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 2005.

On 31 December 2005 the Court was constituted of the following Judges, Masters and Principal Officers:

The Honourable Justice Layton was appointed to the bench in March 2005 having replaced The Honourable Justice Mullighan who resigned in December 2004 upon being appointed Commissioner under the Commission of Inquiry (Children in State Care) Act 2004.

The Supreme Court, as a participating Court in the Courts Administration Authority (CAA), has contributed to the CAA’s Annual Report for 2004–2005

The information contained in that report is not repeated here.

I refer yet again to the unsatisfactory standard of the facilities at the Supreme Court for the public, our staff, the legal profession and the judges.

It has been clear for a number of years now that the Supreme Court Building does not provide a healthy and efficient working environment. Many work areas do not comply with occupational safety requirements. Our staff work in conditions that would be unacceptable to many people. Disability access standards are not met. The security of the precinct is not satisfactory. Despite this having been the case for a number of years, the Government has failed to make a commitment to re-develop the precinct, or at least to upgrade it to an extent that will bring it into conformity with current standards.

Over the years during which I have been making this point, the facilities have degraded further. The Supreme Court probably has the worst facilities of any Supreme Court in the whole of Australia. This is an unhappy achievement.

I give some examples. The building in which most of the Judges work has an impressive exterior appearance. But the interior is dilapidated and down at heel. Many of our staff work in a depressing and uncomfortable environment. Salt damp affected areas occur throughout the heritage building and within courtrooms. There is significant over-crowding, with person-workspace ratio requirements frequently not being met. Staff work in facilities that are not conducive to efficiency. They are spread across three separate buildings within the Supreme Court precinct. Two of the Judges and two Masters work in the cream brick building at the rear of the heritage building. This building does not provide appropriate facilities either, and does not warrant the substantial expenditure that would be required to bring it up to a satisfactory standard. The fact that four judicial officers are accommodated in the building contributes to an inefficient working environment resulting from Judges’ chambers being scattered throughout two separate buildings.

Access for the disabled is poor. There are only two courtrooms that have satisfactory access for the disabled. Access to the bench for a disabled Tribunal Member has involved two staff members lifting the person in the wheelchair over stairs. The safety of other court users is compromised because access to some of the busier courts requires lawyers and the public to climb two fairly steep flights of stairs. Often this has to be done carrying heavy books and trolleys laden with papers.

Access to public toilets is quite unsatisfactory. Waiting areas adjacent to courts are inadequate.

We are unable to provide suitable meeting rooms for staff and for Judges. Nor do we have suitable facilities for our staff such as staff rooms.

We do not have adequate facilities to enable clients, witnesses and lawyers to confer in private.

All criminal trials are conducted in the Sir Samuel Way Building. This involves court staff and the Judges having to cross Gouger Street frequently, again often heavily laden with documents and the like. The need to make regular crossings of a busy public thoroughfare, when involved in criminal work, raises real safety issues.

Gaining access to the facilities of the new Commonwealth Court Building is no solution to the problems faced by the Supreme Court. First, to the extent that there is a need for additional courtrooms, the need is for courtrooms in which criminal trials can be conducted. As things stand, the Commonwealth Court Building does not have such courtrooms. Second, requiring the court staff and judges to move from the Supreme Court Building to the Commonwealth Court Building, when conducting criminal cases, would simply replicate the existing problem of staff having to carry documents and records and books along and across busy public thoroughfares on a daily basis.

These are merely examples of the deficiencies of the premises. The public and our staff and the judges should not have to put up with facilities like this.

The contrast with the Commonwealth Court Building in Angas Street is a striking one. The Commonwealth has provided facilities for the public that meet contemporary standards in all respects, and accommodation for the staff and judiciary of the court that meet contemporary standards for a safe and efficient working environment. The failure of the State Government to make a commitment to bring the Supreme Court site to a satisfactory standard presents a striking contrast of attitude to the importance of the administration of justice.

The cultural awareness program, which was developed in accordance with recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, continued during the year. The program operates at three levels, as follows:

Justice Sulan is the South Australian representative on the National Indigenous Cultural Awareness Committee, as well as chairing the CAA Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Program Committee for the Judiciary and CARG. Justice Sulan is assisted by Ms Debra Axleby, who is the CAA Aboriginal Initiatives Policy Officer. Justice Sulan will also be chairing the Indigenous Mentoring Program, which is a newly-formed committee of the Law Society.

