supreme court

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 2003.

On 31 December 2003 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, RFD, AM
The Honourable Edward Picton Mullighan
The Honourable Bruce Malcolm Debelle
The Honourable Margaret Jean Nyland
The Honourable David John Bleby
The Honourable Brian Ross Martin
The Honourable Thomas Andrew Gray
The Honourable Anthony James Besanko
The Honourable John Robert Sulan
The Honourable Ann Marie Vanstone
The Honourable Timothy Russell Anderson

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

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

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

Manager, Operations, Supreme Court:
Mr Terry Hobart, AssDipJA

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

Manager, Registry Services:
Mr Errol Surman

Executive Assistant to the Chief Justice:
Mr. Ilia Houridis

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

Senior Librarian:
Ms Wanda Dillon, BA, Library Studies

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND RETIREMENTS

During 2003 the Honourable Justice Wicks resigned from the Bench due to ill heath, the Honourable Justice Williams retired upon reaching the age of 70 years and the Honourable Justice Lander resigned after being appointed to the Federal Court of Australia. Appointed during the year were the Honourable Justice Sulan, the Honourable Justice Vanstone (both previously Judges of the District Court) and the Honourable Justice Anderson, the latter being appointed to replace the Honourable Justice Martin who takes up an appointment in January 2004 as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory.

Justice Williams was not replaced. The Court is now operating with one Judge less than in past years. The impact of this on the timely disposition of business before the Court, and on the Judges, needs to be kept under review.

The Supreme Court, as a participating Court in the Courts Administration Authority (CAA), has contributed to the Authority’s Annual Report for 2002–2003. The information contained in that report is not repeated here.

The last three reports have highlighted the limitations and inadequacies of the buildings housing the Supreme Court. The problems have yet to be solved and there has been no financial or public commitment from government to begin a new complex to accommodate the highest state jurisdiction.

The case for new buildings is based in part on the inadequacies and inefficiencies of the current facilities. The interests of the public using the buildings, of the staff who work in them, and considerations of efficiency all overwhelmingly support the case for new buildings. Also, there is the perception gained about the state of South Australia if significant public buildings are allowed to fall into decay. In many respects the Supreme Court building symbolises the system of justice, and that symbol should not be a building that fails to meet the needs of the public and of the courts and their staff. The contrast with the new building under construction for the Commonwealth Courts is striking.

As a new Supreme Court building has been on the agenda for over ten years, the current facilities have been allowed to run down in anticipation of a new precinct. As this has not occurred, the current facilities raise significant health issues for staff, judiciary and members of the public.

Currently the Government is exploring the possibility of a Private Public Partnership (PPP) to redevelop the Supreme Court. Whilst pursuing this avenue may be economically advantageous, it is time there was a public commitment to a new building, regardless of the funding source. The duration of such a project, from inception to completion, is likely to be lengthy. The Judges urge the Government to make a decision on the redevelopment of the Court and publicly announce the project as a priority for state infrastructure.

The National Judicial College of Australia (NJCA), established in October 1992, presented its first program in Adelaide in August 2003. It comprised a program over one and a half days, dealing with litigants in person, expert witnesses and sentencing Judges from the Supreme and District Courts, the Industrial Court and Magistrates attended. In the same month the NJCA conducted a five day residential program for Magistrates at the Australian National University. Magistrates from South Australia played a major part in developing the program, and a number of them participated in it.

During the year, as usual, Judges of the Court attended a number of seminars and conferences in South Australia and elsewhere in Australia.

As has been previously reported the Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Program for the Judiciary of South Australia commenced in 1996. It was introduced in accordance with recommendations of the Royal Commission into Deaths in Custody. The Program, which is undertaken in conjunction with Aboriginal leaders and advisers, has operated continuously since 1996.

Aboriginal persons and others present programs from time to time to members of the Judiciary regarding problems confronted by Aboriginal people in the Courts. These programs cover important issues regarding Aboriginal culture and language which must be understood for justice to be given to Aboriginal people and other matters regarding the presentation of cases in Court by, and on behalf of, Aboriginal people. The program’s format include full day seminars on Aboriginal premises, late afternoon meetings on Court premises and visits to regional centres and Aboriginal communities and prisons from time to time.

