PDF 0.4 MB

6 Court administration
This chapter covers the performance of court administration for State and Territory
supreme, district/county and magistrates (including children’s) courts, electronic
courts, coroners courts and probate registries. It also covers the performance of
court administration for the Federal Court of Australia, the Federal Magistrates
Court, the Family Court of Australia and the Family Court of WA. The focus of this
Report is on the administration of the courts, not the outcomes of legal processes.
A profile of court administration is presented in section 6.1. The framework of
performance indicators is outlined in section 6.2 and data are discussed in
section 6.3. Future directions for performance reporting are discussed in section 6.4.
Jurisdictions’ comments are provided in section 6.5, followed by definitions in
section 6.6.
Supporting tables
Supporting tables for chapter 6 are provided on the CD-ROM enclosed with the
Report. The files are provided in Microsoft Excel format as
\Reports\2005\Attach6A.xls and in Adobe PDF format as Attach6A.pdf.
Supporting tables are identified in references throughout this chapter by an ‘A’
suffix (for example, table 6A.3 is table 3 in the electronic files). These files can be
found on the Review web page (www.pc.gov.au). Users without Internet access can
contact the Secretariat to obtain these tables (see details on the inside front cover of
the Report).
6.1 Profile of court administration services
Service overview
Court administration agencies throughout Australia provide a range of services
integral to the effective performance of the judicial system. The primary functions
of court administration agencies are to:
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.1

• manage court facilities and staff, including buildings, security and ancillary
services such as registries, libraries and transcription services
• provide case management services, including client information, scheduling and
case flow management
• enforce court orders through the sheriff’s department or a similar mechanism.
Roles and responsibilities
State and Territory court levels
There is a hierarchy of courts within each State and Territory. The supreme court
hears disputes of greater seriousness than those heard in the other courts. It also
develops the law and operates as a court of judicial review or appeal. For the
majority of jurisdictions, the hierarchy of courts are as outlined below (although
Tasmania and the territories do not have a district/county court):
• the supreme court
• the district/county court
• the magistrates court.
Within certain court levels, a number of specialist courts (such as drug courts and
children’s courts) aim to improve the responsiveness of courts to the special needs
of particular clients. Tribunals can also improve responsiveness and assist in
alleviating the workload of courts — for example, small claims tribunals may assist
in shifting work away from a magistrates court.
Differences in court jurisdictions, along with the use of specialist courts and
tribunals, can mean that the allocation of cases to courts varies across states and
territories (boxes 6.1–6.3). As a result, the seriousness and complexity of cases
heard in each jurisdiction’s equivalent court often vary. Any performance
comparison needs to account for these factors.
6.2 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

Box 6.1
Criminal
Magistrates court jurisdiction across states and territories
All magistrates courts deal with criminal matters that can be decided without a jury and
committal proceedings. There are, however, differences across jurisdictions:
NSW: Deals with matters with a maximum penalty of up to two years imprisonment for
a single offence, and up to five years imprisonment for multiple offences.
Victoria: Hears and determines some indictable offences (if the court is of the opinion
that the charge is appropriate to be dealt with summarily, and the defendant consents).
Queensland: Deals with matters with a maximum penalty of up to three years
imprisonment, including some indictable offences dealt with summarily.
WA: Hears and determines some indictable offences (if the court is of the opinion that
the charge can be dealt with summarily).
SA: Deals with matters with a maximum penalty of up to two years imprisonment,
juvenile prosecutions and intervention orders (including breaches).
Tasmania: Deals with matters with a maximum penalty of up to two years
imprisonment, including some indictable offences dealt with summarily.
ACT: Deals with matters with a maximum penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment if the
offence relates to money or property, and up to 10 years imprisonment in other cases.
NT: deals with some drug and fraud charges and matters with a maximum penalty of
up to 10 years imprisonment (or 10–14 years imprisonment if the accused consents).
Civil
NSW: Deals with small claims up to $10 000 and general division claims up to $60 000,
as well as family law matters.
Victoria: deals with up to $100 000 for monetary damages, as well as applications for
equitable relief and applications under the Crimes (Family Violence) Act 1987.
Queensland: Deals with small claims (including residential tenancy disputes) up to
$7500, minor debt claims up to $7500 and other claims up to $50 000.
WA: Deals with claims for debt recovery and damages (other than personal injury) up
to $25 000. It has a small disputes division and deals with residential tenancy disputes.
SA: Deals with small claims up to $5000, commercial cases up to $30 000 and
personal injury claims up to $60 000.
Tasmania: Deals with claims up to $20 000 for monetary damages and debt recovery,
minor civil claims up to $5000, residential tenancy disputes and restraint orders.
ACT: Deals with small claims up to $10 000, workers compensation claims, some
family law matters, other claims up to $50 000 and matters under the Domestic
Relations Act 1994.
NT: deals with claims up to $100 000 and workers compensation claims.
Sources: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments.
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.3

Box 6.2
District/county court jurisdiction across states and territories
The district/county court does not operate in Tasmania, the ACT or the NT.
Criminal
All State district/county courts have jurisdiction over indictable criminal matters (such
as rape and armed robbery) except murder and treason, but differences exist across
jurisdictions. The following are examples of the jurisdiction of the criminal
district/county courts:
NSW: District Court deals with most of the serious criminal cases that come before the
courts in NSW. It has responsibility for indictable criminal offences that are normally
heard by a judge and jury, but on occasions by a judge alone. It does not deal with
treason or murder.
Victoria: County Court deals with all indictable offences, except the following (which
must be heard in the Supreme Court): murder; attempted murder; child destruction;
certain conspiracy charges; treason; and concealing an offence of treason. Examples
of criminal offences heard in the County Court include: drug trafficking; serious
assaults; serious theft; rape; and obtaining financial advantage by deception.
Queensland: District Court deals with more serious criminal offences than heard by the
Magistrates Court — for example, rape, armed robbery and fraud.
WA: District Court deals with any indictable offence except those that carry a penalty of
life imprisonment.
SA: District Court has jurisdiction to try a charge of any offence except treason or
murder. Almost all matters have been referred following a committal process in the
Magistrates Court.
Appeals from magistrates courts are heard in the district/county courts in NSW, Victoria
and Queensland, but not in WA and SA.
Civil
All district/county civil courts hear appeals.
NSW: Deals with claims up to $750 000, and unlimited claims in motor accident cases.
Victoria: Deals with damages for non-personal injuries claims up to $200 000, appeals
under the Crimes (Family Violence) Act 1987, unlimited claims for compensation
resulting from injury or death, adoption matters and change-of-name applications.
Queensland: Deals with claims between $50 000 and $250 000.
WA: Deals with claims up to $250 000 and unlimited claims for personal injuries.
SA: Deals with unlimited claims for general and personal injury matters.
Sources: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments.
6.4 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

Box 6.3
Criminal
Supreme court jurisdiction across states and territories
All State and Territory supreme courts have jurisdiction over serious criminal matters
such as murder, treason and certain serious drug offences, but significant differences
exist across jurisdictions:
• Given that district/county courts do not operate in Tasmania, the ACT or the NT,
the supreme courts in these jurisdictions generally exercise a jurisdiction equal to
that of both the supreme and district/county courts in other States.
• The Queensland Supreme Court deals with a significant amount of minor drug
matters, which supreme courts in other states and territories do not hear.
• In the NSW Supreme Court, almost all indictments are for offences of murder and
manslaughter, whereas the range of indictments routinely presented in other states
and territories is broader.
All State and Territory supreme courts hear appeals, but the amount and type of
appeals vary because only NSW, Victoria and Queensland hear appeals in their
district/county court.
Civil
All supreme courts deal with appeals and probate applications.
NSW: Deals with unlimited claims. The court’s jurisdiction is usually confined to
complex cases, including matters involving large monetary sums, test cases,
administrative law, defamation, possession/mortgage, professional negligence,
commercial, technology and construction cases, and the administration of corporations,
partnerships and trusts.
Victoria: Deals with unlimited claims.
Queensland: Deals with claims over $250 000 and administrative law matters.
WA: Court deals with unlimited claims.
SA: Deals with general claims of more than $30 000, personal injury claims of more
than $60 000 arising from motor vehicle accidents, and the possession of property of
more than $60 000 value. Cases awarded less than the amounts shown are subject to
cost penalties.
Tasmania: Deals with unlimited claims.
ACT: Deals with unlimited claims.
NT: Deals with unlimited claims, as well as mental health, family law and Coroners Act
1993 applications.
Sources: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments.
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.5

State and Territory court levels — specific elements
The data in this chapter are reported by each State and Territory court level. In
addition, the chapter separates out certain data items from each court level to
improve the comparability and understanding of the data presented. In certain
instances, the data sets from the following areas are reported separately from their
court level:
• probate registries (separate from the supreme court level)
• children’s courts (separate from the magistrates court level)
• electronic courts (separate from the magistrates court level)
• coroners courts (separate from the magistrates court level).
The following section outlines the role of these areas and their coverage within each
State/Territory.
Probate
In all jurisdictions, probate issues are heard in supreme courts and encompass
applications for the appointment of an executor or administrator to the estate of a
deceased person. The two most common types of application are:
• where the executor nominated by a will applies to have the will proved
• where the deceased died intestate (without a will) and a person entitled to
administer the estate applies for letters of administration.
Children’s courts
In all jurisdictions, the children’s court deals with all complaints of offences alleged
to have been committed by young people (with the minimum age varying across
jurisdictions). The children’s court also hears matters if a child has been seriously
abused or neglected; in these instances, the court has jurisdiction to determine
matters relating to the child’s care and protection.
Electronic courts
Electronic courts operate to process infringements, on-the-spot fines and summary
offences. They have the status of courts (despite minimal judicial involvement),
because they have the capacity to produce enforceable orders against defendants.
The orders impose penalties such as fines (which may be enforced by warrants or
6.6 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

licence cancellation), asset seizure, garnishment, arrest, community correction
orders and incarceration.
Electronic courts included in the scope of this data collection operate in Victoria,
Queensland, WA and SA. In these jurisdictions, the electronic court comes under
the ambit of the magistrates court, but the workload and expenditure of the
electronic courts have been separately identified to allow for a more comparable
interpretation of magistrates court data. In other jurisdictions, the magistrates court
may enforce infringements and on-the-spot fines, or state debt recovery offices
and/or fines enforcement units may operate outside the auspices of a court.
Coroners courts
In all states and territories, coroners courts (which generally operate under the
auspices of State and Territory magistrates courts) inquire into the cause of sudden
and unexpected reported deaths. The definition of a reported death differs across
states and territories, but generally includes deaths for which the cause is violent,
suspicious or unknown. In some states and territories, the coroner has the power to
commit for hearing, while the coroner in other jurisdictions is prohibited from
making any finding of criminal or civil liability (that is, the matter may be referred
to the Director of Public Prosecutions). Suspicious fires are generally in the
jurisdiction of the coroners court (except in WA, SA and the NT). The coroners
court is distinct from other courts not only because it has a role in inquiring into the
cause of sudden and unexpected deaths (and suspicious fires), but also because it
has other functions, including reporting inadequacies in regulatory systems.
Australian courts
The following hierarchy of courts exists within the Australian courts jurisdiction:
• the High Court of Australia
• the Federal Court of Australia and the Family Court of Australia
• the Federal Magistrates Court.
Data on the High Court are not reported in this chapter. The following sections
highlight the relationship between the other three Australian courts.
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.7

Federal Court of Australia
This court is a superior court of record and a court of law and equity. It sits in all
capital cities and elsewhere in Australia from time to time.
The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil matter arising under laws
made by the Federal Parliament, as well as any matter arising under the Constitution
or involving its interpretation. The Court also has original jurisdiction in respect of
specific subject matter conferred by over 150 statutes of the Federal Parliament.
The Court has a substantial and diverse appellate jurisdiction. It hears appeals from
decisions of single judges of the Court, decisions of the Federal Magistrates Court
in non-family law matters, decisions of the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island and
certain decisions of State and Territory supreme courts exercising federal
jurisdiction.
Family Court of Australia
The Family Court of Australia has jurisdiction in all states and territories except
WA (which has its own Family Court). It has jurisdiction to deal with matrimonial
cases and associated responsibilities, including divorce proceedings and children’s
matters such as residence, contact and special issues orders.
Federal Magistrates Court
The first sittings of the Federal Magistrates Court were on 3 July 2000. The court
was established to provide a simpler and more accessible service for litigants, and to
ease the workload of both the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Court of
Australia. Its jurisdiction includes family law and child support, administrative law,
bankruptcy, consumer protection, human rights, privacy law and copyright matters.
State courts also continue to do some work in these areas (FMC 2004).
The Federal Magistrates Court shares its jurisdiction with the Family Court of
Australia and the Federal Court of Australia. The intention is for the latter two
courts to focus on more complex legal matters. In family law matters, the Family
Magistrates Court’s jurisdiction is similar to that of the Family Court, except that
only the Family Court can consider adoption, property disputes worth over
$700 000, and applications concerning the nullity and validity of marriage
(FMC 2004).
The major relationships between, and hierarchy of, courts in Australia are
summarised in figure 6.1.
6.8 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

Figure 6.1
Major relationships of courts in Australia
a In some jurisdictions, appeals from lower courts or district/county courts may go directly to the court of
appeal in the supreme court. In the ACT, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court commenced exercising
limited jurisdiction on 31 October 2001; full jurisdiction commenced on 14 October 2002. b Appeals from
federal, State and Territory tribunals may go to any higher court in their jurisdiction.
Administrative structures
Most courts use the same court infrastructure (such as court buildings and facilities)
for civil and criminal case types. Given that separate information systems and case
flow management practices have been established for civil and criminal case types,
the Steering Committee has sought to report the two case types separately where
possible. In addition, the allocation of responsibilities between court administration
and other elements of the system (including the judiciary) varies across the
Australian, State and Territory legal systems.
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.9

