PDF 0.4 MB
PDF 0.4 MB
PDF 0.4 MB
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
6 Court administration<br />
This chapter covers the performance of court administration for State and Territory<br />
supreme, district/county and magistrates (including children’s) courts, electronic<br />
courts, coroners courts and probate registries. It also covers the performance of<br />
court administration for the Federal Court of Australia, the Federal Magistrates<br />
Court, the Family Court of Australia and the Family Court of WA. The focus of this<br />
Report is on the administration of the courts, not the outcomes of legal processes.<br />
A profile of court administration is presented in section 6.1. The framework of<br />
performance indicators is outlined in section 6.2 and data are discussed in<br />
section 6.3. Future directions for performance reporting are discussed in section 6.4.<br />
Jurisdictions’ comments are provided in section 6.5, followed by definitions in<br />
section 6.6.<br />
Supporting tables<br />
Supporting tables for chapter 6 are provided on the CD-ROM enclosed with the<br />
Report. The files are provided in Microsoft Excel format as<br />
\Reports\2005\Attach6A.xls and in Adobe <strong>PDF</strong> format as Attach6A.pdf.<br />
Supporting tables are identified in references throughout this chapter by an ‘A’<br />
suffix (for example, table 6A.3 is table 3 in the electronic files). These files can be<br />
found on the Review web page (www.pc.gov.au). Users without Internet access can<br />
contact the Secretariat to obtain these tables (see details on the inside front cover of<br />
the Report).<br />
6.1 Profile of court administration services<br />
Service overview<br />
Court administration agencies throughout Australia provide a range of services<br />
integral to the effective performance of the judicial system. The primary functions<br />
of court administration agencies are to:<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.1
• manage court facilities and staff, including buildings, security and ancillary<br />
services such as registries, libraries and transcription services<br />
• provide case management services, including client information, scheduling and<br />
case flow management<br />
• enforce court orders through the sheriff’s department or a similar mechanism.<br />
Roles and responsibilities<br />
State and Territory court levels<br />
There is a hierarchy of courts within each State and Territory. The supreme court<br />
hears disputes of greater seriousness than those heard in the other courts. It also<br />
develops the law and operates as a court of judicial review or appeal. For the<br />
majority of jurisdictions, the hierarchy of courts are as outlined below (although<br />
Tasmania and the territories do not have a district/county court):<br />
• the supreme court<br />
• the district/county court<br />
• the magistrates court.<br />
Within certain court levels, a number of specialist courts (such as drug courts and<br />
children’s courts) aim to improve the responsiveness of courts to the special needs<br />
of particular clients. Tribunals can also improve responsiveness and assist in<br />
alleviating the workload of courts — for example, small claims tribunals may assist<br />
in shifting work away from a magistrates court.<br />
Differences in court jurisdictions, along with the use of specialist courts and<br />
tribunals, can mean that the allocation of cases to courts varies across states and<br />
territories (boxes 6.1–6.3). As a result, the seriousness and complexity of cases<br />
heard in each jurisdiction’s equivalent court often vary. Any performance<br />
comparison needs to account for these factors.<br />
6.2 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
Box 6.1<br />
Criminal<br />
Magistrates court jurisdiction across states and territories<br />
All magistrates courts deal with criminal matters that can be decided without a jury and<br />
committal proceedings. There are, however, differences across jurisdictions:<br />
NSW: Deals with matters with a maximum penalty of up to two years imprisonment for<br />
a single offence, and up to five years imprisonment for multiple offences.<br />
Victoria: Hears and determines some indictable offences (if the court is of the opinion<br />
that the charge is appropriate to be dealt with summarily, and the defendant consents).<br />
Queensland: Deals with matters with a maximum penalty of up to three years<br />
imprisonment, including some indictable offences dealt with summarily.<br />
WA: Hears and determines some indictable offences (if the court is of the opinion that<br />
the charge can be dealt with summarily).<br />
SA: Deals with matters with a maximum penalty of up to two years imprisonment,<br />
juvenile prosecutions and intervention orders (including breaches).<br />
Tasmania: Deals with matters with a maximum penalty of up to two years<br />
imprisonment, including some indictable offences dealt with summarily.<br />
ACT: Deals with matters with a maximum penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment if the<br />
offence relates to money or property, and up to 10 years imprisonment in other cases.<br />
NT: deals with some drug and fraud charges and matters with a maximum penalty of<br />
up to 10 years imprisonment (or 10–14 years imprisonment if the accused consents).<br />
Civil<br />
NSW: Deals with small claims up to $10 000 and general division claims up to $60 000,<br />
as well as family law matters.<br />
Victoria: deals with up to $100 000 for monetary damages, as well as applications for<br />
equitable relief and applications under the Crimes (Family Violence) Act 1987.<br />
Queensland: Deals with small claims (including residential tenancy disputes) up to<br />
$7500, minor debt claims up to $7500 and other claims up to $50 000.<br />
WA: Deals with claims for debt recovery and damages (other than personal injury) up<br />
to $25 000. It has a small disputes division and deals with residential tenancy disputes.<br />
SA: Deals with small claims up to $5000, commercial cases up to $30 000 and<br />
personal injury claims up to $60 000.<br />
Tasmania: Deals with claims up to $20 000 for monetary damages and debt recovery,<br />
minor civil claims up to $5000, residential tenancy disputes and restraint orders.<br />
ACT: Deals with small claims up to $10 000, workers compensation claims, some<br />
family law matters, other claims up to $50 000 and matters under the Domestic<br />
Relations Act 1994.<br />
NT: deals with claims up to $100 000 and workers compensation claims.<br />
Sources: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments.<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.3
Box 6.2<br />
District/county court jurisdiction across states and territories<br />
The district/county court does not operate in Tasmania, the ACT or the NT.<br />
Criminal<br />
All State district/county courts have jurisdiction over indictable criminal matters (such<br />
as rape and armed robbery) except murder and treason, but differences exist across<br />
jurisdictions. The following are examples of the jurisdiction of the criminal<br />
district/county courts:<br />
NSW: District Court deals with most of the serious criminal cases that come before the<br />
courts in NSW. It has responsibility for indictable criminal offences that are normally<br />
heard by a judge and jury, but on occasions by a judge alone. It does not deal with<br />
treason or murder.<br />
Victoria: County Court deals with all indictable offences, except the following (which<br />
must be heard in the Supreme Court): murder; attempted murder; child destruction;<br />
certain conspiracy charges; treason; and concealing an offence of treason. Examples<br />
of criminal offences heard in the County Court include: drug trafficking; serious<br />
assaults; serious theft; rape; and obtaining financial advantage by deception.<br />
Queensland: District Court deals with more serious criminal offences than heard by the<br />
Magistrates Court — for example, rape, armed robbery and fraud.<br />
WA: District Court deals with any indictable offence except those that carry a penalty of<br />
life imprisonment.<br />
SA: District Court has jurisdiction to try a charge of any offence except treason or<br />
murder. Almost all matters have been referred following a committal process in the<br />
Magistrates Court.<br />
Appeals from magistrates courts are heard in the district/county courts in NSW, Victoria<br />
and Queensland, but not in WA and SA.<br />
Civil<br />
All district/county civil courts hear appeals.<br />
NSW: Deals with claims up to $750 000, and unlimited claims in motor accident cases.<br />
Victoria: Deals with damages for non-personal injuries claims up to $200 000, appeals<br />
under the Crimes (Family Violence) Act 1987, unlimited claims for compensation<br />
resulting from injury or death, adoption matters and change-of-name applications.<br />
Queensland: Deals with claims between $50 000 and $250 000.<br />
WA: Deals with claims up to $250 000 and unlimited claims for personal injuries.<br />
SA: Deals with unlimited claims for general and personal injury matters.<br />
Sources: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments.<br />
6.4 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
Box 6.3<br />
Criminal<br />
Supreme court jurisdiction across states and territories<br />
All State and Territory supreme courts have jurisdiction over serious criminal matters<br />
such as murder, treason and certain serious drug offences, but significant differences<br />
exist across jurisdictions:<br />
• Given that district/county courts do not operate in Tasmania, the ACT or the NT,<br />
the supreme courts in these jurisdictions generally exercise a jurisdiction equal to<br />
that of both the supreme and district/county courts in other States.<br />
• The Queensland Supreme Court deals with a significant amount of minor drug<br />
matters, which supreme courts in other states and territories do not hear.<br />
• In the NSW Supreme Court, almost all indictments are for offences of murder and<br />
manslaughter, whereas the range of indictments routinely presented in other states<br />
and territories is broader.<br />
All State and Territory supreme courts hear appeals, but the amount and type of<br />
appeals vary because only NSW, Victoria and Queensland hear appeals in their<br />
district/county court.<br />
Civil<br />
All supreme courts deal with appeals and probate applications.<br />
NSW: Deals with unlimited claims. The court’s jurisdiction is usually confined to<br />
complex cases, including matters involving large monetary sums, test cases,<br />
administrative law, defamation, possession/mortgage, professional negligence,<br />
commercial, technology and construction cases, and the administration of corporations,<br />
partnerships and trusts.<br />
Victoria: Deals with unlimited claims.<br />
Queensland: Deals with claims over $250 000 and administrative law matters.<br />
WA: Court deals with unlimited claims.<br />
SA: Deals with general claims of more than $30 000, personal injury claims of more<br />
than $60 000 arising from motor vehicle accidents, and the possession of property of<br />
more than $60 000 value. Cases awarded less than the amounts shown are subject to<br />
cost penalties.<br />
Tasmania: Deals with unlimited claims.<br />
ACT: Deals with unlimited claims.<br />
NT: Deals with unlimited claims, as well as mental health, family law and Coroners Act<br />
1993 applications.<br />
Sources: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments.<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.5
State and Territory court levels — specific elements<br />
The data in this chapter are reported by each State and Territory court level. In<br />
addition, the chapter separates out certain data items from each court level to<br />
improve the comparability and understanding of the data presented. In certain<br />
instances, the data sets from the following areas are reported separately from their<br />
court level:<br />
• probate registries (separate from the supreme court level)<br />
• children’s courts (separate from the magistrates court level)<br />
• electronic courts (separate from the magistrates court level)<br />
• coroners courts (separate from the magistrates court level).<br />
The following section outlines the role of these areas and their coverage within each<br />
State/Territory.<br />
Probate<br />
In all jurisdictions, probate issues are heard in supreme courts and encompass<br />
applications for the appointment of an executor or administrator to the estate of a<br />
deceased person. The two most common types of application are:<br />
• where the executor nominated by a will applies to have the will proved<br />
• where the deceased died intestate (without a will) and a person entitled to<br />
administer the estate applies for letters of administration.<br />
Children’s courts<br />
In all jurisdictions, the children’s court deals with all complaints of offences alleged<br />
to have been committed by young people (with the minimum age varying across<br />
jurisdictions). The children’s court also hears matters if a child has been seriously<br />
abused or neglected; in these instances, the court has jurisdiction to determine<br />
matters relating to the child’s care and protection.<br />
Electronic courts<br />
Electronic courts operate to process infringements, on-the-spot fines and summary<br />
offences. They have the status of courts (despite minimal judicial involvement),<br />
because they have the capacity to produce enforceable orders against defendants.<br />
The orders impose penalties such as fines (which may be enforced by warrants or<br />
6.6 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
licence cancellation), asset seizure, garnishment, arrest, community correction<br />
orders and incarceration.<br />
Electronic courts included in the scope of this data collection operate in Victoria,<br />
Queensland, WA and SA. In these jurisdictions, the electronic court comes under<br />
the ambit of the magistrates court, but the workload and expenditure of the<br />
electronic courts have been separately identified to allow for a more comparable<br />
interpretation of magistrates court data. In other jurisdictions, the magistrates court<br />
may enforce infringements and on-the-spot fines, or state debt recovery offices<br />
and/or fines enforcement units may operate outside the auspices of a court.<br />
Coroners courts<br />
In all states and territories, coroners courts (which generally operate under the<br />
auspices of State and Territory magistrates courts) inquire into the cause of sudden<br />
and unexpected reported deaths. The definition of a reported death differs across<br />
states and territories, but generally includes deaths for which the cause is violent,<br />
suspicious or unknown. In some states and territories, the coroner has the power to<br />
commit for hearing, while the coroner in other jurisdictions is prohibited from<br />
making any finding of criminal or civil liability (that is, the matter may be referred<br />
to the Director of Public Prosecutions). Suspicious fires are generally in the<br />
jurisdiction of the coroners court (except in WA, SA and the NT). The coroners<br />
court is distinct from other courts not only because it has a role in inquiring into the<br />
cause of sudden and unexpected deaths (and suspicious fires), but also because it<br />
has other functions, including reporting inadequacies in regulatory systems.<br />
Australian courts<br />
The following hierarchy of courts exists within the Australian courts jurisdiction:<br />
• the High Court of Australia<br />
• the Federal Court of Australia and the Family Court of Australia<br />
• the Federal Magistrates Court.<br />
Data on the High Court are not reported in this chapter. The following sections<br />
highlight the relationship between the other three Australian courts.<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.7
Federal Court of Australia<br />
This court is a superior court of record and a court of law and equity. It sits in all<br />
capital cities and elsewhere in Australia from time to time.<br />
The Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil matter arising under laws<br />
made by the Federal Parliament, as well as any matter arising under the Constitution<br />
or involving its interpretation. The Court also has original jurisdiction in respect of<br />
specific subject matter conferred by over 150 statutes of the Federal Parliament.<br />
The Court has a substantial and diverse appellate jurisdiction. It hears appeals from<br />
decisions of single judges of the Court, decisions of the Federal Magistrates Court<br />
in non-family law matters, decisions of the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island and<br />
certain decisions of State and Territory supreme courts exercising federal<br />
jurisdiction.<br />
Family Court of Australia<br />
The Family Court of Australia has jurisdiction in all states and territories except<br />
WA (which has its own Family Court). It has jurisdiction to deal with matrimonial<br />
cases and associated responsibilities, including divorce proceedings and children’s<br />
matters such as residence, contact and special issues orders.<br />
Federal Magistrates Court<br />
The first sittings of the Federal Magistrates Court were on 3 July 2000. The court<br />
was established to provide a simpler and more accessible service for litigants, and to<br />
ease the workload of both the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Court of<br />
Australia. Its jurisdiction includes family law and child support, administrative law,<br />
bankruptcy, consumer protection, human rights, privacy law and copyright matters.<br />
State courts also continue to do some work in these areas (FMC 2004).<br />
