Annual Report

Judicial Commission of NSW 2012–13 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

The Judicial Commission of NSW is an independent statutory corporation formed in 1986

This annual report summarises the Contents Judicial Commission’s activities and performance for 2012–13 against 2012–13 highlights ...... 1 our main objectives, strategies and Our profile ...... 2 targets. We also report on our financial Our history ...... 3 results for the year and outline our The year in brief: key focus areas ...... 4 strategic focus for 2013–14. The year ahead ...... 5 Performance results for 2012–13 ...... 6 This is our 26th annual report. Last year’s annual report gained a Gold President’s foreword ...... 8 Award in the 2013 Australasian Chief Executive’s message ...... 10 Reporting Awards. Members of the Judicial Commission ...... 12 Our executive team ...... 15 This and earlier annual reports are Continuing judicial education program ...... 16 available on our website at Research and sentencing program ...... 26 www.judcom.nsw.gov.au Examining complaints ...... 34 Engaging with our partners ...... 42 Our people ...... 48 Our governance policies and processes ...... 54 The Honourable Gregory Smith SC MP Attorney General and Minister for Justice Our finances ...... 62 Governor Macquarie Tower Sydney NSW 2000 Appendices ...... 86

Dear Attorney Glossary ...... 106

The Judicial Commission of NSW has pleasure in Index ...... 107 presenting to you the report of its activities for the year ended 30 June 2013. Looking at the last five years ...... inside back cover

This report is submitted in accordance with section 49 of the Judicial Officers Act 1986 and section 12 of the Annual Reports (Departments) Act 1985. It is required to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

Yours sincerely

The Honourable T Bathurst E J Schmatt PSM Chief Justice of NSW Chief Executive President

Judicial Commission of NSW Level 5, 301 George Street Sydney NSW 2000 Australia GPO Box 3634, Sydney NSW 2001

Telephone: 9299 4421 International +61 2 9299 4421 Facsimile: 02 9290 3194

Office hours: 8.30 am – 5.00 pm Email: [email protected] ii 2012–13 highlights

Continuing judicial education program Engaging with our partners

• 92% average satisfaction rate with our • participants gave the Community Awareness of education program exceeded our target the Judiciary Program a 90% satisfaction rating • 38 education sessions provided, 3 more than • 23% increase in public use of our online our target (last year: 34) resources • 25 publications produced for judicial officers’ • Lawcodes audit showed that we are meeting professional reference (last year: 21) best practice

See page 16 See page 42

Research and sentencing program Our people

• use of the Judicial Information Research System • staff rated working at the Judicial Commission (JIRS) at an all-time high with 15% growth at 100% satisfaction, up 4% • 21% growth in the use of sentencing and • Judicial Commission was one of the highest criminal law reference material on website rated agencies in the NSW Public Service • launched an iPad™ app and adapted JIRS for Commission’s People Matter Employee Survey mobile devices • staff turnover rate of 2.5% at a five-year low

• 12 enhancements made to JIRS See page 48 • published 2 Sentencing Trends & Issues papers and a research monograph, and 8 updates to the Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book and Sentencing Bench Book Our governance, policies and processes

See page 26 • 10 Commission meetings held, 4 Audit and Risk Management Committee meetings held, and 2 internal audit reviews conducted Examining complaints • no worker’s compensation claims or work health and safety prosecutions • 85 complaints examined (last year: 90) • 14% reduction in our energy use over the last • 71 complaints lodged (last year: 110 complaints) 5 years • 5-month completion rate achieved for the See page 54 preliminary examination of most complaints • 98% of complaints examined within 10 months See page 34 Our finances

• $22,000 surplus • 100% of our creditors paid on time • sales of our own services at $631,000 were higher than last year’s sales of $554,000

See page 62

back to Contents 1 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Our profile

Who we are Our values The Judicial Commission of NSW is an independent Connecting — we value our partners and work statutory corporation established under the Judicial Officers cooperatively with them. Act 1986. We report to the Parliament of NSW. Professionalism — we are recognised for our integrity, our independence, and the high quality services we deliver. What we do The Judicial Commission provides a continuing education Enhancement — we continually improve the way we do and training program for the judicial officers of NSW. We business. publish information about the criminal law and sentencing to assist the courts to achieve consistency in imposing Sustainability — we will consider the way our operations, sentences. The Commission also examines complaints products and services impact on people, the environment about judicial officers’ ability or behaviour. We share our and the economy. knowledge and experience with the global network of judiciaries and judicial education providers. Our partners We provide services to the judicial officers and people of Our governance NSW, the courts, the legal profession, other justice sector An independent Commission of 10 members guides our agencies, law libraries and law students. We share our strategic direction and examines all complaints. The Chief experience with other Australasian and overseas judicial Executive, supported by three directors, manages our daily education providers. operations. See p 15 for their profiles and achievements. Our structure Our vision The Commission has three service groups — education, The people of NSW will have confidence in the exceptional research and sentencing, and complaints. See our ability and performance of judicial officers. organisational structure below.

Our mission Our resources To promote the highest standards of judicial behaviour and 34.2 full-time equivalent staff at the Judicial Commission at decision making. 30 June 2013. $5.321 million revenue from the NSW government; $631,000 in self-generated revenue.

Figure 1. Our organisational structure

Judicial Commission of NSW (10 members)

Chief Executive Complaints Audit and Risk Management Ernest Schmatt PSM Committee

Education Director, Director, Information Director Research and Sentencing Management Ruth Windeler Hugh Donnelly and Corporate Services Murali Sagi PSM

• Judicial Education • Criminal Law and • Finance and • Conferences and Sentencing Research Administration Communication • Judicial Information • Information Management • Publishing Research System (JIRS) and Technology • Computer training • Strategic Planning • Lawcodes • Library

2 back to Contents Our history

1985 2001 Controversies involving judicial officers in Australia are Lord Justice Robin Auld, senior presiding judge for England reported in the media. and Wales described JIRS as a “world leader in this field”.

