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 2004.

On 31 December 2004 the Court was constituted of the following Judges, Masters and Principal Officers:

Chief Justice:
The Honourable John Jeremy Doyle, AC

Justices:
The Honourable John William Perry
The Honourable Kevin Patrick Duggan, RFD, AM
The Honourable Bruce Malcolm Debelle
The Honourable Margaret Jean Nyland AM
The Honourable David John Bleby
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
The Honourable Richard Conway White

Masters:
His Honour Judge Brian St Leger Kelly*
His Honour Judge Peter Bowen Pain, AM*
His Honour Judge Brendan Michael Burley*
His Honour Judge Robert Martin Lunn
His Honour Judge Brian Withers

* As at 31 December 2004, on leave pending retirement in 2005.

Principal Officers:

Registrar Supreme Court:
Ms Edith Bransbury, BA

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

Sheriff:
Mr Mark Stokes AssDipJA

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

Acting Deputy Registrar, Supreme Court:
Mr Errol Surman

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

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

Deputy Manager, Registry Services:
Ms Georgina Stauner, BA

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

Assistant Registrar of Probates:
Mr Michael Prime

Criminal Appeals Co-ordinator:
Mr Kevin Gleeson

Senior Librarian:
Ms Wanda Dillon, BA, (Library Studies)

The Honourable Justice Martin resigned in January 2004 to take up an appointment as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The Honourable Justice Prior resigned in July and was replaced by Justice White in May 2004. The Honourable Justice Mullighan resigned in December upon being appointed Commissioner under the Commission of Inquiry (Children in State Care) Act 2004. He had not been replaced by the end of the year. During the year all three Masters of the Court commenced extended leave preparatory to relinquishing their positions. Judge Bowen Pain will reach the compulsory retirement age early in 2005. Judge Kelly and Judge Burley will retire in 2005 before reaching the statutory age for retirement. In November 2004, they were replaced by Judge Lunn (formerly a Judge of the District Court) and Judge Withers. In future the District Court will provide a judge to sit in the Licensing Court. This work will no longer be done by a Master of the Supreme Court.

GENERAL

The Supreme Court, as a participating Court in the Courts Administration Authority (CAA), has contributed to the Authority’s Annual Report for 2003–2004. The information contained in that report is not repeated here.

The statistics reported in the following pages provide detailed information on the nature of the Court’s work, the amount of that work, and the rate at which the Court disposes of its caseload. That rate is one (but only one) indicator of the Court’s efficiency.

The workload of the Court can be considered as comprising civil lodgements and trials, civil appeals, criminal lodgements (matters for trial, matters for sentence and other matters) and criminal appeals, and miscellaneous appeals. That is not a complete description of the Court’s workload, because it focuses only on the caseload.

The statistics indicate that the Court is disposing of its workload at a satisfactory rate. Comparisons with other Courts indicate this, and our performance in the area of appeals is particularly good. However, the rate of disposition of criminal trials is declining, and is a cause for concern.

The above statement may come as a surprise. When the Report on Government Services 2005 (Productivity Commission, Canberra) was released in January 2005, comment in the print media suggested that the Court was performing poorly compared with other Courts and was inefficient. These comments were wrong.

They were based on Table 6.18 in the Report, which records the "clearance rate" in criminal and civil matters, and enables a comparison to be made with other courts.

The "clearance rate" is not a measure of efficiency. It records nothing more than the ratio of lodgements to dispositions in the year in question. A clearance rate of less than 100 per cent suggests that in the coming year a court’s performance against time standards will worsen, because in the year reported the number of lodgements has exceeded the number of dispositions. Of itself, this fact says nothing about the efficiency of a court.

A better guide to efficiency (at least when measured in terms of the time taken to dispose of cases) is given by considering the "backlog indicator", reported in the same Report. As it happens, Table 6.11 in the same Report discloses that the Supreme Court had the lowest "backlog indicator" in Australia for civil matters, Table 6.9 discloses that in relation to criminal matters its "backlog indicator" was higher than other Supreme Courts. The "backlog indicator" records the number of cases taking more than 12 months and more than 24 months for their disposition. The relatively high "backlog indicator" for criminal matters is consistent with the increasing time taken to dispose of criminal trials.

