THE CHIEF JUSTICE'S
ANNUAL REPORT
2003 - 2004
THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
REPORT OF
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
ANNUAL REPORT 2003 - 2004
This report is submitted pursuant to s 194H of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932, pursuant to which the Chief Justice is to provide a report to Parliament. This report is to include details as to the administration of justice in the Court during the current year and any other matters that the Chief Justice considers appropriate.
CHAPTER ONE
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
The Supreme Court is the superior court of the State exercising original and appellate jurisdiction. The Court has an extensive original jurisdiction in both State and Federal matters. In criminal matters, the Court tries accused persons on indictable offences. In all criminal matters where a person pleads not guilty, a judge and jury of twelve persons conduct a trial. In civil matters, the Court deals with disputes involving sums in excess of $20,000. Such cases are usually conducted by a judge sitting alone, although provision does exist for cases to be tried by a judge and a jury of seven persons. The Court also exercises jurisdiction under a broad range of Acts.
Appeals from the decisions of a single judge, or a judge and jury, are heard by a bench of two or more judges. This court is called the Court of Criminal Appeal when sitting in criminal matters, and the Full Court when sitting in civil matters.
The Supreme Court exercises appellate jurisdiction over the Magistrates Court and State Tribunals, with a right of appeal lying to a single judge from decisions of Magistrates Courts and most State Tribunals. In some cases, the right of appeal lies only in respect of matters of law.
THE JUDGES OF THE COURT
The Supreme Court Act 1887, s2, provides that the Court consists of a maximum of seven (7) judges. Six judges presently constitute the Court. Those presently holding office are the following:
The Chief Justice:
The Honourable William John Ellis Cox AC RFD ED
The Judges:
The Honourable Peter George Underwood AO
The Honourable Ewan Charles Crawford
The Honourable Pierre William Slicer
The Honourable Peter Ethrington Evans
The Honourable Alan Michael Blow OAM
SUPPORTING THE COURT
THE MASTER AND THE REGISTRIES
The Master:
Mr Stephen Holt
The Master of the Supreme Court is appointed by the Governor in the same manner as a judge. The Master assists the judges in conducting the civil jurisdiction of the Court. He deals with interlocutory and procedural matters and is responsible for case management in the civil jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Master has been altered following the enactment of the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Amendment Bill. (See later under Case Management.)
Principal and District Registries
The Court has three registries. The Principal Registry is located in Hobart and is responsible for the overall administrative policies and functions of the Court’s registries. Other registries are located in Launceston and Burnie. A specialist Probate Registry is located in Hobart.
Registries provide operational support for the Court as well as an information service to legal practitioners and members of the public. Registries receive court documents, arrange court sittings, maintain the court’s records, assist with the administration of the jury system and facilitate enforcement of orders made by the Court.
CHAPTER TWO
THE WORK OF THE COURT
OPERATIONS
General
The work of the Supreme Court is divided into two major jurisdictional areas - civil matters and criminal matters. Unlike many other Supreme Courts, the Court is not divided into divisions. All judges hear matters, at first instance and on appeal, in both jurisdictions. In addition, the Court sits in three locations - Hobart, Launceston and Burnie.
The workload of the Court is subject to fluctuations that are beyond the ability of the Court to control. The nature of the legal process requires that any matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Court may be brought before it. As the jurisdiction of the Court expands and contracts with statutory changes, so does its workload.
Civil Matters
The civil work of the Supreme Court is changing. Since 2000 there has been a significant decrease in the number of personal injury industrial matters following amendments to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 and there has been a substantial increase in appeals from courts and tribunals. These appeals, unlike primary lodgements, are unlikely to resolve and they require a hearing and the publication of a written decision. In addition, although there has been a substantial decrease in the number of trials in civil matters, the length of trial of those matters that are not resolved has increased from an average of 2.5 days in 1995 to 5 days in 2003.
Case Management
Case management of civil matters is primarily conducted by the Master of the Supreme Court under Rules introduced in May 2000. These Rules provide that a directions hearing will take place upon the filing of a defence. Case management under the Rules is limited to non-personal injury matters. Proceedings commenced by originating application that are disputed have been brought under case management rules this year. Any matter may be brought under the case management guidelines at the request of a party, or by order of a judge or the Master.
The judges established a Standing Committee to advise and monitor the effectiveness of case management in civil litigation. Representatives of the Court, the Independent Bar, Plaintiff Lawyers Association, Bar Association, Law Society, DPP and the Medico Legal Society constitute the Standing Committee. The Committee adopts as its objective assisting litigants, the profession and the Court by making recommendations designed to maintain and improve efficiency in the conduct of Supreme Court civil litigation having regard to the following principles:
· It is a paramount responsibility of the profession and the Court to maintain a viable and accessible justice system.
· The duties which legal practitioners owe to the Court and the duties of the Court include a duty to ensure that proceedings before the Court are conducted efficiently and expeditiously.
· Solicitors, counsel and judges are all under a duty to co-operate in resolving disputes sensibly, speedily and economically, without undermining standards necessary for the just determination of the dispute, and with proper regard to the measures necessary to properly advance and protect the client's interests.
· The early and clear identification of the issues genuinely in dispute is critical.
· Clients must be kept informed of issues, risks, timetables, costs and non-litigious avenues for dispute resolution.