The CAA Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Program has hosted two events over the past year. Ms Rosa Garcia from the Migration Museum gave a presentation entitled "19^th Century European and Aboriginal History" to members of the judiciary. The second event held in November 2005 was a meeting of members of the Aboriginal communities in the metropolitan area with members of the judiciary and invited representatives from various government departments. The meeting highlighted many issues of concern within the various Aboriginal communities. Follow-up letters have been sent to all participants who registered their interest in receiving feedback from the meeting.

A third major event is planned for May 2006, when members of the judiciary will visit Ceduna, Yalata and surrounding Aboriginal communities.

CARG has been formed as a reference group comprising mainly representatives from the CAA and the Aboriginal community. Its purpose is to provide advice to the State Courts Administration Council (SCAC). The SCAC draw on that advice to help provide improved services and facilities to Aboriginal people who have contact with the Courts.

The Joint Rules Advisory Committee (JRAC) comprises two Supreme Court Judges, a Master and the Registrar of the Supreme Court, three District Court Judges, a Master and the Registrar of the District Court, two Magistrates one Magistrate and four legal practitioners, including the President of the Law Society of South Australia. JRAC reviews and revises 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.

It is the responsibility of JRAC to ensure that the Rules of Court are appropriate for contemporary litigation and encourage efficiency and procedural fairness in the courts.

A new set of rules for civil proceedings in both Courts has been prepared. There are also practice directions (including forms). Statutory amendments of a fairly minor nature are necessary before the rules can be brought into operation. Those statutory amendments were not dealt with by Parliament and therefore the rules could not be introduced in late 2005 or early 2006. It is anticipated that the statutory amendments will be dealt with as soon as business permits after the State Election in March 2006 and that the new rules will come into effect in the second half of 2006.

The rules allow for authorised electronic communications to and from the Court and, in certain circumstances, for the electronic filing of proceedings in the Court. These rules were introduced in 2002 in the expectation that e-business transactions could become the manner in which many 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. That suspension was lifted on 30 June 2005 and a pilot programme is now operating in both Courts. The Registrars of the two Courts report regularly to JRAC on the progress of the programme.

JRAC liaises directly with the legal profession to ensure that the profession, and those interested in the practice and procedure of the two Courts, are acquainted with any amendments. Members of JRAC speak directly with professional organisations whose members deal with the Courts to acquaint those organisations with the current practices of the Courts.

The Harmonised Subpoena Rules Monitoring Committee, a national committee 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 new rules for civil procedure. The Monitoring Committee is now looking at aspects of the rules relating to what are known as freezing orders and search orders to decide if uniform rules can be prepared and adopted with respect to those matters.

This committee (a standing committee of the SCAC) manages a Community Involvement Plan that provides for activities designed to:

This year, the committee established a Community Reference Group, comprising 10 members of community groups. The group is a consultative group. Its function is to make suggestions to the committee on the committee’s public information strategies and provide feedback about the administrative and support services and business processes of the various courts. The group met three times. Its suggestions have been, where possible, incorporatedare being considered for incorporation into the Community Involvement Plan for 2006.

This year the committee comprised six judicial officers (Bleby J, Senior Judge Jennings, Judge Trenorden (chairperson), Judge Boylan, Magistrates Harris and Rowe), three senior executives (State Courts Administrator Mr G. Thompson, Director and Principal Registrar Magistrates Court Mr R. Lindsay and Sheriff, Mr M. Stokes) and the Communications Manager, who is the executive to the committee, a the Courts Education Officer and the Senior Media Liaison Officer.

The committee meets monthly and this year met 12 times. There are also sub-committees, which met between meetings.

Examples of the committee’s activities this year include:

The Committee has been working towards completion of several projects, including the following:

• a Guide for Self-Represented Litigants in the Higher Courts
• Sentencing exercises suitable for community education through the website
• A review of Ask the Judge on the courts’ website

There will be some changes in the judicial membership of the Committee in 2006, following the resignation of Mrs Rowe and Senior Judge Jennings.