Since 2002 Administrators of the Courts and staff have been included in the programs.

Initially the Commonwealth Government provided $50,000 to South Australia for the Program. The Programs have been conducted economically with the result that only about 60% of those funds have been expended. Consequently there is sufficient funding for the Program to continue for some years. In addition, the Courts Administration Authority makes $20,000 available each year from its own funds for a range of initiatives aimed at improving court services to Aboriginal persons, improving their access to the Courts and some Aboriginal Cultural Awareness training for staff. Each Division of the Authority, including the Supreme Court, has been asked to develop appropriate proposals each year.

There is a committee comprised of Aboriginal persons, Judges, Magistrates and Administrators who arrange individual programs.

In November 2003 there was a meeting of Aboriginal people, members of the Judiciary and Administrators at which various proposals for improvement of the justice system for Aboriginal people were discussed. These proposals are the result of matters raised at the Cultural Awareness Programs over the years. It is proposed to establish a Courts Aboriginal Reference Group comprised of Aboriginal leaders, members of the Judiciary and Administrators which may consider these various proposals over the next two years and at which other proposals may be raised. Supreme Court Judges and staff will play their part with other members of the Judiciary and the Courts Administration Authority to develop appropriate proposals in the best possible way.

The upgrade of Courtroom 3 in the Sir Samuel Way Building gave the Court an efficient means for the running of a long criminal trial. The case of R v Bunting and Wagner was finalised on 4 November 2003. Courtroom 3 will be used to hear a related trial in 2004. During the intervening period upgrades to the electronic management system in the court have been arranged. The upgrade is designed to assist the Court in handling the large amounts of material presented to the Court. The funding for the upgrade work came from a special grant by the Government. There is a need for other courtrooms to be upgraded in the same way, to facilitate the efficient conduct of civil and criminal trials. Funds will have to be found for this, if the Courts of the State are to operate at a standard that the community expects.

The Joint Rules Advisory Committee (JRAC) comprises two Judges, a Master, the Registrar of the Supreme Court, three Judges, a Master and the Registrar of the District Court, two Magistrates and four legal practitioners. JRAC has the responsibility of reviewing and revising 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 reviews the appropriateness of the rules of the two Courts having regard to the volume and type of litigation that 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 seventh draft is now available and it is anticipated that that draft will be considered by the Judges of both Courts in March or April 2004. An eighth and final draft will then be prepared. It is anticipated that the new Rules will come into place later this year. There has been extensive consultation with the profession about the content of the new Rules.

In September 2002 the Rules were amended to allow for e-business transactions. The Rules allowed for authorised electronic communications to and from the Court and in certain circumstances for the electronic filing of proceedings in the Court. The Rules were introduced in the expectation that in due course e-business transactions will become the manner in which documents are filed in this Court. Due to system difficulties, it became necessary to suspend the operation of the Rules relating to e-business transactions. However, it is expected that the difficulties will soon be overcome and that the process of electronic filing will be fully operational.

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 professional organizations whose members deal with the court to acquaint those organisations 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 uniform rule relating to subpoenas which is to be submitted to the superior courts throughout Australia for the agreement of those Courts. The Committee will address the practices of the court step by step. While it will be a very lengthy process, the aim is to achieve (as far as practical) uniformity in the procedures of all superior courts. In the case of this Court the proposed subpoena rule is in the present draft of the new Rules.

The committee, under the Chairpersonship of Judge Christine Trenorden, undertook a number of initiatives under its community involvement plan for 2003. The committee supported the organisation of Roadshows by the education officer to explain sentencing and court processes generally to school students and the wider community. These were held in the Murraylands and the South East in March and the Riverland in August. As part of the ‘User Friendly Courts’ goal set by the committee, directional maps were placed in court buildings in April. The committee hosted a media forum in October and is exploring community interest in the establishment of a Court Reference Group, comprising members of the committee and members of community organisations.

In 2003 the State Courts Administration Council decided to continue holding 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 continue a process that began with 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 suggestions made for improving the manner in which the courts of the State deal with people.