Recurrent expenditure less income
A number of factors affect a jurisdiction’s expenditure and income, including the
volume and type of work undertaken. In some jurisdictions, court fees (which are
part of income) are set by government and not by court administrators, and some
jurisdictions apportion expenditure between their criminal and civil courts.
Total recurrent expenditure by Australian, State and Territory court authorities
(excluding the High Court) was approximately $1.1 billion in 2003-04 (table 6.1).
Nationally, court administration expenditure for the states and territories in that year
was higher in the criminal jurisdiction of the supreme, district/county and
magistrates courts ($454.1 million) than in the civil jurisdiction of those courts
($431.3 million minus $74.5 million for Australian courts, or $356.8 million). The
coroners court expenditure was $31.5 million in 2003-04, while the electronic court
expenditure and probate court expenditure were $17.5 million and $2.8 million
respectively (table 6.1). In the Australian courts jurisdiction, recurrent expenditure
in 2003-04 was $108.3 million for the Family Court of Australia, $74.5 million for
the Federal Court of Australia and $32.3 million for the Federal Magistrates Court
(table 6.1).
Total income (excluding fines) by Australian, State and Territory court authorities
(excluding the High Court) was $261.8 million in 2003-04 (table 6.1). Income was
$140.0 million in the civil courts, $11.6 million in the criminal courts and
$66.8 million in electronic courts. Income from probate was $24.1 million
nationally. In the Australian courts jurisdiction, income was $11.3 million for the
Federal Magistrates Court, $5.1 million for the Family Court of Australia and
$7.1 million for the Federal Court of Australia (table 6.1).
Total recurrent expenditure less income (excluding fines) by Australian, State and
Territory court authorities (excluding the High Court) was $831.2 million in
2003-04. Nationally, court administration expenditure less income for the states and
territories was higher in the criminal jurisdiction of the supreme, district/county and
magistrates courts ($442.5 million) than in the civil jurisdiction of those courts
($291.3 million minus $67.4 million, or $223.9 million). The coroners court
expenditure less income was $30.4 million, while both the probate registries and
electronic courts had greater income than expenditure during 2003-04 (by
$21.4 million and $49.3 million respectively) (table 6.1). In the Australian courts
jurisdiction, recurrent expenditure less income was $103.1 million for the Family
Court of Australia, $67.4 million for the Federal Court of Australia and
$21.0 million for the Federal Magistrates Court (table 6.1).
6.10 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

Table 6.1
Court administration recurrent expenditure less income
(excluding fines), 2003-04 ($ million) a, b, c, d
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Aust
courts Total
Court administration recurrent expenditure
Civil courts e, f 139.5 74.7 46.9 42.4 30.4 4.2 8.5 10.2 74.5 431.3
Criminal courts g 159.7 90.0 76.2 59.9 41.0 11.2 7.1 9.1 .. 454.1
Electronic courts .. 1.6 8.6 3.7 3.7 .. .. .. .. 17.5
Family courts f .. .. .. 15.3 .. .. .. .. 108.3 123.6
Federal Magistrates h .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 32.3 32.3
Coroners courts 7.8 4.7 6.8 4.3 4.0 0.6 2.4 0.8 .. 31.5
Probate — supreme i 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 .. 2.8
Total 308.6 171.5 138.5 125.7 79.4 16.0 18.1 20.1 215.0 1 093.1
Court administration income (excluding fines)
Civil courts e, f 64.4 29.5 17.9 9.4 7.6 1.2 2.4 0.6 7.1 140.0
Criminal courts g 5.2 0.0 0.9 3.1 1.5 0.4 0.5 0.1 .. 11.6
Electronic courts j .. 26.9 19.7 10.5 9.8 .. .. .. .. 66.8
Family courts f .. .. .. 1.6 .. .. .. .. 5.1 6.7
Federal Magistrates .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11.3 11.3
Coroners courts 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1
Probate — supreme 15.0 3.6 0.0 2.3 2.7 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 24.1
Total k 84.8 60.0 39.3 27.0 21.5 1.8 3.3 0.7 23.5 261.8
Court administration recurrent expenditure less income (excluding fines)
Civil courts e, f 75.1 45.3 29.0 33.0 22.8 3.0 6.1 9.5 67.4 291.3
Criminal courts g 154.5 90.0 75.3 56.7 39.5 10.8 6.6 9.0 .. 442.5
Electronic courts j .. –25.3 –11.1 –6.8 –6.1 .. .. .. .. –49.3
Family courts f .. .. .. 13.7 .. .. .. .. 103.1 116.8
Federal Magistrates h .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 21.0 21.0
Coroners courts 7.7 4.7 6.0 4.2 4.0 0.6 2.4 0.8 .. 30.4
Probate — supreme i –13.5 –3.2 0.0 –2.0 –2.3 –0.1 –0.3 0.0 .. –21.4
Total j 223.9 111.5 99.2 98.8 57.9 14.2 14.8 19.4 191.5 831.2
a Totals may not sum as a result of rounding. b Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court
reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue, probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any
other sources of revenue (excluding fines). c District/county courts do not operate in Tasmania, the ACT or the
NT. The Australian courts do not operate district/county or supreme courts. d Payroll tax is excluded.
e Includes data for the supreme, district/county and magistrates courts (including children’s courts), and the
Federal Court of Australia. Excludes data for the probate, family courts and the Federal Magistrates Court.
f The data for the Family Court of Australia includes the ‘free’ allocation of Family Court resources to the
Federal Magistrates Court. Data for the Federal Court include the cost of resources provided free of charge to
the Federal Magistrates Court. g Includes data for supreme, district/county and magistrates courts (including
children’s courts). Excludes data for the electronic and coroners courts. h The Federal Magistrates Court
expenditure data includes resources received free of charge from the Federal Court. i The full cost of probate
may not be identified, because rent or depreciation may be included under general supreme court figures.
j NSW, Tasmania, the ACT and the NT do not include income from electronic courts. These jurisdictions’ debt
recovery offices (or the equivalent) are not part of the justice or attorney-general’s department. .. Not
applicable.
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished);
tables 6A.9–6A.13.
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.11

Real recurrent expenditure less income (excluding fines) on court administration
from 2001-02 to 2003-04 for each Australian, State and Territory court level is
contained in tables 6A.12 and 6A.13.
Distribution of criminal and civil court administration expenditure
The distribution of court administration expenditure (less income) on the
magistrates, district/county and supreme courts varied across states and territories in
2003-04. A greater proportion of funds were distributed to the supreme courts of
Tasmania, the ACT and the NT (under the two-tier court system), for example, than
to the supreme courts of other jurisdictions (under the three-tier court system)
(figure 6.2).
In 2003-04, magistrates courts (excluding electronic courts) in the criminal
jurisdiction accounted for 58.3 per cent of expenditure (less income) across State
and Territory criminal courts. District/county courts in the criminal jurisdiction
accounted for 28.4 per cent of expenditure (less income), while supreme courts
accounted for 13.3 per cent. Comparing states and territories, the magistrates court
share of expenditure (less income) was highest in Queensland (64.6 per cent) and
lowest in Victoria (44.3 per cent); the district/county court share was highest in
Victoria (43.0 per cent) and lowest in WA (25.7 per cent); and the supreme court
share was highest in the ACT (43.4 per cent) and lowest in Queensland
(9.5 per cent) (figure 6.2).
In 2003-04, magistrates courts in the civil jurisdiction accounted for 28.5 per cent of
expenditure (less income) in State and Territory courts as a whole. The supreme
courts in the civil jurisdiction accounted for 52.8 per cent of expenditure (less
income), while district/county courts accounted for 18.7 per cent. Comparing
jurisdictions, the magistrates courts share of civil expenditure (less income) varied
from 48.4 per cent in Queensland to 10.5 per cent in Tasmania. The supreme court
share ranged from 89.5 per cent in Tasmania to 24.2 per cent in Queensland, and the
district/county court share ranged from 35.6 per cent in Victoria to 21.2 per cent in
NSW (figure 6.2).
6.12 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

Figure 6.2
Distribution of court administration expenditure (less income),
by court level, 2003-04 a, b
Per cent
Per cent
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Criminal
Magistrates courtsc, d District/county courtse
Supreme courts
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total
Civil
c
Magistrates courts District/county courtse Supreme courts f
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total
a Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue,
probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines).
b Excludes payroll tax. c Includes expenditure on children’s courts. d Excludes expenditure on coroners
courts. Excludes expenditure on electronic courts for Victoria, Queensland, WA and SA. e There are no
district/county courts in Tasmania, the ACT or the NT. f Includes probate.
Source: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 6A.12 and
6A.13.
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.13

Size and scope of court activity
Lodgments
Lodgments are matters initiated in the court system. Box 6.4 explains how lodgment
data are collected for this chapter. Table 6.2 (criminal) and table 6.3 (civil) outline
the number of lodgments in 2003-04, by court level, for the Australian courts and
for each State and Territory.
Box 6.4
Explanation of lodgment data used in this chapter
Lodgments reflect the degree to which the Australian community demands court
services, such as dispute resolution and criminal justice. The different ways of counting
a court’s workload reflect the variety of work undertaken within the court system. The
units of measurement of workload (or counting units) used within this chapter are:
• criminal courts: — the number of defendants
• civil courts: — the number of cases
• family courts: — the number of forms (that is, the number of applications made to
the court)
• electronic courts: — the number of unpaid infringement notices
• coroners courts: — the number of reported deaths (and, if relevant, reported fires).
The following types of lodgment are excluded from the criminal and/or civil lodgment
data reported in this chapter:
• any lodgment that does not have a defendant element (such as applications for
telephone taps etc.)
• extraordinary driver’s licence applications
• bail procedures (including applications and review)
• directions
• bench warrants
• cross-claims
• secondary processes — for example, interlocutory matters, breaches of penalties
(that is, bail, suspended sentences, probation)
• applications for default judgments (because the application is a secondary process).
Source: SCRCSSP (2003), p. 6.17.
Nationally, in the criminal jurisdiction in 2003-04, there were 777 200 defendants in
the magistrates, district/county and supreme courts; approximately 1.5 million
lodgments of unpaid infringement notices in electronic courts; and 21 500 reported
6.14 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

deaths and fires in the coroners courts (19 900 deaths and 1600 fires) (table 6A.1
and table 6.2).
Reporting rates for deaths reported to a coroner varied as a result of different
reporting requirements. Deaths in institutions (such as nursing homes) of persons
suffering intellectual impairment of any kind, for example, must be reported in SA
but not in other jurisdictions. Reporting requirements also vary for fires. Fires may
be reported and investigated at the discretion of the coroner in Victoria, but they are
excluded from the coroner’s jurisdiction in WA, SA and the NT.
Table 6.2
Court lodgments — criminal, by court level, 2003-04 (’000) a
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total
Magistrates (total) b, c 187.2 149.1 183.2 74.0 71.1 62.4 6.6 11.7 745.3
Magistrates (only) 175.0 138.3 171.0 66.6 64.5 60.6 5.9 10.6 692.6
Children’s 12.2 10.8 12.2 7.4 6.6 1.7 0.7 1.1 52.7
District/county c 9.7 4.8 8.3 2.7 1.6 .. .. .. 27.1
Supreme 0.7 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.4 4.8
All criminal courts 197.6 154.4 193.0 77.2 73.1 67.6 6.8 12.1 777.2
Electronic courts d .. 768.2 388.4 201.1 123.1 .. .. .. 1480.7
Coroners courts e 6.1 4.5 3.7 1.3 4.0 0.6 1.1 0.3 21.5
a Totals may not add as a result of rounding. b NSW criminal magistrates court lodgment figures differ from
prior years as a result of a revision of the counting rules applied. c Drug court data has not been included in
NSW District Court lodgment figures. In Queensland, some children’s court matters are heard in the district
court. As a result, the inclusion of all children’s court matters in the magistrates court will lead to a slight
overestimation of the magistrates court total and an underestimation in the district court total. d Electronic
courts are fines enforcement registries that have the status of a court. Only Victoria, Queensland, WA and SA
have electronic courts. In other jurisdictions, unpaid traffic infringement notices may be dealt with by other
bodies that do not have the status of a court (such as a State debt recovery office). e Includes data for 180
reported fires in NSW, 705 in Queensland and 751 in the ACT. .. Not applicable.
Source: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); table 6A.1.
Nationally, in the civil jurisdiction in 2003-04, there were 647 700 cases in the
supreme, district/county and magistrates courts, with an additional 56 300 probate
lodgments in the supreme court (table 6A.2 and table 6.3). Also in 2003-04, there
were 6000 cases lodged in the Federal Court of Australia. Lodgements in the
Federal Magistrates Court included 70 000 family law forms. Around 62 000 forms
were filed in the family courts (table 6.3).
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.15