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:

There was no meeting in 2005.

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.

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

For a number of years the Court has compiled Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which indicate trends in the handling of the Court’s work. The statistical reports record lodgements, disposals and time taken at various stages. The KPIs indicate whether the court is coping and can cope in the future with its workload. 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 2005.

For criminal matters committed for trial, the Court has two standards – cases disposed of within 6 months (target 80%) and cases disposed of within 12 months (target 100%).

Table 1 records the Court's performance for matters committed for trial against its time standards. Even though the number of cases pending has reduced the age of the pending cases has increased. It indicates that only about 20% of cases meet the 6 month target. The reasons for the worsening performance over the last few years are unclear. In 2005, there was an increase in the length of trials and an unusual number of long and complicated trials. An increase in the number of trials not being ready to proceed at trial date has played a part.

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 four months. Performance against the standard is satisfactory.

Overload

The standard for trials and for matters committed for sentence is zero per cent, indicating that the Court should meet its performance standards. A negative number indicates that the Court has the capacity to dispose of more matters than the matters being instituted. A positive number indicates that not all cases will be disposed of within time.

Table 3 shows that the overload was a negative number from October 2005 - December 2005. This is a result of lodgments remaining steady with an unusually high number of finalisations in October, November and December. This has not occurred in previous years. As the number of lodgments remained steady, despite the unusually high number of finalisations, there has not been an improvement in the Backlog.

As shown in Table 4 below, the Supreme Court has been close to meeting its standard of 0% for cases committed for sentence. The number of cases committed for sentence is small in comparison to those committed for trial.

Clearance Ratio

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 rate as lodgements are made. A figure above 100% indicates that more cases are disposed of than are received. Table 5 indicates, that during 2005 the clearance ratio has been close to the standard. Late in the year it rose to 120%. The increase in the is due to an unusually high number of District Court matters being dealt with in this time by the Supreme Court. These matters were heard by Supreme Court Judges who became available when Supreme Court trials resolved or were unable to proceed. These matters have been recorded as a lodgement and disposal in the Supreme Court jurisdiction. Because they are in and out of the system in a very short time there has been an increase in clearance rate with no impact on the backlog.

This section of the Report sets out a number of tables containing statistics relating to the work of the Court.

It is important to note that there are other aspects of the Court’s work, and of the work of the two registries (Combined Civil and Probate, Combined Criminal), that are not reflected in these tables.

The time standard for civil trials from listing conference to start of trial has been set at 6 to 8 weeks. In 2004 the actual delay was 8 to 16 weeks. In 2005 the time between listing conference and trial was between 2 weeks and 25 weeks. One particular matter accounted for the 25-week period. The average time delay for matters that were tried or resolved at hearing was 12 weeks. At the end of 2005 cases were being listed for dates 20 to 28 weeks in the future (see the comments under Table 16).

Table 6 presents performance against time standards in each of the main jurisdictions of the Court. The performance is satisfactory for appeals, reasonable for civil trials and declining for criminal cases.

The average time between institution and setting down for hearing of an appeal to the Full Court increased slightly in 2005 but is within the recent range of 80 days to 110 days as displayed in Table 7 above. Appeals are automatically dismissed if they are not set down within 6 months.

Table 7 also shows a decrease in the time taken from setting down to hearing (14%, n=6 days) but a substantial increase in the period from hearing to the delivery of judgment in the Full Court (87%, n=42days). A total of 23 matters had a delay of over 100 days months until judgment.

In relation to criminal appeals there was a reduction 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. Although improved, the times still have not been reduced to the level achieved during the period 2000 to 2003.

Three judges generally constitute the Full Court (for civil appeals) and the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA). Appeals and applications to the Full Court increased this year (9%, n=8). Appeals and applications heard by the CCA increased by 2% (n=2). The total number of matters disposed by Full Court and CCA hearings increased from the previous year (15%, n=24). These data are displayed in Tables 8, 9 and 10 below.

Table 9 above includes applications for leave to appeal. Table 10 records appeal 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 11 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 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 remainder 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 12 below shows the number of appeals that were disposed of by way of judgement.

The number of cases disposed of increased in each category (21%, n = 37). The number is slightly higher than the average over the last 6 years.

