving the disposal rate.

* Does not include transfers between Supreme and District Courts (effective as from January 1997

# Includes non-verdict trial disposals

* as at October 2002

Amendments to the Legal Practitioners Act, which came into force on 1 February 1999, established the Legal Practitioners Education and Admission Council (LPEAC) and a newly constituted Board of Examiners. The Chief Justice chairs LPEAC. The other members of the Council include the Attorney-General, three Judges (representing both State and Federal Courts), the Deans of Law of Flinders University and Adelaide University, representatives of the profession and a law student representative.

LPEAC has the responsibility to set the academic and practical requirements for admission, to participate in the development of uniform national standards relating to admission qualifications, to review the effectiveness of legal education and training courses and to perform any other functions assigned to LPEAC pursuant to the provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act. The Judges of the Court at one time exercised the first three of these functions.

Although LPEAC regulates the admission of barristers and solicitors in South Australia though Rules, the Supreme Court retains the function of admitting practitioners except in cases in which that function has been conferred upon the Board of Examiners in relation to applications for admission pursuant to the provisions of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth) and the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 (Cth).

The Board of Examiners is established under the Act and the Chief Justice appoints its members. The Board comprises a Master of the Court, two persons nominated by the Attorney-General and twelve legal practitioners. The Master is the Presiding Member. The main function of the Board of Examiners is to inquire into applications for admission. During 2002 there were 386 applications for admission, up 120 (45%) over 2001 and up 165 (75%) over the average for the years 1996 to 2002 (average = 221).

* numbers declined in 1999 due to a change in the PLT course structure.

The Mutual Recognition Act enables practitioners who hold interstate qualifications to gain admission in other Australian states. Applications under this Act increased by 11 (26%) during 2002. In 2002, the majority of applications for mutual recognition within this State continued to be from New South Wales (n=27). The number of overseas degrees assessed remained the same as the last two years (n=11).

The Probate Registry issues grants of representation to the estates of deceased persons in unopposed cases. The Registrar of Probates has jurisdiction in all non-contentious probate matters and an appeal lies to a Judge in Chambers from any order or decision made by the Registrar. Where a matter is unusually complicated, or there is opposition to the order sought, or where it is necessary to give other persons affected the opportunity to be heard, the Registrar may require the application to be made by summons to a Judge of the Court.

Since the inception of the Probate Registry in 1844 a Record has been kept of copies of all the grants of representation made by the Court. An index to the Record is available in the Registry for public search. A project to scan the index and the record copies of grants of representation from 1980 to 2000 is nearing completion. It is expected that by the middle of 2003 the public will be able to search the index via the Internet and for a prescribed fee access the record copy of any grant made during that period. To date 740 record books have been digitised and placed onto CD-ROM. The proceeds of search copies of the record are intended to fund the further scanning for the years prior to 1980.

The initiative to develop a Wills Electronic Register is to provide an effective centralised system for recording the existence and location of wills and for the storage of wills of living testators. It is intended that such a register will be located in the Probate Registry. Once established it will provide a living testator with an option to electronically register his or her will thereby ensuring its formal validity and preservation. On 19 September 2002 the Attorney General approved the concept papers for the WER project.

A record of orders made pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act, 1993 and the Aged and Infirm Persons Property Act, 1940 that limit the testamentary dispositions of protected persons has been established in the Probate Registry. All protection orders made by the Guardianship Board since 1 June 2002 have now been entered onto the register. An additional number of protection orders made pursuant to the Aged and Infirm Persons Property Act, 1940 have also been entered onto the register.

Grants of representation may be applied for either through a practitioner or in person. The number personal applications have increased over the past few years. There were 253 personal applications in 2001 and 271 in 2002. In view of the steady increase in personal applications and the difficulties experienced by applicants in preparing the application consideration is being given to the provision of lectures for applicants to attend in order to obtain information and direction on how to prepare the application.

The Supreme Court Library is a substantial library with over 108,000 volumes in its holdings. The library adds approximately 1,800 volumes to its collection each year and provides access to electronic resources as well as hard copy material. Its holdings are available to the judiciary, the legal profession, self-represented litigants, students and the public. The library is heavily used — the average number of people entering the library per month is approximately 2,100. The Library is widely used by the legal profession, law students, law librarians, by officers of Commonwealth and State Government agencies, by litigants I person, and the general public. All rely heavily on access to the collection for research reference and particular needs in litigation. The Library can fairly be regarded as the major law library in this State because of its accessibility, comprehensive collection and high level of professional service.

Over the last three years libraries of both State and Federal government departments, as well as of South Australian universities, have experienced budget cuts. As a result, those libraries have cancelled many subscriptions to legal titles. They have done this on the premise that the Supreme Court Library, as the main law library collection in South Australia, will maintain these subscriptions. This practice cannot continue indefinitely. This issue is important and needs to be addressed as "purchasing power" of the Supreme Court Library's budget diminishes.

The Judges voice the same concerns as have been expressed by a member of the High Court and a former Chief Justice of the High Court. Sir Anthony Mason, when Chief Justice of the High Court, said ten years ago:

The high reputation which Australian superior courts enjoy overseas is due in no small measure to the legal knowledge and scholarship of Australian Judges. Legal knowledge and scholarship depend on the provision of good library facilities. Yet al libraries, not only in the Courts but in the Universities, are being forced to cut back very significantly. What is happening represents a trend which, if it continues, has the potential adversely to affect legal education and the quality of judicial work done by the Courts.

These observations have even greater force ten years later. A good library is fundamental to the role of the Courts as a resource for both Judges and members of the community alike.

The Library’s main focus during the last twelve months has been on the development of further electronic legal products for access through the CAA’s Internet and Intranet. These initiatives are particularly important in times of decreasing shelf space and budgets, and increases in legal publishers’ prices on hardcopy material.

Some of the major initiatives during 2002 include:

• Placing the Supreme Court Rules 1987 and Supreme Court Criminal Rules 1992 online;

• Provision of access to web based resources including law portals and e-journals; and

• Dedication of resources to the preservation, display and cataloguing of a Courts historical collection.

These initiatives reflect the library’s increasing use of the web to deliver its services and it is expected that this trend will gain momentum during 2003. Web resources have now become a major source of information for the library’s clients, greatly facilitated by the access provided to the Library’s online catalogue (Spydus) and CAA’s Intranet "home page."

DATED this …7^th … day of March 2003

CHIEF JUSTICE

On behalf of the Judges of the Supreme Court

- top -

judicial officers| probate| library| history | filing fees | going to court

caa| community| courts| media| schools| lawyers/unrepresented| sheriff's office| home