Table 6.3
Court lodgments — civil, by court level, 2003-04 (’000) a
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Aust
courts
Total
Magistrates (total) b, c 202.0 173.5 90.9 54.8 33.6 11.6 7.7 5.9 .. 579.9
Magistrates (only) b, c 196.5 171.1 86.4 54.0 32.8 11.5 7.5 5.8 .. 565.5
Children’s 5.5 2.4 4.5 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.1 .. 14.3
District/county 8.4 8.8 7.3 3.4 2.9 .. .. .. .. 30.8
Supreme d /Federal e 11.3 6.3 5.2 2.9 1.9 1.6 1.3 0.4 6.0 37.0
All civil courts 221.7 188.6 103.4 61.1 38.4 13.2 9.0 6.3 6.0 647.7
Federal Magistrates f .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 76.8 76.8
Family courts e, g .. .. .. 15.1 .. .. .. .. 46.9 62.0
Probate
Supreme courts h 22.4 15.7 5.4 5.1 5.0 2.1 0.6 0.1 .. 56.3
a Totals may not add as a result of rounding. b The Victorian data include 64 213 residential tenancies
matters and 5131 civil claims list applications lodged in the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal. As well,
applications for an intervention order made in the children’s court have been reported under magistrates court
lodgments. c Queensland has included lodgments at its small claims tribunal. d Queensland supreme court
data are extrapolated. e The Federal Magistrates Court has implications for the number of lodgments in the
Family Court of Australia. The Family Court of Australia does not include family law matters dealt with in the
Federal Magistrates Court (reported separately). f Lodgments in the Federal Magistrates Court included
70 000 family law forms. g The Family Court of Australia civil lodgment data exclude instances where Family
Court of Australia deputy registrars were given delegation to conduct Federal Magistrate Court divorce
applications. The Family Court of WA does elements of both the Family Court of Australia and Federal
Magistrates Court work, so direct comparisons must be made with caution. h Tasmanian data include
elections to administer. .. Not applicable.
Source: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); table 6A.2.
The number of lodgments per 100 000 people can be used to assist in understanding
the comparative workload of a court (in relation to the size of the State or Territory
population). Tables 6A.3 and 6A.4 provide data on criminal and civil lodgments
(per 100 000 people) respectively for each State and Territory court and the Federal
Court of Australia. There were 3719 criminal court lodgments in the magistrates
court per 100 000 people in Australia in 2003-04. This number ranged from 13 011
per 100 000 people in Tasmania to 2032 in the ACT (table 6A.3). In the civil
jurisdiction, there were 2894 civil court lodgments in the magistrates court per
100 000 people in Australia. This rate ranged from 3502 per 100 000 people in
Victoria to 2192 in SA (table 6A.4).
Distribution of court lodgments
The majority of criminal matters in Australia in 2003-04 were lodged in the
magistrates courts (95.9 per cent), followed by the district/county courts
(3.5 per cent) and the supreme courts (0.6 per cent). Tasmania had the highest
6.16 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

proportion of criminal matters lodged in the magistrates court (99.1 per cent), NSW
had the highest proportion lodged in the district/county court (4.9 per cent) and the
ACT and NT had the equal highest proportion lodged in the supreme court (3.3 per
cent) (table 6.4).
The majority of civil matters in Australia in 2003-04 were lodged in the magistrates
courts (89.5 per cent), followed by the supreme courts (5.7 per cent) and the
district/county courts (4.8 per cent). Victoria had the highest proportion of civil
cases lodged in the magistrates court (92.0 per cent), SA had the highest proportion
lodged in the district/county court (7.5 per cent) and the ACT had the highest
proportion lodged in the supreme court (14.0 per cent) (table 6.4).
In the Australian courts jurisdiction, no attempt has been made to calculate the
proportion of lodgments going to the Federal Court, the Family Court of Australia
and the Federal Magistrates Court, because each of these courts uses different
counting units for their lodgments. (The Federal Court uses cases, the Family Court
uses forms, and the Federal Magistrates Court uses a mix of cases and forms). As a
result, any comparison of the proportion of lodgments within the Australian courts
jurisdiction would be meaningless.
Table 6.4
Distribution of court lodgments, by court level, 2003-04 a
Unit NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total
Criminal courts
Magistrates (total) b, c % 94.8 96.5 94.9 95.9 97.3 99.1 96.7 96.7 95.9
District/county c % 4.9 3.1 4.3 3.5 2.2 .. .. .. 3.5
Supreme % 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.9 3.3 3.3 0.6
All courts ’000 197.6 154.4 193.0 77.2 73.1 63.0 6.8 12.1 777.2
Civil courts
Magistrates (total)d % 91.1 92.0 87.9 89.6 87.4 87.7 86.0 93.6 89.5
District/county % 3.8 4.7 7.0 5.6 7.5 .. .. .. 4.8
Supreme e % 5.1 3.4 5.1 4.8 5.1 12.3 14.0 6.4 5.7
All courts f ’000 221.7 188.6 103.4 61.1 38.4 13.2 9.0 6.3 647.7
a Totals may not sum to 100 per cent as a result of rounding. b Excludes electronic court lodgments to provide
a more meaningful comparison across jurisdictions. Also excludes coroners courts data. c In Queensland,
some Children’s Court matters are heard in the District Court. As a result, the inclusion of all Children’s Court
matters in the Magistrates Court will lead to a slight overestimation of the Magistrates Court proportion and an
underestimation of the District Court proportion. d The Victorian data include around 64 213 residential
tenancies matters and 5131 civil claims list applications lodged in the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal.
Queensland data include lodgments at the Small Claims Tribunal. e Excludes probate data. f Excludes data
for the Family Court of WA, the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court because
lodgment data are based on forms that are not comparable with the State and Territory civil data or Federal
Court data (which are based on cases). .. Not applicable.
Sources: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 6A.1 and
6A.2.
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.17

Finalisations
Finalisations represent the completion of matters in the court system. Each
lodgment can be finalised only once. Matters may be finalised by adjudication,
transfer or another non-adjudicated method (such as withdrawal of a matter by the
prosecution, or settlement by the court or an external mediator).
Tables 6.5 (criminal) and 6.6 (civil) outline the number of finalisations in 2003-04,
by court level, for the Australian Government and each State and Territory.
Lodgements do not equal finalisations in any given year because matters lodged in
one year may be finalised in the next. In 2003-04, there were 743 300 criminal
finalisations in the magistrates, district/county and supreme courts; approximately
1.8 million electronic court unpaid infringement notice finalisations; and 20 200
finalisations (involving reported deaths and fires) in the coroners court (tables 6A.5
and 6.5).
Table 6.5
Court finalisations — criminal, 2003-04 (’000) a, b
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total
Magistrates (total)c, d 183.5 140.5 182.2 77.3 54.7 57.2 6.7 10.5 712.4
Magistrates (only) 171.1 130.9 170.5 72.3 50.0 55.5 6.0 9.5 665.8
Children’s e 12.3 9.6 11.7 5.0 4.7 1.7 0.7 0.9 46.6
District/county c 9.2 5.0 8.2 2.7 1.2 .. .. .. 26.3
Supreme 0.7 0.6 1.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.3 4.6
All criminal courts 193.3 146.1 191.8 80.4 56.2 57.7 6.9 10.8 743.3
Electronic courts .. 1053.0 567.8 100.1 89.7 .. .. .. 1810.7
Coroners courts f 5.9 4.1 3.1 1.3 3.8 0.7 1.0 0.2 20.2
a Lodgments do not equal finalisations in any given year because matters lodged in one year may be finalised
in the next. b Totals may not add as a result of rounding. c In NSW, drug court data has not been included in
District Court finalisation figures. In Queensland, some Children’s Court matters are heard in the District Court.
As a result, the inclusion of all children’s court matters in the magistrates court will lead to a slight
overestimation of the magistrates court total and an underestimation in the district court total. d NSW criminal
Magistrates Court finalisation figures differ from those prior years because the counting rules were revised.
NSW Magistrates Court finalisation data are estimated from the 83 per cent of cases on the case
management computer system. e Excludes finalisations data for committals heard in the children’s court.
f Includes finalisations data for fires reported in NSW, Queensland and the ACT. .. Not applicable.
Source: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); table 6A.5.
In 2003-04, 581 800 civil cases (587 900 minus 6100) were finalised in the State
and Territory magistrates, district/county and supreme courts. The Federal Court
finalised 6100 cases, the Federal Magistrates Court finalised 62 800 matters (mainly
family law forms plus some federal law cases) and the Family Court of Australia
finalised 52 400 family law forms (tables 6A.6 and 6.6).
6.18 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

Table 6.6
Court finalisations — civil, 2003-04 (’000) a, b, c
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Aust
courts Total
Magistrates (total) d, e, f 193.4 148.9 95.2 36.3 22.5 11.9 8.2 3.7 .. 520.0
Magistrates (only) e, f 188.3 146.7 91.1 35.4 22.5 11.8 8.0 3.5 .. 507.2
Children’s 5.1 2.2 4.1 0.9 .. 0.1 0.2 0.2 .. 12.8
District/county g, h 10.4 7.3 7.5 3.3 2.8 .. .. .. .. 31.2
Supreme/Federal g, i 11.1 5.2 6.2 3.4 1.2 2.0 1.2 0.4 6.1 36.7
All civil courts 214.9 161.3 108.9 42.9 26.5 13.9 9.4 4.0 6.1 587.9
Federal Magistrates .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 62.8 62.8
Family i .. .. .. 13.3 .. .. .. .. 52.4 65.7
a Lodgements do not equal finalisations in any given year because matters lodged in one year may be
finalised in the next. b Totals may not add as a result of rounding. c Cases withdrawn after initial lodgment
may not be recorded as a finalisation in some jurisdictions. d In Queensland and SA, magistrates courts (total)
data exclude children’s finalisations. e The Victorian data include 64 213 residential tenancy matters and 5131
civil claims applications that were finalised in the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal. f Queensland includes
finalisations at the Small Claims Tribunal. g In Victoria, the 12 month deeming rule for inactive cases has not
been used for the county or supreme courts. h in Queensland, not all inactive matters have been identified or
finalised. i The introduction of the Federal Magistrates Court has implications for the finalisations data of the
Federal Court and the Family Court of Australia. .. Not applicable.
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished);
table 6A.6.
The number of finalisations per 100 000 people provides a better understanding of
the comparative workload of a court (in relation to the size of the State or Territory
population). Tables 6A.7 and 6A.8 provide data on criminal and civil finalisations
(per 100 000 people) respectively for each State and Territory court and the Federal
Court. There were 3555 criminal court finalisations per 100 000 people in the
magistrates courts in Australia in 2003-04, with the number ranging across
individual jurisdictions from 11 924 in Tasmania to 2072 in the ACT (table 6A.7).
There were 2595 civil court finalisations per 100 000 people in the magistrates
courts in Australia, with the number ranging across jurisdictions from 3005 in
Victoria to 1473 in SA (table 6A.8).
6.2 Framework of performance indicators
The framework of performance indicators is based on common objectives for court
administration services across Australia (box 6.5). The emphasis placed on each
objective varies across jurisdictions.
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.19

Box 6.5
Objectives for court administration
Objectives for court administration are:
• to be open and accessible
• to process matters in an expeditious and timely manner
• to provide due process and equal protection before the law
• to be independent yet publicly accountable for performance.
In addition, all governments aim to provide court administration services in an efficient
manner.
The performance indicator framework
The performance indicator framework is shown in figure 6.3. For data that are not
considered directly comparable, the text includes relevant caveats and supporting
commentary. Chapter 1 discusses data comparability from a Report-wide
perspective (see section 1.6).
Each indicator in the performance indicator framework is briefly described below:
• fees paid by applicants — an indicator of access that measures the average fees
paid per lodgment.
• backlog indicator — a measure of timeliness that relates the age of each court’s
pending caseload to timeliness standards.
• attendance indicator — a measure of effectiveness that records the number of
attendances by the parties or their representatives, for each finalised matter.
• judicial officers — the number of judicial officers is a measure of resources (that
is, the number of officers who can make enforceable orders of the court). It also
indicates access to the judicial system.
• clearance rate — is a measure of whether the court is keeping up with its
workload. It is the number of finalisations divided by the number of lodgments
(multiplied by 100 to convert to a percentage).
• cost per finalisation — a measure of efficiency that shows the average net
recurrent expenditure per finalisation.
A full description of each indicator is provided when the corresponding data are
reported in the key performance indicator results (see section 6.3).
6.20 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

As shown in figure 6.3, there are no outcome indicators for court administration.
The activities of court administrators lead to broader justice-wide outcomes that are
not readily picked up in this service-specific chapter.
Figure 6.3
Performance indicator framework for court administration
Equity
Access
Affordability
Fees paid by
applicants
Objectives
Quality
To be
determined
PERFORMANCE
Effectiveness
Access
Timeliness
and delay
Backlog
indicator
Attendance
indicator
Geographical
access
Judicial
officers
Key to indicators
Efficiency
Inputs per unit
of output
Clearance
indicator
Cost per
finalisation
Text
Text
Provided on a comparable basis for this Report subject to
caveats in each chart or table
Information not complete or not directly comparable
Outputs
Outputs
Outcomes
Text
Yet to be developed or not collected for this Report
6.3 Key performance indicator results
Different delivery locations, case loads, case types and government policies may
affect the equity, effectiveness and efficiency of court administration services. The
allocation of cases to different courts also differs across jurisdictions. Performance
comparison across states and territories and Australian courts for specific indicators
needs to account for these factors. Appendix A contains detailed statistics and short
profiles on each State and Territory, which may assist in interpreting the
performance indicators presented in this chapter.
Outputs
Equity — fees paid by applicants
A description of this indicator is contained in box 6.6.
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.21