· Pre-trial activity should be confined to issues in dispute and undertaken only for the purpose of advancing the proponent's case or discovering and meeting the opponent's case, with interlocutory applications only brought and argued on a reasoned likelihood that their determination will be productive in the efficient overall disposition of the dispute.
· Rules of Court should be complied with unless otherwise agreed and Court imposed orders and directions should be complied with unless varied by the Court.
· Cases should be made ready to be heard as soon as practicable.
· Mediation is part of the process of case management.
· At the trial, evidence, including cross-examination, should be limited to that reasonably necessary to advance and protect the client's interests which are at stake in the case and the court time occupied to be as short a time as is reasonably necessary to advance and protect those interests.
· The way in which litigation is conducted is influenced by professional practice rules made under the Legal Profession Act; Rules of Court made under the Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act and the extent and nature of judicial intervention.
The Committee have met on a number of occasions and their recommendations are currently being considered by the judges before referral to the Rule Committee.
Case Management System
Over the course of the year, planning has commenced to design and introduce a civil case management system for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has been able to secure and retain a portion of fees and charges collected that may now be directed toward the realisation of this important project. As this retention of fees and charges commenced from 1st July 2004, project work will commence in the coming financial period.
Supreme Court Civil Procedure Amendment Bill 2004
At the time of writing this Report the Act had passed through both Houses of Parliament. The Act increases the jurisdiction of the Master and brings that jurisdiction into line with those in other jurisdictions. This will assist to enable the judges to service the increasing workload in the criminal jurisdiction and abolishes the artificial barriers created in the Master's current jurisdiction.
The Civil Case Workload
Civil Lodgements
Commentary:
The preceding graph shows the total number of civil lodgements received in the Court from all sources, excluding probate lodgements. Overall there has been a minor decrease in civil lodgements predominately in the area of personal injury lodgements.
Civil Matters Awaiting Finalisation
(As % of total matters awaiting finalisation, excluding appeal matters)
Commentary:
In this financial year there has been a change in the national reporting methodology in relation to time taken to finalise civil matters. The Report on Government Services' accounting method has changed from time taken to finalise matters (looking at those matters that have been finalised) to the age of matters currently awaiting finalisation. There has been a substantial decrease in older cases awaiting finalisation. This has been partly due to accounting methodology but, more importantly, to active case management, including calling on older cases.
The Contribution Made By Assisted Dispute Resolution
Settlement Conferences Conducted
Commentary:
Assisted dispute resolution processes have been in place in the Supreme Court since 1995. The contribution made by assisted dispute resolution has been substantial.
Not all matters are capable of being resolved at a settlement conference. The conference however, may act as a catalyst for settlement with all parties better able to realistically assess their positions as a result of a conference. This re-assessment process can, and does, lead to the settlement of matters within a relatively short time after conducting the conference.
Although the above graph highlights a marginal decrease in the total number of settlements at conference, the Court maintains a 62% achievement of conferences resulting in a settlement over total conferences conducted. This positive result continues, as in previous years, to relieve the burden on resources that would otherwise affect the operation of the Courts civil caseload.
Self Represented Litigants
The number of self represented litigants continues to grow. Although a number of applications have meritorious cases or, at least, arguable cases, an even larger proportion of matters involving self represented litigants bring matters before the court or make applications which have no merit or are vexatious. This is a waste of the Court's resources and an impost on those parties who are forced into litigation in these unmeritorious claims.
The Court will examine ways to bring to an end at an early stage this type of litigation. Concurrent with this it will develop procedures and information through its web site to assist persons who are unable to obtain legal representation to prosecute or defend their matters.
I am grateful for the assistance offered by the Legal Assistance Office of the Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania who provide an officer at the Supreme Court by appointment to assist litigants, or potential litigants, to provide advice about processes of the Supreme Court of Tasmania.
Probate
Primary Probate Lodgements
Commentary:
The Probate Registry has continued to provide an excellent level of service to Court users with the vast majority of probate matters returned to users within 48 hours of lodgement.
Primary probate lodgements, including Applications for Probate, Reseals and Letters of Administration, experienced a moderate decrease during the financial year to 2078 lodgements, or a 6.2% decrease on the previous year.
Lodgement figures for the past five years are included in the table above.
Criminal Matters
Criminal matters are managed through a co-operative process with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
The Criminal Case Workload
Criminal Lodgements
Commentary:
The Court has experienced a modest increase in the number of criminal lodgements received this year of 32 or 6% from the previous reporting period. Over the past seven years the average annual criminal lodgements received by the court number 589.
Criminal Lodgements by Region
Commentary:
In terms of volume, the Southern region continues to represent 56% of all statewide criminal lodgements with both the North and North West representing a combined 44% of all criminal lodgements.
Criminal Matters Awaiting Finalisation
Commentary:
The number of defendants awaiting disposal at the end of the financial year totalled 233 across all regions. This was a reduction from the previous reporting period of 30 or 11.4%.
The number awaiting disposal in the North West had the largest decrease of 38% with the North showing the identical number for the same period last year. The Southern region showed a minor increase in those defendants awaiting disposal from 107 to 117 or an increase of 4.7%
Jury Trials
Commentary:
Trial statistics for the reporting period show there has been little variance in those matters finalised by trial from last year, with 128 matters finalised by trial compared to 127 for the same period last year.
The regional comparison however shows that there have been reductions in those matters finalised by trial in both Southern and Northern regions, returning to levels experienced in the 2001/2002 financial year. The North West has had a significant increase this year in matters finalised by trial, experiencing an increase of 67%.