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 2006.

On 31 December 2006 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 AM RFD
The Honourable Bruce Malcolm Debelle
The Honourable Margaret Jean Nyland AM
The Honourable David John Bleby
The Honourable Thomas Andrew Gray
The Honourable John Robert Sulan
The Honourable Ann Marie Vanstone
The Honourable Timothy Russell Anderson
The Honourable Richard Conway White
The Honourable Robyn Anne Layton
The Honourable Michael David
Masters:
His Honour Judge Robert Martin Lunn
His Honour Judge Brian Withers

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

Senior Deputy Registrar, Supreme Court:
Mr Errol Surman

Deputy Registrar, Combined Criminal Registry:
Mr Paul Ryan

Senior Client Services Officer - Listings:
Mr Simon De Bortoli

Acting Senior Client Services Officer - Registry:
 Mrs Karen Gillard

Assistant Registrar of Probates:
Mr Michael Prime

Criminal Appeals Co-ordinator:
Mr Kevin Gleeson

Manager, Court Libraries:
Ms Susan Carter

The Honourable Justice David was appointed to the bench in July 2006, following the appointment of the Honourable Justice Besanko to the Federal Court bench in April 2006.

The Supreme Court, as a participating Court in the Courts Administration Authority ("CAA"), has contributed to the CAA’s Annual Report for 2005–2006.

The information contained in that report is not repeated here.

The Court does not have the resources to provide the technology required to achieve the efficiencies that can be achieved with good information technology. One criminal courtroom, shared with the District Court, is equipped for electronic trials, but the Court does not have the funds to use it on a regular basis. Only for occasional long and complex trials are the funds provided by the prosecuting authorities, State or Federal. The Court cannot offer the desired level of technology for ordinary civil and criminal trials and appeals. The benefits of electronic filing, mentioned below, cannot be extended for use at trials or in interlocutory proceedings as things stand, because courtrooms are not equipped with the technology needed. The Court cannot offer remote video link witness facilities or in court video link facilities for bail reviews, or for civil or criminal directions hearings in the Supreme Court building. The facilities in the Sir Samuel Way building are limited. This increases the cost to litigants, including the Crown, and can cause inconvenience and frustration to participants in the court system.

The Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Program, which was established in accordance with recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, continued during the year. Justice Sulan chairs the local Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Committee for the judiciary. Ms Bonnie Wizor has been appointed as the CAA Aboriginal Initiatives Policy Officer, replacing Ms Debra Axleby.

Justice Sulan is a member of the AIJA National Indigenous Cultural Awareness Committee, and chairs the CAA’s Courts Aboriginal Reference Group and the Law Society Indigenous Mentoring Program.

The Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Committee’s major activity for 2006 was a four-day visit to Ceduna, Yalata, Koonibba and surrounding areas. The participants were members of the judiciary (Federal and State), Magistracy, senior CAA staff and Indigenous consultants (both Federal and State). Judge Jim Rota from the District Court of New Zealand also participated.

The itinerary for the visit was designed to maximise informal interaction and discussion with Aboriginal leaders and communities. Discussions were held with various groups including the Ceduna Aboriginal Family Violence Prevention Legal Service, Ceduna/Koonibba Aboriginal Health Service, Maralinga Tjarutja Inc, Weena Mooga Gu Gudba Inc (Aboriginal Women’s Group), the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement, the Dinah Line Inc "Homeland", the Ceduna Far West Aboriginal Sporting Complex, Tjutjura Worka Tjuta ("TWT") Inc and CDEP ("work for the dole" program). A report and DVD were subsequently prepared and distributed.

The Committee is formulating its program for 2007 and has two seminars planned (March and August 2007). Professor Larissa Behrendt (Professor of Law and Director of Research at the Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning at the University of Technology, Sydney) will present the March seminar.

A visit to the Coorong is planned for November 2007.

The Joint Rules Advisory Committee ("JRAC") comprises two Judges, a Master, the Registrar and the Senior Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court; three Judges, a Master and the Registrar of the District Court; one Magistrate; the President of the Law Society; and three legal practitioners.

The role of JRAC is to prepare, review and revise the Rules of Court, made pursuant to the Supreme Court Act and the District Court Act. The Rules regulate the procedures of and practice in the Supreme and District Courts. JRAC also has a role in preparation, review and revision of the Practice Directions of both the Supreme and District Courts.