Box 6.6
Fees paid by applicants
This indicator of access shows the average fees paid per lodgment.
Court fees are only part of the costs faced by applicants (with legal fees being more
significant). Court filing fees largely relate to civil cases.
In 2003-04, average court fees collected per lodgment were generally greater in
higher courts than in intermediate and lower courts. NSW had the highest average
civil fees collected per lodgment in the supreme court ($1651) and also the highest
in the district/county courts ($1289). In all NSW civil jurisdictions, corporations are
charged twice the applicable fee payable by private individuals.
The lowest average civil fees collected per lodgment in the supreme court were in
Tasmania ($119); the lowest in the district/county court were in SA ($454). For
magistrates courts only (excluding children’s courts), NSW had the highest average
fees collected per lodgment ($152) and WA had the lowest ($55). Average probate
fees collected per lodgment were highest in NSW ($670) and lowest in Tasmania
($108) (table 6.7).
In 2003-04, the average fee per lodgment in the Federal Court was $783. The
average civil court fees collected were $98 for the Family Court of WA and $61 for
the Family Court of Australia. (The WA Family Court does elements of work of
both the Federal Magistrates Court and the Family Court of Australia, so direct
comparisons are not appropriate.) The introduction of the Federal Magistrates Court
reduced fees received by the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Court. The
Federal Magistrates Court’s average civil court fees per lodgment were $146
(table 6.7).
The level of cost recovery from the collection of court fees varied across court
levels and across jurisdictions in 2003-04. The proportion of costs recovered via
court fees for the magistrates courts was highest in Tasmania (62.6 per cent) and for
the district/county courts, it was highest in NSW and Queensland (both
35.8 per cent). In the supreme courts, the proportion of costs recovered was highest
in NSW (37.7 per cent). The level of cost recovery varied across the Australian
courts: 6.3 per cent in the Federal Court, 34.8 per cent in the Federal Magistrates
Court and 2.6 per cent in the Family Court of Australia. The Family Court of WA
recovered 9.7 per cent of costs (table 6.8).
6.22 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

Table 6.7 Average civil court fees collected per lodgment, 2003-04
(dollars)
NSW a Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Aust
courts Total
Magistrates (total) b, c 148 np 89 54 84 .. .. 0 .. 101
Magistrates (only) 152 81 93 55 85 70 60 0 .. 104
Children’s courts 1 np 0 4 7 .. .. 0 .. ..
District/county 1289 746 631 670 454 .. .. .. .. 832
Supreme/Federal d 1651 1145 673 1031 696 119 714 0 783 1069
Probate — supreme 670 231 na 445 542 108 572 300 .. 475
Federal Magistrates e .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 146 146
Family courts d .. .. .. 98 .. .. .. .. 61 46
a In all NSW civil jurisdictions corporations fees are payable by corporate users of the court. These fees are
twice the applicable fees payable by private individuals. Subsequently the ‘average fees’ in the table are
substantially higher than the actual fees paid by private individuals in NSW. b The Victorian magistrates court
fees incorporate both criminal and civil case types, but the civil court fees are likely to account for a more
significant proportion. As well, the data include around 64 213 residential tenancies matters and 5131 civil
claim applications lodged in the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal. c Queensland includes lodgments (and
fees) at its Small Claims Tribunal. d The Federal Magistrates Court has reduced fees payable by applicants to
the Federal Court and the Family Court of Australia. Many of the Family Court of Australia’s applications do
not attract a fee. The Family Court of WA does elements of work of both the Federal Magistrates Court and
the Family Court of Australia, so direct comparisons with either are not possible. e Lodgments in the Federal
Magistrates Court included 70 000 family law forms. np Not published na Not available. .. Not applicable.
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished);
table 6A.16.
Table 6.8
Civil court fees collected as a proportion of civil recurrent
expenditure (cost recovery), 2003-04 (per cent) a, b
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Aust
courts Total
Magistrates (total) c, d 49.5 np 35.1 20.6 22.3 na .. 0.0 .. 39.5
Magistrates (only) 53.0 52.8 44.3 21.1 23.4 62.6 11.2 0.0 .. 43.6
Children’s courts 0.0 np 0.0 0.9 0.8 .. .. 0.0 .. ..
District/county 35.8 29.0 35.8 20.2 16.8 .. .. .. .. 30.2
Supreme/Federal e, f 37.7 33.7 31.6 18.2 13.5 6.6 21.8 0.0 6.3 20.0
Federal Magistrates .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 34.8 34.8
Family g .. .. .. 9.7 .. .. .. .. 2.6 2.3
a Recurrent expenditure with no income deducted. b Excludes payroll tax. c The Victorian magistrates court
fees incorporate both criminal and civil case types, but the civil court fees are likely to account for a more
significant proportion. d Abnormally high revenue was received during the reporting year from a program of
recovering long outstanding filing fees. e Excludes probate costs. f The Federal Magistrates Court has
reduced fees payable by applicants to the Federal Court and the Family Court of Australia. Many of the Family
Court of Australia’s applications do not attract a fee. The Family Court of WA does elements of work of both
the Federal Magistrates Court and the Family Court of Australia, so direct comparisons with either are not
possible. np Not published na Not available. .. Not applicable.
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished);
table 6A.15.
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.23

Effectiveness — quality
The Steering Committee has identified quality as an important measures of court
administration performance (box 6.7).
Box 6.7
Indicators of quality
Indicators of quality for court administration have not yet been identified. The
perceptions of court users about the quality of the services delivered by courts may be
strongly influenced by the outcomes of judicial decisions (which are not the subject of
this chapter). Isolating perceptions of the quality of court administration may be difficult.
Effectiveness — timeliness and delay
There are two indicators of timeliness and delay: ‘backlog’ and ‘attendance’.
Timeliness is the time taken between the lodgment of a matter with the court and its
finalisation. It can be affected by delays caused by factors other than those related to
the workload of the court (for example, a witness not being available). Timeliness in
civil cases can be similarly affected (box 6.8).
Box 6.8
Civil timeliness factors
The following factors may affect the timeliness of cases in the civil courts:
• where civil cases are contested, a single case may involve several related
applications or issues that require judgments and decisions by the court
• the parties to a case can significantly affect the conduct and timeliness of a case —
that is, matters often may be adjourned at the instigation of, and by the consent of,
the parties. Such consent arrangements are outside the control of the court
• the court may employ case management or other dispute resolution processes (for
example, mediation) that are alternatives to formal adjudication
• an inactive case is regarded as finalised (or closed) one year after the last action
on the case.
Longer case completion times in the civil jurisdiction generally reflect different case
flow management practices, the individual needs of cases, and the priority given to
criminal matters. Further, Tasmania, the ACT and the NT have a two-tier court
system (that is, they do not have a district/county court), whereas the other
jurisdictions have a three-tier court system. This difference needs to be taken into
account when comparing timeliness performance. In addition, the complexity and
6.24 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

distribution of cases may vary across jurisdictions. Some of the differences between
State and Territory courts and across Australian Courts are covered in section 6.1.
This data collection is based on national counting rules, so data presented in this
chapter may differ from data published by individual jurisdictions in their annual
reports. There also may be differences from the data reported in the Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Criminal Courts publication.
The Steering Committee focuses on providing the best available data in a timely
fashion. Jurisdictions, when signing off the data, acknowledge that the data have
been supplied according to the nationally agreed counting rules. Where a
jurisdiction advises that it has diverged from these counting rules, this divergence is
appropriately footnoted in the table and surrounding text.
The Steering Committee recognises, however, that this collection (unlike some
other data collections) does not have an intermediary data collector or validator akin
to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare or the ABS. The reporting process
in this chapter is one of continual improvement and refinement, with the long term
aim of ensuring a national data collection that covers court activities across the
Australian, State and Territory jurisdictions in a timely and comparable way.
Backlog indicator
This indicator is a measure of case processing timeliness (box 6.9). In the criminal
jurisdiction, those defendants who failed to appear when required and had bench
warrants issued have been excluded from the pending caseload count. In the civil
jurisdiction, those lodgments that have not been acted upon in the past 12 months
are counted as finalised, the aim being to focus on those matters that are part of an
‘active pending’ population (see section 6.6 for definitions). However, the NSW
higher courts proactively manage their civil cases. Consequently, cases that, by their
nature, cannot be finalised for a lengthy period are not deemed finalised, but
continue to be monitored from time to time by the courts.
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.25

Box 6.9
Backlog indicator
The ‘backlog indicator’ measures a court’s pending caseload against time standards.
The indicator recognises that case processing must take some time and that such time
does not necessarily equal delay. Timeliness can be affected by delays caused by
factors other than those related to the workload of the court (for example, a witness not
being available).
The following national standards have been set:
Magistrates, children’s and coroners courts and the Federal Magistrates Court.
• No more than 10 per cent of lodgments pending completion are to be more than
6 months old.
• No lodgments pending completion are to be more than 12 months old.
District, supreme and family courts, the Federal Court and all appeals.
• No more than 10 per cent of lodgments pending completion are to be more than
12 months old.
• No lodgments pending completion are to be more than 24 months old.
As stated in box 6.9 and shown in tables 6.9 to 6.12, there are two national
standards for each court level. For the supreme and district courts, the first national
standard is that no more than 10 per cent of criminal lodgments pending completion
are to be more than 12 months old. Of the supreme courts, NSW, Queensland,
Tasmania and the ACT met this standard for appeal cases and no jurisdiction met
the standard for non-appeal cases. In the district court, NSW and Victoria met the
national standard for appeal cases, and no jurisdiction met the standard for nonappeal
cases (table 6.9).
For the magistrates, children’s and coroners courts, the first national standard is that
no more than 10 per cent of criminal lodgments pending completion are to be more
than 6 months old. No jurisdiction met this standard in the magistrates court and in
the children’s court, Victoria was the only jurisdiction that met this national
standard. In the coroners court, no jurisdiction met the standard (table 6.10).
6.26 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

Table 6.9
Backlog indicator — the number and proportion of a court’s
pending caseload in excess of timeliness standards, all criminal
matters — supreme and district/county courts, 2003-04
Supreme — appeal
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Pending caseload (no.) 273 338 126 163 77 9 21 na
Cases >12 months
Number 23 68 1 28 na 0 1 na
Per cent 8.4 20.1 0.8 17.2 na 0.0 4.8 na
Cases >24 months
Number 17 2 0 5 na 0 0 na
Per cent 6.2 0.6 0.0 3.1 na 0.0 0.0 na
Supreme — non - appeal a
Pending caseload (no.) 144 74 316 160 48 233 112 na
Cases >12 months
Number 39 18 44 35 16 50 12 na
Per cent 27.1 24.3 13.9 21.9 33.3 21.5 10.7 na
Cases >24 months
Number 4 4 7 11 5 2 6 na
Per cent 2.8 5.4 2.2 6.9 10.4 0.9 5.4 na
District/county — appeal .. .. ..
Pending caseload (no.) 1 040 605 367 na na .. .. ..
Cases > 12 months
.. .. ..
Number 30 53 93 na na .. .. ..
Per cent 2.9 8.8 25.3 na na .. .. ..
Cases >24 months
.. .. ..
Number 8 9 10 na na .. .. ..
Per cent 0.8 1.5 2.7 na na .. .. ..
District/county —
non-appeal
.. .. ..
Pending caseload (no.) 2 313 1 600 2 625 2 037 768 .. .. ..
Cases >12 months
.. .. ..
Number 280 244 741 602 163 .. .. ..
Per cent 12.1 15.3 28.2 29.6 21.2 .. .. ..
Cases > 24months
.. .. ..
Number 50 45 185 116 30 .. .. ..
Per cent 2.2 2.8 7.0 5.7 3.9 .. .. ..
a In NSW, almost all non-appeal cases heard by the Supreme Court relate to murder or manslaughter. These
serious cases take longer to resolve than other types of offences. na Not available. .. Not applicable.
Source: State and Territory governments (unpublished); table 6A.17.
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.27

Table 6.10
Backlog indicator — the number and proportion of a court’s
pending caseload in excess of timeliness standards, all criminal
matters — magistrates, children’s and coroners courts,
2003-04 a
NSW b Vic c Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Magistrates
Pending caseload 17 224 27 518 26 450 8 909 13 310 21 980 2 168 na
(no.)
Cases >6 months
Number 1 982 4 792 6 722 4 677 3 853 4 183 470 na
Per cent 11.5 17.4 25.4 52.5 28.9 19.0 21.7 na
Cases >12 months
Number 478 1 248 2 727 3 407 1 200 1 819 208 na
Per cent 2.8 4.5 10.3 38.2 9.0 8.3 9.6 na
Children’s
Pending caseload 1 746 2 029 2 130 608 958 603 158 na
(no.)
Cases >6 months
Number 200 133 479 151 193 170 38 na
Per cent 11.5 6.6 22.5 24.8 20.1 28.2 24.1 na
Cases >12 months
Number 44 24 198 71 63 75 18 na
Per cent 2.5 1.2 9.3 11.7 6.6 12.4 11.4 na
Coroners
Pending caseload 1 595 2 753 1 955 723 na 244 194 na
(no.)
Cases >6 months
Number 757 1 274 982 391 na 95 73 na
Per cent 47.5 46.3 50.2 54.1 na 38.9 37.6 na
Cases >12 months
Number 414 711 580 232 na 48 43 na
Per cent 26.0 25.8 29.7 32.1 na 19.7 22.2 na
a Excludes data for electronic courts. b NSW magistrate court finalisation data are estimated based on the
83 per cent of cases on the case management computer system. c In the Victorian Magistrates Court,
defendants can be entered into the Criminal Justice Diversion Program and the proceedings are adjourned for
a period of up to 12 months. These defendants remain ‘pending’ and hence may misrepresent the true case
processing timeliness. na Not available.
Source: State and Territory governments (unpublished); table 6A.17.
6.28 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

In each of the courts, the second national standard is that no criminal matters are to
be more than 12 months old for magistrates, children’s and coroners court matters
and 24 months old for district and supreme courts. The Queensland, Tasmanian and
ACT supreme courts are the only courts that met the second national standard for
criminal appeal cases, and no jurisdiction met the standard for criminal non-appeal
cases. The results of the backlog indicator against this second standard are shown in
tables 6.9 and 6.10, which report results in terms of the number and proportion of a
court’s pending caseload that are older than the standard. The corresponding results
for civil cases are shown in tables 6.11 and 6.12.
In the supreme, district and family courts, the first national standard is that no more
than 10 per cent of civil lodgments pending completion are to be more than
12 months old. In the supreme court, SA and the ACT met this standard for appeal
cases, and no jurisdiction met the standard for non-appeal cases. In the district
court, NSW and SA met the standard for appeal cases, and no jurisdiction met the
standard for non-appeal cases (table 6.11). Neither the Family Court of Australia
nor the Family Court of WA met the standard (table 6.12).
In the magistrates courts and the Federal Magistrates Court, the first national
standard is that no more than 10 per cent of civil lodgments pending completion are
to be more than 6 months old. In the magistrates court, no jurisdiction met the
standard.
In each of the courts, the second national standard is that no pending civil cases are
to be more than 12 months old for magistrates, children’s, and the Federal
Magistrates Court and 24 months old for district, supreme and family courts and the
Federal Court. In 2003-04, SA met this national standard in its Supreme Court for
appeal cases, but no jurisdiction met the standard for non-appeal cases. Neither the
family courts nor the magistrates courts met the standard. The results of the backlog
indicator against this standard are shown in tables 6.11 and 6.12, which report
results in terms of the number and proportion of a court’s pending caseload that are
older than the standard.
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.29