The Federal Magistrates Court shares its jurisdiction with the Family Court of<br />
Australia and the Federal Court of Australia. The intention is for the latter two<br />
courts to focus on more complex legal matters. In family law matters, the Family<br />
Magistrates Court’s jurisdiction is similar to that of the Family Court, except that<br />
only the Family Court can consider adoption, property disputes worth over<br />
$700 000, and applications concerning the nullity and validity of marriage<br />
(FMC 2004).<br />
The major relationships between, and hierarchy of, courts in Australia are<br />
summarised in figure 6.1.<br />
6.8 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
Figure 6.1<br />
Major relationships of courts in Australia<br />
a In some jurisdictions, appeals from lower courts or district/county courts may go directly to the court of<br />
appeal in the supreme court. In the ACT, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court commenced exercising<br />
limited jurisdiction on 31 October 2001; full jurisdiction commenced on 14 October 2002. b Appeals from<br />
federal, State and Territory tribunals may go to any higher court in their jurisdiction.<br />
Administrative structures<br />
Most courts use the same court infrastructure (such as court buildings and facilities)<br />
for civil and criminal case types. Given that separate information systems and case<br />
flow management practices have been established for civil and criminal case types,<br />
the Steering Committee has sought to report the two case types separately where<br />
possible. In addition, the allocation of responsibilities between court administration<br />
and other elements of the system (including the judiciary) varies across the<br />
Australian, State and Territory legal systems.<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.9
Recurrent expenditure less income<br />
A number of factors affect a jurisdiction’s expenditure and income, including the<br />
volume and type of work undertaken. In some jurisdictions, court fees (which are<br />
part of income) are set by government and not by court administrators, and some<br />
jurisdictions apportion expenditure between their criminal and civil courts.<br />
Total recurrent expenditure by Australian, State and Territory court authorities<br />
(excluding the High Court) was approximately $1.1 billion in 2003-04 (table 6.1).<br />
Nationally, court administration expenditure for the states and territories in that year<br />
was higher in the criminal jurisdiction of the supreme, district/county and<br />
magistrates courts ($454.1 million) than in the civil jurisdiction of those courts<br />
($431.3 million minus $74.5 million for Australian courts, or $356.8 million). The<br />
coroners court expenditure was $31.5 million in 2003-04, while the electronic court<br />
expenditure and probate court expenditure were $17.5 million and $2.8 million<br />
respectively (table 6.1). In the Australian courts jurisdiction, recurrent expenditure<br />
in 2003-04 was $108.3 million for the Family Court of Australia, $74.5 million for<br />
the Federal Court of Australia and $32.3 million for the Federal Magistrates Court<br />
(table 6.1).<br />
Total income (excluding fines) by Australian, State and Territory court authorities<br />
(excluding the High Court) was $261.8 million in 2003-04 (table 6.1). Income was<br />
$140.0 million in the civil courts, $11.6 million in the criminal courts and<br />
$66.8 million in electronic courts. Income from probate was $24.1 million<br />
nationally. In the Australian courts jurisdiction, income was $11.3 million for the<br />
Federal Magistrates Court, $5.1 million for the Family Court of Australia and<br />
$7.1 million for the Federal Court of Australia (table 6.1).<br />
Total recurrent expenditure less income (excluding fines) by Australian, State and<br />
Territory court authorities (excluding the High Court) was $831.2 million in<br />
2003-04. Nationally, court administration expenditure less income for the states and<br />
territories was higher in the criminal jurisdiction of the supreme, district/county and<br />
magistrates courts ($442.5 million) than in the civil jurisdiction of those courts<br />
($291.3 million minus $67.4 million, or $223.9 million). The coroners court<br />
expenditure less income was $3<strong>0.4</strong> million, while both the probate registries and<br />
electronic courts had greater income than expenditure during 2003-04 (by<br />
$21.4 million and $49.3 million respectively) (table 6.1). In the Australian courts<br />
jurisdiction, recurrent expenditure less income was $103.1 million for the Family<br />
Court of Australia, $67.4 million for the Federal Court of Australia and<br />
$21.0 million for the Federal Magistrates Court (table 6.1).<br />
6.10 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
Table 6.1<br />
Court administration recurrent expenditure less income<br />
(excluding fines), 2003-04 ($ million) a, b, c, d<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT<br />
Aust<br />
courts Total<br />
Court administration recurrent expenditure<br />
Civil courts e, f 139.5 74.7 46.9 42.4 3<strong>0.4</strong> 4.2 8.5 10.2 74.5 431.3<br />
Criminal courts g 159.7 90.0 76.2 59.9 41.0 11.2 7.1 9.1 .. 454.1<br />
Electronic courts .. 1.6 8.6 3.7 3.7 .. .. .. .. 17.5<br />
Family courts f .. .. .. 15.3 .. .. .. .. 108.3 123.6<br />
Federal Magistrates h .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 32.3 32.3<br />
Coroners courts 7.8 4.7 6.8 4.3 4.0 0.6 2.4 0.8 .. 31.5<br />
Probate — supreme i 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.2 <strong>0.4</strong> 0.1 0.0 0.0 .. 2.8<br />
Total 308.6 171.5 138.5 125.7 79.4 16.0 18.1 20.1 215.0 1 093.1<br />
Court administration income (excluding fines)<br />
Civil courts e, f 64.4 29.5 17.9 9.4 7.6 1.2 2.4 0.6 7.1 140.0<br />
Criminal courts g 5.2 0.0 0.9 3.1 1.5 <strong>0.4</strong> 0.5 0.1 .. 11.6<br />
Electronic courts j .. 26.9 19.7 10.5 9.8 .. .. .. .. 66.8<br />
Family courts f .. .. .. 1.6 .. .. .. .. 5.1 6.7<br />
Federal Magistrates .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 11.3 11.3<br />
Coroners courts 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1<br />
Probate — supreme 15.0 3.6 0.0 2.3 2.7 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 24.1<br />
Total k 84.8 60.0 39.3 27.0 21.5 1.8 3.3 0.7 23.5 261.8<br />
Court administration recurrent expenditure less income (excluding fines)<br />
Civil courts e, f 75.1 45.3 29.0 33.0 22.8 3.0 6.1 9.5 67.4 291.3<br />
Criminal courts g 154.5 90.0 75.3 56.7 39.5 10.8 6.6 9.0 .. 442.5<br />
Electronic courts j .. –25.3 –11.1 –6.8 –6.1 .. .. .. .. –49.3<br />
Family courts f .. .. .. 13.7 .. .. .. .. 103.1 116.8<br />
Federal Magistrates h .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 21.0 21.0<br />
Coroners courts 7.7 4.7 6.0 4.2 4.0 0.6 2.4 0.8 .. 3<strong>0.4</strong><br />
Probate — supreme i –13.5 –3.2 0.0 –2.0 –2.3 –0.1 –0.3 0.0 .. –21.4<br />
Total j 223.9 111.5 99.2 98.8 57.9 14.2 14.8 19.4 191.5 831.2<br />
a Totals may not sum as a result of rounding. b Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court<br />
reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue, probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any<br />
other sources of revenue (excluding fines). c District/county courts do not operate in Tasmania, the ACT or the<br />
NT. The Australian courts do not operate district/county or supreme courts. d Payroll tax is excluded.<br />
e Includes data for the supreme, district/county and magistrates courts (including children’s courts), and the<br />
Federal Court of Australia. Excludes data for the probate, family courts and the Federal Magistrates Court.<br />
f The data for the Family Court of Australia includes the ‘free’ allocation of Family Court resources to the<br />
Federal Magistrates Court. Data for the Federal Court include the cost of resources provided free of charge to<br />
the Federal Magistrates Court. g Includes data for supreme, district/county and magistrates courts (including<br />
children’s courts). Excludes data for the electronic and coroners courts. h The Federal Magistrates Court<br />
expenditure data includes resources received free of charge from the Federal Court. i The full cost of probate<br />
may not be identified, because rent or depreciation may be included under general supreme court figures.<br />
j NSW, Tasmania, the ACT and the NT do not include income from electronic courts. These jurisdictions’ debt<br />
recovery offices (or the equivalent) are not part of the justice or attorney-general’s department. .. Not<br />
applicable.<br />
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished);<br />
tables 6A.9–6A.13.<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.11
Real recurrent expenditure less income (excluding fines) on court administration<br />
from 2001-02 to 2003-04 for each Australian, State and Territory court level is<br />
contained in tables 6A.12 and 6A.13.<br />
Distribution of criminal and civil court administration expenditure<br />
The distribution of court administration expenditure (less income) on the<br />
magistrates, district/county and supreme courts varied across states and territories in<br />
2003-04. A greater proportion of funds were distributed to the supreme courts of<br />
Tasmania, the ACT and the NT (under the two-tier court system), for example, than<br />
to the supreme courts of other jurisdictions (under the three-tier court system)<br />
(figure 6.2).<br />
In 2003-04, magistrates courts (excluding electronic courts) in the criminal<br />
jurisdiction accounted for 58.3 per cent of expenditure (less income) across State<br />
and Territory criminal courts. District/county courts in the criminal jurisdiction<br />
accounted for 28.4 per cent of expenditure (less income), while supreme courts<br />
accounted for 13.3 per cent. Comparing states and territories, the magistrates court<br />
share of expenditure (less income) was highest in Queensland (64.6 per cent) and<br />
lowest in Victoria (44.3 per cent); the district/county court share was highest in<br />
Victoria (43.0 per cent) and lowest in WA (25.7 per cent); and the supreme court<br />
share was highest in the ACT (43.4 per cent) and lowest in Queensland<br />
(9.5 per cent) (figure 6.2).<br />
In 2003-04, magistrates courts in the civil jurisdiction accounted for 28.5 per cent of<br />
expenditure (less income) in State and Territory courts as a whole. The supreme<br />
courts in the civil jurisdiction accounted for 52.8 per cent of expenditure (less<br />
income), while district/county courts accounted for 18.7 per cent. Comparing<br />
jurisdictions, the magistrates courts share of civil expenditure (less income) varied<br />
from 48.4 per cent in Queensland to 10.5 per cent in Tasmania. The supreme court<br />
share ranged from 89.5 per cent in Tasmania to 24.2 per cent in Queensland, and the<br />
district/county court share ranged from 35.6 per cent in Victoria to 21.2 per cent in<br />
NSW (figure 6.2).<br />
6.12 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
Figure 6.2<br />
Distribution of court administration expenditure (less income),<br />
by court level, 2003-04 a, b<br />
Per cent<br />
Per cent<br />
100<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
100<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
Criminal<br />
Magistrates courtsc, d District/county courtse<br />
Supreme courts<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total<br />
Civil<br />
c<br />
Magistrates courts District/county courtse Supreme courts f<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total<br />
a Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue,<br />
probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines).<br />
b Excludes payroll tax. c Includes expenditure on children’s courts. d Excludes expenditure on coroners<br />
courts. Excludes expenditure on electronic courts for Victoria, Queensland, WA and SA. e There are no<br />
district/county courts in Tasmania, the ACT or the NT. f Includes probate.<br />
Source: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 6A.12 and<br />
6A.13.<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.13
Size and scope of court activity<br />
Lodgments<br />
Lodgments are matters initiated in the court system. Box 6.4 explains how lodgment<br />
data are collected for this chapter. Table 6.2 (criminal) and table 6.3 (civil) outline<br />
the number of lodgments in 2003-04, by court level, for the Australian courts and<br />
for each State and Territory.<br />
Box 6.4<br />
Explanation of lodgment data used in this chapter<br />
Lodgments reflect the degree to which the Australian community demands court<br />
services, such as dispute resolution and criminal justice. The different ways of counting<br />
a court’s workload reflect the variety of work undertaken within the court system. The<br />
units of measurement of workload (or counting units) used within this chapter are:<br />
• criminal courts: — the number of defendants<br />
• civil courts: — the number of cases<br />
• family courts: — the number of forms (that is, the number of applications made to<br />
the court)<br />
• electronic courts: — the number of unpaid infringement notices<br />
• coroners courts: — the number of reported deaths (and, if relevant, reported fires).<br />
The following types of lodgment are excluded from the criminal and/or civil lodgment<br />
data reported in this chapter:<br />
• any lodgment that does not have a defendant element (such as applications for<br />
telephone taps etc.)<br />
• extraordinary driver’s licence applications<br />
• bail procedures (including applications and review)<br />
• directions<br />
• bench warrants<br />
• cross-claims<br />
• secondary processes — for example, interlocutory matters, breaches of penalties<br />
(that is, bail, suspended sentences, probation)<br />
• applications for default judgments (because the application is a secondary process).<br />
Source: SCRCSSP (2003), p. 6.17.<br />
Nationally, in the criminal jurisdiction in 2003-04, there were 777 200 defendants in<br />
the magistrates, district/county and supreme courts; approximately 1.5 million<br />
lodgments of unpaid infringement notices in electronic courts; and 21 500 reported<br />
6.14 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
deaths and fires in the coroners courts (19 900 deaths and 1600 fires) (table 6A.1<br />
and table 6.2).<br />
Reporting rates for deaths reported to a coroner varied as a result of different<br />
reporting requirements. Deaths in institutions (such as nursing homes) of persons<br />
suffering intellectual impairment of any kind, for example, must be reported in SA<br />
but not in other jurisdictions. Reporting requirements also vary for fires. Fires may<br />
be reported and investigated at the discretion of the coroner in Victoria, but they are<br />
excluded from the coroner’s jurisdiction in WA, SA and the NT.<br />
Table 6.2<br />
Court lodgments — criminal, by court level, 2003-04 (’000) a<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total<br />
Magistrates (total) b, c 187.2 149.1 183.2 74.0 71.1 62.4 6.6 11.7 745.3<br />
Magistrates (only) 175.0 138.3 171.0 66.6 64.5 60.6 5.9 10.6 692.6<br />
Children’s 12.2 10.8 12.2 7.4 6.6 1.7 0.7 1.1 52.7<br />
District/county c 9.7 4.8 8.3 2.7 1.6 .. .. .. 27.1<br />
Supreme 0.7 0.5 1.5 0.5 <strong>0.4</strong> 0.6 0.2 <strong>0.4</strong> 4.8<br />
All criminal courts 197.6 154.4 193.0 77.2 73.1 67.6 6.8 12.1 777.2<br />
Electronic courts d .. 768.2 388.4 201.1 123.1 .. .. .. 1480.7<br />
Coroners courts e 6.1 4.5 3.7 1.3 4.0 0.6 1.1 0.3 21.5<br />
a Totals may not add as a result of rounding. b NSW criminal magistrates court lodgment figures differ from<br />
prior years as a result of a revision of the counting rules applied. c Drug court data has not been included in<br />
NSW District Court lodgment figures. In Queensland, some children’s court matters are heard in the district<br />
court. As a result, the inclusion of all children’s court matters in the magistrates court will lead to a slight<br />
overestimation of the magistrates court total and an underestimation in the district court total. d Electronic<br />
courts are fines enforcement registries that have the status of a court. Only Victoria, Queensland, WA and SA<br />
have electronic courts. In other jurisdictions, unpaid traffic infringement notices may be dealt with by other<br />
bodies that do not have the status of a court (such as a State debt recovery office). e Includes data for 180<br />
reported fires in NSW, 705 in Queensland and 751 in the ACT. .. Not applicable.<br />
Source: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); table 6A.1.<br />
Nationally, in the civil jurisdiction in 2003-04, there were 647 700 cases in the<br />
supreme, district/county and magistrates courts, with an additional 56 300 probate<br />
lodgments in the supreme court (table 6A.2 and table 6.3). Also in 2003-04, there<br />
were 6000 cases lodged in the Federal Court of Australia. Lodgements in the<br />
Federal Magistrates Court included 70 000 family law forms. Around 62 000 forms<br />
were filed in the family courts (table 6.3).<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.15
Table 6.3<br />
Court lodgments — civil, by court level, 2003-04 (’000) a<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT<br />
Aust<br />
courts<br />
Total<br />
Magistrates (total) b, c 202.0 173.5 90.9 54.8 33.6 11.6 7.7 5.9 .. 579.9<br />
Magistrates (only) b, c 196.5 171.1 86.4 54.0 32.8 11.5 7.5 5.8 .. 565.5<br />
Children’s 5.5 2.4 4.5 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.1 .. 14.3<br />
District/county 8.4 8.8 7.3 3.4 2.9 .. .. .. .. 30.8<br />
Supreme d /Federal e 11.3 6.3 5.2 2.9 1.9 1.6 1.3 <strong>0.4</strong> 6.0 37.0<br />
All civil courts 221.7 188.6 103.4 61.1 38.4 13.2 9.0 6.3 6.0 647.7<br />