An examination of each of the cases that took more than 12 months disclosed a minor counting error (that would have reduced the percentage to about 25 per cent), and further that of the 12 cases, five or six of them at least were cases that no-one could reasonably expect to be disposed of in less than 12 months.

It remains the case that there is cause for concern about the increase in the number of cases taking more than 12 months to be disposed of.

This indicates that considerable caution is required in comparing statistics relating to different courts. Considerable caution is also required in drawing conclusions from the statistics relating to a particular court. Generally the rate of disposal of cases and appeals in South Australia is comparable to, and in some areas of work better than, other similar courts. But the Court needs to identify and deal with the reasons for the declining performance in relation to criminal trials.

As to that, there is no single apparent explanation. Careful analysis is required. However, two points can be made that are relevant. Lodgements in the combined Criminal Registry (combining the District Court and the Supreme Court) have increased by almost 50 per cent since 1998, although in the year in question they declined a little compared with 2002 and 2003. The statistics indicate that criminal trials are gradually increasing in length, and, in the experience of the Court, in complexity.

A second relevant matter is that the number of judges was reduced by the Government from 14 to 13 in 2003. That is a significant reduction in the judicial resources available. Moreover, during 2003 and 2004 six judges resigned or retired. In most instances there was a gap between the retirement or resignation and the appointment of a replacement judge. That resulted in a reduction in the judicial resources available in each of those years. That is likely to have contributed to the decline in performance in the area of criminal trials.

I am confident that analysis of the statistics will show that overall the Court is disposing of its workload as well as other courts performing comparable work, and in some areas at a better rate. Of itself, that is not an indicator of efficiency. I am satisfied that, while there is always room for improvement, the Court is working efficiently. I know that the Judges of the Court are working hard. If anything, there is cause for concern that insufficient time is available to the Judges for judgment writing and, a matter of some significance, the reading, reflection and participation in professional development programs that are so important to maintain judicial efficiency. There has been a gradual increase in the number of judgments outstanding beyond the Court’s standard of 60 days, and I know from my detailed knowledge of the Judges’ workload that this is mainly attributable to the pressure placed on Judges to continue hearing cases, even though they have judgments outstanding.

For the fourth year I refer to the unsatisfactory standard of the facilities at the Supreme Court for the public, our staff, the Court itself and the legal profession. Another year has passed, and the Government has not indicated whether it will support a substantial redevelopment of the site. In the meantime, users of the Court building suffer from their inadequacy. Our staff continue to work in premises that, in many respects, are well below an appropriate standard. This has an impact on the efficiency of the Court.

The Supreme Court is a significant public institution. The building in which it is housed should reflect this. Being involved in court proceedings is a stressful experience for most people, and the facilities at the Court should be of a kind that will, as far as possible, minimise that stress. They fail to do so. The contrast between the standard of the Supreme Court buildings, and the Commonwealth Court building in the process of being erected nearby, is a striking one.

The Judges of the Supreme Court, and the judiciary of the other courts of the State, participated during the year in a number of programs arranged by the National Judicial College of Australia. These programs were presented in other States, and enabled judges from different jurisdictions to work with and learn from each other.

The Supreme Court Education Committee has been reconstituted. It is now chaired by Judge Gilchrist of the Industrial Court. Judge Gilchrist is the Regional Convenor for South Australia for the National Judicial College of Australia. It is hoped that his appointment to chair the Education Committee, which provides programs open to all judicial officers in the State, will enable the Court to strengthen its links with the National Judicial College of Australia.

Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Program

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.

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 November 2004, Ms. Debra Axleby was appointed by the Courts Administration Authority as the Aboriginal Initiatives Policy Officer. Her role is to promote initiatives affecting indigenous people. She has planned a workshop with Aboriginal Justice Officers and the Attorney-General’s Aboriginal Community Development Officers for the New Year. She is involved with several committees. She provides project support for the Judges’ Cultural Awareness Committee and is involved with the Cross Border Justice Committee (an initiative of the South Australian, West Australian and Northern Territory Governments). She assists the Administrator of the Authority, Mr. Gary Thompson on issues involving the Aboriginal people. She is also involved with the Justice sub-group of the Anunga Pitjantjatara Yankunytjatjara (AYP) Lands Task Force.