Table 6.11
Backlog indicator — the number and proportion of a court’s
pending caseload in excess of timeliness standards, all civil
matters — supreme and district/county courts, 2003-04
NSW a Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Supreme/Federal — appeal
Aust
Courts
Pending case load (no.) 630 317 412 382 10 182 67 na 450
Cases >12 months
Number 78 98 200 91 0 29 6 na 49
Per cent 12.4 30.9 48.5 23.8 0.0 15.9 9.0 na 10.9
Cases >24 months
Number 22 18 52 11 0 11 2 na 19
Per cent 3.5 5.7 12.6 2.9 0.0 6.0 3.0 na 4.2
Supreme/Federal — non-appeal
Pending case load (no.) 6 900 4 705 6 171 2 494 2 556 2 043 1 353 na 3 273
Cases >12 months
Number 2 780 1 673 2 850 961 604 990 615 na 1 616
Per cent 40.3 35.6 46.2 38.5 23.6 48.5 45.5 na 49.4
Cases >24 months
Number 1 636 498 1 639 527 120 548 298 na 1 039
Per cent 23.7 10.6 26.6 21.1 4.7 26.8 22.0 na 31.7
District/county – appeal
Pending case load (no.) 43 na 811 154 7 .. .. .. ..
Cases >12 months
Number. 3 na 305 24 0 .. .. .. ..
Per cent 7.0 na 37.6 15.6 0.0 .. .. .. ..
Cases >24 months
Number 0 na 141 5 0 .. .. .. ..
Per cent 0.0 na 17.4 3.2 0.0 .. .. .. ..
District/county — non-appeal
Pending case load (no.) 10 315 10 970 8 178 3 640 3 157 .. .. .. ..
Cases >12 months
Number 4 126 3 833 3 573 1 95 1 355 .. .. .. ..
Per cent 40.0 34.9 43.7 41.1 42.9 .. .. .. ..
Cases >24 months
Number 2 269 941 1 699 701 484 .. .. .. ..
Per cent 22.0 8.6 24.1 19.3 15.3 .. .. .. ..
a The NSW higher courts proactively manage their civil cases. Consequently cases that, by their nature,
cannot be finalised for a lengthy period are not deemed finalised, but continue to be monitored from time to
time by the Court. na Not available. .. Not applicable.
Source: Australian, State and Territory governments (unpublished); table 6A.18.
6.30 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

Table 6.12
Backlog indicator — the number and proportion of a court’s
pending caseload that is older than the standard, all civil
matters — family and magistrates courts and the Federal
Magistrates Court, 2003-04
Family — appeal
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Aust
Courts
Pending case load (no.) .. .. .. na .. .. .. .. 222
Cases >12 months
Number .. .. .. na .. .. .. .. 65
Per cent .. .. .. na .. .. .. .. 29.3
Cases >24 months
Number .. .. .. na .. .. .. .. 30
Per cent .. .. .. na .. .. .. .. 13.5
Family — non-appeal
Pending case load (no.) .. .. .. 384 .. .. .. .. 24 698
Cases >12 months
Number .. .. .. 247 .. .. .. .. 9 919
Per cent .. .. .. 64.3 .. .. .. .. 40.2
Cases >24 months
Number .. .. .. 67 .. .. .. .. 3 284
Per cent .. .. .. 17.4 .. .. .. .. 13.3
Magistrates
Pending case load (no.) na 9 875 37 251 1 990 17 809 5 212 3 203 na ..
Cases >6 months
Number na 3 516 14 510 1 169 7 924 2 019 1 478 na ..
Per cent na 35.6 39.0 58.7 44.5 38.7 46.1 na ..
Cases >12 months
Number na 2 301 3 118 526 2 714 200 487 na ..
Per cent na 23.3 8.4 26.4 15.2 3.8 15.2 na ..
Federal Magistrates
Service
Pending case load (no.) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 23 341
Cases >6 months
Number .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6801
Per cent .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 29.1
Cases >12 months
Number .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3 723
Per cent .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 16.0
na Not available. .. Not applicable.
Source: Australian, State and Territory governments (unpublished); table 6A.18.
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.31

Attendance indicator
The Steering Committee has identified the number of court attendances required as
an effectiveness measure (box 6.10).
Box 6.10
Attendance indicator
The attendance indicator is a measure of effectiveness.
The number of attendances is the number of times that parties or their representatives
are required to be present in court to be heard by a judicial officer or mediator/arbitrator
(including appointments that are adjourned or rescheduled).
This year’s chapter presents the total number of finalisations during the year for each
court and the number of attendances associated with these matters (no matter when
the attendance occurred). This approach simply represents an average number of
attendances per finalisation.
In the context of the attendance indicator, it is important to note that Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) can resolve certain matters out of court and thereby
reduce the number of court attendances. Accordingly, differences between and
within jurisdictions in the availability and use of ADR, can affect the comparability
of the attendance indicator.
The average number of attendances per finalisation ranged in the criminal
jurisdiction: in the supreme court, from 6.3 in the ACT to 2.3 in Victoria; in the
district/county court, from 6.3 in SA to 4.0 in both Queensland and WA; in the
magistrates court, from 4.9 in the ACT to 1.7 in Queensland; and in the children’s
court, from 5.2 in the ACT to 2.0 in Queensland (table 6.13).
Table 6.13
Attendance indicator — criminal, 2003-04 a
NSW b Vic Qld c WA SA Tas ACT d NT
Average attendances per finalisation
Supreme na 2.3 2.6 3.4 5.1 5.8 6.3 6.1
District/county e na 4.8 4.0 4.0 6.3 .. .. ..
Magistrates na 2.5 1.7 2.1 3.5 1.9 4.9 3.4
Children’s na 2.9 2.0 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.4
Coroners na 0.1 na 0.1 na 0.1 0.2 0.1
a Excludes data for electronic courts. b Courts do not have data available to enable them to identify the
number of times that parties are present in court. c Data are extrapolated d Total number of attendances
based on total number of listings. e In WA, the criminal case management computer system does not record
the number of hearings that occurred per defendant. Data extracted are based on the number of listings
recorded. Information may be refined in future. na Not available. .. Not applicable.
Source: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); table 6A.19.
6.32 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

In the civil jurisdiction, the average number of attendances per finalisation ranged in
the supreme court from 4.6 in SA to 1.8 in Victoria, and in the district court from
5.0 in SA to 0.3 in Queensland. The average number of attendances per finalisation
was 2.2 in the Family Court of Australia and 1.7 in the Federal Magistrates Court
(table 6.14). Most jurisdictions that reported for the civil jurisdiction of the
magistrates courts had on, average around, 1.0 attendance per finalisation, with 2.5
in the NT.
Table 6.14 Attendance indicator — civil, 2003-04
NSW a Vic b Qld c WA a SA Tas ACT d NT
Aust
courts
Average attendances per finalisation
Supreme na 1.8 0.5 3.0 4.6 na 4.5 3.3 3.7
District/county na 2.5 0.3 4.6 5.0 .. .. .. ..
Magistrates na 1.0 0.8 0.0 1.3 na 1.5 2.5 ..
Children’s na na 2.2 4.2 na na 3.9 2.4 ..
Federal Magistrates e .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1.7
Family f .. .. .. na .. .. .. .. 2.2
a Courts do not have data available to enable them to identify the number of times parties are present in the
magistrates court. b Supreme court data are estimated and the county court data are extrapolated. As well,
the 12 month deeming rule has not been used for civil timeliness data for the supreme and county courts. The
magistrates court attendances for the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal and family law applications are
estimates, with the estimate being one attendance per finalisation. c Court data are extrapolated. d Total
number of attendances is based on total number of listings. e Excludes ‘responses’ to applications. f Family
Court of Australia data include alternative dispute resolution, court and conference events held in the Family
Court of Australia. Data include events that may not typically require attendance of parties, but these are
included because they form part of the lodgments and finalisation figures. Data exclude responses to
applications. na Not available. .. Not applicable.
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished);
table 6A.19.
Effectiveness — judicial officers
This indicator relates access to the number of judicial officers available to deal with
cases (box 6.11).
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.33

Box 6.11
Judicial officers
The ‘judicial officers’ indicator is a simple way of representing resources (that is, the
number of officers who can make enforceable orders of the court). It also indicates
access to the judicial system.
For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of a judicial officer includes:
• judges
• magistrates
• masters
• coroners
• judicial registrars
• all other officers who, following argument and giving of evidence, make enforceable
orders of the court.
Numbers are expressed in full time equivalent terms and based on the proportion of
time spent on judicial functions. They are also presented in comparison to the
population of each jurisdiction.
A higher proportion of judicial officers in the population indicates potentially greater
access to the judicial system.
The number of full time equivalent judicial officers for each court level is outlined
in table 6.15. As would be expected, the number of judicial officers is related to the
size of the jurisdiction. In all State and Territory jurisdictions with a three-tier
system, there were more judicial officers in the magistrates courts than in the
district/county courts, and more officers in the district/county courts than in the
supreme courts (except in WA).
The number of judicial officers can be viewed in the context of the population in
each jurisdiction. As a result, table 6.16 shows the number of judicial officers per
100 000 people. For the supreme courts, the rate ranged from 4.0 judicial officers
per 100 000 people in the NT to 0.6 in Queensland. In the district courts, it ranged
from 1.3 per 100 000 in both WA and SA to 0.8 in Queensland. In the magistrates
courts, it ranged from 6.1 in the NT to 1.7 in NSW (table 6.16).
6.34 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

Table 6.15
Judicial officers, full time equivalent, 2003-04 a, b
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Aust
courts
Total
Supreme/Federal 60.9 40.0 23.0 28.7 15.7 7.0 5.6 7.9 45.0 233.8
District/county 75.0 54.0 30.8 26.0 20.3 .. .. .. .. 206.1
Magistrates ’ 117.0 113.0 68.2 44.1 34.0 11.0 6.5 12.2 .. 406.0
Children’s 12.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 0.6 1.3 0.6 .. 36.5
Electronic c .. na na na na .. .. .. .. na
Coroners 5.0 5.0 3.7 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.7 1.5 .. 19.4
Family .. .. .. 14.6 .. .. .. .. 57.0 71.6
Federal
Magistrates .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 23.0 23.0
Total 269.9 220.0 130.7 120.4 75.0 19.1 14.1 22.2 125.0 996.3
a Totals may not add as a result of rounding. b Judicial officers are defined to include judges, magistrates,
masters, coroners, judicial registrars, and all other officers who, following argument and giving of evidence,
make enforceable orders of the court. The data are provided on the basis of the proportion of time spent on
judicial activities. c No electronic courts have open court sittings. na Not available. .. Not applicable.
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished);
table 6A.20.
Table 6.16
Judicial officers, full time equivalent, per 100 000 people,
2003-04 a, b
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Aust
courts Total
Population (’000) 6 721 4 955 3 854 1 972 1 531 479 325 200 .. 20 040
Judicial officers per 100 000 people
Supreme/Federal 0.9 0.8 0.6 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.7 4.0 0.2 1.2
District/county 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.3 1.3 .. .. .. .. 1.0
Magistrates ’ 1.7 2.3 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.0 6.1 .. 2.0
Children’s 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.3 .. 0.2
Electronic c .. na na na na .. .. .. .. na
Coroners 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 .. 0.1
Family .. .. .. 0.7 .. .. .. .. 0.3 0.4
Federal
Magistrates .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 0.1 0.1
Total 3.9 4.3 3.3 5.3 4.8 3.9 4.1 10.4 0.6 4.4
a Totals may not add as a result of rounding. b Judicial officers are defined to include judges, magistrates,
masters, coroners, judicial registrars, and all other officers who, following argument and giving of evidence,
make enforceable orders of the court. The data are provided on the basis of the proportion of time spent on
judicial activities. c No electronic courts have open court sittings. na Not available. .. Not applicable.
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished);
table 6A.20, Appendix A.
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.35

Efficiency — clearance rate
This indicator is a measure of efficiency in processing the inflow of cases through
the court (box 6.12).
Box 6.12
Clearance rate
The ‘clearance rate’ measures whether a court is keeping up with its workload.
The indicator is the number of finalisations in the reporting period, divided by the
number of lodgments in the same period (multiplied by 100 to convert to a percentage).
The following should assist in understanding the indicator:
• a figure of 100 per cent indicates that the court, during the reporting period, finalised
as many cases as were lodged
• a figure greater than 100 per cent means the pending caseload of the court is
decreasing
• a figure less than 100 per cent means the pending caseload of the court is
increasing.
The clearance rate can be affected by external factors (such as changes in legislation),
as well as by changes in a court’s case management practices.
All matters
For all matters (both criminal and civil) in the supreme courts in 2003-04, those
jurisdictions that kept up with their workload or reduced their pending caseload
(that is, those with a clearance rate of 100 per cent or above) were Queensland, WA
and Tasmania. The clearance rate in the Federal Court of Australia was
100.8 per cent. In the district courts, the two jurisdictions with a clearance rate of
100 per cent or over were NSW and Queensland. In the magistrates courts, the ACT
and Queensland had a clearance rate of over 100 per cent (table 6.17). Table 6.17
also provides a breakdown for each jurisdiction, with some differences in the
clearance rate, depending on whether the matter was criminal or civil.
In the electronic courts, the jurisdictions that had a clearance rate of 100 per cent or
over were Victoria and Queensland. In the coroners courts, the only jurisdiction
with a clearance rate of 100 per cent or over was Tasmania. The clearance rate in
the Family Court of Australia was 111.8 per cent; in the Federal Magistrates Court
it was 81.7 per cent (table 6.17).
6.36 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