It is JRAC’s responsibility to ensure that the Rules of Court and Practice Directions are adequate to deal with the requirements of contemporary litigation, and to assist in the efficient running of the courts.

In order to ensure that the legal profession is informed of amendments made to Rules and Practice Directions, and to ensure that any such amendments reflect practical needs, JRAC liaises directly with the profession by consulting with professional organisations such as the Law Society and the Bar Association.

On 4 September 2006 the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 and the District Court Civil Rules 2006, together with new Practice Directions, came into effect. The new Rules represent a major change from the previous Supreme Court Rules 1987 and District Court Rules 1992. They are the culmination of a substantial amount of work by JRAC, the Judges of both Courts and of the former Parliamentary Counsel, Mr G Hackett-Jones QC, and other staff in his office.

As part of the introduction of the 2006 Rules, members of JRAC participated in a seminar conducted by the Law Society at Elder Hall on Saturday 26 August 2006. The aim of the seminar was to assist members of the profession to make the transition from the former Rules to the new Rules.

In addition to the new Civil Rules, amendments were made to the Supreme Court Criminal Rules 1992, the District Court (Criminal and Miscellaneous) Rules 1992 and to the Supreme Court Criminal Appeal Rules 1996.

The e-filing pilot program, which commenced in 2005 in both the Supreme and District Courts, is continuing. The program involves twelve firms from the Adelaide area filing documents at the court electronically. To-date, its usage has been limited and less than expected. Participants in the program have been consulted about their experiences with its operation, with a view to improving the program and encouraging its use. This process will continue in 2007.

A member of JRAC is a member of the national committees, chaired by Justice Lindgren of the Federal Court, which are harmonising the civil procedure rules on related topics. It is expected that the uniform rules concerning freezing and search orders will be incorporated into the Supreme and District Court Civil Rules in the coming year.

This year the Community Relations Committee ("CRC") comprised five judicial officers (Justice Bleby, Judge Trenorden (chairperson), Judge Boylan, Judge Hannon and Magistrate Harris); three senior executives (State Courts Administrator Mr G. Thompson, Director and Principal Registrar Magistrates Court Mr R. Lindsay and Sheriff, Mr M. Stokes); the Communications Manager, who is the executive officer to the committee; the Courts Education Officer (Mr P. Cavouras) and the Senior Media Liaison Officer (Mr T. Anderson). The vacancy left by the retirement of Youth Court Magistrate Rowe has not yet been filled.

The CRC meets monthly and met twelve times in 2006. There are also sub-committees, which met between meetings.

The CRC undertook several activities during 2006:

• The CRC is conducting a major review of the Ask the Judge website, through which students can ask questions about the court system that are answered by members of the judiciary. This online resource is unique in Australia.
  

• Annual Media Forum. This is a lunchtime forum attended by representatives from the news media, heads of judiciary, registrars and CRC members.
  

• Educational sessions including school visits, teacher professional development workshops to inform teachers about court processes as well as holding training days for teachers.
  

• Mock sentencing exercises. An exercise was conducted for the Legal Education Teachers Association. The CRC has investigated the possibility of supplementing public mock sentencing exercises with an online interactive sentencing exercise to operate from the CAA’s website. The project will not continue in an online format due to a lack of resources, however a model for a sentencing exercise is being considered, based on a program developed by the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council.
  

• Educational "roadshows" to regional South Australia, including a two-day schedule involving three regional schools. Since the commencement of the roadshows in 2002 most regions of South Australia have been visited.
  

• The CRC, in early 2006, completed a comprehensive "Guide for Unrepresented Litigants" which was prepared by Senior Judge Jennings, Judge Herriman and Justice Debelle, for the assistance of litigants in person in the Supreme and District Courts. That document is now available on the CAA website. Progress is now being made on producing a visually attractive and more readable version. Guidelines to assist judicial officers dealing with litigants in person have also been made available.

In 2006 the CRC revised the Community Involvement Plan ("CIP"), which reflects one of the aims of the CAA’s Strategic Plan to "increase the community’s understanding of the operation of the courts and provide more avenues for community feedback into the operations of the courts". The CIP is now part of the Strategic Plan. It has three main themes:

1. Enhance communication between the CAA and the community;

2. Promote a better understanding of sentencing in the community;

3. Enhance public understanding of the justice system.

The CRC is planning community information days at new court facilities at Port Pirie, Victor Harbor, Port Lincoln, Berri and Port Augusta. It also proposes to distribute to the general public a newsletter containing topics suggested by members of the Authority’s Community Reference Group, aimed at providing more information to the wider community about the courts and the activities that take place within the CAA.