1986 2006 NSW Government announced plans to establish a Judicial Equality Before the Law Bench Book launched in June and Commission in response to a perceived crisis in public Sentencing Bench Book in September. confidence in the judiciary. Judicial Officers Act 1986 commenced in December 1986. The Commission combines 2007 a complaints function with educational and sentencing functions. Judicial Officers Act amended to provide for lay representation on a Conduct Division.

1987 Commission celebrated 20 years of successful operations. Judicial Officers Act amended to establish the Commission There were 278 judicial officers in NSW. as an independent statutory authority. Operations commence in October. There were about 220 judicial 2010 officers in NSW. Local Courts Bench Book published on the Commission’s website. All Commission bench books are now publicly 1988 accessible. First issue of the monthly Judicial Officers’ Bulletin published. 2011 Two magistrates separately addressed Parliament after a 1990 Conduct Division reported to the Governor in each case. The Commission embraced technology when Chief Justice Parliament voted not to remove the magistrates from judicial Gleeson launched the Sentencing Information System (SIS), office. a database to help judicial officers improve consistency in approach to sentencing. 2012–13 NSW Government issued all magistrates with iPads™. The 1996 Commission developed the JIRS app for Apple® iPad™ SIS became part of the Judicial Information Research users and a mobile version of JIRS. There were 350 judicial System (JIRS). officers in NSW.

1998 For the first time, a judge addressed Parliament after a Conduct Division reported to the Governor. Parliament voted not to remove the judge.

Judicial Officers Act amended to increase lay membership of Commission from two to four.

Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book published online on JIRS. There were 251 judicial officers in NSW.

back to Contents 3 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

The year in brief: key focus areas

Continuing judicial education program Examining complaints Our major education focus this year was to implement a There has been a 35% decrease in the number of change management strategy in the way we deliver our complaints lodged with the Commission this year.1 There publications. We worked closely with the Local Court to were 39 complaints pending as at 30 June 2012, and the deliver soft copies of our bench books to magistrates who Commission examined 85 complaints throughout the year now use iPads™ in their daily work. This change will be (last year: 90). Timeliness targets have improved: within six effective on 1 July 2013. months, we had completed the preliminary examination of 78% of complaints (last year: 68%) and within 10 months A recommendation of the internal audit conducted last we had finalised 98% of complaints. Two Conduct Divisions year led to the launch of a monthly e-newsletter. Judicial were formed during the year. See p 34 for further details. officers have enthusiastically received this. The newsletter is linked to recent conference papers published online on the Judicial Information Research System (JIRS). We have Engaging with our partners continued to promote interactive education and introduced A key event this year was the “Community Awareness of the an audience response system in select sessions. See p 16 Judiciary Program” held over seven weeks in late 2012. This for more details. initiative of the Commission was developed in conjunction with the courts. The program’s objective was to increase community understanding about the role of the judiciary Research and sentencing program and the courts in NSW. Participants had the opportunity A major research focus has been to finalise the extensive to interact with judicial officers and gain an insight into revision of the Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book. This bench the justice system in NSW. Ninety per cent of participants book provides suggested directions for judges to explain indicated that the program achieved its objective. See p 42 the law to a jury and assists to reduce the possibility of error for more details. occurring in trials. We also published a research monograph on sentencing in fraud cases and two Sentencing Trends & Issues papers. More details of these are on p 32. Our finances Our financial result this year was a surplus of $22,000, With the magistrates’ transition to iPads™ and the general compared to the budgeted surplus of $12,000.2 take-up of mobile technology, our focus this year has been to adapt JIRS so that it can be easily accessed on a variety of Income was $6.03 million (last year: $5.888 million) these platforms. The Commission developed and launched comprising $5.321 million in Government contributions and an app (for Apple® iPad™ users) to provide an updating $709,000 from other revenue. We spent a total of $6.008 content feed of recent NSW and Commonwealth legal million (last year $5.870 million). There was a 2.4% increase developments (case law and legislation). The app also allows in both revenue and expenditure. Sales of our information the user to manage personal copies of the electronic versions management services at $631,000 were higher than last year’s of our bench books. sales at $554,000. Investment and other revenue totalling $78,000 were lower than last year’s revenue of $119,000.

See p 62 for our full financial report including the Independent Auditor’s report and the Chief Executive’s certification of the financial report. Figure 2. Service group expenditure 2008–13

3500 3.23 3.09 3.16 2.943.04 3000

2500 2.15 2.11 1.96 1.981.97 2000

1500 $ million 1.00 1000 0.72 0.74 0.48 500 0.41

0 Judicial education Research and sentencing Complaints

2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13

1 Last year there was a distortion in the number of complaints received as two complainants between them made 34 complaints. 2 The Financial Statements and published Treasury budget papers show a budgeted surplus of $75,000 which includes an omitted labour expense adjustment of $63,000 that was not made available to the Commission in its recurrent allocation.