Table 6.17 Clearance rate (finalisations/lodgments), all matters, 2003-04
(per cent)
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Aust
courts
Supreme
Criminal 98.1 106.3 94.4 105.1 85.4 94.8 88.1 80.9 ..
Civil 98.2 82.0 118.2 115.2 62.6 124.9 92.1 94.5 100.8
Total 98.2 83.9 113.0 113.8 66.7 116.8 91.4 87.7 100.8
District/county
Criminal 95.2 104.8 92.9 100.3 77.1 .. .. .. ..
Civil 123.9 82.5 103.4 95.3 95.9 .. .. .. ..
Total 108.6 90.4 100.4 97.5 89.2 .. .. .. ..
Magistrates
Criminal 97.8 94.7 99.7 108.6 77.5 91.5 100.9 90.0 ..
Civil 95.8 85.7 105.4 65.5 68.7 102.7 107.2 60.5 ..
Total 96.7 89.7 101.6 89.3 74.5 93.3 104.4 79.6 ..
Children’s
Criminal 101.0 88.8 96.0 66.6 70.9 97.5 111.9 87.7 ..
Civil 92.4 90.6 92.0 121.4 na 102.8 83.3 130.9 ..
Total 98.3 89.1 94.9 71.5 na 97.8 104.5 92.7 ..
Electronic .. 137.1 146.2 49.8 72.9 .. .. .. ..
Coroners 97.0 91.4 85.1 98.3 95.7 115.6 98.3 83.7 ..
Family .. .. .. 87.7 .. .. .. .. 111.8
Federal
Magistrates .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 81.7
na Not available. .. Not applicable.
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); tables
6A.1, 6A.2, 6A.5, 6A.6., 6A21 and 6A.22
Appeal and non-appeal matters
Where relevant, the clearance rate data have also been disaggregated between
appeal and non-appeal matters. For non-appeal matters (both criminal and civil) in
the supreme courts in 2003-04, those jurisdictions that kept up with their workload
or reduced their pending caseload (that is, those with a clearance rate of 100 per
cent or above) were Queensland, WA and Tasmania. The clearance rate for nonappeal
matters was 101.3 per cent in the Federal Court of Australia and
111.9 per cent in the Family Court of Australia. In the district courts, the
jurisdictions with a clearance rate of 100 per cent or above were NSW and
Queensland (table 6.18). Table 6.18 also provides a breakdown for each
jurisdiction, with some differences in the clearance rate depending on whether the
matter was criminal or civil.
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.37

Table 6.18
Clearance rate (finalisations/lodgments), non-appeal matters,
2003-04 (per cent)
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Aust
courts
Supreme
Criminal 98.4 104.9 89.3 89.6 86.2 95.5 80.6 82.7 ..
Civil 98.3 77.9 117.5 119.9 61.7 130.9 93.8 97.0 101.3
Total 98.3 78.4 112.6 117.2 63.1 120.9 92.2 87.7 101.3
District/county
Criminal 84.5 103.2 98.8 100.3 77.1 .. .. .. ..
Civil 124.0 82.3 102.2 97.0 96.0 .. .. .. ..
Total 111.1 87.0 100.3 98.4 89.2 .. .. .. ..
Family .. .. .. na .. .. .. .. 111.9
na Not available. .. Not applicable.
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished);
tables 6A.21 and 6A.22.
For appeal matters (both criminal and civil) in the supreme courts in 2003-04,
Victoria and Queensland kept up with their workload or reduced their pending
caseload (that is, they had a clearance rate of 100 per cent or above). In the district
courts, NSW, Victoria and Queensland had a clearance rate of 100 per cent or above
for appeal matters. Within each of these court levels, the clearance rate within each
jurisdiction differed depending on whether the matter was criminal or civil.
Table 6.19 provides a criminal and civil breakdown for each jurisdiction. The
clearance rate for appeal matters was 97.8 per cent in the Federal Court of Australia
and 105.1 per cent in the Family Court of Australia.
Table 6.19
Clearance rate (finalisations/lodgments), appeal matters,
2003-04 (per cent)
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT
Aust
courts
Supreme
Criminal 98.1 106.7 108.0 124.1 85.2 80.8 108.1 61.8 ..
Civil 96.7 151.0 134.0 73.8 72.5 68.6 71.1 92.0 97.8
Total 97.3 126.9 117.0 94.6 80.8 70.3 85.5 87.6 97.8
District/county
Criminal 102.9 106.5 72.3 na na .. .. .. ..
Civil 110.9 105.1 114.4 62.0 92.5 .. .. .. ..
Total 103.0 106.5 102.4 na na .. .. .. ..
Family .. .. .. na .. .. .. .. 105.1
na Not available. .. Not applicable.
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); tables
6A21 and 6A.22
6.38 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

Efficiency — cost per finalisation
This indicator is a measure of efficiency (box 6.13). Cost is measured as net
recurrent expenditure excluding payroll tax.
Box 6.13
Cost per finalisation
The cost per finalisation is calculated by dividing the total net recurrent expenditure
within each court for the financial year, by the total number of finalisations for the same
period.
It is an imperfect measure of an individual jurisdiction’s efficiency. The following points
need to be considered in interpreting the cost per finalisation efficiency results:
• some finalisations take only a short time and require few resources, whereas other
finalisations may be resource intensive and involve complicated trials
• the finalisation of a case may not provide a true indication of the resources
expended by the court, because any one case may involve several related
applications or issues that require judgments and decisions by the court
• lodgements that have not been acted upon in the last 12 months are counted as
finalised. However, NSW does not allow lengthy cases to become dormant as under
their case management approach they continue to monitor the matter.
Consequently, NSW cannot deem these cases finalised
• the expenditure provided may include arbitrary financial splits between criminal and
civil.
• the income deducted from court expenditure includes court fees, which in some
jurisdictions are set by government and not by court administrators
• a number of factors are beyond the control of jurisdictions, such as geographic
dispersion, economies of scale and socioeconomic factors
• the efficiency results need to be viewed in light of the performance indicator
framework as a whole, because there can be trade-offs between equity,
effectiveness and efficiency.
Net expenditure per finalisation for total magistrates courts (including magistrates
and children’s courts)
Nationally, net expenditure per criminal finalisation for total magistrates courts
(including children’s courts but excluding electronic courts) was $362 in 2003-04.
Across jurisdictions, it was highest in the ACT ($555) and lowest in Tasmania
($116) (figure 6.4).
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.39

Nationally, net expenditure per civil finalisation for total magistrates courts
(including children’s courts but excluding electronic courts) was $160. Across
jurisdictions, it was highest in the NT ($655) and lowest in Tasmania ($27). The
Victorian data include 70 660 finalisations of residential tenancy and civil matters
that were finalised in the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal. The Australian
courts do not operate in this court jurisdiction.
Figure 6.4
Net expenditure per finalisation, total magistrates courts
(excluding electronic courts), 2003-04a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Criminal
Civil
$/finalisation
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total
a Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue,
probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines).
b Excludes electronic court data but includes children’s court data. c Excludes payroll tax. d The Australian
courts do not operate in this court jurisdiction. e In the civil jurisdiction, the Victorian data include 70 660
finalisations of residential tenancy and civil claims applications (and the associated expenditure) that were
finalised in the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal. f In the criminal court jurisdiction in Queensland, some
Children’s Court expenditure and finalisations are heard in the District Court. This has not been taken into
account in the above analysis. g In the civil jurisdiction, Queensland and SA data exclude children’s court
finalisations but include children’s court expenditure, which creates a slightly increased expenditure per
finalisation for the magistrates courts (total). All other jurisdictions include civil children’s court data.
Source: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 6A.23 and
6A.24.
The analysis of the magistrates court efficiency in figure 6.4 excludes electronic
court expenditure and finalisations. Box 6.14 shows the impact of including
electronic courts within the efficiency results of the magistrates courts.
6.40 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

Box 6.14 The impact of the electronic courts on the magistrates courts
All State, Territory and Australian jurisdictions operate tribunals and specialist courts,
partly to reduce the workload on courts such as the magistrates courts.
Electronic courts — which are infringement and offence processing systems that have
the status of a court and deal with matters such as unpaid infringement notices for
minor traffic offences — can also reduce the workload on the magistrates courts.
Electronic courts currently operate only in Victoria, Queensland, WA and SA. The
figure in this box shows the impact that including electronic courts data for these
jurisdictions would have on the magistrates court efficiency results reported in
figure 6.4.
The impact is to reduce expenditure less income per criminal finalisation for the
magistrates courts in all four jurisdictions (assuming all of the matters dealt with by the
electronic courts would otherwise have been dealt with by the magistrates courts). The
magnitude of the reductions under this assumption is shown in the figure below and
table 6A.23.
Magistrates courts (excl. electronic courts)
Magistrates courts (incl. electronic courts)
$/finalisation
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Vic Qld WA SA
While NSW, Tasmania, the ACT and the NT do not operate electronic courts that fall
under the jurisdiction of the magistrates courts, they have bodies (such as the NSW
State Debt Recovery Office and the Motor Vehicle Registry in the ACT) that deal with
unpaid infringement notices and that may have a similar impact in reducing the
workload of the magistrates courts.
Net expenditure per finalisation for magistrates courts only
(excluding electronic and children’s courts)
In 2003-04, net expenditure per criminal finalisation for magistrates courts only
(excluding electronic and children’s courts) was $350 nationally. Across
jurisdictions, it was highest in the NT ($528) and lowest in Tasmania ($112)
(figure 6.5).
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.41

Nationally, net expenditure per civil finalisation for the magistrates courts only
(excluding electronic and children’s courts) was $136. Across jurisdictions, it was
highest in the NT ($667) and lowest in Tasmania ($27) (figure 6.5).
The Victorian data include 70 660 finalisations of residential tenancy matters and
civil claims applications (and the associated expenditure) that were finalised in the
Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal. The Australian courts do not operate in
this court jurisdiction.
Figure 6.5
Net expenditure per finalisation, magistrates courts only
(excluding electronic and children’s courts), 2003-04a, b, c, d, e
Criminal
Civil
$/finalisation
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total
a Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue,
probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines).
b Excludes payroll tax. c The Australian courts do not operate in this court jurisdiction. d In the civil
jurisdiction, the Victorian data include 70 660 finalisations of residential tenancy and civil claims applications
(and the associated expenditure) that were finalised in the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal. e In the civil
jurisdiction, Queensland data include finalisations and associated expenditure from the Small Claims Tribunal.
Source: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 6A.23 and
6A.24.
Net expenditure per finalisation for children’s courts
In 2003-04, net expenditure per criminal finalisation for children’s courts was $539
nationally. Across jurisdictions, it was highest in WA ($1022) and lowest in
Victoria ($107) (figure 6.6).
Nationally, net expenditure per civil finalisation for the children’s courts was $660.
Across jurisdictions, it was highest in the ACT ($2201) and lowest in WA ($394)
(figure 6.6). The Australian courts do not operate in this court jurisdiction.
6.42 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

Figure 6.6
Net expenditure per finalisation, children’s courts,
2003-04a, b, c, d, e, f
Criminal
Civil
2400
2000
$/finalisation
1600
1200
800
400
0
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total
a Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue,
probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines).
b Excludes payroll tax. c The Australian courts do not operate in this court jurisdiction. d Excludes finalisations
for committals heard in the children’s courts. e SA has not provided Children’s Court civil finalisations data.
f Tasmanian children’s court civil lodgments were statistically insignificant (106 cases), resulting in a nil return
due to the rounding process.
Source: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 6A.23 and
6A.24.
Net expenditure per finalisation for electronic courts
All electronic courts in 2003-04 had income that outweighed any associated
expenditure. Nationally, the income generated over expenditure per finalisation
(based on unpaid infringement notices) was $27. Across jurisdictions, it was highest
in WA and SA ($68) and lowest in Queensland ($20) (figure 6.7).
New South Wales, Tasmania, the ACT and the NT do not operate electronic courts.
They may, however, operate bodies (such as a debt recovery office) that perform
similar functions but do not operate under the auspices of a court.
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.43

Figure 6.7
Net expenditure per finalisation, electronic courts, 2003-04a, b, c
$/finalisation
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
Vic Qld WA SA Total
a Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue,
probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines).
b Excludes payroll tax. c Electronic courts (infringement and expiated offence processing systems that have
the status of a court) operate only in Victoria, Queensland, WA and SA. The electronic court data are based
on unpaid infringement notices. Other jurisdictions may operate similar bodies that do not operate under the
auspices of a court.
Source: State court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); table 6A.23.
Net expenditure per finalisation for district/county courts
In 2003-04, net expenditure per criminal finalisation for district/county courts was
$4768. Across jurisdictions, it was highest in SA ($8407) and lowest in Queensland
($2387) (figure 6.8).
Nationally, net expenditure per civil finalisation for district/county courts was
$1739. Across jurisdictions, it was highest in WA ($2680) and lowest in
Queensland ($1018) (figure 6.8). Tasmania, the ACT, the NT and the Australian
courts do not operate in this court jurisdiction.
Net expenditure per finalisation for the supreme courts and the Federal Court
In 2003-04, net expenditure per criminal finalisation in the supreme courts was
$12 859 nationally. Across jurisdictions, it was highest in NSW ($25 636) and
lowest in Queensland ($5224) (figure 6.9).
Nationally, net expenditure per civil finalisation was $4197. Across jurisdictions, it
was highest in the NT ($18 813) and lowest in Queensland ($1185) (figure 6.9).
The Federal Court’s net expenditure per civil finalisation was $11 119 (figure 6.9).
6.44 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