The Joint Rules Advisory Committee (JRAC) comprises two Judges, a Master and the Registrar of the Supreme Court, three Judges, a Master and the Registrar of the District Court, one Magistrate 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 twelfth draft of the Rules, a draft of practice directions (including the forms) and proposed statutory amendments to support the new Rules and practice directions, are now available. It is anticipated that the new Rules will come into operation in the second half of 2005. 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 Harmonised Subpoena Rules Monitoring Committee, a national committee which has been convened by Justice Lindgren of the Federal Court, has agreed upon a uniform rule relating to subpoenas and that uniform rule (subject to some local variations) is part of the twelfth draft of the Rules. The Monitoring Committee is now looking at aspects of the rules relating to the discovery of documents to decide if a uniform rule can be prepared and adopted.

The Community Relations Committee (a standing committee of the State Courts Administration Council) continues to implement a Community Involvement Plan in accordance with the objectives of the Courts Consulting Community Project 2000.

The plan was created in late 2002 and was reviewed in December 2003 and revised again in February and December 2004. It provides for activities designed to:

1. Ensure better understanding of sentencing in the community

2. Engage in two-way information exchange and involvement with diverse community groups

3. Inform self-represented litigants of court processes and procedures

4. Foster user-friendly courts

5. Encourage widespread community understanding of judicial independence

6. Use technology as a community communication tool in court and in chambers

In addition, the Committee is proceeding to establish a Community Reference Group, comprising members of community groups. The first meeting is scheduled for 16 March 2005. It is thought this group could act as a sounding board to determine the merit of initiatives by the Courts that are directed at the community.

The Committee’s membership comprised five judicial officers (Bleby and Sulan JJ, Trenorden DCJ (Chairperson), Magistrates Harris and Rowe), two senior executives (Mr. R Lindsay and Mr. M Stokes) and three specialist officers (the Communications Manager who is executive to the committee) a Courts Education Officer and a Senior Media Liaison Officer. In January 2005, Boylan DCJ replaced Sulan J and the State Courts Administrator joined the Committee. The Committee met 10 times during 2004 and usually meets monthly.

Apart from implementing the committee’s plan, the specialist officers endeavour to link the courts with the community in the ordinary performance of their duties.

Examples of activities to date include:

• Educational Roadshows to regional SA.
• Mock court hearings, judges adjudicating mock cases, community talks in the Murraylands and South East (March 2003), Riverland (August 2003), Kangaroo Island (March 2004) involving around 50 schools.
• Hosting information sessions
• Multicultural SA volunteers (April 2004)
• Members of Parliament and electorate staff (April 2004)
• Legal studies teachers (Conference, August 2003 and 2004)
• Media forum (October 2003 and twice in 2004)
• Guest speaking engagements
• Media interviews (primarily radio talk-back) involving judicial officers
• Monthly contribution to Points of Law column in The Advertiser newspaper
• Community guest speaking/court tour engagements (average of one a month)
• Meetings with representatives of diverse groups within the community
• An information session was held for Multicultural SA volunteers
• Two workshops for staff about Vietnamese Cultural Awareness were held.
• Video of judicial interviews recorded (created as an educational resources for schools and members of the public) shown at Courts Open Day May 2003.
• "Ask the Judge" website pages for students revised and opened (from May 2004) to the general public.

The Committee, through various sub-committees, continued to work on the following as priorities for 2004;

• Development of sentencing scenarios for possible "You be the Judge" activities, for introduction into the community in 2005;
• Development of a foundation document for the self-represented litigant. This document will be for adaptation into information kits across all jurisdictions of the Courts;
• Development of a cultural diversity handbook for use by judiciary;
• An audit of all communications materials within the CAA, checking currency, accuracy, appropriateness for all sectors of the community;
• Redevelopment of "Ask the Judge" for expansion to the general public;
• Introduction in 2005 of a "Courts Challenge" involving the concepts of the Rule of Law and independence of the judiciary, for schools. A pilot was trialled in two primary schools.

The following projects reached finality in 2004;

• A Register of Guest Speakers (details are on the now updated CRC intranet pages);
• A Speaker's Kit;
• The Courts Challenge is available online and has been promoted to all schools by letter;
• The development of the concept of a Community Reference Group, which will meet for the first time on 16 March; and
• The term "cause list" has been changed to "case list" on all public places on the website.