4 back to Contents The year ahead

Our core strategic focus areas and strategic planning Research and sentencing program process will drive our operations for 2013–14. Outcomes expected and activities planned for 2013–14 include: Strategic focus areas • maintaining the currency, accuracy and relevance of The Judicial Commission is an independent statutory Judicial Information Research System to inform judicial corporation established under the Judicial Officers Act 1986. officers and legal practitioners of legal developments in This Act of the NSW Parliament sets out our functions. These criminal law, practice and procedure are to: • adapting JIRS so it can easily be accessed and 1. provide a continuing judicial education and training searched on iPads™, tablet computers, and other program hand-held devices 2. assist the courts to achieve a consistent approach to • developing a JIRS app for mobile phones sentencing in criminal cases • publishing a research monograph on sentencing for 3. examine complaints against judicial officers Commonwealth drug offences; two Sentencing Trends & Issues papers; and regular updates to the Criminal 4. give advice to the Attorney General on matters the Trial Courts Bench Book and the Sentencing Bench Commission thinks are appropriate Book. 5. liaise with our partners in connection with any of these functions 6. enter into contractual arrangements connected with our Examining complaints expertise in education and information technology. Outcomes expected and activities planned for 2013–14 include: Outcomes we expect to achieve within our key statutory • promoting public confidence in the justice system and focus areas in the year ahead are outlined below. protecting judicial officers from unwarranted intrusions into their independence by examining all complaints Strategic planning process received quickly, independently, objectively and effectively The Chief Executive and Executive team (the membership is described on p 15) continuously plan and monitor the • finalising the majority of complaints that do not require performance of the Commission to: further detailed examination within 90 days and examining all complaints within 12 months • ensure that our corporate functions are efficiently and effectively carried out • forming a Conduct Division to examine two complaints that the Commission has referred. • ensure we are accountable for our actions • ensure that risk management and auditing processes are properly understood and managed Sharing expertise • set and report strategic goals Outcomes expected and activities planned for 2013–14 include developing the: • monitor and review the results and services we have planned to achieve at the end of each reporting period. • Australian Capital Territory Sentencing Database • Papua New Guinea Sentencing Database The Chief Executive meets with the Judicial Commission • National Water Regulation Sentencing Database for (the membership is described on p 12) once a month to the federal Department of Sustainability, Environment, report on the progress of operations, outcomes and targets. Water, Population and Communities.

Continuing judicial education program Engaging with our partners Outcomes expected and activities planned for 2013–14 Outcomes expected and activities planned for 2013–14 include: include: • completing the migration to a fully online platform for • conducting a second Community Awareness of the the delivery of bench books to the Local Court Judiciary Program to raise awareness about the day-to- • including more interactive education sessions in our day workings of the NSW justice system education program • working with international partners including the • coordinating a multi-agency group to develop a training Asia Pacific Judicial Reform Forum, the International DVD on reforms to the new Bail Act 2013, expected to Organisation for Judicial Training and the commence in May 2014 Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute • promoting facilitation skills so that judicial officers can • participating in the Sixth International Conference on effectively educate their colleagues the Training of the Judiciary in Washington in November • organising an Aboriginal cultural awareness community 2013. visit.

back to Contents 5 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Performance results for 2012–13

The statutory functions contained in the Judicial Officers Act 1986, our Business Improvement Plan, Strategic Plan, and Results and Services Plan direct our operations. The following tables detail our yearly organisational performance in our three core strategic focus areas.

Key results An overview of performance targets and results relating to the Commission’s core responsibilities

Summary of initiatives: Exceeded target Target met X Target not achieved

Measures 2011 –12 2012 –13 2012 –13 2013 –14 Status result target result target

Continuing judicial education program

Desired outcome: A better informed and professional judiciary

Strategies (see pp 16–25): • Develop appropriate judicial skills and values • Promote high standards of judicial performance

% of judicial officers attendance at annual conferences 77%* 90% 90% 90%

% of attendance at magistrates’ induction/orientation programs 100% 100% 100% 100%

Overall satisfaction rating with judicial education 95% 85% 92% 85%

% of judicial officers who attended at least 2 days of judicial training 82%* 90% 90% 90%

Average number of training days offered per judicial officer 4* 5 5 5

Number of timely updates to bench books 7** 6 11 10**

Research and sentencing program

Desired outcome: Improved consistency in sentencing and reduced errors

Strategies (see pp 26–33): • Improve sentencing consistency • Provide timely and relevant information about sentencing patterns

Number of timely updates to the Sentencing Bench Book and Criminal 6 6 8 6 Trial Courts Bench Book

JIRS usage (average page hits per month) 99,172 90,000 113,666 90,000

Examining complaints

Desired outcome: Judicial accountability through effective examination of complaints against judicial officers

Strategies (see pp 34–41): • Provide complainants with accurate and helpful information and advice • Investigate complaints in an effective manner

Number of informal enquiries attended to from potential complainants 426 n/a*** 391 n/a*** n/a

Number of complaints examined in reporting period 90 n/a*** 85 n/a*** n/a

* The Local Court Annual Conference was not held in the 2011–12 financial year. ** We changed our measure to include Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book updates in Research and Sentencing. *** We do not set quantitative targets as we examine each complaint made to the Commission.