Table 12: Disposals — Single Judge Appeals

Table 13 shows the number of matters instituted in the Civil Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. There was a slight increase in total lodgements in 2005 (2%, n=30). This was mainly due to a an increase in the lodgement of summonses (14%, n=138). The number of applications under the Corporations Law fell during the year (31%, n=108). This was probably due to the Federal Magistrates Court now having jurisdiction under the Act.

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 proceedings relating to the development and valuation of land. They include judicial review of planning decisions, compensation for compulsory acquisition of land, appeals from the Environment, Resources and Development Court relating to town planning, and appeals from assessments of the value of land. The specialist nature of this Division enables speedy determination of actions. During the 2005 year 31 matters were resolved. About one-half were resolved by settlement between the parties and the other half by court order. Approximately one-third of all actions involved local governing authorities and a further third involved Government agencies such as SA Water Corporation, the Commissioner of Highways, the Valuer-General and the Surveyor-General. The remaining third were disputes between individuals or corporations.

The following is an analysis of the Division’s active matters from 2002 to 2005.

The number of actions commenced in this Division has varied with no particular trend and has ranged from 18 matters in 2000 to 58 matters in 2002. The average number per annum for the last six years is 32, which is precisely the number commenced in 2005.

The number of civil cases ordered to proceed to trial (excluding long and complex cases) was the same as 2004 (Table 16). There was an increase (26%, n=5) in the number of cases disposed of by trial.

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

As at 31 December 2005, the Court was listing trials five to seven months from the Listing Conference. The Court was often able to offer earlier dates, but parties (for various reasons) asked for later dates. Table 17 shows that the average trial length (for cases tried to judgment) has increased this year, one trial took 31 days and substantially accounted for that figure. The number of trials that exceeded five days duration remained the same (n=4).

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. That task involves handling pre-trial proceedings and, where appropriate, examination of means of alternative dispute resolution.

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 2005, 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.

In 2005 four new matters were added to the list, a further matter from a suspense list was activated. The number outstanding at the end of the year was 13 a substantial reduction from the 20 at the end of 2004. Twelve matters were disposed of, one by trial, the rest being settled. The trial that proceeded took only 13 sitting days (although the estimated duration was 25 days). Another trial commenced in November and took 16 sitting days before being adjourned for further hearing in 2006 (with an estimated 25 sitting days until completion). The total number of sitting days over the last three years is well down from the total sitting days in 2002. During the year six cases were fixed for trial, having a total estimated sitting time of 43 weeks (over 215 sitting days). Of those matters, one was completed, one commenced in November 2005 and continued into 2006, two matters settled shortly before the trial date and two matters were not ready to proceed on the date fixed for trial. One of the matters that did not commence had an estimate of 12 sitting weeks. Of the 13 cases pending at the end of the year, three are listed for trial in 2006 with a total estimated hearing time of 11 weeks. Of those that do not have a trial date fixed, 4 matters have an estimated hearing time of 93 weeks. The remaining four matters are at an early stage where estimates cannot be provided.

* as at 31 December

Hearings in court, in chambers and specially returnable applications considered by the Masters decreased in 2005 to 2,565 (19%, n=601). The workload has fluctuated since 1999 with a peak of 3,404 in 2001. Two factors account for the reduction since 2001. Firstly, the number of proceedings instituted has reduced by 30% (see Table 13). Of the 754 hearings in 2004, 539 related to company matters. In 2005 only 257 hearings related to company matters. Other matters heard in Court increased from 194 to 243. Secondly, the Masters have reported that there has been an increase in early settlement of matters, which has reduced the number of hearings but not the number of matters finalised.

Table 19: 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 20: Number of Conferences

* A "first hearing" records 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 6).