The Community Reference Group ("CRG") is now in its second year. Membership of the CRG has increased to 10, with representatives from the following organisations:

Country Women’s Association, Victims Support Service Inc, Offenders Aid & Rehabilitation Services of SA Inc, Youth Affairs Council of South Australia, South Australian Multicultural & Ethnic Affairs Commission, Council on the Ageing, Mental Illness Fellowship of South Australia, the Australian Council of Social Services and the Aboriginal Prisoners & Offenders Support Service.

The CRG includes two members from the CRC. This year they were Judge Trenorden (chairperson) and Magistrate Harris. The Communications Officer is the executive officer to the CRG. There were two meetings this year, in March and September.

The concept of Justice Roundtable Meetings arose from the Courts Consulting the Community Conference held in 2000. Their purpose is for members of the judiciary and court administrators to meet with community groups and representatives of various Government agencies.

No meeting was held in 2006, however, a second "Courts Consulting the Community" conference was held in November 2006. Discussions and suggestions made at the conference will be integrated into the Authority’s strategic plan, and are expected to form topics for Roundtable meetings in 2007.

The Judicial Education Reference Group is chaired by Justice Layton. It is composed of judicial officers from the Supreme, District and Magistrates Court and representatives from the Justice Strategy Division, Department of Justice; from the Office of the Department of Public Prosecutions; from the Attorney-General’s Department; from the Child Projection Services of the Flinders Medical Centre and from Optima Psychologists and Mediators Clinical Psychology Practice. This Group conducted a second workshop for judicial officers in South Australia on the topic of child witnesses. The workshop is designed to facilitate an understanding by judicial officers of the needs of child witnesses and to provide best practice information to guide their approach to child witnesses in a courtroom. The workshop runs for 1½ days. Presenters came from both within the State and interstate. The second course was attended by 12 judicial officers. The program has been very successful and it is hoped that the National Judicial College of Australia will adapt the workshop for use nationally. The Group is considering undertaking similar workshops on another topic.

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

For a number of years the Court has used Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to indicate trends in the handling of the Court’s work. Other statistical reports record lodgements, disposals and time taken at various stages. The KPIs indicate whether the court is coping and is expected to cope with its workload. The KPI reports are prepared for the Criminal jurisdiction only. Each of these is referred to below with an explanation of how they are derived and the result for the year ending 31 December 2006.

In the criminal jurisdiction, two timeliness standards are applied. The first of these is that "no more than 10% of lodgements pending completion are to be more than 12 months old". The second is that "no lodgements pending completion are to be more than 24 months old".

The lodgement figures reported for the criminal jurisdiction include matters committed for trial, matters committed for sentence, breach of bond matters, matters transferred from summary court, ex-officio's laid and various other minor applications.

A data cleansing process undertaken in 2006 established that a large number of lodgements had been incorrectly reported as being unfinalised. This error has now been corrected on the database. This is reflected by the large reduction of unfinalised lodgements more than 24 months old shown in Table 1.

Table 1 indicates that the number and proportion of lodgements that are more than 12 months old has increased, from 18% in 2005 to 22% this year. The deterioration in performance against the standard has been a concern for several years. Various measures are being taken in an attempt to grapple with the problem.

Table 1 – Combined (Supreme Court and District Court) Criminal Jurisdiction – Backlog of Lodgements

Table 2 shows that the backlog of lodgements in the Supreme Court has reduced. In 2006, the majority of criminal trials proceeded at first listing, and a number of older cases were finalised, which has contributed to the reduction in backlog.

Table 2 – Supreme Court Criminal Jurisdiction - Backlog of Lodgements

Table 3 shows an improvement in the backlog of matters going to appeal. There are currently no appeal matters older than 12 months.

Table 3 – Supreme Court Criminal Backlog- Appeals

Clearance Ratio

The Clearance Ratio is the ratio of lodgements to finalisations over a reporting period. This indicates whether the court is heading for, keeping out of, or getting out of ‘trouble’ in terms of meeting time standards in the future.