6 back to Contents Performance results for 2012–13 / Key results and services

Key services An overview of performance targets and results relating to the Commission’s delivery of services

Summary of initiatives: Exceeded target Target met X Target not achieved

Program area Service measures 2011– 12 2012 –13 2012 –13 2013 –14 Status result target result target

Continuing judicial education program Conference and Number of judicial education days per year 870* 1,400 1,232 1,400 X seminar program for Average number of training days undertaken 3* 5 4 5 X judicial officers per judicial officer (national standard is 5 days) (see pp 17–20) Publications Number of bench book updates, bulletins, journals, 21** 21** 25 22** (see p 23) education monographs, and training DVDs

Computer support Number of computer training sessions 18 n/a*** 56 n/a*** n/a*** (see p 19) Number of computer training hours 109 n/a*** 331 n/a*** n/a***

Research and sentencing program Judicial Information % of JIRS availability 99% 98% 99% 98% Research System (JIRS) (see pp 27–32) Number of enhancements to JIRS 11 6 12 6 Timeliness of sentencing material on JIRS – Recent Law items posted on JIRS (within 2 wks 2 wks 2 wks 2 wks number of weeks of receipt) – Judgments (within number of days of receipt) 1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day – Summaries of judgments (within number of 6 wks 5 wks 5 wks 5 wks weeks of receipt) – Sentencing statistics loaded on JIRS (within 1–4† 1–4† 1–4† 1–4† number of months of receipt) mths mths mths mths

Original research and Number of Sentencing Trends & Issues papers, 8 8 11 8 analysis monographs, Sentencing Bench Book and (see pp 29–32) Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book updates

Research assistance to % of requests resolved within 2 days 90% 90% 90% 90% judicial officers (see p 29) Lawcodes database Code and distribute new and amended offences 100% 100% 100% 100% (see p 43) within 4 days of commencement % of user enquiries resolved within 24 hours 100% 100% 100% 100%

Examining complaints Timely and efficient % of complaints acknowledged within 1 week of 100% 100% 100% 100% examination of receipt complaints (see pp 35–36) % of complaints examined within 6 months of 68% 90% 78% 90% X receipt

% of complaints examined within 12 months of 100% 100% 98% 100% X receipt

* The Local Court Annual Conference was not held in the 2011–12 financial year. ** We changed our measure to include Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book updates in Research and Sentencing. *** We do not set quantitative targets. † See discussion about the difficulties with timeliness of sentencing data on p 32.

back to Contents 7 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

President’s foreword

It is a great pleasure to once again Research and Education Looking ahead have the opportunity to provide the The Commission has continued to The Commission will maintain a President’s foreword to the Judicial deliver research materials of the highest constant review of its programs to Commission’s annual report. This is standard. Significantly, use of JIRS is ensure that they remain relevant and the third occasion on which I have at an all time high and will no doubt of the highest quality. A focus in both had the privilege of contributing some continue to increase with the option of the continuing judicial education and introductory words. During this time I mobile access for users. In addition, research and sentencing programs have benefited from and come to more the Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book will be on the provision of timely and fully appreciate the invaluable role that and the Sexual Assault Trials Handbook practical information. The Commission the Commission performs in aiding the have been extensively revised, while will continue with initiatives in the administration of justice in our State. a new Children’s Court Resources education program to ensure that Handbook has been published online. judicial officers are aware of community Essential to the Commission’s role in and social context issues. To promote enhancing the judiciary’s capacity to The Commission has also continued public confidence in the judiciary administer the law in a predictable, to provide outstanding education and and to protect judicial officers from consistent and impartial way is a training for our judicial officers. This unwarranted intrusions into their relationship with the judiciary that is year has seen the launch of a monthly independence, the Commission will premised on independence from the e-newsletter that provides links to continue to provide an effective, executive government. recently published materials on JIRS independent complaints process. and a significant focus on providing The Commission is rightly held in high training for judicial officers in relation to regard for the services that it delivers My thanks the use of tablet devices. in the areas of judicial education and The many successes that the training, research to aid in sentencing Commission has achieved in consistency, and in examining Partnerships 2012–13 are due to the hard work complaints. In particular, there are The Commission continues to build and continuing dedication of its staff. significant benefits that come from and strengthen partnerships within My particular thanks must go to the having one body with responsibilities Australia and more broadly across the Commission’s principal officers, for both education and complaints Asia Pacific region. The Commission Mr Ernest Schmatt PSM, Chief handling. has worked with the Court of Appeal Executive; Ms Ruth Windeler, to develop a database to increase Education Director; Mr Hugh Donnelly, awareness of recent appellate Director, Research and Sentencing; Innovation and Mr Murali Sagi PSM, Director, decisions and developments within One aspect of the Commission’s Information Management and Australia and other common law work that continues to impress me Corporate Services. I would also like jurisdictions. is its focus on delivering materials in to express my thanks to the many innovative ways. For many years the Beyond NSW, the Commission signed judicial officers who continue to make Commission has maintained a focus a memorandum of understanding with an invaluable contribution to the on new technologies. The Commission the Supreme and National Courts Commission. first launched a sentencing database in of Papua New Guinea to develop a I offer my personal thanks to all 1990, the Criminal Trial Courts Bench sentencing database for PNG. It has involved in the Commission’s work Book was published online in 1998, also reached a similar agreement to and wish you the very best for the year and last year, the Commission provided develop a database for the Australian ahead. significant support as tablet devices Capital Territory. Such partnerships, were issued to magistrates across particularly with our neighbours in the NSW. This has continued in 2012–13, Asia Pacific, will continue to be an with the development of an app, important focus for the Commission making JIRS available on iPad and into the future. The Honourable T Bathurst mobile devices. Chief Justice of NSW President

8 back to Contents President’s foreword

The Honourable T Bathurst, Chief Justice of NSW and President of the Judicial Commission of NSW