The first Justice Roundtable for the year was held in February 2003. The Council invited a small group from the Community Corrections Division of the Department of Correctional Services to meet with it. The February Roundtable included CAA staff and judicial officers. The purpose was to identify how the Courts or the Department can simplify, standardise or improve procedures or practices so as to assist the other party to operate more effectively. The May Roundtable involved representatives of the Vietnamese and Chinese communities. They gave their views on the justice system and how it relates to their community, covering issues of cultural awareness, access and court procedure and practice. The final Roundtable held in September consisted of presentations made by members of staff of the CAA. The focus was on their place in the CAA and what staff thought was being done well and could be done better. The highlight was a short video prepared by Sylvia Kriven, Communications Manager, titled "A day in the life of the Courts Administration Authority". This comprised a series of brief interviews with members of CAA staff giving their opinions on the work they do.

During 2003, as in past years, the Chief Justice commented to you on a number of Bills and legislative proposals put forward by you. The comment was confined to matters affecting the application of the proposed law, or drafting matters, except when the legislation directly affects the operation of the courts. Sometimes the comments were based on reports prepared by committees from within the court, sometimes the comments were provided by individual judges or by the Chief Justice.

A number of changes to legislation were suggested by the Judges, most of them intended to ensure that the Court functions as efficiently and effectively as possible. In addition, again as in past years, judges of this Court, and judges of the District Court and members of the magistracy, have continued to be involved in the work of committees that are reviewing legislation, or considering desirability of possible changes to the law. At times this involves a substantial amount of work.

As far as Bills and legislative proposals are concerned, there are none that stand out in particular. However, it is worth mentioning that comment was provided on legislation arising from the report of the IPP Committee, on matters affecting sentencing procedures, on legislation relating to a range of new offences which will replace most of the non-fatal offences against the person, on the law relating to self defence, and on proposed Commonwealth legislation relating to border security.

The Supreme Court has continued to develop for its use the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) referred to in last year’s report. These KPIs are being used with the existing statistical reports. Currently KPI reports are prepared for the Criminal jurisdiction only. The three KPIs reported here are Backlog, Overload and Cases Cleared. Each of these will be referred to below with an explanation of how they are derived and the position for the year ended 31 December 2003.

Tables 1 and 2 measure the Court's performance for matters committed for trial and matters committed for sentence against its case processing time standards. A gap currently exists between the six month and 12 month standards for trials, indicating that a "bottleneck" may be occurring in the first six months after listing. However, almost 90% of cases are being finalised within the one-year standard.

Performance in relation to the standards for matters committed for sentence is much better. The standard is that 15 per cent of matters are to be finalised within three months and 100 per cent of matters should be finalised within 4 months. The Court is very close to achieving compliance with each of these standards.

Table 2

The standard for trials and for matters committed for sentence is zero per cent, indicating that the Court can maintain a balance between its lodgements and finalisations.

Table 3 shows that the Supreme Court has met its Overload standard of zero percent and has maintained this rate throughout 2003.

Table 3

As depicted in Table 4 below, the Supreme Court is meeting its standard for cases committed for sentence and has done so consistently throughout 2003.

Table 4

Clearance Ratio

This is depicted as Cases Cleared in table 5. This graph is a simple way to analyse the trends in new cases brought before the court each month and the number of cases it finalises each month.

The standard is 100 per cent of matters. Table 5 indicates, that the Supreme Court has maintained the Clearance Ratio standard during 2003.

Table 5

This section of the Report sets out 27 Tables containing statistics relating to the operations of the major jurisdictions within the Court.

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

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) and that 100% of cases should be dealt with within 365 days. Table 1 records the number of cases taking longer than the standard. It shows that the number of cases not being dealt with within 180 days is increasing. However, against the 365 days standard, performance was good. There was a very slight increase in the number of cases not meeting this standard.

The difficulty in meeting the Court’s time standards is, by and large, attributable to matters over which the Judges have little influence. There are, for example, matters such as the resources provided to the Director of Public Prosecutions, funding available to the Legal Services Commission, the resources of the State Forensic Service Centre and the practices of the legal profession. The Judges believe that there is not much that they can do to improve things, but continue to look for ways of doing so.

Table 1

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 (2004) South Australia’s Supreme Court ranked fifth in the nation.