Federal Magistrates f .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 76.8 76.8<br />
Family courts e, g .. .. .. 15.1 .. .. .. .. 46.9 62.0<br />
Probate<br />
Supreme courts h 22.4 15.7 5.4 5.1 5.0 2.1 0.6 0.1 .. 56.3<br />
a Totals may not add as a result of rounding. b The Victorian data include 64 213 residential tenancies<br />
matters and 5131 civil claims list applications lodged in the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal. As well,<br />
applications for an intervention order made in the children’s court have been reported under magistrates court<br />
lodgments. c Queensland has included lodgments at its small claims tribunal. d Queensland supreme court<br />
data are extrapolated. e The Federal Magistrates Court has implications for the number of lodgments in the<br />
Family Court of Australia. The Family Court of Australia does not include family law matters dealt with in the<br />
Federal Magistrates Court (reported separately). f Lodgments in the Federal Magistrates Court included<br />
70 000 family law forms. g The Family Court of Australia civil lodgment data exclude instances where Family<br />
Court of Australia deputy registrars were given delegation to conduct Federal Magistrate Court divorce<br />
applications. The Family Court of WA does elements of both the Family Court of Australia and Federal<br />
Magistrates Court work, so direct comparisons must be made with caution. h Tasmanian data include<br />
elections to administer. .. Not applicable.<br />
Source: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); table 6A.2.<br />
The number of lodgments per 100 000 people can be used to assist in understanding<br />
the comparative workload of a court (in relation to the size of the State or Territory<br />
population). Tables 6A.3 and 6A.4 provide data on criminal and civil lodgments<br />
(per 100 000 people) respectively for each State and Territory court and the Federal<br />
Court of Australia. There were 3719 criminal court lodgments in the magistrates<br />
court per 100 000 people in Australia in 2003-04. This number ranged from 13 011<br />
per 100 000 people in Tasmania to 2032 in the ACT (table 6A.3). In the civil<br />
jurisdiction, there were 2894 civil court lodgments in the magistrates court per<br />
100 000 people in Australia. This rate ranged from 3502 per 100 000 people in<br />
Victoria to 2192 in SA (table 6A.4).<br />
Distribution of court lodgments<br />
The majority of criminal matters in Australia in 2003-04 were lodged in the<br />
magistrates courts (95.9 per cent), followed by the district/county courts<br />
(3.5 per cent) and the supreme courts (0.6 per cent). Tasmania had the highest<br />
6.16 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
proportion of criminal matters lodged in the magistrates court (99.1 per cent), NSW<br />
had the highest proportion lodged in the district/county court (4.9 per cent) and the<br />
ACT and NT had the equal highest proportion lodged in the supreme court (3.3 per<br />
cent) (table 6.4).<br />
The majority of civil matters in Australia in 2003-04 were lodged in the magistrates<br />
courts (89.5 per cent), followed by the supreme courts (5.7 per cent) and the<br />
district/county courts (4.8 per cent). Victoria had the highest proportion of civil<br />
cases lodged in the magistrates court (92.0 per cent), SA had the highest proportion<br />
lodged in the district/county court (7.5 per cent) and the ACT had the highest<br />
proportion lodged in the supreme court (14.0 per cent) (table 6.4).<br />
In the Australian courts jurisdiction, no attempt has been made to calculate the<br />
proportion of lodgments going to the Federal Court, the Family Court of Australia<br />
and the Federal Magistrates Court, because each of these courts uses different<br />
counting units for their lodgments. (The Federal Court uses cases, the Family Court<br />
uses forms, and the Federal Magistrates Court uses a mix of cases and forms). As a<br />
result, any comparison of the proportion of lodgments within the Australian courts<br />
jurisdiction would be meaningless.<br />
Table 6.4<br />
Distribution of court lodgments, by court level, 2003-04 a<br />
Unit NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total<br />
Criminal courts<br />
Magistrates (total) b, c % 94.8 96.5 94.9 95.9 97.3 99.1 96.7 96.7 95.9<br />
District/county c % 4.9 3.1 4.3 3.5 2.2 .. .. .. 3.5<br />
Supreme % <strong>0.4</strong> <strong>0.4</strong> 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.9 3.3 3.3 0.6<br />
All courts ’000 197.6 154.4 193.0 77.2 73.1 63.0 6.8 12.1 777.2<br />
Civil courts<br />
Magistrates (total)d % 91.1 92.0 87.9 89.6 87.4 87.7 86.0 93.6 89.5<br />
District/county % 3.8 4.7 7.0 5.6 7.5 .. .. .. 4.8<br />
Supreme e % 5.1 3.4 5.1 4.8 5.1 12.3 14.0 6.4 5.7<br />
All courts f ’000 221.7 188.6 103.4 61.1 38.4 13.2 9.0 6.3 647.7<br />
a Totals may not sum to 100 per cent as a result of rounding. b Excludes electronic court lodgments to provide<br />
a more meaningful comparison across jurisdictions. Also excludes coroners courts data. c In Queensland,<br />
some Children’s Court matters are heard in the District Court. As a result, the inclusion of all Children’s Court<br />
matters in the Magistrates Court will lead to a slight overestimation of the Magistrates Court proportion and an<br />
underestimation of the District Court proportion. d The Victorian data include around 64 213 residential<br />
tenancies matters and 5131 civil claims list applications lodged in the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal.<br />
Queensland data include lodgments at the Small Claims Tribunal. e Excludes probate data. f Excludes data<br />
for the Family Court of WA, the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court because<br />
lodgment data are based on forms that are not comparable with the State and Territory civil data or Federal<br />
Court data (which are based on cases). .. Not applicable.<br />
Sources: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 6A.1 and<br />
6A.2.<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.17
Finalisations<br />
Finalisations represent the completion of matters in the court system. Each<br />
lodgment can be finalised only once. Matters may be finalised by adjudication,<br />
transfer or another non-adjudicated method (such as withdrawal of a matter by the<br />
prosecution, or settlement by the court or an external mediator).<br />
Tables 6.5 (criminal) and 6.6 (civil) outline the number of finalisations in 2003-04,<br />
by court level, for the Australian Government and each State and Territory.<br />
Lodgements do not equal finalisations in any given year because matters lodged in<br />
one year may be finalised in the next. In 2003-04, there were 743 300 criminal<br />
finalisations in the magistrates, district/county and supreme courts; approximately<br />
1.8 million electronic court unpaid infringement notice finalisations; and 20 200<br />
finalisations (involving reported deaths and fires) in the coroners court (tables 6A.5<br />
and 6.5).<br />
Table 6.5<br />
Court finalisations — criminal, 2003-04 (’000) a, b<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total<br />
Magistrates (total)c, d 183.5 140.5 182.2 77.3 54.7 57.2 6.7 10.5 712.4<br />
Magistrates (only) 171.1 130.9 170.5 72.3 50.0 55.5 6.0 9.5 665.8<br />
Children’s e 12.3 9.6 11.7 5.0 4.7 1.7 0.7 0.9 46.6<br />
District/county c 9.2 5.0 8.2 2.7 1.2 .. .. .. 26.3<br />
Supreme 0.7 0.6 1.4 0.5 <strong>0.4</strong> 0.6 0.2 0.3 4.6<br />
All criminal courts 193.3 146.1 191.8 8<strong>0.4</strong> 56.2 57.7 6.9 10.8 743.3<br />
Electronic courts .. 1053.0 567.8 100.1 89.7 .. .. .. 1810.7<br />
Coroners courts f 5.9 4.1 3.1 1.3 3.8 0.7 1.0 0.2 20.2<br />
a Lodgments do not equal finalisations in any given year because matters lodged in one year may be finalised<br />
in the next. b Totals may not add as a result of rounding. c In NSW, drug court data has not been included in<br />
District Court finalisation figures. In Queensland, some Children’s Court matters are heard in the District Court.<br />
As a result, the inclusion of all children’s court matters in the magistrates court will lead to a slight<br />
overestimation of the magistrates court total and an underestimation in the district court total. d NSW criminal<br />
Magistrates Court finalisation figures differ from those prior years because the counting rules were revised.<br />
NSW Magistrates Court finalisation data are estimated from the 83 per cent of cases on the case<br />
management computer system. e Excludes finalisations data for committals heard in the children’s court.<br />
f Includes finalisations data for fires reported in NSW, Queensland and the ACT. .. Not applicable.<br />
Source: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); table 6A.5.<br />
In 2003-04, 581 800 civil cases (587 900 minus 6100) were finalised in the State<br />
and Territory magistrates, district/county and supreme courts. The Federal Court<br />
finalised 6100 cases, the Federal Magistrates Court finalised 62 800 matters (mainly<br />
family law forms plus some federal law cases) and the Family Court of Australia<br />
finalised 52 400 family law forms (tables 6A.6 and 6.6).<br />
6.18 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
Table 6.6<br />
Court finalisations — civil, 2003-04 (’000) a, b, c<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT<br />
Aust<br />
courts Total<br />
Magistrates (total) d, e, f 193.4 148.9 95.2 36.3 22.5 11.9 8.2 3.7 .. 520.0<br />
Magistrates (only) e, f 188.3 146.7 91.1 35.4 22.5 11.8 8.0 3.5 .. 507.2<br />
Children’s 5.1 2.2 4.1 0.9 .. 0.1 0.2 0.2 .. 12.8<br />
District/county g, h 1<strong>0.4</strong> 7.3 7.5 3.3 2.8 .. .. .. .. 31.2<br />
Supreme/Federal g, i 11.1 5.2 6.2 3.4 1.2 2.0 1.2 <strong>0.4</strong> 6.1 36.7<br />
All civil courts 214.9 161.3 108.9 42.9 26.5 13.9 9.4 4.0 6.1 587.9<br />
Federal Magistrates .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 62.8 62.8<br />
Family i .. .. .. 13.3 .. .. .. .. 52.4 65.7<br />
a Lodgements do not equal finalisations in any given year because matters lodged in one year may be<br />
finalised in the next. b Totals may not add as a result of rounding. c Cases withdrawn after initial lodgment<br />
may not be recorded as a finalisation in some jurisdictions. d In Queensland and SA, magistrates courts (total)<br />
data exclude children’s finalisations. e The Victorian data include 64 213 residential tenancy matters and 5131<br />
civil claims applications that were finalised in the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal. f Queensland includes<br />
finalisations at the Small Claims Tribunal. g In Victoria, the 12 month deeming rule for inactive cases has not<br />
been used for the county or supreme courts. h in Queensland, not all inactive matters have been identified or<br />
finalised. i The introduction of the Federal Magistrates Court has implications for the finalisations data of the<br />
Federal Court and the Family Court of Australia. .. Not applicable.<br />
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished);<br />
table 6A.6.<br />
The number of finalisations per 100 000 people provides a better understanding of<br />
the comparative workload of a court (in relation to the size of the State or Territory<br />
population). Tables 6A.7 and 6A.8 provide data on criminal and civil finalisations<br />
(per 100 000 people) respectively for each State and Territory court and the Federal<br />
Court. There were 3555 criminal court finalisations per 100 000 people in the<br />
magistrates courts in Australia in 2003-04, with the number ranging across<br />
individual jurisdictions from 11 924 in Tasmania to 2072 in the ACT (table 6A.7).<br />
There were 2595 civil court finalisations per 100 000 people in the magistrates<br />
courts in Australia, with the number ranging across jurisdictions from 3005 in<br />
Victoria to 1473 in SA (table 6A.8).<br />
6.2 Framework of performance indicators<br />
The framework of performance indicators is based on common objectives for court<br />
administration services across Australia (box 6.5). The emphasis placed on each<br />
objective varies across jurisdictions.<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.19
Box 6.5<br />
Objectives for court administration<br />
Objectives for court administration are:<br />
• to be open and accessible<br />
• to process matters in an expeditious and timely manner<br />
• to provide due process and equal protection before the law<br />
• to be independent yet publicly accountable for performance.<br />
In addition, all governments aim to provide court administration services in an efficient<br />
manner.<br />
The performance indicator framework<br />
The performance indicator framework is shown in figure 6.3. For data that are not<br />
considered directly comparable, the text includes relevant caveats and supporting<br />
commentary. Chapter 1 discusses data comparability from a Report-wide<br />
perspective (see section 1.6).<br />
Each indicator in the performance indicator framework is briefly described below:<br />
• fees paid by applicants — an indicator of access that measures the average fees<br />
paid per lodgment.<br />
• backlog indicator — a measure of timeliness that relates the age of each court’s<br />
pending caseload to timeliness standards.<br />
• attendance indicator — a measure of effectiveness that records the number of<br />
attendances by the parties or their representatives, for each finalised matter.<br />
• judicial officers — the number of judicial officers is a measure of resources (that<br />
is, the number of officers who can make enforceable orders of the court). It also<br />
indicates access to the judicial system.<br />
• clearance rate — is a measure of whether the court is keeping up with its<br />
workload. It is the number of finalisations divided by the number of lodgments<br />
(multiplied by 100 to convert to a percentage).<br />
• cost per finalisation — a measure of efficiency that shows the average net<br />
recurrent expenditure per finalisation.<br />
A full description of each indicator is provided when the corresponding data are<br />
reported in the key performance indicator results (see section 6.3).<br />
6.20 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
As shown in figure 6.3, there are no outcome indicators for court administration.<br />
The activities of court administrators lead to broader justice-wide outcomes that are<br />
not readily picked up in this service-specific chapter.<br />
Figure 6.3<br />
Performance indicator framework for court administration<br />
Equity<br />
Access<br />
Affordability<br />
Fees paid by<br />
applicants<br />
Objectives<br />
Quality<br />
To be<br />
determined<br />
PERFORMANCE<br />
Effectiveness<br />
Access<br />
Timeliness<br />
and delay<br />
Backlog<br />
indicator<br />
Attendance<br />
indicator<br />
Geographical<br />
access<br />
Judicial<br />
officers<br />
Key to indicators<br />
Efficiency<br />
Inputs per unit<br />
of output<br />
Clearance<br />
indicator<br />
Cost per<br />
finalisation<br />
Text<br />
Text<br />
Provided on a comparable basis for this Report subject to<br />
caveats in each chart or table<br />
Information not complete or not directly comparable<br />
Outputs<br />
Outputs<br />
Outcomes<br />
Text<br />
Yet to be developed or not collected for this Report<br />
6.3 Key performance indicator results<br />
Different delivery locations, case loads, case types and government policies may<br />
affect the equity, effectiveness and efficiency of court administration services. The<br />
allocation of cases to different courts also differs across jurisdictions. Performance<br />
comparison across states and territories and Australian courts for specific indicators<br />
needs to account for these factors. Appendix A contains detailed statistics and short<br />
profiles on each State and Territory, which may assist in interpreting the<br />
performance indicators presented in this chapter.<br />
Outputs<br />
Equity — fees paid by applicants<br />
A description of this indicator is contained in box 6.6.<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.21
Box 6.6<br />
Fees paid by applicants<br />
This indicator of access shows the average fees paid per lodgment.<br />
Court fees are only part of the costs faced by applicants (with legal fees being more<br />
significant). Court filing fees largely relate to civil cases.<br />
In 2003-04, average court fees collected per lodgment were generally greater in<br />
higher courts than in intermediate and lower courts. NSW had the highest average<br />
civil fees collected per lodgment in the supreme court ($1651) and also the highest<br />
in the district/county courts ($1289). In all NSW civil jurisdictions, corporations are<br />
charged twice the applicable fee payable by private individuals.<br />
The lowest average civil fees collected per lodgment in the supreme court were in<br />
Tasmania ($119); the lowest in the district/county court were in SA ($454). For<br />
magistrates courts only (excluding children’s courts), NSW had the highest average<br />
fees collected per lodgment ($152) and WA had the lowest ($55). Average probate<br />
fees collected per lodgment were highest in NSW ($670) and lowest in Tasmania<br />
($108) (table 6.7).<br />
In 2003-04, the average fee per lodgment in the Federal Court was $783. The<br />
average civil court fees collected were $98 for the Family Court of WA and $61 for<br />
the Family Court of Australia. (The WA Family Court does elements of work of<br />
both the Federal Magistrates Court and the Family Court of Australia, so direct<br />
comparisons are not appropriate.) The introduction of the Federal Magistrates Court<br />
reduced fees received by the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Court. The<br />
Federal Magistrates Court’s average civil court fees per lodgment were $146<br />
(table 6.7).<br />