The lodgements figure of 1,964 in Table 24 refers to lodgements in the Combined Criminal Courts Jurisdiction. Most of these matters are dealt with by the District Court. The disposal figure of 388 in Table 25 records those matters disposed of 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 25) increased by 7% (n=24) in 2005. The number of trials outstanding as at 31 December 2005 once again increased (15%; n=38). The average length of trial has decreased. The higher averages of earlier years can be attributed to a small number of trials from 2002 to 2004 in the Supreme Court, which were about 6 months to 12 months duration. For District Court trials only, the average trial length has increased from 5.1 days in 2000 to 6.1 days in 2005. The number of matters heard to verdict went from 113 in 2000 to 132 in 2005. That equates to a further 229 trial days or 30%. These numbers do not include sitting time for trials that did not continue to verdict. The increase in trial outstanding to 229 reflects increasing delays in the District Court. A committee chaired by a Judge of that Court, is examining the problem. It appears that delay by the parties in preparing for trial is contributing to the increasing backlog of cases. The increase in lodgements is almost certainly playing a part as well.

# 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.

LPEAC met on three occasions during 2005.

LPEAC is considering its attitude to the completion of the practical requirements for admission by distance education. LPEAC has not yet decided whether it will accept that distance education is a satisfactory way of complying with the practical requirements for admission. LPEAC decided to defer a decision on the question of principle pending the outcome of reviews, in New South Wales and Victoria, of the suitability of this method of completing the practical requirements for admission.

LPEAC amended its rules to clarify and to simplify their application to employment as a practitioner for the purposes of the requirement under r 3 of the LPEAC Rules that a person is not entitled to practise as a sole practitioner until the person has completed the equivalent of two years full time employment as an employed practitioner. LPEAC also revised the rule relating to a practitioner who applies for a practising certificate three years or more after being admitted or after expiry of a practising certificate. The revised rule deals with the power of the Board of Examiners to require the applicant to undertake further training, and to require proof that the applicant remains a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate.

LPEAC has formed a working party with representatives of the Law School at the University of Adelaide to review aspects of the first year of the degree course in law.

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 12 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 2005 there were 274 applications for admission, up 44, (19%) from 2004. The number of admissions has fluctuated from year to year but the average over the seven year period reported on is 258, which is slightly less than the current year and substantially less than the peak in 2002.

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

The Mutual Recognition Act enables a practitioner who holds interstate qualifications to gain admission in other Australian states. Applicants admitted under this Act increased by 4, (8%) during 2005. The number of overseas degrees assessed has decreased (n=14), but is still within the range of those assessed during the last seven years.

The bulk of the work of the Probate Registry consists of 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 under Rules of Court.

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

When The Probate Rules 1998 came into operation in July 1998 a testamentary summons was introduced. Certain new applications were to be lodged using this summons. The existing CCMS required changes to accommodate the use of the testamentary summons. These changes were never implemented. A business case was put forward to the Executive Committee in 2005 to gain approval to carry out the enhancements to CCMS. The main justification for the enhancements is that testamentary summonses were being recorded incorrectly resulting in inaccurate information being displayed when enquiries were made on CCMS. The major functional aspects of the changes required include a new document type to record a testamentary summons, citations and subpoenas. The anticipated cost of the development and implementation process is expected to be approx. $30,000.00. This involves technical programming work by Fujitsu and covers the planning, analysis, design, coding, testing and implementation. It is anticipated that production testing will be completed in early April 2006 and the enhancements will be integrated by the end of April 2006.

The Probate Rules 2004 came into operation on 1 March 2005. These rules are available for members of the public and law firms on the CAA website (www.courts.sa.gov.au). An information sheet providing assistance to persons making an application for a grant of representation without the assistance of a solicitor is also available on the CAA website. The number of unrepresented persons making applications for grants of representations remains steady with 312 applications being lodged in 2005 (6.44% of the total applications received in 2005) compared with 306 applications in the previous year. In 2005 the registry staff received 2,199 telephone and/or personal enquiries from executors/administrators wishing to represent themselves.

During 2005 the Library Service underwent significant change with the commencement of an amalgamation of the Sir Samuel Way and Supreme Court Libraries into one Library Service. Both of the current library sites will be maintained but the staffing and reporting structures are undergoing a transition towards the establishment of a unified Courts Library Service. During the year the new position of Manager Court Libraries was established and in October was filled by Ms Susan Carter. Initial work has commenced on the development of a new staffing model.

Increases in the costs associated with collection development have continued to place severe pressure on the library’s budget and negotiations have commenced with the library suppliers to help address this problem.

DATED this 10th day of March 2006

On behalf of the Judges of the Supreme Court