Table 1A presents performance against time standards in each of the main jurisdictions of the Court.

* as at October 2003

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. In 2003, the number of applications for leave to appeal made to the CCA decreased by 5% (n=7), and appeals and applications to the Full Court increased this year, by 14% (n=11) appeals to the CCA decreased by 8% (n=11). The total number of matters disposed of by both the Full Court and CCA hearings increased slightly from the previous year (8%, n=13). These data are displayed in Tables 2, 3 and 4 below.

The average time between institution and setting down for hearing of an appeal to the Full Court decreased in 2003 (16% or n=18 days) as displayed in Table 5 below. This delay is outside the Court’s control and appeals are automatically dismissed if they are not set down within 6 months.

Table 5 also shows that there was a reduction in the time taken from setting down to hearing (decreased by 6 days or 15%) but an increase in the period from hearing to the delivery of judgment in the Full Court (increased by 15 days or 40%).

The Court is currently hearing Full Court Appeals approximately 1 month after the setting down.

Table 6 shows the average length of hearings. In more cases than previously recorded (except for 1999) matters heard by the Full Court consumed close to a full day of hearing time (The sitting day being 5 hours). For the sixth year in a row, the actual times taken were very close to the estimated times allocated.

The work of this jurisdiction occupied the time of between one and two Judges for the whole of the year. Most of the cases are appeals from Magistrates in the criminal (summary) jurisdiction. The other matters 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 cases disposed of by Single Judge Appeals increased from 2002 (increase of 15%).

Table 8 shows the number of matters instituted in the civil jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. There was a slight decline in total lodgements in 2003 (5.6%, n=92), although numbers have increased substantially since 1997. Company liquidation applications again increased by a modest margin this year with current numbers almost double those of 6 years ago.

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 is occupied with judicial review of planning decisions, compensation for compulsory acquisition of land and planning appeals from the Environment, Resources and Development Court. The following is an analysis of the Division’s work in 2003.

The number of summons issued in this Division has remained variable with no particular trends and has ranged from 18 cases in 2000 to 71 cases in 1999. The average number per annum for the last eight years is 42.

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.

The number of civil cases ordered to proceed to trial (excluding "long and complex" cases) increased by 17% (n=7) during 2003 (Table 11). There was a corresponding 17% increase (n=5) in the number of cases disposed of by trial and after fixing a trial date.

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

As at 31 December 2003, 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 reduced for the past seven years. The number of trials that exceeded five days duration remains similar for the last three years (n=6).

There was one case classified as "not reached" during 2003 out of the 49 ordered to proceed to trial. 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 limited the number of cases they listed on any given day. Listing more cases, while increasing the risk of cases not being reached, would almost certainly improve the rate of case disposition over a year. It can been seen in table 11 that less than half of the cases listed are actually heard (23 of the 49 proceeded to trials). 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 to 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 and discovery of documents and other interlocutory steps, and the bringing of these cases to trial at the earliest possible time. During 2003, the Court worked hard to resolve or reduce the number of long and complex trials 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 three in 2003. Eleven cases were disposed of by trial or settlement with eight new cases being added during the year. The number of cases where the length of trial was estimated to be six weeks or more slightly decreased. As a "snapshot," Table 13 shows the range of estimated case lengths, as at 31 December 2003, was between 5–26 weeks, which reflects one matter added to the list with an estimated hearing time of six months. The maximum estimate of 104 weeks in the periods of 1998 to 2001 involved one matter that settled in 2002 after 6 months of sittings. 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 usually not possible to list more than two such cases at any one time, having regard to the demand on resources for the 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. In 2003 six matters were listed during the year, one proceeded with 6 weeks of hearing, another took 12 hearing days before settling, the other four settled at about the time the trial was listed. A total of 32 sitting weeks was set aside for the matters that settled. The Judges of the Court continue to work to achieve the most efficient way of dealing with these cases.

* as at 31 December

During 2003 hearings in court increased but chambers and specially returnable applications before Masters decreased. Overall, the total number of applications was down only slightly from 2002 (decrease of 4%). The reduction by about a third from the numbers in 1997 and 1998 was mainly due to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal taking over the conduct of Housing Trust possession applications in 1997.