9 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Chief Executive’s message

It is with pleasure that I present my report Examining complaints Our finances of the Judicial Commission’s The Commission investigates all Our financial result this year was a performance and programs for 2012–13. formal complaints received about a $22,000 surplus, up from last year’s The Commission’s focus this year has judicial officer’s ability or behaviour in surplus of $18,000. Government been on adapting and modernising the a timely and effective manner. During contributions accounted for 88.6% way we deliver our education program the year, the Commission received 71 of our total expenses. Remaining and online sentencing and criminal law complaints and examined 85 including expenses were covered by the information. complaints pending from last year. Commission’s own revenue from Timeliness standards over a six-month the sales of services and investment Continuing judicial education period have improved with 78% of all revenue. program complaints examined, compared to 68% last year. As at 30 June 2013, To ensure that our judicial education The year ahead there are 21 complaints pending. program remains relevant and effective, The Commission will continue to adapt we have reviewed how best to deliver and be operationally agile. We will work sessions for the busy judicial officers Engaging with our partners closely with the Local Court to deliver of NSW. Judicial officers come to their During the year, we fulfilled an important online copies of all our bench books. role as highly skilled professionals. We commitment made last year to run the The Commission will continue to adapt aim to continuously hone their judicial inaugural Community Awareness of JIRS so that it can easily be accessed skills and provide information about the Judiciary Program. The program, and searched on tablet computers and changes to the law, court procedure run over seven weeks in late 2012, other hand-held devices. We will run a and community values. Adapting to was a huge success. Community second Community Awareness of the the needs of contemporary judicial representatives engaged with judicial Judiciary Program, following on from officers means providing more officers to learn about the role of a the success of the inaugural program. interactive education that involves judicial officer and the day-to-day We will continue to explore and participants in the learning process. workings of the justice system of NSW. maximise opportunities to generate our Our focus this year has been to own revenue in an environment of tight promote interactive and online learning. budgetary restraint. We have introduced an audience Our people response system in select sessions Our annual staff survey showed that and offered interactive learning style the Commission continues to be an My thanks workshops. We have promoted online employer of choice for our people I thank the many judicial officers who learning by adding most of the papers with 100% of respondents indicating generously give their time and expertise from our conferences and seminars they feel positive about working at the to assist in shaping and delivering and audio podcasts to the Judicial Commission and 96% of respondents our education sessions and updating Information Research System (JIRS). feeling highly valued. Staff turnover bench books and our criminal law and Education and training output for the continues to be exceptionally low sentencing information. I also thank the year increased with the delivery of 38 at 2.5%. members of the Commission for their education sessions (last year: 34) and guidance throughout the year and the 25 publications (last year: 21). excellent and diligent Commission staff Our governance, policies and who are always committed to delivering processes high quality services to judicial officers. Research and sentencing The Honourable Justice James program Allsop AO resigned from the The increasing popularity of tablet Commission in February 2013 following computers and smart mobile phones his appointment as Chief Justice of has meant technological adaption in the the Federal Court of Australia. I thank way we deliver our online sentencing Chief Justice Allsop for his valuable Ernest Schmatt PSM and criminal law information. The contribution to the work of the Chief Executive Commission developed and launched Commission. I welcome to the an app for iPad™ users to provide an Commission the Honourable Justice updating content feed of NSW and Margaret Beazley AO who has replaced Commonwealth case law and legislative Justice Allsop as President of the Court developments. The use of our online of Appeal and two new appointed criminal law and sentencing information members, Mr David Giddy and Mr Nihal provided on JIRS and our website Gupta. has grown significantly throughout the year, continuing last year’s positive trend. A major research effort was to finalise the revision to the Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book, a guide for a judge presiding over a criminal trial, and publish a research monograph on sentencing in fraud cases.

10 back to Contents Chief Executive’s message

Ernest Schmatt PSM, Chief Executive of the Judicial Commission of NSW

11 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Members of the Judicial Commission

The Commission has six official Attorney General’s opinion, have high members and four appointed standing in the community. The fourth is members. The heads of the State’s a legal practitioner appointed following five courts as well as the President consultations between the Attorney of the Court of Appeal are the official General and the Presidents of the Law members. The Chief Justice of Society of NSW and Bar Association of NSW is the Judicial Commission’s NSW. The responsibilities of the Judicial President. The Governor of NSW Commission’s members are outlined appoints three people who, in the on p 55.

Our president

The Honourable Tom Bathurst President — commenced 1 June 2011 Chief Justice of NSW

The Chief Justice was admitted as a solicitor in NSW in 1972 and admitted to the NSW Bar in 1977. He was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1987 and Chief Justice of NSW in 2011. He was President of the Australian Bar Association 2008–09 and President of the NSW Bar Association 2010–11. The Chief Justice was also a Member of the Commonwealth Takeovers Panel, 2008–11. As President, the Chief Justice is responsible for presiding at meetings and has a deliberative vote.

Our official members

The Honourable Justice James Allsop AO Official member — commenced 2 June 2008, resigned 28 February 2013 President of the Court of Appeal of NSW Justice Allsop was admitted to the NSW Bar in 1981. He was appointed Senior Counsel in NSW in 1994, Queen’s Counsel in Western Australia in 1998, a judge of the Federal Court of Australia in 2001, an additional judge of the ACT Supreme Court in 2003 and President of the NSW Court of Appeal in 2008. He became an officer of the Order of Australia in 2013. He was appointed Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia in February 2013.

The Honourable Justice Margaret Beazley AO Official member — commenced 1 March 2013. President of the NSW Court of Appeal Justice Beazley was admitted to the NSW Bar in 1975 and appointed Senior Counsel in NSW in 1989. She was a judicial member of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal from 1984–88; an acting District Court Judge from 1990–91; and Assistant Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption from 1991–92. She was appointed a judge of the Federal Court of Australia from 1993–96, an additional Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory from 1994–97, and a judge of the Industrial Relations Court of Australia from 1994–1996. In 1996, she was appointed a Judge of Appeal of the NSW Court of Appeal. On 1 March 2013 she was appointed President of the Court of Appeal.