The level of cost recovery from the collection of court fees varied across court<br />
levels and across jurisdictions in 2003-04. The proportion of costs recovered via<br />
court fees for the magistrates courts was highest in Tasmania (62.6 per cent) and for<br />
the district/county courts, it was highest in NSW and Queensland (both<br />
35.8 per cent). In the supreme courts, the proportion of costs recovered was highest<br />
in NSW (37.7 per cent). The level of cost recovery varied across the Australian<br />
courts: 6.3 per cent in the Federal Court, 34.8 per cent in the Federal Magistrates<br />
Court and 2.6 per cent in the Family Court of Australia. The Family Court of WA<br />
recovered 9.7 per cent of costs (table 6.8).<br />
6.22 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
Table 6.7 Average civil court fees collected per lodgment, 2003-04<br />
(dollars)<br />
NSW a Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT<br />
Aust<br />
courts Total<br />
Magistrates (total) b, c 148 np 89 54 84 .. .. 0 .. 101<br />
Magistrates (only) 152 81 93 55 85 70 60 0 .. 104<br />
Children’s courts 1 np 0 4 7 .. .. 0 .. ..<br />
District/county 1289 746 631 670 454 .. .. .. .. 832<br />
Supreme/Federal d 1651 1145 673 1031 696 119 714 0 783 1069<br />
Probate — supreme 670 231 na 445 542 108 572 300 .. 475<br />
Federal Magistrates e .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 146 146<br />
Family courts d .. .. .. 98 .. .. .. .. 61 46<br />
a In all NSW civil jurisdictions corporations fees are payable by corporate users of the court. These fees are<br />
twice the applicable fees payable by private individuals. Subsequently the ‘average fees’ in the table are<br />
substantially higher than the actual fees paid by private individuals in NSW. b The Victorian magistrates court<br />
fees incorporate both criminal and civil case types, but the civil court fees are likely to account for a more<br />
significant proportion. As well, the data include around 64 213 residential tenancies matters and 5131 civil<br />
claim applications lodged in the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal. c Queensland includes lodgments (and<br />
fees) at its Small Claims Tribunal. d The Federal Magistrates Court has reduced fees payable by applicants to<br />
the Federal Court and the Family Court of Australia. Many of the Family Court of Australia’s applications do<br />
not attract a fee. The Family Court of WA does elements of work of both the Federal Magistrates Court and<br />
the Family Court of Australia, so direct comparisons with either are not possible. e Lodgments in the Federal<br />
Magistrates Court included 70 000 family law forms. np Not published na Not available. .. Not applicable.<br />
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished);<br />
table 6A.16.<br />
Table 6.8<br />
Civil court fees collected as a proportion of civil recurrent<br />
expenditure (cost recovery), 2003-04 (per cent) a, b<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT<br />
Aust<br />
courts Total<br />
Magistrates (total) c, d 49.5 np 35.1 20.6 22.3 na .. 0.0 .. 39.5<br />
Magistrates (only) 53.0 52.8 44.3 21.1 23.4 62.6 11.2 0.0 .. 43.6<br />
Children’s courts 0.0 np 0.0 0.9 0.8 .. .. 0.0 .. ..<br />
District/county 35.8 29.0 35.8 20.2 16.8 .. .. .. .. 30.2<br />
Supreme/Federal e, f 37.7 33.7 31.6 18.2 13.5 6.6 21.8 0.0 6.3 20.0<br />
Federal Magistrates .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 34.8 34.8<br />
Family g .. .. .. 9.7 .. .. .. .. 2.6 2.3<br />
a Recurrent expenditure with no income deducted. b Excludes payroll tax. c The Victorian magistrates court<br />
fees incorporate both criminal and civil case types, but the civil court fees are likely to account for a more<br />
significant proportion. d Abnormally high revenue was received during the reporting year from a program of<br />
recovering long outstanding filing fees. e Excludes probate costs. f The Federal Magistrates Court has<br />
reduced fees payable by applicants to the Federal Court and the Family Court of Australia. Many of the Family<br />
Court of Australia’s applications do not attract a fee. The Family Court of WA does elements of work of both<br />
the Federal Magistrates Court and the Family Court of Australia, so direct comparisons with either are not<br />
possible. np Not published na Not available. .. Not applicable.<br />
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished);<br />
table 6A.15.<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.23
Effectiveness — quality<br />
The Steering Committee has identified quality as an important measures of court<br />
administration performance (box 6.7).<br />
Box 6.7<br />
Indicators of quality<br />
Indicators of quality for court administration have not yet been identified. The<br />
perceptions of court users about the quality of the services delivered by courts may be<br />
strongly influenced by the outcomes of judicial decisions (which are not the subject of<br />
this chapter). Isolating perceptions of the quality of court administration may be difficult.<br />
Effectiveness — timeliness and delay<br />
There are two indicators of timeliness and delay: ‘backlog’ and ‘attendance’.<br />
Timeliness is the time taken between the lodgment of a matter with the court and its<br />
finalisation. It can be affected by delays caused by factors other than those related to<br />
the workload of the court (for example, a witness not being available). Timeliness in<br />
civil cases can be similarly affected (box 6.8).<br />
Box 6.8<br />
Civil timeliness factors<br />
The following factors may affect the timeliness of cases in the civil courts:<br />
• where civil cases are contested, a single case may involve several related<br />
applications or issues that require judgments and decisions by the court<br />
• the parties to a case can significantly affect the conduct and timeliness of a case —<br />
that is, matters often may be adjourned at the instigation of, and by the consent of,<br />
the parties. Such consent arrangements are outside the control of the court<br />
• the court may employ case management or other dispute resolution processes (for<br />
example, mediation) that are alternatives to formal adjudication<br />
• an inactive case is regarded as finalised (or closed) one year after the last action<br />
on the case.<br />
Longer case completion times in the civil jurisdiction generally reflect different case<br />
flow management practices, the individual needs of cases, and the priority given to<br />
criminal matters. Further, Tasmania, the ACT and the NT have a two-tier court<br />
system (that is, they do not have a district/county court), whereas the other<br />
jurisdictions have a three-tier court system. This difference needs to be taken into<br />
account when comparing timeliness performance. In addition, the complexity and<br />
6.24 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
distribution of cases may vary across jurisdictions. Some of the differences between<br />
State and Territory courts and across Australian Courts are covered in section 6.1.<br />
This data collection is based on national counting rules, so data presented in this<br />
chapter may differ from data published by individual jurisdictions in their annual<br />
reports. There also may be differences from the data reported in the Australian<br />
Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Criminal Courts publication.<br />
The Steering Committee focuses on providing the best available data in a timely<br />
fashion. Jurisdictions, when signing off the data, acknowledge that the data have<br />
been supplied according to the nationally agreed counting rules. Where a<br />
jurisdiction advises that it has diverged from these counting rules, this divergence is<br />
appropriately footnoted in the table and surrounding text.<br />
The Steering Committee recognises, however, that this collection (unlike some<br />
other data collections) does not have an intermediary data collector or validator akin<br />
to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare or the ABS. The reporting process<br />
in this chapter is one of continual improvement and refinement, with the long term<br />
aim of ensuring a national data collection that covers court activities across the<br />
Australian, State and Territory jurisdictions in a timely and comparable way.<br />
Backlog indicator<br />
This indicator is a measure of case processing timeliness (box 6.9). In the criminal<br />
jurisdiction, those defendants who failed to appear when required and had bench<br />
warrants issued have been excluded from the pending caseload count. In the civil<br />
jurisdiction, those lodgments that have not been acted upon in the past 12 months<br />
are counted as finalised, the aim being to focus on those matters that are part of an<br />
‘active pending’ population (see section 6.6 for definitions). However, the NSW<br />
higher courts proactively manage their civil cases. Consequently, cases that, by their<br />
nature, cannot be finalised for a lengthy period are not deemed finalised, but<br />
continue to be monitored from time to time by the courts.<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.25
Box 6.9<br />
Backlog indicator<br />
The ‘backlog indicator’ measures a court’s pending caseload against time standards.<br />
The indicator recognises that case processing must take some time and that such time<br />
does not necessarily equal delay. Timeliness can be affected by delays caused by<br />
factors other than those related to the workload of the court (for example, a witness not<br />
being available).<br />
The following national standards have been set:<br />
Magistrates, children’s and coroners courts and the Federal Magistrates Court.<br />
• No more than 10 per cent of lodgments pending completion are to be more than<br />
6 months old.<br />
• No lodgments pending completion are to be more than 12 months old.<br />
District, supreme and family courts, the Federal Court and all appeals.<br />
• No more than 10 per cent of lodgments pending completion are to be more than<br />
12 months old.<br />
• No lodgments pending completion are to be more than 24 months old.<br />
As stated in box 6.9 and shown in tables 6.9 to 6.12, there are two national<br />
standards for each court level. For the supreme and district courts, the first national<br />
standard is that no more than 10 per cent of criminal lodgments pending completion<br />
are to be more than 12 months old. Of the supreme courts, NSW, Queensland,<br />
Tasmania and the ACT met this standard for appeal cases and no jurisdiction met<br />
the standard for non-appeal cases. In the district court, NSW and Victoria met the<br />
national standard for appeal cases, and no jurisdiction met the standard for nonappeal<br />
cases (table 6.9).<br />
For the magistrates, children’s and coroners courts, the first national standard is that<br />
no more than 10 per cent of criminal lodgments pending completion are to be more<br />
than 6 months old. No jurisdiction met this standard in the magistrates court and in<br />
the children’s court, Victoria was the only jurisdiction that met this national<br />
standard. In the coroners court, no jurisdiction met the standard (table 6.10).<br />
6.26 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
Table 6.9<br />
Backlog indicator — the number and proportion of a court’s<br />
pending caseload in excess of timeliness standards, all criminal<br />
matters — supreme and district/county courts, 2003-04<br />
Supreme — appeal<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT<br />
Pending caseload (no.) 273 338 126 163 77 9 21 na<br />
Cases >12 months<br />
Number 23 68 1 28 na 0 1 na<br />
Per cent 8.4 20.1 0.8 17.2 na 0.0 4.8 na<br />
Cases >24 months<br />
Number 17 2 0 5 na 0 0 na<br />
Per cent 6.2 0.6 0.0 3.1 na 0.0 0.0 na<br />
Supreme — non - appeal a<br />
Pending caseload (no.) 144 74 316 160 48 233 112 na<br />
Cases >12 months<br />
Number 39 18 44 35 16 50 12 na<br />
Per cent 27.1 24.3 13.9 21.9 33.3 21.5 10.7 na<br />
Cases >24 months<br />
Number 4 4 7 11 5 2 6 na<br />
Per cent 2.8 5.4 2.2 6.9 1<strong>0.4</strong> 0.9 5.4 na<br />
District/county — appeal .. .. ..<br />
Pending caseload (no.) 1 040 605 367 na na .. .. ..<br />
Cases > 12 months<br />
.. .. ..<br />
Number 30 53 93 na na .. .. ..<br />
Per cent 2.9 8.8 25.3 na na .. .. ..<br />
Cases >24 months<br />
.. .. ..<br />
Number 8 9 10 na na .. .. ..<br />
Per cent 0.8 1.5 2.7 na na .. .. ..<br />
District/county —<br />
non-appeal<br />
.. .. ..<br />
Pending caseload (no.) 2 313 1 600 2 625 2 037 768 .. .. ..<br />
Cases >12 months<br />
.. .. ..<br />
Number 280 244 741 602 163 .. .. ..<br />
Per cent 12.1 15.3 28.2 29.6 21.2 .. .. ..<br />
Cases > 24months<br />
.. .. ..<br />
Number 50 45 185 116 30 .. .. ..<br />
Per cent 2.2 2.8 7.0 5.7 3.9 .. .. ..<br />
a In NSW, almost all non-appeal cases heard by the Supreme Court relate to murder or manslaughter. These<br />
serious cases take longer to resolve than other types of offences. na Not available. .. Not applicable.<br />
Source: State and Territory governments (unpublished); table 6A.17.<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.27
Table 6.10<br />
Backlog indicator — the number and proportion of a court’s<br />
pending caseload in excess of timeliness standards, all criminal<br />
matters — magistrates, children’s and coroners courts,<br />
2003-04 a<br />
NSW b Vic c Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT<br />
Magistrates<br />
Pending caseload 17 224 27 518 26 450 8 909 13 310 21 980 2 168 na<br />
(no.)<br />
Cases >6 months<br />
Number 1 982 4 792 6 722 4 677 3 853 4 183 470 na<br />
Per cent 11.5 17.4 25.4 52.5 28.9 19.0 21.7 na<br />
Cases >12 months<br />
Number 478 1 248 2 727 3 407 1 200 1 819 208 na<br />
Per cent 2.8 4.5 10.3 38.2 9.0 8.3 9.6 na<br />
Children’s<br />
Pending caseload 1 746 2 029 2 130 608 958 603 158 na<br />
(no.)<br />
Cases >6 months<br />
Number 200 133 479 151 193 170 38 na<br />
Per cent 11.5 6.6 22.5 24.8 20.1 28.2 24.1 na<br />
Cases >12 months<br />
Number 44 24 198 71 63 75 18 na<br />
Per cent 2.5 1.2 9.3 11.7 6.6 12.4 11.4 na<br />
Coroners<br />
Pending caseload 1 595 2 753 1 955 723 na 244 194 na<br />
(no.)<br />
Cases >6 months<br />
Number 757 1 274 982 391 na 95 73 na<br />
Per cent 47.5 46.3 50.2 54.1 na 38.9 37.6 na<br />
Cases >12 months<br />
Number 414 711 580 232 na 48 43 na<br />
Per cent 26.0 25.8 29.7 32.1 na 19.7 22.2 na<br />
a Excludes data for electronic courts. b NSW magistrate court finalisation data are estimated based on the<br />
83 per cent of cases on the case management computer system. c In the Victorian Magistrates Court,<br />
defendants can be entered into the Criminal Justice Diversion Program and the proceedings are adjourned for<br />
a period of up to 12 months. These defendants remain ‘pending’ and hence may misrepresent the true case<br />
processing timeliness. na Not available.<br />
Source: State and Territory governments (unpublished); table 6A.17.<br />
6.28 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
In each of the courts, the second national standard is that no criminal matters are to<br />
be more than 12 months old for magistrates, children’s and coroners court matters<br />
and 24 months old for district and supreme courts. The Queensland, Tasmanian and<br />
ACT supreme courts are the only courts that met the second national standard for<br />
criminal appeal cases, and no jurisdiction met the standard for criminal non-appeal<br />
cases. The results of the backlog indicator against this second standard are shown in<br />
tables 6.9 and 6.10, which report results in terms of the number and proportion of a<br />
court’s pending caseload that are older than the standard. The corresponding results<br />
for civil cases are shown in tables 6.11 and 6.12.<br />
In the supreme, district and family courts, the first national standard is that no more<br />
than 10 per cent of civil lodgments pending completion are to be more than<br />
12 months old. In the supreme court, SA and the ACT met this standard for appeal<br />
cases, and no jurisdiction met the standard for non-appeal cases. In the district<br />
court, NSW and SA met the standard for appeal cases, and no jurisdiction met the<br />
standard for non-appeal cases (table 6.11). Neither the Family Court of Australia<br />
nor the Family Court of WA met the standard (table 6.12).<br />
In the magistrates courts and the Federal Magistrates Court, the first national<br />
standard is that no more than 10 per cent of civil lodgments pending completion are<br />
to be more than 6 months old. In the magistrates court, no jurisdiction met the<br />
standard.<br />
In each of the courts, the second national standard is that no pending civil cases are<br />
to be more than 12 months old for magistrates, children’s, and the Federal<br />
Magistrates Court and 24 months old for district, supreme and family courts and the<br />
Federal Court. In 2003-04, SA met this national standard in its Supreme Court for<br />
appeal cases, but no jurisdiction met the standard for non-appeal cases. Neither the<br />
family courts nor the magistrates courts met the standard. The results of the backlog<br />
indicator against this standard are shown in tables 6.11 and 6.12, which report<br />
results in terms of the number and proportion of a court’s pending caseload that are<br />
older than the standard.<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.29
Table 6.11<br />
Backlog indicator — the number and proportion of a court’s<br />
pending caseload in excess of timeliness standards, all civil<br />
matters — supreme and district/county courts, 2003-04<br />
NSW a Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT<br />
Supreme/Federal — appeal<br />
Aust<br />
Courts<br />
Pending case load (no.) 630 317 412 382 10 182 67 na 450<br />
Cases >12 months<br />
Number 78 98 200 91 0 29 6 na 49<br />