Since 2002 a number of Justice Roundtable Meetings have been convened. Their purpose is for members of the judiciary and court administrators to meet with community groups and representatives of various Government agencies. The concept arose from the Courts Consulting the Community Conference held in 2000. Some of the previous meetings involved the following groups and topics:

• General members of the community and representative community groups – "Courts Consulting the Community"
• Police and Attorney-Generals Department – "Working Relationships"
• Department for Correctional Services – "Court Orders and Reports"
• Various ethnic groups – "Knowledge of the Courts".

The meeting for 2004 involved discussions on "Forensic Mental Health". The Director of Mental Health (Dr. Phillips), the Clinical Director of Forensic Mental Health (Dr. O’Brien) and two project officers attended and presented various strategies both in this State and elsewhere for treatment of patients involved in criminal conduct. Discussion involved communication between the Courts and the health system, alternative processes involving expert tribunals and the high demands that mental impairment legislation placed on psychiatrists and hospitals.

As in previous years, the Chief Justice commented on a number of Bills and legislative proposals on which you invited comment. Some of these were considered by a committee of Judges. In accordance with practice, by and large the comment on these matters was restricted to their practical application, as distinct from policy issues.

The Court has continued to use the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) referred to in previous reports. These KPIs are used in conjunction with the existing statistical reports. The KPIs are designed to give a single figure result for the backlog, the overload and a clearance rate. The KPI reports are prepared for the Criminal jurisdiction only. Each of these will be referred to below with an explanation of how they are derived and the result for the year ended 31 December 2004.

For matters committed for trial, the Court has two standards – cases disposed of within 6 months and cases disposed of within 12 months.

Table 1 records the Court's performance for matters committed for trial against its case processing time standards. Table 1 indicates that about 70% of cases take more than 6 months. Our target is for 20% of cases to take more than 6 months. The performance has deteriorated over the last four years. Until recently about 90% of cases were disposed of within 12 months, but over the last year that number has declined to about 80%. The decline is a cause for concern. There is unlikely to be a single reason for the decline, but the reasons for the decline are unclear. An increase in the length of trials, and an unusual number of long and complicated trials have played a part. The Authority proposes to retain a consultant to investigate this situation. Further comment is made later on this topic.

Table 2 records the Court’s performance for matters committed for sentence. The standard is that 85 per cent of matters are to be finalised within three months and 100 per cent of matters should be finalised within 4 months. In 2004 between 94% and 97% of matters were disposed of within the 4 month target. There is almost no backlog at all.

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. A negative figure indicates that the Court has a capacity to dispose of numbers in excess of matters instituted whereas a positive number indicates that not all cases will be disposed of within time standards.

Table 3 below shows that the Supreme Court has not met its Overload target of zero percent. In 2003 the figure varied between -7% and -3% but in the current reporting period that number has increased to between +2% and +4%.

As shown in Table 4 below, the Supreme Court has been close to meeting its standard for cases committed for sentence although during the year the figure has increased to a positive number (+3%). The number of cases committed for sentence is small in comparison to those committed for trial.

The Clearance Ratio appears in Table 5 below.

The standard is 100 per cent which indicates that the Court is disposing of matters at the same ratio as lodgements are made. Table 5 indicates, that the Supreme Court has a Clearance Ratio that has gone from better than the standard in 2003 to a position just below standard during 2004, fluctuating between 89% and 95%.

This section of the Report sets out a number of 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 of the work of the three registries (Civil, Combined Criminal and Probate), that are not reflected in these tables.

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 6 records the number of cases taking longer than the standard. It shows that the number of cases not being dealt with within 180 days has increased over the last five years. However, about 80 % of cases were disposed of within the 365 day standard. The Court’s performance against the main standard, the 365 day standard, has been good, but the recent decline is a cause for concern. The performance against the 180 day standard is disappointing.

The difficulty in meeting the Court’s time standards is caused by a number of factors, for example, the number of judges available, the number of criminal courtrooms available, the length of each trial and the number of witnesses required for the trial and their availability as well as 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.

A particular factor in the last year or so has been the impact of a number of cases of considerable complexity. For a variety of reasons there was no realistic prospect of dealing with them within 12 months. Those cases, in a relatively small number of cases overall, have a direct effect on the reported figures.

Table 7 presents performance against time standards in each of the main jurisdictions of the Court. The performance is satisfactory, except in relation to criminal cases.