12 back to Contents Members of the Judicial Commission

The Honourable Justice Roger Boland Official member — commenced 9 April 2008 President of the Industrial Relations Commission Justice Boland was admitted to the Bar in 1983, appointed a judge of the Industrial Court of NSW and Deputy President of the Industrial Relations Commission in 2000, and President of the Industrial Relations Commission in 2008. He served as Executive Director for the Australian Industry Group, National Industrial Advocate for the Metal Trades Industry Association and has served on the NSW Parliamentary Remuneration Tribunal.

The Honourable Justice Reginald Blanch AM Official member — commenced 13 December 1994 Chief Judge of the District Court Justice Blanch was admitted to the Bar in 1972 and appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1981. He served as a Public Defender, as the State’s Crown Advocate and the State’s first Director of Public Prosecutions. He was appointed a judge of the Supreme Court in February 1994 and Chief Judge of the District Court in 1994. Justice Blanch has held several Board positions including Chairman of the NSW Medical Tribunal and Chairman of the Board of New College at the University of NSW.

His Honour Judge Graeme Henson Official member — commenced 28 August 2006 Chief Magistrate of the Local Court of NSW Judge Henson was admitted to the Bar in 1980 and served as Deputy Solicitor for Public Prosecutions in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW). He was appointed a magistrate in 1988, Deputy Chief Magistrate in 1994, Chief Magistrate of the Local Court in 2006, and a judge of the District Court in 2010. His Honour is a member of the following bodies: Executive Council of the Judicial Conference of Australia; the Advisory Committee, Faculty of Law, Australian Catholic University; the Advisory Board of the Faculty of Law at the University of Wollongong; and the Uniting Care Northern Sydney Regional Aged Care Board.

The Honourable Justice Brian Preston Official member — commenced 14 November 2005 Chief Judge of the Land and Environment Court Justice Preston was admitted to the Bar in 1987, appointed Senior Counsel in 1999 and Chief Judge of the Land and Environment Court in 2005. He has lectured in post-graduate law for over 20 years at both the University of Sydney and the Australian National University and is currently an Adjunct Professor of the Faculty of Law at the University of Sydney. He holds editorial positions and has authored over 72 publications on environmental, administrative and criminal law. He has also been involved in a number of international environmental law consultancies and capacity- building programs for the judiciaries in Indonesia, Kenya, China, Trinidad and Tobago, Thailand and Sri Lanka. He is a member of numerous legal professional committees and Chair of the Standing Committee on Environmental Law of the Law Association for Asia and the Pacific (LAWASIA).

13 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Our appointed members

Dr Judith Cashmore AO, BA (Hons) Dip Ed, M Ed, PhD Appointed member — appointed 1 December 2004; reappointed for three years from 19 August 2009; reappointed 7 November 2012 for three years Dr Cashmore is currently Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney and Adjunct Professor at Southern Cross University (Division of Arts). She became an Officer of the Order of Australia in June 2010. Dr Cashmore has chaired or served on numerous non-government and State and Commonwealth government committees concerning child sexual assault, child protection, child deaths, children’s rights and family law. As a research academic, she has a keen interest in the application of research to policy and practice, particularly in relation to children’s involvement in legal proceedings.

Renata Kaldor AO, BA, Dip Ed Appointed member — appointed 19 August 2009 for three years Ms Kaldor is a Director of Australian Stationery Industries Pty Ltd. She has extensive community involvement through Board and committee memberships including Chair of the NSW Women’s Advisory Council and the Board of the Sydney Symphony Orchestra. She is an Honorary Fellow of the Senate of the University of Sydney. Ms Kaldor was the Deputy Chancellor of the University of Sydney 2000–2003 and a Fellow of the Senate 1989–2003. She is a member of the Board of Sydney Children’s Hospital Network, a Trustee of the Sydney Opera House Trust and a member to the Advisory Council for Alzheimer’s Australia NSW.

Professor Brian McCaughan AM, MB BS Appointed member — Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, appointed 16 May 2010 for three years Professor McCaughan is a cardiothoracic surgeon based at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney and Clinical Associate Professor in the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Sydney. Professor McCaughan has served as Chair of the NSW State Royal Australian College of Surgeons Committee and President of the NSW Medical Board and Chair of the Sustainable Access Health Priority Taskforce. He has served as a Director of Surgical Services at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney and Area Director of Cardiovascular Services, Central Sydney Area Health Service. He was recently appointed Chair of Boards of the Clinical Excellence Commission and the Agency for Clinical Innovation.

Nihal Gupta Appointed member — appointed 19 August 2012 for three years Mr Nihal Gupta is Managing Director of Digital Electronics Corporation Australia Pty Ltd. Mr Gupta has over 32 years’ experience in the Consumer Electronics sector and has a leadership experience in sales, marketing and manufacturing. He is a recognised entrepreneur and has a strong background and understanding in international business management throughout Australia and the Asia Pacific region. Mr Gupta has been variously called upon to represent and strengthen Australia’s global position particularly in Asia. He is Chairman of the NSW Multicultural Business Advisory Panel and sits on the NSW Export and Investment Advisory Board. He is also a Director on the board of the Asia Society Australia, as well as a board member of Australia’s international Contemporary Arts and Cultural Festival Parramasala Limited. Mr Gupta has been appointed to the NSW Minister’s Consultative Committee to represent the State’s Indian Community. He was recently appointed as a Trustee to the Sydney Cricket and Sports Ground Board.