The standard is 100 per cent, which indicates that the Court is disposing of matters at the same rate as lodgements occur. A figure above 100% indicates that more cases are disposed of than are received.

Table 4 indicates that the lodgements for the combined criminal jurisdiction have increased. While the courts disposed of more cases than in 2005 they did not dispose of as many cases as were lodged with the court, adding to the backlog of cases.

Table 4 – Combined (Supreme Court and District Court) Criminal Jurisdiction – Clearance Ratio

As reflected in the backlog indictor and in Table 5 below, the Supreme Court is currently disposing of matters at a rate exceeding lodgements. This means that the Supreme Court is reducing the backlog of older cases.

Table 5 – Supreme Court Criminal Jurisdiction Clearance Ratio

Table 6 indicates that in 2006, the number of appeal finalisations fell below the number of lodgements.

Table 6 – Supreme Court Criminal Clearance – Appeals

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 2005 the time varied from 2 to 25 weeks. In 2006 the time between listing conference and trial was between 3 weeks and 28 weeks. The average time was about 15 weeks. At the end of 2006 cases were being listed for dates 20 to 28 weeks in the future. The court was able to offer earlier dates, but often the parties asked for later dates.

*as at October 2006

Table 8 - Full Court and Court of Criminal Appeal Average Time Intervals

The average time between institution and setting down for hearing of an appeal to the Full Court increased slightly in 2006 (3%, n=3). Appeals are automatically dismissed if they are not set down within 6 months.

Table 9.- Leave to Appeal Applications to the CCA

Table 10 includes applications for leave to appeal whilst Table 11 records appeals that were 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 - Disposals by Hearing

Table 12 shows the average length of hearings.

Table 12 - Full Court - Average Hearing Lengths

The work of this jurisdiction is usually conducted by one judge for each month with occasional assistance from another judge. Appeals from Magistrates in the criminal (summary) jurisdiction outnumber civil appeals, by approximately two to one. The Civil appeals are from Masters of this Court, from 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 overall decreased (6%, n = 13).

Table 13 - Disposals - Single Judge Appeals

Table 14 shows the number of matters instituted in the Civil Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. There was a very slight increase in total lodgements in 2006 (2%, n=27). The increase in the lodgement of summonses was nominal (0.8%, n=9) as was the decrease in the number of companies applications (3%, n=5)

Table 14 - Civil Jurisdiction - Matters Instituted

The Land and Valuation Division ("LVD") is a specialist division of the Court. Three judges (Debelle, Bleby and Besanko JJ) heard actions in the Division until Besanko J left the Court in March 2006. Since then Debelle and Bleby JJ have managed the LVD list. The Division hears a variety of actions relating to land issues. The specialist nature of this Division enables speedy determination of actions. Hearings include judicial review of planning decisions, compensation for compulsory acquisition of land, and planning appeals from the Environment, Resources and Development Court. During the 2006 year 12 actions were disposed of, leaving 30 unresolved. Approximately one-third of all actions involved Local Government Councils, and a further third involved Government agencies such as the Commissioner of Highways, the Valuer-General and the Surveyor-General. The remaining third of matters were disputes between individuals or corporations.

The following is an analysis of the Division’s active matters from 2003 to 2006.

The number of actions commenced in this Division has varied with no particular trend and has ranged from 17 actions this year to 58 cases in 2002. The average number per annum for the last six years is 32.

Table 16 - LVD Actions Commenced

The number of civil cases ordered to proceed to trial (excluding long and complex cases) reduced in 2006 (18%, n=8) (Table 17) Consequently the number disposed of and the number pending trial at the end of year was reduced.

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 2006, the Court was listing trials 6 to 7 months from the Listing Conference. On most occasions the Court was able to offer earlier dates, but parties (for various reasons) asked for later dates. Table 18 shows that the average trial length (for cases tried to judgment) has decreased by from last year. Last year’s increase was attributed to one trial that took 31 days.

Table 18 - Civil Trial Details

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 aims to achieve a rapid identification of the issues, to minimise costly pre-trial processes and to bring these cases to trial at the earliest possible time.

During 2006, the Court heard and ruled on many pre-trial arguments and heard numerous management conferences on all matters in the list. A number of matters were also referred for mediation and consequently resolved without trial. Most of the conferences were of an hour’s duration or less. However, where issues had to be argued, hearing some applications lasted a day or more. Two of these actions were heard and determined. Six other actions were compromised and discontinued.