Per cent 12.4 30.9 48.5 23.8 0.0 15.9 9.0 na 10.9<br />
Cases >24 months<br />
Number 22 18 52 11 0 11 2 na 19<br />
Per cent 3.5 5.7 12.6 2.9 0.0 6.0 3.0 na 4.2<br />
Supreme/Federal — non-appeal<br />
Pending case load (no.) 6 900 4 705 6 171 2 494 2 556 2 043 1 353 na 3 273<br />
Cases >12 months<br />
Number 2 780 1 673 2 850 961 604 990 615 na 1 616<br />
Per cent 40.3 35.6 46.2 38.5 23.6 48.5 45.5 na 49.4<br />
Cases >24 months<br />
Number 1 636 498 1 639 527 120 548 298 na 1 039<br />
Per cent 23.7 10.6 26.6 21.1 4.7 26.8 22.0 na 31.7<br />
District/county – appeal<br />
Pending case load (no.) 43 na 811 154 7 .. .. .. ..<br />
Cases >12 months<br />
Number. 3 na 305 24 0 .. .. .. ..<br />
Per cent 7.0 na 37.6 15.6 0.0 .. .. .. ..<br />
Cases >24 months<br />
Number 0 na 141 5 0 .. .. .. ..<br />
Per cent 0.0 na 17.4 3.2 0.0 .. .. .. ..<br />
District/county — non-appeal<br />
Pending case load (no.) 10 315 10 970 8 178 3 640 3 157 .. .. .. ..<br />
Cases >12 months<br />
Number 4 126 3 833 3 573 1 95 1 355 .. .. .. ..<br />
Per cent 40.0 34.9 43.7 41.1 42.9 .. .. .. ..<br />
Cases >24 months<br />
Number 2 269 941 1 699 701 484 .. .. .. ..<br />
Per cent 22.0 8.6 24.1 19.3 15.3 .. .. .. ..<br />
a The NSW higher courts proactively manage their civil cases. Consequently cases that, by their nature,<br />
cannot be finalised for a lengthy period are not deemed finalised, but continue to be monitored from time to<br />
time by the Court. na Not available. .. Not applicable.<br />
Source: Australian, State and Territory governments (unpublished); table 6A.18.<br />
6.30 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
Table 6.12<br />
Backlog indicator — the number and proportion of a court’s<br />
pending caseload that is older than the standard, all civil<br />
matters — family and magistrates courts and the Federal<br />
Magistrates Court, 2003-04<br />
Family — appeal<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT<br />
Aust<br />
Courts<br />
Pending case load (no.) .. .. .. na .. .. .. .. 222<br />
Cases >12 months<br />
Number .. .. .. na .. .. .. .. 65<br />
Per cent .. .. .. na .. .. .. .. 29.3<br />
Cases >24 months<br />
Number .. .. .. na .. .. .. .. 30<br />
Per cent .. .. .. na .. .. .. .. 13.5<br />
Family — non-appeal<br />
Pending case load (no.) .. .. .. 384 .. .. .. .. 24 698<br />
Cases >12 months<br />
Number .. .. .. 247 .. .. .. .. 9 919<br />
Per cent .. .. .. 64.3 .. .. .. .. 40.2<br />
Cases >24 months<br />
Number .. .. .. 67 .. .. .. .. 3 284<br />
Per cent .. .. .. 17.4 .. .. .. .. 13.3<br />
Magistrates<br />
Pending case load (no.) na 9 875 37 251 1 990 17 809 5 212 3 203 na ..<br />
Cases >6 months<br />
Number na 3 516 14 510 1 169 7 924 2 019 1 478 na ..<br />
Per cent na 35.6 39.0 58.7 44.5 38.7 46.1 na ..<br />
Cases >12 months<br />
Number na 2 301 3 118 526 2 714 200 487 na ..<br />
Per cent na 23.3 8.4 26.4 15.2 3.8 15.2 na ..<br />
Federal Magistrates<br />
Service<br />
Pending case load (no.) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 23 341<br />
Cases >6 months<br />
Number .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6801<br />
Per cent .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 29.1<br />
Cases >12 months<br />
Number .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 3 723<br />
Per cent .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 16.0<br />
na Not available. .. Not applicable.<br />
Source: Australian, State and Territory governments (unpublished); table 6A.18.<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.31
Attendance indicator<br />
The Steering Committee has identified the number of court attendances required as<br />
an effectiveness measure (box 6.10).<br />
Box 6.10<br />
Attendance indicator<br />
The attendance indicator is a measure of effectiveness.<br />
The number of attendances is the number of times that parties or their representatives<br />
are required to be present in court to be heard by a judicial officer or mediator/arbitrator<br />
(including appointments that are adjourned or rescheduled).<br />
This year’s chapter presents the total number of finalisations during the year for each<br />
court and the number of attendances associated with these matters (no matter when<br />
the attendance occurred). This approach simply represents an average number of<br />
attendances per finalisation.<br />
In the context of the attendance indicator, it is important to note that Alternative<br />
Dispute Resolution (ADR) can resolve certain matters out of court and thereby<br />
reduce the number of court attendances. Accordingly, differences between and<br />
within jurisdictions in the availability and use of ADR, can affect the comparability<br />
of the attendance indicator.<br />
The average number of attendances per finalisation ranged in the criminal<br />
jurisdiction: in the supreme court, from 6.3 in the ACT to 2.3 in Victoria; in the<br />
district/county court, from 6.3 in SA to 4.0 in both Queensland and WA; in the<br />
magistrates court, from 4.9 in the ACT to 1.7 in Queensland; and in the children’s<br />
court, from 5.2 in the ACT to 2.0 in Queensland (table 6.13).<br />
Table 6.13<br />
Attendance indicator — criminal, 2003-04 a<br />
NSW b Vic Qld c WA SA Tas ACT d NT<br />
Average attendances per finalisation<br />
Supreme na 2.3 2.6 3.4 5.1 5.8 6.3 6.1<br />
District/county e na 4.8 4.0 4.0 6.3 .. .. ..<br />
Magistrates na 2.5 1.7 2.1 3.5 1.9 4.9 3.4<br />
Children’s na 2.9 2.0 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.4<br />
Coroners na 0.1 na 0.1 na 0.1 0.2 0.1<br />
a Excludes data for electronic courts. b Courts do not have data available to enable them to identify the<br />
number of times that parties are present in court. c Data are extrapolated d Total number of attendances<br />
based on total number of listings. e In WA, the criminal case management computer system does not record<br />
the number of hearings that occurred per defendant. Data extracted are based on the number of listings<br />
recorded. Information may be refined in future. na Not available. .. Not applicable.<br />
Source: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); table 6A.19.<br />
6.32 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
In the civil jurisdiction, the average number of attendances per finalisation ranged in<br />
the supreme court from 4.6 in SA to 1.8 in Victoria, and in the district court from<br />
5.0 in SA to 0.3 in Queensland. The average number of attendances per finalisation<br />
was 2.2 in the Family Court of Australia and 1.7 in the Federal Magistrates Court<br />
(table 6.14). Most jurisdictions that reported for the civil jurisdiction of the<br />
magistrates courts had on, average around, 1.0 attendance per finalisation, with 2.5<br />
in the NT.<br />
Table 6.14 Attendance indicator — civil, 2003-04<br />
NSW a Vic b Qld c WA a SA Tas ACT d NT<br />
Aust<br />
courts<br />
Average attendances per finalisation<br />
Supreme na 1.8 0.5 3.0 4.6 na 4.5 3.3 3.7<br />
District/county na 2.5 0.3 4.6 5.0 .. .. .. ..<br />
Magistrates na 1.0 0.8 0.0 1.3 na 1.5 2.5 ..<br />
Children’s na na 2.2 4.2 na na 3.9 2.4 ..<br />
Federal Magistrates e .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1.7<br />
Family f .. .. .. na .. .. .. .. 2.2<br />
a Courts do not have data available to enable them to identify the number of times parties are present in the<br />
magistrates court. b Supreme court data are estimated and the county court data are extrapolated. As well,<br />
the 12 month deeming rule has not been used for civil timeliness data for the supreme and county courts. The<br />
magistrates court attendances for the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal and family law applications are<br />
estimates, with the estimate being one attendance per finalisation. c Court data are extrapolated. d Total<br />
number of attendances is based on total number of listings. e Excludes ‘responses’ to applications. f Family<br />
Court of Australia data include alternative dispute resolution, court and conference events held in the Family<br />
Court of Australia. Data include events that may not typically require attendance of parties, but these are<br />
included because they form part of the lodgments and finalisation figures. Data exclude responses to<br />
applications. na Not available. .. Not applicable.<br />
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished);<br />
table 6A.19.<br />
Effectiveness — judicial officers<br />
This indicator relates access to the number of judicial officers available to deal with<br />
cases (box 6.11).<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.33
Box 6.11<br />
Judicial officers<br />
The ‘judicial officers’ indicator is a simple way of representing resources (that is, the<br />
number of officers who can make enforceable orders of the court). It also indicates<br />
access to the judicial system.<br />
For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of a judicial officer includes:<br />
• judges<br />
• magistrates<br />
• masters<br />
• coroners<br />
• judicial registrars<br />
• all other officers who, following argument and giving of evidence, make enforceable<br />
orders of the court.<br />
Numbers are expressed in full time equivalent terms and based on the proportion of<br />
time spent on judicial functions. They are also presented in comparison to the<br />
population of each jurisdiction.<br />
A higher proportion of judicial officers in the population indicates potentially greater<br />
access to the judicial system.<br />
The number of full time equivalent judicial officers for each court level is outlined<br />
in table 6.15. As would be expected, the number of judicial officers is related to the<br />
size of the jurisdiction. In all State and Territory jurisdictions with a three-tier<br />
system, there were more judicial officers in the magistrates courts than in the<br />
district/county courts, and more officers in the district/county courts than in the<br />
supreme courts (except in WA).<br />
The number of judicial officers can be viewed in the context of the population in<br />
each jurisdiction. As a result, table 6.16 shows the number of judicial officers per<br />
100 000 people. For the supreme courts, the rate ranged from 4.0 judicial officers<br />
per 100 000 people in the NT to 0.6 in Queensland. In the district courts, it ranged<br />
from 1.3 per 100 000 in both WA and SA to 0.8 in Queensland. In the magistrates<br />
courts, it ranged from 6.1 in the NT to 1.7 in NSW (table 6.16).<br />
6.34 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
Table 6.15<br />
Judicial officers, full time equivalent, 2003-04 a, b<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT<br />
Aust<br />
courts<br />
Total<br />
Supreme/Federal 60.9 40.0 23.0 28.7 15.7 7.0 5.6 7.9 45.0 233.8<br />
District/county 75.0 54.0 30.8 26.0 20.3 .. .. .. .. 206.1<br />
Magistrates ’ 117.0 113.0 68.2 44.1 34.0 11.0 6.5 12.2 .. 406.0<br />
Children’s 12.0 8.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 0.6 1.3 0.6 .. 36.5<br />
Electronic c .. na na na na .. .. .. .. na<br />
Coroners 5.0 5.0 3.7 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.7 1.5 .. 19.4<br />
Family .. .. .. 14.6 .. .. .. .. 57.0 71.6<br />
Federal<br />
Magistrates .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 23.0 23.0<br />
Total 269.9 220.0 130.7 12<strong>0.4</strong> 75.0 19.1 14.1 22.2 125.0 996.3<br />
a Totals may not add as a result of rounding. b Judicial officers are defined to include judges, magistrates,<br />
masters, coroners, judicial registrars, and all other officers who, following argument and giving of evidence,<br />
make enforceable orders of the court. The data are provided on the basis of the proportion of time spent on<br />
judicial activities. c No electronic courts have open court sittings. na Not available. .. Not applicable.<br />
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished);<br />
table 6A.20.<br />
Table 6.16<br />
Judicial officers, full time equivalent, per 100 000 people,<br />
2003-04 a, b<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT<br />
Aust<br />
courts Total<br />
Population (’000) 6 721 4 955 3 854 1 972 1 531 479 325 200 .. 20 040<br />
Judicial officers per 100 000 people<br />
Supreme/Federal 0.9 0.8 0.6 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.7 4.0 0.2 1.2<br />
District/county 1.1 1.1 0.8 1.3 1.3 .. .. .. .. 1.0<br />
Magistrates ’ 1.7 2.3 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.0 6.1 .. 2.0<br />
Children’s 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 <strong>0.4</strong> 0.3 .. 0.2<br />
Electronic c .. na na na na .. .. .. .. na<br />
Coroners 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.8 .. 0.1<br />
Family .. .. .. 0.7 .. .. .. .. 0.3 <strong>0.4</strong><br />
Federal<br />
Magistrates .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 0.1 0.1<br />
Total 3.9 4.3 3.3 5.3 4.8 3.9 4.1 1<strong>0.4</strong> 0.6 4.4<br />
a Totals may not add as a result of rounding. b Judicial officers are defined to include judges, magistrates,<br />
masters, coroners, judicial registrars, and all other officers who, following argument and giving of evidence,<br />
make enforceable orders of the court. The data are provided on the basis of the proportion of time spent on<br />
judicial activities. c No electronic courts have open court sittings. na Not available. .. Not applicable.<br />
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished);<br />
table 6A.20, Appendix A.<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.35
Efficiency — clearance rate<br />
This indicator is a measure of efficiency in processing the inflow of cases through<br />
the court (box 6.12).<br />
Box 6.12<br />
Clearance rate<br />
The ‘clearance rate’ measures whether a court is keeping up with its workload.<br />
The indicator is the number of finalisations in the reporting period, divided by the<br />
number of lodgments in the same period (multiplied by 100 to convert to a percentage).<br />
The following should assist in understanding the indicator:<br />
• a figure of 100 per cent indicates that the court, during the reporting period, finalised<br />
as many cases as were lodged<br />
• a figure greater than 100 per cent means the pending caseload of the court is<br />
decreasing<br />
• a figure less than 100 per cent means the pending caseload of the court is<br />
increasing.<br />
The clearance rate can be affected by external factors (such as changes in legislation),<br />
as well as by changes in a court’s case management practices.<br />
All matters<br />
For all matters (both criminal and civil) in the supreme courts in 2003-04, those<br />
jurisdictions that kept up with their workload or reduced their pending caseload<br />
(that is, those with a clearance rate of 100 per cent or above) were Queensland, WA<br />
and Tasmania. The clearance rate in the Federal Court of Australia was<br />
100.8 per cent. In the district courts, the two jurisdictions with a clearance rate of<br />
100 per cent or over were NSW and Queensland. In the magistrates courts, the ACT<br />
and Queensland had a clearance rate of over 100 per cent (table 6.17). Table 6.17<br />
also provides a breakdown for each jurisdiction, with some differences in the<br />
clearance rate, depending on whether the matter was criminal or civil.<br />
In the electronic courts, the jurisdictions that had a clearance rate of 100 per cent or<br />
over were Victoria and Queensland. In the coroners courts, the only jurisdiction<br />
with a clearance rate of 100 per cent or over was Tasmania. The clearance rate in<br />
the Family Court of Australia was 111.8 per cent; in the Federal Magistrates Court<br />
it was 81.7 per cent (table 6.17).<br />
6.36 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
Table 6.17 Clearance rate (finalisations/lodgments), all matters, 2003-04<br />
(per cent)<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT<br />
Aust<br />
courts<br />
Supreme<br />
Criminal 98.1 106.3 94.4 105.1 85.4 94.8 88.1 80.9 ..<br />
Civil 98.2 82.0 118.2 115.2 62.6 124.9 92.1 94.5 100.8<br />
Total 98.2 83.9 113.0 113.8 66.7 116.8 91.4 87.7 100.8<br />
District/county<br />
Criminal 95.2 104.8 92.9 100.3 77.1 .. .. .. ..<br />
Civil 123.9 82.5 103.4 95.3 95.9 .. .. .. ..<br />
Total 108.6 9<strong>0.4</strong> 10<strong>0.4</strong> 97.5 89.2 .. .. .. ..<br />
Magistrates<br />
Criminal 97.8 94.7 99.7 108.6 77.5 91.5 100.9 90.0 ..<br />
Civil 95.8 85.7 105.4 65.5 68.7 102.7 107.2 60.5 ..<br />
Total 96.7 89.7 101.6 89.3 74.5 93.3 104.4 79.6 ..<br />
Children’s<br />
Criminal 101.0 88.8 96.0 66.6 70.9 97.5 111.9 87.7 ..<br />
Civil 92.4 90.6 92.0 121.4 na 102.8 83.3 130.9 ..<br />
Total 98.3 89.1 94.9 71.5 na 97.8 104.5 92.7 ..<br />
Electronic .. 137.1 146.2 49.8 72.9 .. .. .. ..<br />
Coroners 97.0 91.4 85.1 98.3 95.7 115.6 98.3 83.7 ..<br />
Family .. .. .. 87.7 .. .. .. .. 111.8<br />
Federal<br />
Magistrates .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 81.7<br />
na Not available. .. Not applicable.<br />
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); tables<br />
6A.1, 6A.2, 6A.5, 6A.6., 6A21 and 6A.22<br />
Appeal and non-appeal matters<br />
Where relevant, the clearance rate data have also been disaggregated between<br />
appeal and non-appeal matters. For non-appeal matters (both criminal and civil) in<br />
the supreme courts in 2003-04, those jurisdictions that kept up with their workload<br />
or reduced their pending caseload (that is, those with a clearance rate of 100 per<br />
cent or above) were Queensland, WA and Tasmania. The clearance rate for nonappeal<br />
matters was 101.3 per cent in the Federal Court of Australia and<br />
111.9 per cent in the Family Court of Australia. In the district courts, the<br />
jurisdictions with a clearance rate of 100 per cent or above were NSW and<br />
Queensland (table 6.18). Table 6.18 also provides a breakdown for each<br />