David Giddy BA LLB Appointed member — appointed 7 November 2012 for three years Mr David Giddy was admitted to the Supreme Court in 1978 and practised as a solicitor in general practice until 1990. Since 1990 he has practised exclusively in criminal law. He is an accredited specialist in criminal law. In 1996 he became a member of the Criminal Law Committee of the Law Society of NSW. He has represented the Law Society on many panels, committees and commissions. In July 2009 he was awarded the Inaugural Law Society President’s Medal in recognition of his significant personal and professional contributions to the betterment of law and justice as a solicitor in NSW.

14 Our executive team

Our executive team

Ernest Schmatt PSM Dip Law (BAB) Chief Executive Mr Schmatt commenced as Chief Executive on 17 April 1989. Prior to his appointment, he was the first Deputy Chief Executive of the Judicial Commission, appointed in 1987. He previously held senior legal and management positions in the public sector. He was admitted to the Bar in 1979 and is a solicitor of the Supreme Court of NSW and the High Court of Australia. Mr Schmatt was awarded the Public Service Medal in the 1997 Queen’s Birthday Honours List for service to public sector management and reform, public sector industrial relations and judicial education in NSW. He was elected to the Board of Governors of the International Organisation for Judicial Training (IOJT) in 2009 and to the Executive Committee of the IOJT in 2011. Since 1994 he has been a member of the Advisory Board of the Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute and serves on the management committee of the Asia Pacific Judicial Reform Forum. Mr Schmatt is also an Honorary Associate in the Graduate School of Government, the University of Sydney. He has been involved in capacity building programs in China, Indonesia, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, the Philippines, Turkey and Papua New Guinea. Mr Schmatt is responsible for our operations.

Ruth Windeler BSc Hugh Donnelly BA, LLB, LLM Murali Sagi PSM BEng GradCertPSM Education Director Director, Research and Sentencing MBA FACS MIEAust Dip Law (LPAB) Director, Information Management Ms Windeler commenced as Mr Donnelly commenced as Director, and Corporate Services Education Director on 15 May 1996. Research and Sentencing on 13 July She has over 35 years’ experience 2007. He was admitted as a legal Mr Sagi commenced as Director, in professional education and practitioner in 1992 and his prior Information Management and has held positions in a number of experience includes six years as Corporate Services on 1 July Commonwealth countries. She has Principal Research Lawyer and 2007. He joined the Commission in served as Director of the Canadian three years as High Court Lawyer 1992 and was appointed Director, Advocates’ Society Institute; at the Office of the Director of Information Systems in 2000. He Coordinator and Instructional Design Public Prosecutions (NSW). He has over 25 years’ experience in Administrator for the Institute of served for three years as Manager managing complex IT projects and Professional Legal Studies in New of the Commission’s Research and has provided technical expertise to Zealand; Director of Standards and Sentencing Division, commencing AusAID, United Nations Development Development for the Law Society in 2004. He is the author of several Program, Asian Development Bank of Hong Kong; Secretary to the publications on evidence and and the Commonwealth Secretariat Advocacy Institute of Hong Kong; sentencing law, including the highly for capacity building projects in Head of the Department of Continuing regarded Sentencing Bench Book. Indonesia, Cambodia, India and Sri Medical Education and Re-certification Lanka. Mr Sagi was awarded the Mr Donnelly is responsible for our for the Royal Australasian College Public Service Medal in the 2007 Research and Sentencing program of Surgeons, and a consultant to a Queen’s Birthday Honours List for and for the Judicial Information number of professional education outstanding service to the Judicial Research System (JIRS). institutions throughout the world. Commission, particularly in the provision of information technology. Ms Windeler is responsible for our continuing judicial education Mr Sagi is responsible for information program, including conferences, management, corporate services and seminars and publications. the Lawcodes program.

back to Contents 15 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Continuing judicial education program

Objective: a better informed and professional judiciary

Results and trends 2012–13 • Achieved a 2.2% decrease in expenditure due to efficiency measures [] • Average satisfaction rate with education program exceeded our target and remained high at 92% (last year: 95%) [] • Overall satisfaction with our administrative support was 99% (new measure) [] • Provided 38 education sessions (last year: 34), 3 more than our target [] • Exceeded last year’s annual report target and produced 25 publications and resources (last year: 21) for judicial officers’ professional reference []

Contents Performance and satisfaction ...... 17 Strategies: how we deliver our continuing judicial education program ...... 21 Case studies ...... 25

16 Legend: [] = met or exceeded target; see p 110 for photo caption. back to Contents Continuing judicial education program

Performance and satisfaction — Achieved a 2.2% decrease in expenditure due to efficiency measures[ ]

Financial performance is Our program has been sound audited [] We spent $3.16 million on our judicial The Internal Audit Bureau audited Our focus is on education and training program (last our conference program last year increasing the year: $3.23 million), representing 52.6% to ensure that we are meeting best of our overall expenditure. There was practice in delivering our professional number of relevant, a 2.2% decrease in education and development activities. During the training expenses due to efficiency year, we worked through an action interactive measures. A major challenge will be to plan to implement some of their sessions offered maintain the high quality and variety recommendations. As promised in last of our education services within the year’s annual report, we trialled and in our education budget for 2013–14. then implemented a new evaluation form to use at conferences and program. We measure up to national seminars which is providing us with benchmarking a more detailed picture of judicial officers’ education and training needs. Overall attendance at our program increased this year. The increase Output and approval of our On an overall measure of satisfaction, can be partly attributed to improved program has increased participants who provided feedback marketing of our education events were 92% satisfied with the program through the new monthly e-newsletter As we provide a continuing education (last year: 95%). This matches the five- sent to all judicial officers advising program for judicial officers, we need year average and exceeds our target of them of upcoming events. to understand whether they regard it as 85%. On average, 73% of participants relevant and effective. We encourage responded to the surveys (last year: The national standard for judicial officers everyone who attends a session to 75%). While there has been a slight to attend professional development evaluate its usefulness, content and 3% decline in satisfaction ratings, the activities is five days a year. This style, whether it met the specified results in Figure 3 below show that we benchmarking standard, reviewed in learning objectives, and the practical continue to meet the expectations of 2010, was designed for all Australian value of the session. judicial officers. courts. The Council of Chief Justices of Australia and national judicial education bodies have approved the standard. (See Appendix 3 on p 91 for further details about the national standard.)