In 2006 11 long and complex matters were added to the list, a significant increase above the four matters added in the previous year. Thus, a total of 24 matters were managed throughout the year. Of those 24 maters eight matters were disposed of during the year leaving 16 matters outstanding as at 31 December 2006. Two matters were finalised by way of trial and occupied 13 sitting days and 38 sitting days respectively, whilst the other six matters settled. An additional three trials commenced in 2006 and are to continue in 2007. These continuing trials accounted for a further 50 sitting days in 2006, the total sitting days therefore totalled 101.

Of the matters outstanding one part heard matter has an estimate of about 9 months to completion, five matters have estimates of 3 weeks to 6 months hearings. The remainder are not yet in a position to be listed so that no estimate of duration of the trial can be made at this stage.

Hearings in court, in chambers and specially returnable applications considered by the Masters increased in 2006 to 2,797 (9%, n=232). The number of In Court hearings has increased (16%, n=83) and similarly Possession applications (8%, n=149). There has been a reduction in the number of hearings for Specially Returnable applications over the past two years, and an overall decline in the number of company applications since 2000 as reported in Table 14.

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

Table 22 - Conference Results

Table 23 - Contentious Bills — Masters’ Jurisdiction

Table 24 - Non-Contentious Bills — Registrar’s Jurisdiction

* The counting rules in relation to lodgements were varied slightly in 2006 in line with the 2005-2006 CAA Annual report. As a result of this some lodgement types that were previously counted have been excluded, i.e. Bench Warrants, Change of plea, Change of venue, and re-trials.

The lodgements figure of 1,921 in Table 25 refers to lodgements in the Combined Criminal Courts Jurisdiction. Most of these matters are dealt with by the District Court.

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

Table 27 - Combined Criminal — Length of Trials Proceeding to Verdict

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 the Supreme 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 five occasions during 2006.

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.

In 2007 LPEAC will conduct a review of the degrees in law offered by the University of Adelaide and Flinders University, and the Graduate Diploma of Legal Practice offered by the Law Society of South Australia, for the purpose of LPEAC satisfying itself that they meet the requirements of the LPEAC Rules. LPEAC is waiting for information to be made available from internal reviews conducted by the Adelaide and Flinders Universities in 2006 before deciding how it will approach the review of each course. In the coming year LPEAC will begin discussions with the committee responsible for the GDLP course to determine how LPEAC might best undertake a further review of that course.

During 2006 LPEAC was asked by the University of South Australia to decide whether a degree in law be offered from 2008 meets the requirements of the LPEAC Rules. LPEAC has begun that process.

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 2006 there were 244 applications for admission, decreasing (n= 30)(11%) from 2005. The number of admissions has fluctuated from year to year over the five year period reported on and in the last three years has been substantially less than the peak in 2002.

Table 28 - Applications for Admission
(not including applications under mutual recognition)

The Mutual Recognition Act enables a practitioner who holds interstate qualifications to gain admission in other Australian states. During 2002 applicants admitted under this Act increased by (19%, n=10). The number of overseas degrees assessed has increased (86%, n=12), being the highest number in many years.

Table 29 - Mutual Recognition Applications

Table 30: Mutual Recognition — Applications by State

Table 31 - Overseas Degrees Assessed

The main 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 in matters prescribed by the Rules of Court.

In the year under review, there were 4,727 grants of representation, compared with 4,743 in the year before. There were a further 43 interstate or overseas grants from foreign courts that were sealed in the Supreme Court of South Australia compared with 40 in the previous year.

During 2006 a new model of Library staffing was developed and following a successful pilot was endorsed and implemented. A net reduction in the total library staffing of 2 FTE positions has been achieved without any reduction in service levels.

The increasing costs associated with collection development have been curtailed with the negotiation of fixed price annual contracts with the Library’s major suppliers, better utilisation of the collection and closer regulation of total library expenditure.

A Library Advisory Committee made up of representative of all major stakeholders has also been established to increase governance and assist with the strategic development of the Library Service. Work has also commenced on preparing a Collection Development Policy that will provide a framework for decisions on the future development of the collection and provide guidelines for the selection and retention of library material.

CHIEF JUSTICE
On behalf of the Judges of the Supreme Court