jurisdiction, with some differences in the clearance rate depending on whether the<br />
matter was criminal or civil.<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.37
Table 6.18<br />
Clearance rate (finalisations/lodgments), non-appeal matters,<br />
2003-04 (per cent)<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT<br />
Aust<br />
courts<br />
Supreme<br />
Criminal 98.4 104.9 89.3 89.6 86.2 95.5 80.6 82.7 ..<br />
Civil 98.3 77.9 117.5 119.9 61.7 130.9 93.8 97.0 101.3<br />
Total 98.3 78.4 112.6 117.2 63.1 120.9 92.2 87.7 101.3<br />
District/county<br />
Criminal 84.5 103.2 98.8 100.3 77.1 .. .. .. ..<br />
Civil 124.0 82.3 102.2 97.0 96.0 .. .. .. ..<br />
Total 111.1 87.0 100.3 98.4 89.2 .. .. .. ..<br />
Family .. .. .. na .. .. .. .. 111.9<br />
na Not available. .. Not applicable.<br />
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished);<br />
tables 6A.21 and 6A.22.<br />
For appeal matters (both criminal and civil) in the supreme courts in 2003-04,<br />
Victoria and Queensland kept up with their workload or reduced their pending<br />
caseload (that is, they had a clearance rate of 100 per cent or above). In the district<br />
courts, NSW, Victoria and Queensland had a clearance rate of 100 per cent or above<br />
for appeal matters. Within each of these court levels, the clearance rate within each<br />
jurisdiction differed depending on whether the matter was criminal or civil.<br />
Table 6.19 provides a criminal and civil breakdown for each jurisdiction. The<br />
clearance rate for appeal matters was 97.8 per cent in the Federal Court of Australia<br />
and 105.1 per cent in the Family Court of Australia.<br />
Table 6.19<br />
Clearance rate (finalisations/lodgments), appeal matters,<br />
2003-04 (per cent)<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT<br />
Aust<br />
courts<br />
Supreme<br />
Criminal 98.1 106.7 108.0 124.1 85.2 80.8 108.1 61.8 ..<br />
Civil 96.7 151.0 134.0 73.8 72.5 68.6 71.1 92.0 97.8<br />
Total 97.3 126.9 117.0 94.6 80.8 70.3 85.5 87.6 97.8<br />
District/county<br />
Criminal 102.9 106.5 72.3 na na .. .. .. ..<br />
Civil 110.9 105.1 114.4 62.0 92.5 .. .. .. ..<br />
Total 103.0 106.5 102.4 na na .. .. .. ..<br />
Family .. .. .. na .. .. .. .. 105.1<br />
na Not available. .. Not applicable.<br />
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); tables<br />
6A21 and 6A.22<br />
6.38 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
Efficiency — cost per finalisation<br />
This indicator is a measure of efficiency (box 6.13). Cost is measured as net<br />
recurrent expenditure excluding payroll tax.<br />
Box 6.13<br />
Cost per finalisation<br />
The cost per finalisation is calculated by dividing the total net recurrent expenditure<br />
within each court for the financial year, by the total number of finalisations for the same<br />
period.<br />
It is an imperfect measure of an individual jurisdiction’s efficiency. The following points<br />
need to be considered in interpreting the cost per finalisation efficiency results:<br />
• some finalisations take only a short time and require few resources, whereas other<br />
finalisations may be resource intensive and involve complicated trials<br />
• the finalisation of a case may not provide a true indication of the resources<br />
expended by the court, because any one case may involve several related<br />
applications or issues that require judgments and decisions by the court<br />
• lodgements that have not been acted upon in the last 12 months are counted as<br />
finalised. However, NSW does not allow lengthy cases to become dormant as under<br />
their case management approach they continue to monitor the matter.<br />
Consequently, NSW cannot deem these cases finalised<br />
• the expenditure provided may include arbitrary financial splits between criminal and<br />
civil.<br />
• the income deducted from court expenditure includes court fees, which in some<br />
jurisdictions are set by government and not by court administrators<br />
• a number of factors are beyond the control of jurisdictions, such as geographic<br />
dispersion, economies of scale and socioeconomic factors<br />
• the efficiency results need to be viewed in light of the performance indicator<br />
framework as a whole, because there can be trade-offs between equity,<br />
effectiveness and efficiency.<br />
Net expenditure per finalisation for total magistrates courts (including magistrates<br />
and children’s courts)<br />
Nationally, net expenditure per criminal finalisation for total magistrates courts<br />
(including children’s courts but excluding electronic courts) was $362 in 2003-04.<br />
Across jurisdictions, it was highest in the ACT ($555) and lowest in Tasmania<br />
($116) (figure 6.4).<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.39
Nationally, net expenditure per civil finalisation for total magistrates courts<br />
(including children’s courts but excluding electronic courts) was $160. Across<br />
jurisdictions, it was highest in the NT ($655) and lowest in Tasmania ($27). The<br />
Victorian data include 70 660 finalisations of residential tenancy and civil matters<br />
that were finalised in the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal. The Australian<br />
courts do not operate in this court jurisdiction.<br />
Figure 6.4<br />
Net expenditure per finalisation, total magistrates courts<br />
(excluding electronic courts), 2003-04a, b, c, d, e, f, g<br />
Criminal<br />
Civil<br />
$/finalisation<br />
700<br />
600<br />
500<br />
400<br />
300<br />
200<br />
100<br />
0<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total<br />
a Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue,<br />
probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines).<br />
b Excludes electronic court data but includes children’s court data. c Excludes payroll tax. d The Australian<br />
courts do not operate in this court jurisdiction. e In the civil jurisdiction, the Victorian data include 70 660<br />
finalisations of residential tenancy and civil claims applications (and the associated expenditure) that were<br />
finalised in the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal. f In the criminal court jurisdiction in Queensland, some<br />
Children’s Court expenditure and finalisations are heard in the District Court. This has not been taken into<br />
account in the above analysis. g In the civil jurisdiction, Queensland and SA data exclude children’s court<br />
finalisations but include children’s court expenditure, which creates a slightly increased expenditure per<br />
finalisation for the magistrates courts (total). All other jurisdictions include civil children’s court data.<br />
Source: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 6A.23 and<br />
6A.24.<br />
The analysis of the magistrates court efficiency in figure 6.4 excludes electronic<br />
court expenditure and finalisations. Box 6.14 shows the impact of including<br />
electronic courts within the efficiency results of the magistrates courts.<br />
6.40 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
Box 6.14 The impact of the electronic courts on the magistrates courts<br />
All State, Territory and Australian jurisdictions operate tribunals and specialist courts,<br />
partly to reduce the workload on courts such as the magistrates courts.<br />
Electronic courts — which are infringement and offence processing systems that have<br />
the status of a court and deal with matters such as unpaid infringement notices for<br />
minor traffic offences — can also reduce the workload on the magistrates courts.<br />
Electronic courts currently operate only in Victoria, Queensland, WA and SA. The<br />
figure in this box shows the impact that including electronic courts data for these<br />
jurisdictions would have on the magistrates court efficiency results reported in<br />
figure 6.4.<br />
The impact is to reduce expenditure less income per criminal finalisation for the<br />
magistrates courts in all four jurisdictions (assuming all of the matters dealt with by the<br />
electronic courts would otherwise have been dealt with by the magistrates courts). The<br />
magnitude of the reductions under this assumption is shown in the figure below and<br />
table 6A.23.<br />
Magistrates courts (excl. electronic courts)<br />
Magistrates courts (incl. electronic courts)<br />
$/finalisation<br />
500<br />
450<br />
400<br />
350<br />
300<br />
250<br />
200<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
0<br />
Vic Qld WA SA<br />
While NSW, Tasmania, the ACT and the NT do not operate electronic courts that fall<br />
under the jurisdiction of the magistrates courts, they have bodies (such as the NSW<br />
State Debt Recovery Office and the Motor Vehicle Registry in the ACT) that deal with<br />
unpaid infringement notices and that may have a similar impact in reducing the<br />
workload of the magistrates courts.<br />
Net expenditure per finalisation for magistrates courts only<br />
(excluding electronic and children’s courts)<br />
In 2003-04, net expenditure per criminal finalisation for magistrates courts only<br />
(excluding electronic and children’s courts) was $350 nationally. Across<br />
jurisdictions, it was highest in the NT ($528) and lowest in Tasmania ($112)<br />
(figure 6.5).<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.41
Nationally, net expenditure per civil finalisation for the magistrates courts only<br />
(excluding electronic and children’s courts) was $136. Across jurisdictions, it was<br />
highest in the NT ($667) and lowest in Tasmania ($27) (figure 6.5).<br />
The Victorian data include 70 660 finalisations of residential tenancy matters and<br />
civil claims applications (and the associated expenditure) that were finalised in the<br />
Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal. The Australian courts do not operate in<br />
this court jurisdiction.<br />
Figure 6.5<br />
Net expenditure per finalisation, magistrates courts only<br />
(excluding electronic and children’s courts), 2003-04a, b, c, d, e<br />
Criminal<br />
Civil<br />
$/finalisation<br />
800<br />
700<br />
600<br />
500<br />
400<br />
300<br />
200<br />
100<br />
0<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total<br />
a Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue,<br />
probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines).<br />
b Excludes payroll tax. c The Australian courts do not operate in this court jurisdiction. d In the civil<br />
jurisdiction, the Victorian data include 70 660 finalisations of residential tenancy and civil claims applications<br />
(and the associated expenditure) that were finalised in the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal. e In the civil<br />
jurisdiction, Queensland data include finalisations and associated expenditure from the Small Claims Tribunal.<br />
Source: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 6A.23 and<br />
6A.24.<br />
Net expenditure per finalisation for children’s courts<br />
In 2003-04, net expenditure per criminal finalisation for children’s courts was $539<br />
nationally. Across jurisdictions, it was highest in WA ($1022) and lowest in<br />
Victoria ($107) (figure 6.6).<br />
Nationally, net expenditure per civil finalisation for the children’s courts was $660.<br />
Across jurisdictions, it was highest in the ACT ($2201) and lowest in WA ($394)<br />
(figure 6.6). The Australian courts do not operate in this court jurisdiction.<br />
6.42 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
Figure 6.6<br />
Net expenditure per finalisation, children’s courts,<br />
2003-04a, b, c, d, e, f<br />
Criminal<br />
Civil<br />
2400<br />
2000<br />
$/finalisation<br />
1600<br />
1200<br />
800<br />
400<br />
0<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total<br />
a Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue,<br />
probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines).<br />
b Excludes payroll tax. c The Australian courts do not operate in this court jurisdiction. d Excludes finalisations<br />
for committals heard in the children’s courts. e SA has not provided Children’s Court civil finalisations data.<br />
f Tasmanian children’s court civil lodgments were statistically insignificant (106 cases), resulting in a nil return<br />
due to the rounding process.<br />
Source: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 6A.23 and<br />
6A.24.<br />
Net expenditure per finalisation for electronic courts<br />
All electronic courts in 2003-04 had income that outweighed any associated<br />
expenditure. Nationally, the income generated over expenditure per finalisation<br />
(based on unpaid infringement notices) was $27. Across jurisdictions, it was highest<br />
in WA and SA ($68) and lowest in Queensland ($20) (figure 6.7).<br />
New South Wales, Tasmania, the ACT and the NT do not operate electronic courts.<br />
They may, however, operate bodies (such as a debt recovery office) that perform<br />
similar functions but do not operate under the auspices of a court.<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.43
Figure 6.7<br />
Net expenditure per finalisation, electronic courts, 2003-04a, b, c<br />
$/finalisation<br />
0<br />
-10<br />
-20<br />
-30<br />
-40<br />
-50<br />
-60<br />
-70<br />
Vic Qld WA SA Total<br />
a Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue,<br />
probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines).<br />
b Excludes payroll tax. c Electronic courts (infringement and expiated offence processing systems that have<br />
the status of a court) operate only in Victoria, Queensland, WA and SA. The electronic court data are based<br />
on unpaid infringement notices. Other jurisdictions may operate similar bodies that do not operate under the<br />
auspices of a court.<br />
Source: State court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); table 6A.23.<br />
Net expenditure per finalisation for district/county courts<br />
In 2003-04, net expenditure per criminal finalisation for district/county courts was<br />
$4768. Across jurisdictions, it was highest in SA ($8407) and lowest in Queensland<br />
($2387) (figure 6.8).<br />
Nationally, net expenditure per civil finalisation for district/county courts was<br />
$1739. Across jurisdictions, it was highest in WA ($2680) and lowest in<br />
Queensland ($1018) (figure 6.8). Tasmania, the ACT, the NT and the Australian<br />
courts do not operate in this court jurisdiction.<br />
Net expenditure per finalisation for the supreme courts and the Federal Court<br />
In 2003-04, net expenditure per criminal finalisation in the supreme courts was<br />
$12 859 nationally. Across jurisdictions, it was highest in NSW ($25 636) and<br />
lowest in Queensland ($5224) (figure 6.9).<br />
Nationally, net expenditure per civil finalisation was $4197. Across jurisdictions, it<br />
was highest in the NT ($18 813) and lowest in Queensland ($1185) (figure 6.9).<br />
The Federal Court’s net expenditure per civil finalisation was $11 119 (figure 6.9).<br />
6.44 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
Figure 6.8<br />
Net expenditure per finalisation, district/county courts,<br />
2003-04a, b, c, d<br />
Criminal<br />
Civil<br />
$/finalisation<br />
9000<br />
8000<br />
7000<br />
6000<br />
5000<br />
4000<br />
3000<br />
2000<br />
1000<br />
0<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Total<br />
a Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue,<br />
probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines).<br />
b Excludes payroll tax. c Tasmania, the ACT, the NT and the Australian Government do not operate<br />
district/county courts. d In the criminal court jurisdiction in Queensland, some children’s court expenditure and<br />
finalisations are heard in the district court. This has not been taken into account in the above analysis.<br />
Source: State court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); tables 6A.23 and 6A.24.<br />
Figure 6.9<br />
Net expenditure per finalisation, supreme courts and the<br />
Federal Court, 2003-04a, b, c<br />
Criminal<br />
Civil<br />
28000<br />
24000<br />
$/finalisation<br />
20000<br />
16000<br />
12000<br />
8000<br />
4000<br />
0<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Fed Total<br />
a Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue,<br />
probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines).<br />
b Excludes payroll tax. c Data for the Federal Court include the cost of resources provided free of charge to<br />
the Federal Magistrates Court. As well, the Federal Magistrates Court has an impact on the workload and<br />
costs of the Federal Court. The Federal Court does not operate in the criminal jurisdiction.<br />
Source: Australian, State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished);<br />
tables 6A.23 and 6A.24.<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.45
Net expenditure per reported death and fire for coroners courts<br />
Nationally, expenditure per reported death and fire in the coroners courts was $1503<br />
in 2003-04. Across jurisdictions, it was highest in the NT ($3426) and lowest in<br />
Tasmania ($804) (figure 6.10). Some jurisdictions include autopsy and chemical<br />
analysis costs in their expenditure data, but others exclude these costs because they<br />
are outside the court’s immediate control.<br />
Data for NSW, Queensland and the ACT include fires reported to the coroner; all<br />
other jurisdictions exclude these data, so care needs to be taken when making<br />
comparisons. The Australian courts do not operate in this court jurisdiction.<br />
Figure 6.10 Net expenditure per finalisation, coroners courts, 2003-04a, b, c, d<br />
$/finalisation<br />
4000<br />
3500<br />
3000<br />
2500<br />
2000<br />
1500<br />
1000<br />
500<br />
0<br />
NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Total<br />
a Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue,<br />
probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines).<br />
b Excludes payroll tax. c Data for NSW, Queensland and the ACT include fires reported to the coroner. All<br />
other jurisdictions exclude these data. d Some jurisdictions include autopsy and chemical analysis costs in<br />
their expenditure data, but others exclude these costs because they are outside the court’s immediate control.<br />
Source: State and Territory court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); table 6A.23.<br />
Net expenditure per lodgment for family courts and the Federal Magistrates Court<br />
The establishment of the Federal Magistrates Court has implications for the number<br />
of finalisations and expenditure associated with the Family Court of Australia. The<br />
intention is for the Federal Magistrates Court to take on some of the workload<br />
previously managed by the Family Court of Australia (and the Federal Court).<br />
In 2003-04, net expenditure per finalisation was $1967 for the Family Court of<br />
Australia and $1033 for the Family Court of WA (figure 6.11). The Federal<br />
Magistrates Court received resources provided free of charge from the Family Court<br />
6.46 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
of Australia, which has implications for comparisons between the two family courts.<br />
Net expenditure per finalisation for the Federal Magistrates Court was $334.<br />
Figure 6.11<br />
Net expenditure per finalisation, family courts, 2003-04 a, b<br />
$/finalisation<br />
2400<br />
2000<br />
1600<br />
1200<br />
800<br />
400<br />
0<br />
WA Family Court Family Court of Australia Federal Magistrates<br />
a Income is derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue,<br />
probate revenue, mediation revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding fines). b The<br />
introduction of the Federal Magistrates Court has expenditure and lodgment implications for the Family Court<br />
of Australia. The Federal Magistrates Court has received resources provided free of charge from the Family<br />
Court of Australia, and since November 2003, all divorces have been lodged in the Federal Magistrates Court.<br />
Source: Australian court administration authorities and departments (unpublished); table 6A.24.<br />
Outcomes<br />
There are no outcome indicators for court administration. It is noted, however, that<br />
the activities of court administrators lead to broader justice-wide outcomes that are<br />
not readily picked up in this service-specific chapter.<br />
6.4 Future directions in performance reporting<br />
Improving data quality<br />
Differences across states and territories in the jurisdiction of courts, and in the<br />
allocation of cases between courts, affect the comparability of equity, efficiency and<br />
effectiveness data. The different methods undertaken to collect the data can also<br />
have an impact on data consistency and quality.<br />
The Review, through the Court Administration Working Group and the Courts<br />
Practitioner Group, is taking steps to improve data quality, including:<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.47
• assessing and implementing recommendations associated with the ABS Courts<br />
Administration Data Collection National Report on lodgments and finalisations<br />
• clearly defining issues pertaining to the scope of the data collection and<br />
reporting within the chapter<br />
• assessing the most appropriate way in which to collect and publish data<br />
• amending data definitions<br />
• improving data verification and data quality.<br />
These changes are ongoing and incremental.<br />
6.5 Jurisdictions’ comments<br />
This section provides comments from each jurisdiction on the services covered in<br />
this chapter. Appendix A contains data that may assist in interpreting the<br />
performance indicators presented in this chapter. These data cover a range of<br />
demographic and geographic characteristics, including age profile, geographic<br />
distribution of the population, income levels, education levels, tenure of dwellings<br />
and cultural heritage (including Indigenous and ethnic status).<br />
6.48 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
“<br />
New South Wales Government comments<br />
During 2003–04, the Attorney General’s Department of NSW continued to<br />
focus on improving the administration of the community’s justice system for<br />
resolving civil disputes and criminal matters. As well as continued<br />
improvements in court performance, our priorities included building community<br />
capacity to prevent crime, improving outcomes and services for Aboriginal<br />
communities, enhancing value for money through justice sector cooperation,<br />
and use of technology such as video conferencing.<br />
The District Court’s pending civil caseload, has reduced substantially as a<br />
result of the introduction of Tort Law reforms. With criminal matters, the District<br />
Court ranked first in Australia in relation to time standards, despite having the<br />
largest number of serious cases.<br />
The NSW Supreme Court has continued to deal with its criminal cases in a<br />
timely way and, amongst the supreme courts, has the third smallest backlog of<br />
cases older than 2 years. This is despite that fact that it deals almost<br />
exclusively with the most serious offences (murder and manslaughter).<br />
NSW also improved outcomes and services for Aboriginal communities through<br />
the expansion of circle sentencing and community justice groups. Circle<br />
sentencing was extended to Dubbo, and is due to commence in the near future<br />
at Brewarrina and Walgett Local Courts. Aboriginal Community Justice Groups<br />
were established at Lismore, Grafton, Yamba, Maclean, Toronto and Mt. Druitt.<br />
Local Courts now provide outreach services in 35 courthouses. Outreach<br />
services improve access to a range of government information and transaction<br />
services for residents in physically remote and isolated locations and to<br />
targeted client groups such as Aboriginal communities and people from non-<br />
English-speaking backgrounds.<br />
Video conferencing systems installed in courtrooms and other justice facilities<br />
have been used for over 20 000 bail appearances, parole hearings and remote<br />
witness appearances. This technological advance has significantly reduced the<br />
costs and risks of transporting people in custody and has improved security<br />
within courts, particularly for vulnerable witnesses.<br />
CourtLink, the multi-jurisdictional case management system is providing an<br />
impetus to review and streamline processes in each of the jurisdictions.<br />
Additionally, court forms and documents in the criminal jurisdiction have been<br />
reduced from 700 to fewer than 100 types of documents.<br />
Lawlink NSW was consistently rated in the top five most popular legal websites<br />
in Australia, registering an average of more than 4 million hits per month. For<br />
Caselaw, the web-based application containing NSW court and tribunal<br />
decisions, more than 19 million pages were accessed throughout the year.<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
”<br />
6.49
“<br />
Victorian Government comments<br />
In 2003-04 Victoria continued to introduce new technology, new mediation<br />
processes and construct court houses to improve the delivery of services to the<br />
community.<br />
Construction of the $15.5M Warrnambool Courts Complex continued through<br />
2003-2004. The multi-jurisdictional complex has four court rooms and will also<br />
accommodate the Office of Public Prosecutions, the Sheriff’s Office and<br />
Community Correctional Services. Work also continued on the new $16.7M<br />
Mildura Courts Complex through 2003–2004 and it was completed in early<br />
October 2004. The multi-jurisdictional court house has jury and custody<br />
facilities as well as a pre-trial hearing room, interview rooms and facilities for<br />
the public and staff. Both courthouses will incorporate ecologically sustainable<br />
development principles, including energy efficient design and features the<br />
latest in court technology.<br />
The Department is continuing to enhance access to technology for courts<br />
across the state. In 2003-04 the Victorian Government Reporting Service<br />
(VGRS) upgraded video-conferencing facilities, and in partnership with the<br />
County Court, trialed the installation of a combined DVD, VHS and CD Player<br />
for use in the presentation of evidence in courtrooms. The Supreme Court<br />
upgraded the IT infrastructure to support a rollout to windows XP and<br />
standardise information technology across the Melbourne and regional Courts.<br />
The Court commenced a project to upgrade court rooms in the criminal<br />
jurisdiction to support electronic delivery of evidence for major criminal trials.<br />
The County Court introduced a new criminal listing regime which has resulted<br />
in more appropriate timeliness in this jurisdiction, particularly in relation to<br />
criminal trials. The County Court also continued to address the increased<br />
caseload arising from the reintroduction of the common law right to sue for<br />
work related injuries, as well as addressing the changing caseload arising from<br />
Tort Law reforms introduced during 2003.<br />
Since its inception in February 2003 the mediation initiative for civil claims<br />
above $30,000 at the Magistrates Court has proved most successful. The<br />
Court’s accredited mediators (also Registrar’s of the Magistrates Court)<br />
conducted 138 mediations of which 91 settled and 47 matters were listed for<br />
hearing before an Open Court. The success rate currently lies at 66%. The<br />
total saving of Court sitting time has been a total 205 sitting days. In relation to<br />
designated Intervention Order complaints (which excluded applications<br />
between family members) an agreement rate of 72% was achieved between<br />
parties which resulted in the original complaint for an intervention order being<br />
withdrawn. Participation in the program is voluntary.<br />
The Criminal Justice Diversion Program operating in the Magistrates Court has<br />
also proved quite successful.<br />
6.50 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005<br />
”
“<br />
Queensland Government comments<br />
Queensland courts have continued to set high standards of efficiency and<br />
effectiveness during 2003–04. A range of initiatives have been undertaken to<br />
improve access to justice in Queensland including:<br />
• Implementation of the Evidence (Protection of Children) Amendment Act<br />
2003 which improves the environment for children in the criminal justice<br />
system through pre-recording all evidence at a preliminary hearing unless<br />
(because of extraordinary circumstances) the court orders otherwise; and<br />
mandatory use of CCTV or screens where pre-recording has not occurred.<br />
• The continued expansion of closed circuit television (CCTV) and voice<br />
enhancement facilities for witnesses throughout Queensland including – in<br />
the Higher Courts – at Mt Isa, Cairns, Townsville, Bundaberg, Kingaroy,<br />
and Gympie and – in the Magistrates Courts – at Richlands.<br />
• The continued successful Drug Court program in South East Queensland<br />
and expansion of the Drug Court through trials in Cairns and Townsville.<br />
• Implementation of the Illicit Drug Diversion Program trial (at the Brisbane<br />
Central Magistrates Courts and Children’s Court) with the aim of diverting<br />
minor drug offenders into assessment, education and treatment.<br />
• Commencement of the operations of the Office of the State Coroner<br />
delivering high quality coronial services including comprehensive coronial<br />
investigations – with the aim of preventing future similar deaths.<br />
• Expansion of the Civil Case Register System (CRS) in the Magistrates<br />
Courts to a total of 19 sites (adding three new locations at Petrie, Noosa<br />
and Cleveland). This CRS facility enables solicitors and others to<br />
electronically lodge civil claims and requests for default judgement in<br />
Magistrates Courts.<br />
• Continuation of the development of the Integrated Justice Information<br />
System project - a whole-of-government initiative to better plan and<br />
implement integrated justice solutions in collaboration with government<br />
agencies. The project will deliver a number of initiatives over five years.<br />
The first stage in 2003–04 has involved the electronic transfer of bench<br />
charge sheets and related information from police to courts and access to<br />
court lists.<br />
• Planning for the delivery of state-of-the-art digital recording and<br />
transcription services in Queensland courts – commencing in 2004–05 with<br />
the Brisbane Magistrates Court and the Brisbane Higher Courts.<br />
• Continuation of the modernisation program in Queensland courts - not just<br />
as new bricks and mortar projects but as specific improvements designed<br />
to make the criminal justice system more effective. These include the new<br />
state-of-the-art Brisbane Magistrates Court complex (commencing<br />
November 2004), refurbishment of the Mackay Courthouse and an<br />
upgrade of the Hervey Bay courthouse.<br />
”<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.51
“<br />
Western Australian Government comments<br />
A considerable legislative agenda that impacts upon courts activities has been<br />
progressed through Parliament and includes:<br />
• Structural and procedural reform of the lower courts to create a<br />
Magistrates’ Court, exercising both a civil and criminal jurisdiction. The<br />
Court will have increased jurisdictional limits and the power to make its<br />
own rules.<br />
• The Civil Judgments Enforcement Act and the Criminal Procedure Act<br />
that will establish uniform procedures across all of the respective<br />
jurisdictions.<br />
• Increasing the likelihood of ‘either-way’ offences being dealt with in the<br />
Magistrates Court.<br />
• Creating a State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) that will amalgamate all<br />
or part functions of over 50 boards and tribunals and transfer hundreds<br />
of administrative appeals from courts.<br />
• Amending the Restraining Orders Act to reflect community concerns<br />
relating to family and domestic violence.<br />
• Changing procedures to afford sexual assault complainants greater<br />
protection.<br />
Other projects underway include:<br />
• The construction of a Central Business District Courts complex. This<br />
facility will provide for all criminal trials in the CBD to be managed from<br />
the one facility. The expected completion is by 2008.<br />
• Implementing the Integrated Courts Management System (ICMS) into<br />
the civil jurisdiction of the Supreme and District Courts and planning for<br />
Criminal Case Management. The system will also provide a case<br />
management facility for the SAT and enable the expansion of e-<br />
Business (Magistrates’ Courts are now receiving more than 85% of<br />
police criminal complaints electronically).<br />
• Development of a management plan for self represented persons in<br />
Courts and Tribunals.<br />
• A joint assessment has commenced on the merits of developing crossborder<br />
agreements between WA, SA and the NT to provide for summary<br />
criminal matters perpetrated in one state/territory to be dealt with in<br />
another and enforceable in the originating state/territory. Participating<br />
Magistrates and Court Officers will hold simultaneous appointments for<br />
all jurisdictions.<br />
”<br />
6.52 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
“<br />
South<br />
Australian Government comments<br />
There are no substantial changes in this year’s reported data compared with<br />
the trends that have been noted in the activities and performance of the South<br />
Australian courts over recent years.<br />
The two projects being undertaken in the Magistrates Court in collaboration<br />
with the Attorney-General’s Department and other organisations, namely;<br />
adjournments and video conferencing, are continuing to be investigated.<br />
In the District and Supreme Courts the examination of the listing processes to<br />
see if greater consistency can be achieved between what is expected to take<br />
place when a matter is listed for trial and what actually takes place is<br />
continuing.<br />
Key initiatives not covered in the report include:<br />
• A number of Aboriginal Justice initiatives have been introduced to improve<br />
the responsiveness of the Courts system for Aboriginal people and to make<br />
it more culturally appropriate. Examples of these initiatives are; Aboriginal<br />
Justice Officers, Aboriginal Court Days, Aboriginal Youth Court Pilot in Port<br />
Augusta, Aboriginal Recruitment and Employment in Magistrates Courts and<br />
Aboriginal interpreters extended to Ceduna, Yalata and Coober Pedy.<br />
• The Court Diversion Program continues to expand, now covering the CBD,<br />
metropolitan and three regional areas of South Australia. The Program<br />
provides an opportunity for eligible individuals to address their mental health,<br />
disability issues and their offending behaviour, while their legal proceedings<br />
are suspended.<br />
• Funding has been approved to develop a new Courthouse at Port Augusta.<br />
The development provides for a three courtroom building that provides<br />
rooms for associated agencies within the building, registry and mediation<br />
facilities, point of entry security, open plan for internal waiting spaces and<br />
sheltered external waiting areas. Multi Purpose Courtrooms will be designed<br />
to provide a high degree of flexibility in the operating configuration to suit the<br />
specific requirements of particular hearings/trials. Construction completion<br />