The average time between institution and setting down for hearing of an appeal to the Full Court decreased in 2004 (13% or n=12 days) as displayed in Table 8 above. This delay is beyond the Court’s control. Appeals are automatically dismissed if they are not set down within 6 months.

Table 8 also shows an increase in the time taken from setting down to hearing (increased by 6 days or 17%) but a decrease in the period from hearing to the delivery of judgment in the Full Court (decreased by 4 days or 8%).

The Court of Criminal Appeal experienced an increase in the time taken to grant leave, in the time to hear cases after leave granted and the time to deliver judgments after the appeal hearing. Much of the time taken at the first stage (application for leave) is a result of matters over which the Court has little influence. In a number of cases the appellant was either unrepresented or experienced delay in obtaining funding for counsel, which resulted in a number of hearings before the matter was ready to proceed. After the appellant obtained counsel it was rare for counsel to be ready to argue leave to appeal at the first hearing. Most appeals are heard within 1 to 2 months after leave is granted.

The Report on Government Services 2005 (Productivity Commission, Canberra), (Table 6.9) disclosed that as at July 2004, four States had more appeals than this State outstanding beyond 12 months, ranging between 4.8% and 20.1% of the caseload. Due to a clerical error, the report did not include the figures for South Australia. Only 2 appeals (2.6% of caseload) took longer than 12 months to be disposed of.

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 2004, the number of applications for leave to appeal to the CCA, dealt with by a single judge decreased by 0.8% (n=1). Appeals and applications to the Full Court decreased this year by 5% (n=4). Appeals and applications heard by the CCA increased by 6% (n=8). The total number of matters disposed by Full Court and CCA hearings decreased from the previous year (11%, n=20). These data are displayed in Tables 9, 10 and 11 below.

Table 10 above includes applications for leave to appeal. The figures in Table 11 are matters that were actually heard by the Full Court and CCA. The difference between these tables reflects cases in which leave to appeal was refused, leave applications or appeals were abandoned, or appeals remain unheard at date of report.

Table 12 shows the average length of hearings. The hearing time for Full Court matters consistently averaged between 3 to 4 hours. Estimates are again close to actual sitting times.

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 13 below shows the number of appeals that were disposed of by way of judgement.

The number of cases disposed of by Single Judge Appeals decreased from 2003, but in the civil jurisdiction only (decrease of 10%, n = 20).

Table 14 shows the number of matters instituted in the Civil Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. There was a further decline in total lodgements in 2004 (11%, n=171). The number of lodgements increased from 1998 peaking in 2002 and reduced thereafter. Company liquidation applications follow a similar trend of rising and then falling but with a peak in 2003.

The Land and Valuation Division (LVD) is a 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 specialist nature of this Division enables speedy determination of actions. Hearings involve judicial review of planning decisions, compensation for compulsory acquisition of land and planning appeals from the Environment, Resources and Development Court. During the year 40 matters were disposed of, leaving about 30 unresolved at years end. The majority of disposals were by way of settlement between the parties. Approximately 40% of cases involved Local Government Councils, another 40% involved Government or Government agencies, SA Water Corporation, Commissioner of Highway, Valuer-General and Surveyor-General among them. The remaining matters were disputes between individuals or corporations. A number of actions have involved compensation to property owners when wind farms have been installed.

The following is an analysis of the Division’s type of work from 2002 to 2004.

The number of summonses issued in this Division has varied with no particular trend and has ranged from 18 cases in 2000 to 58 cases in 2002. The average number per annum for the last five years is 32.

The number of civil cases ordered to proceed to trial (excluding "long and complex" cases) decreased by 10% (n=5) during 2004 (Table 17). There was a corresponding 17% decrease (n=4) in the number of cases disposed of by trial and after fixing a trial date.

Table 17: 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 2004, Listing Conferences were able, on average, to provide trial dates two to three months ahead (longer for long and complex trials). Table 18 shows that the average trial length (for cases tried to judgment) consistently reduced during the reporting period. The number of trials that exceeded five days duration reduced this year (n=4).