Figure 6.8
Net expenditure per finalisation, district/county courts,
2003-04a, b, c, d
Criminal
Civil
$/finalisation
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Total
a Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue,
probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines).
b Excludes payroll tax. c Tasmania, the ACT, the NT and the Australian Government do not operate
district/county courts. d In the criminal court jurisdiction in Queensland, some children’s court expenditure and
finalisations are heard in the district court. This has not been taken into account in the above analysis.
Source: State court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 6A.23 and 6A.24.
Figure 6.9
Net expenditure per finalisation, supreme courts and the
Federal Court, 2003-04a, b, c
Criminal
Civil
28000
24000
$/finalisation
20000
16000
12000
8000
4000
0
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Fed Total
a Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue,
probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines).
b Excludes payroll tax. c Data for the Federal Court include the cost of resources provided free of charge to
the Federal Magistrates Court. As well, the Federal Magistrates Court has an impact on the workload and
costs of the Federal Court. The Federal Court does not operate in the criminal jurisdiction.
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished);
tables 6A.23 and 6A.24.
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.45

Net expenditure per reported death and fire for coroners courts
Nationally, expenditure per reported death and fire in the coroners courts was $1503
in 2003-04. Across jurisdictions, it was highest in the NT ($3426) and lowest in
Tasmania ($804) (figure 6.10). Some jurisdictions include autopsy and chemical
analysis costs in their expenditure data, but others exclude these costs because they
are outside the court’s immediate control.
Data for NSW, Queensland and the ACT include fires reported to the coroner; all
other jurisdictions exclude these data, so care needs to be taken when making
comparisons. The Australian courts do not operate in this court jurisdiction.
Figure 6.10 Net expenditure per finalisation, coroners courts, 2003-04a, b, c, d
$/finalisation
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total
a Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue,
probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines).
b Excludes payroll tax. c Data for NSW, Queensland and the ACT include fires reported to the coroner. All
other jurisdictions exclude these data. d Some jurisdictions include autopsy and chemical analysis costs in
their expenditure data, but others exclude these costs because they are outside the court’s immediate control.
Source: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); table 6A.23.
Net expenditure per lodgment for family courts and the Federal Magistrates Court
The establishment of the Federal Magistrates Court has implications for the number
of finalisations and expenditure associated with the Family Court of Australia. The
intention is for the Federal Magistrates Court to take on some of the workload
previously managed by the Family Court of Australia (and the Federal Court).
In 2003-04, net expenditure per finalisation was $1967 for the Family Court of
Australia and $1033 for the Family Court of WA (figure 6.11). The Federal
Magistrates Court received resources provided free of charge from the Family Court
6.46 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

of Australia, which has implications for comparisons between the two family courts.
Net expenditure per finalisation for the Federal Magistrates Court was $334.
Figure 6.11
Net expenditure per finalisation, family courts, 2003-04 a, b
$/finalisation
2400
2000
1600
1200
800
400
0
WA Family Court Family Court of Australia Federal Magistrates
a Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue,
probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines). b The
introduction of the Federal Magistrates Court has expenditure and lodgment implications for the Family Court
of Australia. The Federal Magistrates Court has received resources provided free of charge from the Family
Court of Australia, and since November 2003, all divorces have been lodged in the Federal Magistrates Court.
Source: Australian court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); table 6A.24.
Outcomes
There are no outcome indicators for court administration. It is noted, however, that
the activities of court administrators lead to broader justice-wide outcomes that are
not readily picked up in this service-specific chapter.
6.4 Future directions in performance reporting
Improving data quality
Differences across states and territories in the jurisdiction of courts, and in the
allocation of cases between courts, affect the comparability of equity, efficiency and
effectiveness data. The different methods undertaken to collect the data can also
have an impact on data consistency and quality.
The Review, through the Court Administration Working Group and the Courts
Practitioner Group, is taking steps to improve data quality, including:
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.47

• assessing and implementing recommendations associated with the ABS Courts
Administration Data Collection National Report on lodgments and finalisations
• clearly defining issues pertaining to the scope of the data collection and
reporting within the chapter
• assessing the most appropriate way in which to collect and publish data
• amending data definitions
• improving data verification and data quality.
These changes are ongoing and incremental.
6.5 Jurisdictions’ comments
This section provides comments from each jurisdiction on the services covered in
this chapter. Appendix A contains data that may assist in interpreting the
performance indicators presented in this chapter. These data cover a range of
demographic and geographic characteristics, including age profile, geographic
distribution of the population, income levels, education levels, tenure of dwellings
and cultural heritage (including Indigenous and ethnic status).
6.48 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

“
New South Wales Government comments
During 2003–04, the Attorney General’s Department of NSW continued to
focus on improving the administration of the community’s justice system for
resolving civil disputes and criminal matters. As well as continued
improvements in court performance, our priorities included building community
capacity to prevent crime, improving outcomes and services for Aboriginal
communities, enhancing value for money through justice sector cooperation,
and use of technology such as video conferencing.
The District Court’s pending civil caseload, has reduced substantially as a
result of the introduction of Tort Law reforms. With criminal matters, the District
Court ranked first in Australia in relation to time standards, despite having the
largest number of serious cases.
The NSW Supreme Court has continued to deal with its criminal cases in a
timely way and, amongst the supreme courts, has the third smallest backlog of
cases older than 2 years. This is despite that fact that it deals almost
exclusively with the most serious offences (murder and manslaughter).
NSW also improved outcomes and services for Aboriginal communities through
the expansion of circle sentencing and community justice groups. Circle
sentencing was extended to Dubbo, and is due to commence in the near future
at Brewarrina and Walgett Local Courts. Aboriginal Community Justice Groups
were established at Lismore, Grafton, Yamba, Maclean, Toronto and Mt. Druitt.
Local Courts now provide outreach services in 35 courthouses. Outreach
services improve access to a range of government information and transaction
services for residents in physically remote and isolated locations and to
targeted client groups such as Aboriginal communities and people from non-
English-speaking backgrounds.
Video conferencing systems installed in courtrooms and other justice facilities
have been used for over 20 000 bail appearances, parole hearings and remote
witness appearances. This technological advance has significantly reduced the
costs and risks of transporting people in custody and has improved security
within courts, particularly for vulnerable witnesses.
CourtLink, the multi-jurisdictional case management system is providing an
impetus to review and streamline processes in each of the jurisdictions.
Additionally, court forms and documents in the criminal jurisdiction have been
reduced from 700 to fewer than 100 types of documents.
Lawlink NSW was consistently rated in the top five most popular legal websites
in Australia, registering an average of more than 4 million hits per month. For
Caselaw, the web-based application containing NSW court and tribunal
decisions, more than 19 million pages were accessed throughout the year.
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
”
6.49

“
Victorian Government comments
In 2003-04 Victoria continued to introduce new technology, new mediation
processes and construct court houses to improve the delivery of services to the
community.
Construction of the $15.5M Warrnambool Courts Complex continued through
2003-2004. The multi-jurisdictional complex has four court rooms and will also
accommodate the Office of Public Prosecutions, the Sheriff’s Office and
Community Correctional Services. Work also continued on the new $16.7M
Mildura Courts Complex through 2003–2004 and it was completed in early
October 2004. The multi-jurisdictional court house has jury and custody
facilities as well as a pre-trial hearing room, interview rooms and facilities for
the public and staff. Both courthouses will incorporate ecologically sustainable
development principles, including energy efficient design and features the
latest in court technology.
The Department is continuing to enhance access to technology for courts
across the state. In 2003-04 the Victorian Government Reporting Service
(VGRS) upgraded video-conferencing facilities, and in partnership with the
County Court, trialed the installation of a combined DVD, VHS and CD Player
for use in the presentation of evidence in courtrooms. The Supreme Court
upgraded the IT infrastructure to support a rollout to windows XP and
standardise information technology across the Melbourne and regional Courts.
The Court commenced a project to upgrade court rooms in the criminal
jurisdiction to support electronic delivery of evidence for major criminal trials.
The County Court introduced a new criminal listing regime which has resulted
in more appropriate timeliness in this jurisdiction, particularly in relation to
criminal trials. The County Court also continued to address the increased
caseload arising from the reintroduction of the common law right to sue for
work related injuries, as well as addressing the changing caseload arising from
Tort Law reforms introduced during 2003.
Since its inception in February 2003 the mediation initiative for civil claims
above $30,000 at the Magistrates Court has proved most successful. The
Court’s accredited mediators (also Registrar’s of the Magistrates Court)
conducted 138 mediations of which 91 settled and 47 matters were listed for
hearing before an Open Court. The success rate currently lies at 66%. The
total saving of Court sitting time has been a total 205 sitting days. In relation to
designated Intervention Order complaints (which excluded applications
between family members) an agreement rate of 72% was achieved between
parties which resulted in the original complaint for an intervention order being
withdrawn. Participation in the program is voluntary.
The Criminal Justice Diversion Program operating in the Magistrates Court has
also proved quite successful.
6.50 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005
”

“
Queensland Government comments
Queensland courts have continued to set high standards of efficiency and
effectiveness during 2003–04. A range of initiatives have been undertaken to
improve access to justice in Queensland including:
• Implementation of the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Act
2003 which improves the environment for children in the criminal justice
system through pre-recording all evidence at a preliminary hearing unless
(because of extraordinary circumstances) the court orders otherwise; and
mandatory use of CCTV or screens where pre-recording has not occurred.
• The continued expansion of closed circuit television (CCTV) and voice
enhancement facilities for witnesses throughout Queensland including – in
the Higher Courts – at Mt Isa, Cairns, Townsville, Bundaberg, Kingaroy,
and Gympie and – in the Magistrates Courts – at Richlands.
• The continued successful Drug Court program in South East Queensland
and expansion of the Drug Court through trials in Cairns and Townsville.
• Implementation of the Illicit Drug Diversion Program trial (at the Brisbane
Central Magistrates Courts and Children’s Court) with the aim of diverting
minor drug offenders into assessment, education and treatment.
• Commencement of the operations of the Office of the State Coroner
delivering high quality coronial services including comprehensive coronial
investigations – with the aim of preventing future similar deaths.
• Expansion of the Civil Case Register System (CRS) in the Magistrates
Courts to a total of 19 sites (adding three new locations at Petrie, Noosa
and Cleveland). This CRS facility enables solicitors and others to
electronically lodge civil claims and requests for default judgement in
Magistrates Courts.
• Continuation of the development of the Integrated Justice Information
System project - a whole-of-government initiative to better plan and
implement integrated justice solutions in collaboration with government
agencies. The project will deliver a number of initiatives over five years.
The first stage in 2003–04 has involved the electronic transfer of bench
charge sheets and related information from police to courts and access to
court lists.
• Planning for the delivery of state-of-the-art digital recording and
transcription services in Queensland courts – commencing in 2004–05 with
the Brisbane Magistrates Court and the Brisbane Higher Courts.
• Continuation of the modernisation program in Queensland courts - not just
as new bricks and mortar projects but as specific improvements designed
to make the criminal justice system more effective. These include the new
state-of-the-art Brisbane Magistrates Court complex (commencing
November 2004), refurbishment of the Mackay Courthouse and an
upgrade of the Hervey Bay courthouse.
”
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.51

“
Western Australian Government comments
A considerable legislative agenda that impacts upon courts activities has been
progressed through Parliament and includes:
• Structural and procedural reform of the lower courts to create a
Magistrates’ Court, exercising both a civil and criminal jurisdiction. The
Court will have increased jurisdictional limits and the power to make its
own rules.
• The Civil Judgments Enforcement Act and the Criminal Procedure Act
that will establish uniform procedures across all of the respective
jurisdictions.
• Increasing the likelihood of ‘either-way’ offences being dealt with in the
Magistrates Court.
• Creating a State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) that will amalgamate all
or part functions of over 50 boards and tribunals and transfer hundreds
of administrative appeals from courts.
• Amending the Restraining Orders Act to reflect community concerns
relating to family and domestic violence.
• Changing procedures to afford sexual assault complainants greater
protection.
Other projects underway include:
• The construction of a Central Business District Courts complex. This
facility will provide for all criminal trials in the CBD to be managed from
the one facility. The expected completion is by 2008.
• Implementing the Integrated Courts Management System (ICMS) into
the civil jurisdiction of the Supreme and District Courts and planning for
Criminal Case Management. The system will also provide a case
management facility for the SAT and enable the expansion of e-
Business (Magistrates’ Courts are now receiving more than 85% of
police criminal complaints electronically).
• Development of a management plan for self represented persons in
Courts and Tribunals.
• A joint assessment has commenced on the merits of developing crossborder
agreements between WA, SA and the NT to provide for summary
criminal matters perpetrated in one state/territory to be dealt with in
another and enforceable in the originating state/territory. Participating
Magistrates and Court Officers will hold simultaneous appointments for
all jurisdictions.
”
6.52 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