date is expected to be September 2006.<br />
The South Australian Courts have continued to pursue a range of strategies<br />
designed to improve the flow of matters through the various courts.<br />
”<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.53
“<br />
Tasmanian Government comments<br />
The accuracy of many of the data items provided by Tasmania in this report<br />
has improved significantly following a review of the implementation of the new<br />
performance indicators first used in 2002–03 and full implementation a new<br />
case management system in the Criminal Division of the Magistrates Court<br />
(“CRIMES”).<br />
The review revealed that in 2002–03 Tasmania had incorrectly interpreted the<br />
new counting rules for pending caseload in the Magistrates Court’s Civil and<br />
Criminal Divisions and the Civil Division of the Supreme Court. This, together<br />
with an increased focus on timely disposal of cases, explains a significant<br />
improvement in the backlog indicator in 2003–04 for these courts. The backlog<br />
indicator for the Coronial Court has also improved significantly in 2003–04 due<br />
to the allocation of additional judicial resources and improved case<br />
management.<br />
The courts plan to achieve further improvements in the timeliness of finalising<br />
cases, as represented by the backlog indicator in 2004–05. The Supreme<br />
Court plans to improve the management of civil cases and in particular identify<br />
cases where the parties settle out of court and the court is not informed. The<br />
Magistrates Court has reallocated a Magistrate from the Civil to Criminal<br />
Jurisdiction and has had two temporary Magistrates appointed for the first half<br />
of 2004–05.<br />
Unlike the majority of other state jurisdictions the Tasmanian Magistrates Court<br />
deals with matters arising from drivers failing to pay infringement notices. In<br />
most other states these unpaid infringement notices are dealt with through<br />
Electronic Courts. These matters account for approximately 66 per cent of all<br />
lodgments and finalisations in the Magistrates Court. This factor accounts for a<br />
number of apparent anomalies in the Magistrates Courts indicators including<br />
the proportionally high numbers of lodgments and finalisations, the low<br />
attendance indicator (These matters are generally dealt with through a single<br />
appearance) and the low net expenditure per finalisation (The matters are dealt<br />
with ex-parte by an unpaid Justice of the Peace). It is anticipated that in 2006<br />
the implementation a new Monetary Penalties Enforcement System will remove<br />
these matters from the Magistrates Court.<br />
For many years the average civil court fees per lodgment in the Tasmanian<br />
Supreme Court has been very low when compared with other states. The Court<br />
has recently reviewed the level of fees for civil lodgments and has revised the<br />
fees for 2004–05 to be in line with those in other states District and County<br />
Courts.<br />
”<br />
6.54 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
“<br />
Australian Capital Territory Government comments<br />
The progressive introduction of the new reporting framework, based on agreed<br />
national Key Performance Indicators, is opening up new opportunities to<br />
identify better practice in Australia. In the ACT, the KPIs are being rolled out<br />
across the jurisdictions, with planning well advanced to report against them<br />
monthly to assist in the management of the courts’ caseload.<br />
The 2003–04 year saw further improvements in the management of the<br />
Territory’s courts and tribunals, including:<br />
• legislative reform to fundamentally change the way that court rules are<br />
developed and implemented through a Joint Courts Rules Committee;<br />
• improved physical access to the Supreme Court for people with<br />
disabilities;<br />
• new Supreme Court Criminal Practice Directions, including new<br />
arrangements for early arraignments and the management of special<br />
fixtures;<br />
• commencement of a “Circle Sentencing” pilot in the Magistrates Court,<br />
allowing greater involvement of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander<br />
community in the criminal sentencing process; and<br />
• increased levels of customer satisfaction, with 90 per cent of survey<br />
respondents rating our services overall as “very satisfactory” or<br />
“satisfactory”, up from 86 per cent last year.<br />
This year’s Report graphically highlights the impact of long and complex cases<br />
on any court’s productivity. In 2001–02 the unit cost in the ACT Coroners Court<br />
was $449. In 2003–04 it had increased to $2,314 [see Table 6A.23]. This<br />
515 per cent increase is wholly attributable to a single case, the Coronial<br />
Inquiry into the January 2003 Bushfire emergency. While all Australian<br />
jurisdictions recognise the effect of ‘mega-trials’, rarely has the resourcing<br />
impact been so clearly discernable as it is in a comparatively small system like<br />
that in the ACT.<br />
With an increasing reliance on the results of this Report for government<br />
resource allocation and public sector performance review, the ACT looks<br />
forward to the time when all courts in all jurisdictions reliably report against all<br />
indicators, so that more meaningful national averages are available.<br />
”<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.55
“<br />
Northern Territory Government comments<br />
The Courts Administration Division of the Department of Justice was re-named<br />
‘Court Support Services’ during the year.<br />
Achieved the first full year of operation of the Court Referral and Evaluation for<br />
Drug Intervention and Treatment (CREDIT NT) program. CREDIT NT is a 12<br />
week pre-sentence bail program wherein defendants are assessed for eligibility<br />
to participate in the program, and if the Court allows, are then referred to one of<br />
a range of treatment providers as a component of their bail conditions. The<br />
program is co-ordinated by two Court Clinicians based in Darwin and Alice<br />
Springs.<br />
An electronic courtroom was constructed within the Supreme Court building at<br />
Darwin to reduce the time taken for trials, resulting in a more efficient use of<br />
resources. The electronic courtroom involved the fit-out of an unused ‘shell<br />
only’ courtroom thereby providing a much needed additional criminal courtroom<br />
which will assist the Supreme Court in dealing with criminal matters in a more<br />
timely manner.<br />
Conducted a pilot video-conferencing project with Oenpelli during the year and<br />
expanded the videoconferencing network to include the Jabiru, Nhulunbuy and<br />
Alyangula courthouses.<br />
Developed a Client Service Charter that sets out standards of service users of<br />
the Courts and Tribunals can expect from Court Support Services’ staff.<br />
The Education Liaison Officer continued to work closely with the Department<br />
of Employment Education and Training to facilitate the courts’ contribution to<br />
the Discovering Democracy Project. The program has been developed with<br />
suitable and relevant content being reviewed for publication on the Supreme<br />
Court web page.<br />
Continued to develop a performance indicator framework in line with the<br />
framework established by the Steering Committee for the Review of<br />
Commonwealth/State Service Provision.<br />
Responded to a call from local civil legal practitioners by increasing Supreme<br />
Court sitting weeks at Alice Springs. The calendar at Alice Springs was also<br />
restructured to enable more time to be allocated to civil matters during the year.<br />
Commenced a Community Court pilot in Nhulunbuy. The community plays an<br />
active role in providing advice to the Magistrate on the sentencing of members<br />
of their communities.<br />
”<br />
6.56 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
6.6 Definitions of key terms and indicators<br />
Active pending<br />
population<br />
Average expenditure<br />
per civil case<br />
Attendance Indicator<br />
Backlog Indicator<br />
Bench warrant<br />
Case<br />
Clearance rate<br />
Cost recovery<br />
Court fees collected<br />
Electronic court<br />
Electronic court<br />
Excluded courts and<br />
tribunals<br />
Finalisation<br />
Forms<br />
Income<br />
A lodgment that is yet to be finalised but is part of the case<br />
management of court administrators.<br />
The total cost of the administrative services provided to civil matters,<br />
divided by the total number of civil files handled. Includes salaries,<br />
sheriff expenses, juror costs, accommodation costs, library services,<br />
information technology, departmental overheads and court operating<br />
expenses.<br />
The average number of attendances for each finalisation in the<br />
reporting period. An attendance is defined as the number of times that<br />
parties or their representatives are required to be present in court<br />
(including any appointment which is adjourned or rescheduled) for all<br />
finalised matters during the year. The actual attendance is one that is<br />
heard by a judicial officer or mediator/arbitrator.’<br />
A measure of case processing timeliness. It is the number of pending<br />
cases older than the applicable reporting standards, divided by the total<br />
pending caseload (multiplied by 100 to convert to a percentage).<br />
A warrant issued by a court for the arrest of a person who has been<br />
indicted.<br />
The measurement of workload in the civil jurisdiction. It is the issues,<br />
grievances or complaints that constitute a single and related series of<br />
disputes brought by an entity (or group of entities) against another entity<br />
(or group).<br />
A measure of whether a court is keeping up with its workload. It is the<br />
number of finalisations in the reporting period, divided by the number of<br />
lodgments in the same period (multiplied by 100 to convert to a<br />
percentage).<br />
The level of court fees divided by the level of court expenditure.<br />
Total court income from fees charged in the civil jurisdiction. Includes<br />
filing, sitting hearing and deposition fees, and excludes transcript fees.<br />
A court with the capacity to produce enforceable orders against<br />
defendants (such as fines, licence cancellation and incarceration) and<br />
to process infringements, on-the-spot fines and summary offences.<br />
A court with the capacity to produce enforceable orders against<br />
defendants (such as fines, licence cancellation and incarceration) and<br />
to process infringements, on-the-spot fines and summary offences.<br />
Guardianship boards, environment resources and development courts,<br />
and administrative appeals tribunals.<br />
The completion of a matter so it ceases to be an item of work to be<br />
dealt with by the court. Finalisations are derived from timeliness data<br />
that may not reflect the total matters disposed by the courts in the<br />
reporting period.<br />
The counting unit used in the family courts and family law matters<br />
pertaining to the Federal Magistrates Court. Forms are applications or<br />
notices lodged with the court.<br />
Income derived from court fees, library revenue, court reporting<br />
revenue, sheriff and bailiff revenue, probate revenue, mediation<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.57
Information technology<br />
expenditure<br />
Inquests and inquiries<br />
held<br />
Judicial officer<br />
Judicial and judicial<br />
support salaries<br />
Library expenditure<br />
Lodgment<br />
Matters<br />
revenue, rental income and any other sources of revenue (excluding<br />
fines).<br />
Non-salary and salary expenditure on information technology. Excludes<br />
capital expenditure on information technology infrastructure and<br />
includes licensing costs, computer leasing costs, the cost of<br />
consumables (such as data lines, paper and disks), training fees,<br />
access fees (for example, catalogue search and Internet access) and<br />
maintenance charges for software and hardware.<br />
Court hearings to determine the cause and circumstances of deaths<br />
reported to the coroner. Includes all coronial inquests and inquiries in<br />
full court hearings.<br />
Judges, magistrates, masters, coroners, judicial registrars and all other<br />
officers who, following argument and giving of evidence, make<br />
enforceable orders of the court. The data are provided on the basis of<br />
the proportion of time spent on the judicial activity.<br />
All salary expenditure and payments in the nature of salary that are<br />
paid to employees of court administration. Includes base salaries, the<br />
employer contributed component of superannuation, workers<br />
compensation (full cost, inclusive of any levies, bills and legal fees),<br />
higher duty allowances, overtime, actual and accruing terminal and long<br />
service leave, fringe benefits tax and untaxed fringe benefits.<br />
(Judicial officers include judges, magistrates, masters, judicial registrars<br />
and other judicial officers who fulfil a primarily judicial function. Judicial<br />
support staff include judicial secretaries, tipstaff and associates).<br />
Non-salary and salary expenditure on court operated libraries. Nonsalary<br />
expenditure includes book purchases, journal subscriptions, fees<br />
for interlibrary loans, copyright charges, news clippings service fees<br />
and photocopying.<br />
Expenditure also includes current information technology costs and<br />
court administration contributions towards the running costs of nongovernment<br />
operated libraries. Any costs recovered through borrowing<br />
and photocopy fees by court operated libraries are subtracted from<br />
expenditure.<br />
The initiation or commencement of a matter before the court. The date<br />
of commencement is counted as the date of registration of a court<br />
matter.<br />
Coronial matters: Deaths and fires reported to the coroner in each<br />
jurisdiction, including all reported deaths and fires regardless of whether<br />
the coroner held an inquest or inquiry. Coronial jurisdictions can extend<br />
to the manner of the death of a person who was killed; was found<br />
drowned; died a sudden death of which the cause is unknown; died<br />
under suspicious or unusual circumstances; died during or following the<br />
administration of an operation of a medical, surgical, dental, diagnostic<br />
or like nature; died in a prison remand centre or lockup; or died under<br />
circumstances that (in the opinion of the Attorney-General) require that<br />
the cause of death be more clearly ascertained.<br />
Criminal matters: Matters brought to the court by a government<br />
prosecuting agency, which is generally the Director of Public<br />
Prosecutions but could also be the Attorney-General, the police, local<br />
councils or traffic camera branches.<br />
Civil matters: Matters brought before the court by individuals or<br />
organisations against another party, such as small claims and<br />
residential tenancies, as well as matters dealt with by the appeal court<br />
jurisdiction.<br />
6.58 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005
Method of finalisation<br />
Method of initiation<br />
Non-adjudicated<br />
finalisation<br />
Probate registry<br />
expenditure<br />
Real expenditure<br />
Sheriff and bailiff<br />
expenditure<br />
Withdrawn<br />
Excluded matters: Extraordinary driver’s licence applications; any<br />
application on a pending dispute; applications for bail directions or<br />
judgment; secondary processes (for example, applications for default<br />
judgments); interlocutory matters; investigation/examination<br />
summonses; firearms appeals; escort agents’ licensing appeals;<br />
pastoral lands appeals; local government tribunals; police promotions<br />
appeals; applications appealing the decisions of workers compensation<br />
review officers.<br />
Probate: Matters such as applications for the appointment of an<br />
executor or administrator to the estate of a deceased person.<br />
The process that leads to the completion of a criminal charge within a<br />
higher court so it ceases to be an item of work in that court.<br />
How a criminal charge is introduced to a court level.<br />
A judgment or decision by the court as to whether the defendant is<br />
guilty of the charge laid against him or her — for example, whether the<br />
defendant pleaded guilty or was found guilty by the court, or was<br />
acquitted.<br />
Salary expenditure of the probate registrar and probate clerks, along<br />
with non-salary expenditure directly attributable to probate registries.<br />
Actual expenditure adjusted for changes in prices using the GDP(E)<br />
price deflator and expressed in terms of final year prices.<br />
Expenditure on court orderlies, court security, jury management and<br />
witness payment administration. For the civil jurisdiction, it includes<br />
expenditure (by or on behalf of the court) on bailiffs to enforce court<br />
orders. In the coronial jurisdiction, it includes expenditure on police<br />
officers permanently attached to the coroner for the purpose of<br />
assisting in coronial investigations. Excludes witness payments, fines<br />
enforcement (criminal jurisdiction) and prisoner security.<br />
The formal withdrawal of charges by the prosecution (that is, by police,<br />
the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General).<br />
COURT<br />
ADMINISTRATION<br />
6.59
6.7 References<br />
FMC (Federal Magistrates Court) 2004, www.fmc.gov.au (accessed 14 October<br />
2004).<br />
SCRCSSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State Service<br />
Provision) 2003, Report on Government Services 2003, AusInfo, Canberra.<br />
6.60 REPORT ON<br />
GOVERNMENT<br />
SERVICES 2005