During 2004, of the 44 cases ordered to proceed to trial, no case was "not reached" due to the unavailability of a trial judge. In order to achieve this outcome, court administrators limited the number of cases they listed on any given day. Less than half the cases ordered to trial were actually heard (19 of the 44), resulting in a number of occasions when a judge had no civil trial to hear at the allocated time. The judge then became available to assist in other jurisdictions or to write judgments. During 2005, the listing ratio of cases to judges for civil matters will be increased, to ensure optimum use of judicial resources, in an effort to offset the impact of settlements prior to the trial date.

Long and complex cases are defined as cases that are expected to take more than fifteen consecutive hearing days or to involve complex issues. 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 2004, 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 long and complex cases had increased by four at the end of 2004. During the year thirteen matters were declared long and complex and added to the list. Nine matters were disposed of, one by trial, the remainder settled. The one trial that did proceed took only 14 sitting days, which is well down from the total sitting days in previous years. During the year eight cases were listed for trial, the total of the estimated sitting time was 61 weeks (over 300 sitting days). Most of the listed matters settled but some were taken out of the trial list prior to the trial date because the parties were not ready to proceed. Of the 20 cases pending at the end of the year, five are listed for trial in 2005 with a total estimated hearing time of 42 weeks. Six matters without a trial date have an aggregate hearing estimate of 51 weeks, and a further seven matters are not at a stage where an estimate can be provided.

Table 19 shows that the range of estimated case lengths, as at 31 December 2004, was between 1–26 weeks, which reflects one matter in 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.

These matters consume a large amount of judicial time in pre-trial management, and sometimes at trial. A significant load is placed on the Court in managing these cases.

* as at 31 December

MASTERS’ JURISDICTION

Hearings in court, in chambers and specially returnable applications considered by the Masters increased by a small margin in 2004 (increase of 2%). The workload has remained relatively stable over the last 6 years.

Table 20: Applications Dealt with by Masters

Caseflow Management in the Civil Jurisdiction changed as from June 2000. The Status Hearing (the first hearing) is used to get the parties ready for a Settlement Conference as soon as possible. If the parties are unable to resolve the matter at the Settlement Conference, they are required to complete the interlocutory procedures, being the Final Directions Hearing, to bring the matter to trial as quickly as possible.

Table 21: Number of Conferences

* 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 their parties, as far as is possible, meet the prescribed time standards (see Table 7).

The joint listing procedures for the Supreme Court and the District Court continued to work reasonably well during 2004. There was a steady increase in lodgements (Table 25) from 1998 until 2003, with some decrease this year (n = 203).

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

The lodgements figure of 1773 in Table 25 refers to total cases instituted in the Combined Criminal Courts Jurisdiction. The Trial List Disposal figure of 364 in Table 26 relates to only those matters disposed after cases have reached the trial list. Many other matters are disposed of without being listed for trial.

The number of cases disposed of (Table 26) decreased by 6% (n=24) in 2004, and the number of trials outstanding as at 31 December 2004 once again increased (14%; n=32). The average length of trial has decreased slightly, but remains at about 2 days (being 25% more) greater than 5 years ago.

This trend resulted in an overall increase in sitting times, for example in 1999, 156 cases were tried to verdict with an average of 6.1 days equating to 951 judicial sitting days. In 2004, 150 cases were tried to verdict with an average of 8.1 days equating to 1215 sitting days. This increase of 264 sitting days is 27% above the number of sitting days in 1999.

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

# Includes non-verdict trial disposals (i.e. dispute as to fact hearings, guilty pleas and nolle prosequi)

The Legal Practitioners Act, establishes the Legal Practitioners Education and Admission Council (LPEAC) and the 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 Supreme Court exercises the power of admitting practitioners except where that function has been conferred on 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 and to report to the Court whether an applicant has complied with the requirements for admission. During 2004 there were 230 applications for admission, down 106 (31%) from 2003. There has been a recent gradual downward trend in admissions, but the average over the seven year period remains at 247, which is close to the current number. Enquiries to the Law Schools confirmed that the numbers qualified for admission did fluctuate from year to year (e.g. 317 in 2002 and 226 in 2003). However, in the longer term the number eligible for admission did match the number admitted, but not always from year to year.

* 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 2 (4%) during 2004. The number of overseas degrees assessed remained constant (n=21).

The largest proportion of the work of the Probate Registry consists in the issue (in non-contentious cases) of grants of probate or administration to estates of deceased persons. In relation to the issue of such grants the Registrar of Probates exercises the powers of the Court in matters prescribed by the Rules of Court.