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 three years.

# 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 is possible, meet the prescribed time standards.

The joint listing procedures for the Supreme Court and the District Court continued to work reasonably well during 2003. Although there was a decline in the percentage of cases meeting the 180 day standard for the fourth year in a row, the percentage of matters finalised within 365 days is now in the region of 90 – 95% (see Table 22). There has been a steady increase in lodgements (Table 19) since 1998 until 2002, with a slight increase this year.
(n = 4).

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

The number of cases disposed of (Table 20) increased by 12% (n=42) in 2003, and the number of trials outstanding as at 31 December 2003 increased (22%; n=41). In addition, the average length of trial has increased once again (n=8.3) (average for the years 1997 to 2002 was 6 days). In 1997 with 181 trials to verdict (see Table 21) and with an average of 4.9 sitting days, a total of 886 sitting days resulted. In 2003 with 74 less trials (n=107) and an average of 8.3 sitting days per trial, the total sitting time was 888 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 2003

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 where 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 function of the Board of Examiners is to inquire into applications for admission. During 2003 there were 336 applications for admission, down 50 (13%) over 2002 but still up 95 (39%) over the average for the years 1997 to 2003 (average = 241).

* 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. Applicants admitted under this Act decreased by 4 (7%) during 2003. The number of overseas degrees assessed almost doubled from those of the last three years (n=21).

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 December 2003 is nearing completion. It is now expected that by the middle of 2004 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 766 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 proposal to develop a Wills Electronic Register is to provide a 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. Key stakeholders (Public Trustee, Trustee Companies and Law Firms) have been canvassed as to the viability of WER. As part of the November 2003 McGregor Tan Household Omnibus Survey, 3 questions were asked of 400 Adelaide adults for the Courts Administration Authority in order to investigate the incidence of those having a will, together with the likelihood of storing a will electronically and the anticipated cost for that service. The results of that survey were published on 3^rd December 2003 and are presently being evaluated.

Grants of representation may be applied for either through a practitioner or in person. The number of applicants acting without a practitioner has increased over the past few years. There were 253 such applications in 2001, 271 in 2002 and 277 in 2003 with 1,610 telephone enquiries received in 2003. In view of the steady increase in personal applications and the difficulties experienced by applicants in preparing the application an information sheet for their guidance setting out the procedure to be followed has been posted on the Courts website. The information sheet may be obtained by email or hard copy from the Probate Registry.

The Supreme Court Library is a research and reference law library with over 109,000 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, officers of Commonwealth and State Government agencies, self-represented litigants, students and the public.

The library is heavily used — the average number of people entering the library each month is approximately 2,600 and library staff handle 680 requests each month for research assistance at the Reference Desk and on the telephone. Results from a recent client survey in September 2003 indicated that the Supreme Court Library is regarded as the major public law library resource in this State because of its accessibility, comprehensive collection, high level of professional staff service and its photocopying/printing/computer facilities.

Some of the major initiatives during 2003 include:

• Placing online the Supreme Court Criminal Appeals Rules 1996, Corporations Rules 2003, Probate Rules 1998, the Supreme Court Admission Rules 1999 and the LPEAC Admission Rules 1999;

• Active participation in the development of "Judgments Online";

• Providing professional expertise in the development of the proposed JURIS replacement;
• Preparing a report for the development of a national Legal Thesaurus for the indexing of Australian court judgments;
• Providing research expertise to assist in the publication of, History of Law in South Australia 1837-1867 by Ralph M. Hague;
• The interface of the Library’s public access PCs was enhanced by the application of the "Active Desktop" Menus;
• Relocation of the library collection within the Supreme Court Library to allow for four years expansion of the collection; and
• Conducting a library survey to determine future client needs.

The Library’s main focus during the last twelve months has been on the continued development and expansion of electronic services for internal and external clients. In 2003 a contract was negotiated to greatly increase our subscription to Westlaw’s online databases. This provided access to a much larger range of relevant international legal titles that were only previously available in hard copy. As a result, further savings were achieved by cancelling some of this hardcopy material. This reflects the Library’s ongoing strategy of reducing hardcopy titles when electronic versions are available.

DATED this day of Febuary 2004

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