“
South
Australian Government comments
There are no substantial changes in this year’s reported data compared with
the trends that have been noted in the activities and performance of the South
Australian courts over recent years.
The two projects being undertaken in the Magistrates Court in collaboration
with the Attorney-General’s Department and other organisations, namely;
adjournments and video conferencing, are continuing to be investigated.
In the District and Supreme Courts the examination of the listing processes to
see if greater consistency can be achieved between what is expected to take
place when a matter is listed for trial and what actually takes place is
continuing.
Key initiatives not covered in the report include:
• A number of Aboriginal Justice initiatives have been introduced to improve
the responsiveness of the Courts system for Aboriginal people and to make
it more culturally appropriate. Examples of these initiatives are; Aboriginal
Justice Officers, Aboriginal Court Days, Aboriginal Youth Court Pilot in Port
Augusta, Aboriginal Recruitment and Employment in Magistrates Courts and
Aboriginal interpreters extended to Ceduna, Yalata and Coober Pedy.
• The Court Diversion Program continues to expand, now covering the CBD,
metropolitan and three regional areas of South Australia. The Program
provides an opportunity for eligible individuals to address their mental health,
disability issues and their offending behaviour, while their legal proceedings
are suspended.
• Funding has been approved to develop a new Courthouse at Port Augusta.
The development provides for a three courtroom building that provides
rooms for associated agencies within the building, registry and mediation
facilities, point of entry security, open plan for internal waiting spaces and
sheltered external waiting areas. Multi Purpose Courtrooms will be designed
to provide a high degree of flexibility in the operating configuration to suit the
specific requirements of particular hearings/trials. Construction completion
date is expected to be September 2006.
The South Australian Courts have continued to pursue a range of strategies
designed to improve the flow of matters through the various courts.
”
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.53

“
Tasmanian Government comments
The accuracy of many of the data items provided by Tasmania in this report
has improved significantly following a review of the implementation of the new
performance indicators first used in 2002–03 and full implementation a new
case management system in the Criminal Division of the Magistrates Court
(“CRIMES”).
The review revealed that in 2002–03 Tasmania had incorrectly interpreted the
new counting rules for pending caseload in the Magistrates Court’s Civil and
Criminal Divisions and the Civil Division of the Supreme Court. This, together
with an increased focus on timely disposal of cases, explains a significant
improvement in the backlog indicator in 2003–04 for these courts. The backlog
indicator for the Coronial Court has also improved significantly in 2003–04 due
to the allocation of additional judicial resources and improved case
management.
The courts plan to achieve further improvements in the timeliness of finalising
cases, as represented by the backlog indicator in 2004–05. The Supreme
Court plans to improve the management of civil cases and in particular identify
cases where the parties settle out of court and the court is not informed. The
Magistrates Court has reallocated a Magistrate from the Civil to Criminal
Jurisdiction and has had two temporary Magistrates appointed for the first half
of 2004–05.
Unlike the majority of other state jurisdictions the Tasmanian Magistrates Court
deals with matters arising from drivers failing to pay infringement notices. In
most other states these unpaid infringement notices are dealt with through
Electronic Courts. These matters account for approximately 66 per cent of all
lodgments and finalisations in the Magistrates Court. This factor accounts for a
number of apparent anomalies in the Magistrates Courts indicators including
the proportionally high numbers of lodgments and finalisations, the low
attendance indicator (These matters are generally dealt with through a single
appearance) and the low net expenditure per finalisation (The matters are dealt
with ex-parte by an unpaid Justice of the Peace). It is anticipated that in 2006
the implementation a new Monetary Penalties Enforcement System will remove
these matters from the Magistrates Court.
For many years the average civil court fees per lodgment in the Tasmanian
Supreme Court has been very low when compared with other states. The Court
has recently reviewed the level of fees for civil lodgments and has revised the
fees for 2004–05 to be in line with those in other states District and County
Courts.
”
6.54 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

“
Australian Capital Territory Government comments
The progressive introduction of the new reporting framework, based on agreed
national Key Performance Indicators, is opening up new opportunities to
identify better practice in Australia. In the ACT, the KPIs are being rolled out
across the jurisdictions, with planning well advanced to report against them
monthly to assist in the management of the courts’ caseload.
The 2003–04 year saw further improvements in the management of the
Territory’s courts and tribunals, including:
• legislative reform to fundamentally change the way that court rules are
developed and implemented through a Joint Courts Rules Committee;
• improved physical access to the Supreme Court for people with
disabilities;
• new Supreme Court Criminal Practice Directions, including new
arrangements for early arraignments and the management of special
fixtures;
• commencement of a “Circle Sentencing” pilot in the Magistrates Court,
allowing greater involvement of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
community in the criminal sentencing process; and
• increased levels of customer satisfaction, with 90 per cent of survey
respondents rating our services overall as “very satisfactory” or
“satisfactory”, up from 86 per cent last year.
This year’s Report graphically highlights the impact of long and complex cases
on any court’s productivity. In 2001–02 the unit cost in the ACT Coroners Court
was $449. In 2003–04 it had increased to $2,314 [see Table 6A.23]. This
515 per cent increase is wholly attributable to a single case, the Coronial
Inquiry into the January 2003 Bushfire emergency. While all Australian
jurisdictions recognise the effect of ‘mega-trials’, rarely has the resourcing
impact been so clearly discernable as it is in a comparatively small system like
that in the ACT.
With an increasing reliance on the results of this Report for government
resource allocation and public sector performance review, the ACT looks
forward to the time when all courts in all jurisdictions reliably report against all
indicators, so that more meaningful national averages are available.
”
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.55

“
Northern Territory Government comments
The Courts Administration Division of the Department of Justice was re-named
‘Court Support Services’ during the year.
Achieved the first full year of operation of the Court Referral and Evaluation for
Drug Intervention and Treatment (CREDIT NT) program. CREDIT NT is a 12
week pre-sentence bail program wherein defendants are assessed for eligibility
to participate in the program, and if the Court allows, are then referred to one of
a range of treatment providers as a component of their bail conditions. The
program is co-ordinated by two Court Clinicians based in Darwin and Alice
Springs.
An electronic courtroom was constructed within the Supreme Court building at
Darwin to reduce the time taken for trials, resulting in a more efficient use of
resources. The electronic courtroom involved the fit-out of an unused ‘shell
only’ courtroom thereby providing a much needed additional criminal courtroom
which will assist the Supreme Court in dealing with criminal matters in a more
timely manner.
Conducted a pilot video-conferencing project with Oenpelli during the year and
expanded the videoconferencing network to include the Jabiru, Nhulunbuy and
Alyangula courthouses.
Developed a Client Service Charter that sets out standards of service users of
the Courts and Tribunals can expect from Court Support Services’ staff.
The Education Liaison Officer continued to work closely with the Department
of Employment Education and Training to facilitate the courts’ contribution to
the Discovering Democracy Project. The program has been developed with
suitable and relevant content being reviewed for publication on the Supreme
Court web page.
Continued to develop a performance indicator framework in line with the
framework established by the Steering Committee for the Review of
Commonwealth/State Service Provision.
Responded to a call from local civil legal practitioners by increasing Supreme
Court sitting weeks at Alice Springs. The calendar at Alice Springs was also
restructured to enable more time to be allocated to civil matters during the year.
Commenced a Community Court pilot in Nhulunbuy. The community plays an
active role in providing advice to the Magistrate on the sentencing of members
of their communities.
”
6.56 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

6.6 Definitions of key terms and indicators
Active pending
population
Average expenditure
per civil case
Attendance Indicator
Backlog Indicator
Bench warrant
Case
Clearance rate
Cost recovery
Court fees collected
Electronic court
Electronic court
Excluded courts and
tribunals
Finalisation
Forms
Income
A lodgment that is yet to be finalised but is part of the case
management of court administrators.
The total cost of the administrative services provided to civil matters,
divided by the total number of civil files handled. Includes salaries,
sheriff expenses, juror costs, accommodation costs, library services,
information technology, departmental overheads and court operating
expenses.
The average number of attendances for each finalisation in the
reporting period. An attendance is defined as the number of times that
parties or their representatives are required to be present in court
(including any appointment which is adjourned or rescheduled) for all
finalised matters during the year. The actual attendance is one that is
heard by a judicial officer or mediator/arbitrator.’
A measure of case processing timeliness. It is the number of pending
cases older than the applicable reporting standards, divided by the total
pending caseload (multiplied by 100 to convert to a percentage).
A warrant issued by a court for the arrest of a person who has been
indicted.
The measurement of workload in the civil jurisdiction. It is the issues,
grievances or complaints that constitute a single and related series of
disputes brought by an entity (or group of entities) against another entity
(or group).
A measure of whether a court is keeping up with its workload. It is the
number of finalisations in the reporting period, divided by the number of
lodgments in the same period (multiplied by 100 to convert to a
percentage).
The level of court fees divided by the level of court expenditure.
Total court income from fees charged in the civil jurisdiction. Includes
filing, sitting hearing and deposition fees, and excludes transcript fees.
A court with the capacity to produce enforceable orders against
defendants (such as fines, licence cancellation and incarceration) and
to process infringements, on-the-spot fines and summary offences.
A court with the capacity to produce enforceable orders against
defendants (such as fines, licence cancellation and incarceration) and
to process infringements, on-the-spot fines and summary offences.
Guardianship boards, environment resources and development courts,
and administrative appeals tribunals.
The completion of a matter so it ceases to be an item of work to be
dealt with by the court. Finalisations are derived from timeliness data
that may not reflect the total matters disposed by the courts in the
reporting period.
The counting unit used in the family courts and family law matters
pertaining to the Federal Magistrates Court. Forms are applications or
notices lodged with the court.
Income derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting
revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue, probate revenue, mediation
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.57

Information technology
expenditure
Inquests and inquiries
held
Judicial officer
Judicial and judicial
support salaries
Library expenditure
Lodgment
Matters
revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding
fines).
Non-salary and salary expenditure on information technology. Excludes
capital expenditure on information technology infrastructure and
includes licensing costs, computer leasing costs, the cost of
consumables (such as data lines, paper and disks), training fees,
access fees (for example, catalogue search and Internet access) and
maintenance charges for software and hardware.
Court hearings to determine the cause and circumstances of deaths
reported to the coroner. Includes all coronial inquests and inquiries in
full court hearings.
Judges, magistrates, masters, coroners, judicial registrars and all other
officers who, following argument and giving of evidence, make
enforceable orders of the court. The data are provided on the basis of
the proportion of time spent on the judicial activity.
All salary expenditure and payments in the nature of salary that are
paid to employees of court administration. Includes base salaries, the
employer contributed component of superannuation, workers
compensation (full cost, inclusive of any levies, bills and legal fees),
higher duty allowances, overtime, actual and accruing terminal and long
service leave, fringe benefits tax and untaxed fringe benefits.
(Judicial officers include judges, magistrates, masters, judicial registrars
and other judicial officers who fulfil a primarily judicial function. Judicial
support staff include judicial secretaries, tipstaff and associates).
Non-salary and salary expenditure on court operated libraries. Nonsalary
expenditure includes book purchases, journal subscriptions, fees
for interlibrary loans, copyright charges, news clippings service fees
and photocopying.
Expenditure also includes current information technology costs and
court administration contributions towards the running costs of nongovernment
operated libraries. Any costs recovered through borrowing
and photocopy fees by court operated libraries are subtracted from
expenditure.
The initiation or commencement of a matter before the court. The date
of commencement is counted as the date of registration of a court
matter.
Coronial matters: Deaths and fires reported to the coroner in each
jurisdiction, including all reported deaths and fires regardless of whether
the coroner held an inquest or inquiry. Coronial jurisdictions can extend
to the manner of the death of a person who was killed; was found
drowned; died a sudden death of which the cause is unknown; died
under suspicious or unusual circumstances; died during or following the
administration of an operation of a medical, surgical, dental, diagnostic
or like nature; died in a prison remand centre or lockup; or died under
circumstances that (in the opinion of the Attorney-General) require that
the cause of death be more clearly ascertained.
Criminal matters: Matters brought to the court by a government
prosecuting agency, which is generally the Director of Public
Prosecutions but could also be the Attorney-General, the police, local
councils or traffic camera branches.
Civil matters: Matters brought before the court by individuals or
organisations against another party, such as small claims and
residential tenancies, as well as matters dealt with by the appeal court
jurisdiction.
6.58 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005

Method of finalisation
Method of initiation
Non-adjudicated
finalisation
Probate registry
expenditure
Real expenditure
Sheriff and bailiff
expenditure
Withdrawn
Excluded matters: Extraordinary driver’s licence applications; any
application on a pending dispute; applications for bail directions or
judgment; secondary processes (for example, applications for default
judgments); interlocutory matters; investigation/examination
summonses; firearms appeals; escort agents’ licensing appeals;
pastoral lands appeals; local government tribunals; police promotions
appeals; applications appealing the decisions of workers compensation
review officers.
Probate: Matters such as applications for the appointment of an
executor or administrator to the estate of a deceased person.
The process that leads to the completion of a criminal charge within a
higher court so it ceases to be an item of work in that court.
How a criminal charge is introduced to a court level.
A judgment or decision by the court as to whether the defendant is
guilty of the charge laid against him or her — for example, whether the
defendant pleaded guilty or was found guilty by the court, or was
acquitted.
Salary expenditure of the probate registrar and probate clerks, along
with non-salary expenditure directly attributable to probate registries.
Actual expenditure adjusted for changes in prices using the GDP(E)
price deflator and expressed in terms of final year prices.
Expenditure on court orderlies, court security, jury management and
witness payment administration. For the civil jurisdiction, it includes
expenditure (by or on behalf of the court) on bailiffs to enforce court
orders. In the coronial jurisdiction, it includes expenditure on police
officers permanently attached to the coroner for the purpose of
assisting in coronial investigations. Excludes witness payments, fines
enforcement (criminal jurisdiction) and prisoner security.
The formal withdrawal of charges by the prosecution (that is, by police,
the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General).
COURT
ADMINISTRATION
6.59

6.7 References
FMC (Federal Magistrates Court) 2004, www.fmc.gov.au (accessed 14 October
2004).
SCRCSSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State Service
Provision) 2003, Report on Government Services 2003, AusInfo, Canberra.
6.60 REPORT ON
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES 2005