In the year under review, there were 4755 grants of representation, compared with 4846 in the year before. There were a further 40 interstate or overseas grants from foreign courts that were sealed in the Supreme Court of South Australia, compared with 41 in the previous year.

The Probate Rules 1998 and information sheets for members of the public are available on the Authority’s website (www.courts.sa.gov.au)

All grants of probate or administration issued from the Court are on a register referred to as "The Testamentary Record". This record began in 1844. A grant of probate is the certification from the Court that the will is valid. It also authenticates the appointment of an executor thereby recognising the right of an executor to administer a deceased estate. A grant of administration issues in cases where there is no executor and appoints an administrator to administer a deceased estate. In both cases the grant of probate or administration vests title to the deceased’s assets in the executor or administrator. The Testamentary Record is a public record and copies of probate or administration recorded (including the will) are available for purchase. A copy may be ordered in person or by letter, fax or by email probate@courts.sa.gov.au.

The first stage of a project to scan the testamentary record from 1980 onwards has been completed. The Registry staff use the data base on a daily basis. It is hoped that further funding will be made available in the future to enable the public to search for and obtain a grant of representation via the Authority’s website, having first paid for this service by credit card.

Grants of representation may be applied for either through a legal practitioner or in person. The number of applicants acting without a legal practitioner has increased over the past few years. An information sheet setting out some guidelines, the forms required and other procedural matters has been made available on the Courts website to assist applicants in preparing their documents. This information sheet is also made available by email or by hard copy.

The Supreme Court Library is a research and reference law library with over 111,000 volumes in its holdings. The library adds approximately 1,700 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 use of the library increased in 2004 with the average number of people entering the library each month being over 2,800, compared with 2,600 last year. Further, requests for research assistance at the Reference Desk and on the telephone have also increased from 680 last year to 818 this year.

Revenue generated from library services such as faxing, photocopying and emailing unreported judgments, law reports and journal articles has increased significantly by $2,000 this financial year. Photocopying revenue has also increased by $3,000 this year.

Some of the major initiatives during 2004 include:

• conversion of the hard copy Supreme Court Judgment Indexes from 1968-1986 into electronic form which has the benefit of users being able to find cases electronically in one easy step rather than checking annual hard copy indexes;
• Participation in the Court Administration Authority’s State Courts Library Services Project which commenced in August 2004 and has the objective of developing a model for an efficient, integrated and strategically managed State Courts Library Service;
• Submission of a proposal by the Library Information Services Strategy Committee to the State Courts Administration Council in November 2004 to identify savings strategies in library expenditure;
• Rationalisation of the West Wing shared library collections to accommodate new Associates;
• Re-negotiation of Thomson’s online and LexisNexis contracts to continue the provision of electronic information to internal and external users on an annual basis. The Thomson contract provided further electronic titles for a marginal increase in cost. Some savings were achieved in the LexisNexis contract through the cancellation of infrequently used electronic titles and the identification of unnecessary hard copy duplicated items;
• Participation in the Judgments Online initiative by placing the Court’s judgments online on the CAA’s web site for the public to view;
• Participation in the JURIS Replacement Working Party to provide professional advice on:
• development of business requirements for creation of judgments
• searching capability
• publication and distribution of judgments
• subject description and indexing
• testing of the system and evaluation of faults;
• Placing online the Criminal Practice Directions, Common Form Judgments and Orders, and the Supreme Court Bail Review Rules 1985;
• In September 2004 staff from the SSW Library participated in a successful, co-operative initiative due to a temporary staff shortage in the Supreme Court Library.

One of the major projects undertaken in the Library has been the preparation of Ralph Hague’s manuscript, History of the law in South Australia 1837 - 1867 for publication. The Historical Collection Librarian has been working with Justice Gray and the John Bray Law Chapter of the University of Adelaide Alumni Association toward producing a high quality, illustrated and fully referenced publication.

Due to the rising costs in publishers’ prices of between 10% - 15% each year and despite measures to reduce expenditure, (including cancellations of some subscriptions) the Supreme Court Library’s materials budget was exceeded this year by $76,884. Strategies have been recommended by the Librarians to reduce expenditure in the coming financial year.

DATED this day of March 2005

On behalf of the Judges of the Supreme Court