Figure 3. Satisfaction ratings 2008–13

Program 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 % % % % % Annual court conferences 88 87 91 89 91 Orientation programs 99 100 100 97 99 Workshops – regional & metropolitan magistrates 92 95 95 96 95 Workshops – judicial skills 95 96 93 98 97 Children’s Court conferences n/a 92 96 94 89 Supreme Court seminars 90 91 99 96 95 Industrial Relations Commission seminars 91 100 96 94 n/a Land and Environment Court seminars 88 89 90 97 88 District Court seminars 91 90 92 97 91 Local Court seminars n/a n/a 98 98 100 Cross-Jurisdictional seminars 95 95 92 n/a* 91 Ngara Yura Program 87 90 94 93 88 Gaol visits 95 86 85 n/a* 87 Average Satisfaction Rating (from all participants) 90 91 93 95 92 Target satisfaction rating 85 85 85 85 85 Response rate not 81 76 75 73 available

* No formal evaluation or no program held. 17 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

— Average satisfaction rate with education program exceeded our target and remained high at 92% (last year: 95%) [] — Overall satisfaction with our administrative support was 99% (new measure) []

Education and training output for is found below on p 21. We provided Satisfaction ratings marginally the year increased from the previous 14 judicial orientation packages to decreased for the following sessions: year, with the delivery of 38 education new judicial officers across all courts • twilight seminars were rated at sessions (last year: 34) and 25 (last year: 19). In partnership with 93% (last year: 96%) publications (last year: 21) as shown in the Local Court, we provided pre- • Local Court regional conferences Figure 7 on p 20. Use of the conference Bench induction training for three new were rated at 95% (last year 96%) paper database has increased by 24% magistrates (last year: four). (last year: 12% increase) as shown in • workshops were rated at 95% (last Figure 8 on p 20. Information about A continuing trend is that judicial officers year: 96%). our education and training strategies find smaller, interactive group sessions to be more beneficial than the larger An innovation this year was to ask lecture-style sessions. Satisfaction participants to comment on the ratings improved or remained stable for practical value of each education the following sessions: event to their role as a judicial officer. The overall ratings (from an average • orientation programs were rated at response rate of 59%) reveal that 99% (last year: 97%) New magistrates participants find our education program gave their • annual court conferences were relevant and a useful source of rated at 91% (last year: 89%). We knowledge and ideas. orientation program attribute the improved satisfaction to more interactive sessions and Our new evaluation form also measures a 99% satisfaction fewer lecture-style sessions participant satisfaction with Judicial rate. • Local Court seminars were rated at Commission administrative support 100% (last year: 98%) at residential conferences. The rating for the past 12 months was 99% • gaol visits were rated at 87% satisfaction (target 85%), from a 73% (previous year: 85%). response rate.

Figure 4. Attendance at education sessions 2008–13

Measures 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2012–13 2013–14 result result result result target result target

% of judicial officers who attended annual conferences 86% 90% 93% 77%* 90% 90% 90%

% of voluntary attendance at magistrates’ induction/orientation 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% programs

% of judicial officers who attended at least 2 days of judicial 88% 90% 93% 82%* 90% 90% 90% training

Average number of training days offered per judicial officer 5 5.2 5.3 4* 5 5 5

Number of judicial education days each year** 1,396 1,554 1,389 870* 1,400 1,232 1,400

Average number of training days each judicial officer has 4.8 5.3 4.7 3* 5 4 5*** undertaken at Judicial Commission programs (national standard is 5 days)

* The Local Court Annual Conference was not held in 2011–12 so magistrates were only offered 2 Local Court specific education days, not 5. ** Note: A day of education is based on 5–6 instructional hours attended by a judicial officer. It is calculated by multiplying the number of judicial officers in attendance at judicial education programs by the duration of that educational session: eg 18 participants x 2 days = 36 education days. *** National standard: 5 days.

18 Continuing judicial education program

New judicial officers attended the National Judicial Orientation Program at Q-Station, Manly in March 2013. The five-day program, run twice a year, incorporates the principles of adult education in interactive sessions designed to assist judicial officers in their transition to the bench.

Figure 5. Participant satisfaction with personal and practical benefits of our education program

2012–13 result % The information was applicable to my work 80 I gained one or more specific ideas that I will be able to apply to my work as a judicial officer 70 I expect to make changes to the way I work as a result of this conference/seminar 46 The conference/seminar enhanced my knowledge and capability 78 The conference/seminar had little or no relevance to my work 4

Demand for computer training and support has sharply increased A continuing trend is the growth in Figure 6. Computer support 2011–13* support and training for iPad™ and tablet computer technology. Last year, all magistrates were issued 350 331 with iPads™ and training and 300 helpdesk requests have been almost exclusively focused on the use of this 250 new technology. We issue iPad™ e-bulletins whenever a new issue 200 needs to be addressed.

Hours 150 We provided 331 hours of computer 109 training for judicial officers (last year 100 109.5). We made 46 visits to judicial 46 officers’ chambers in response to 50 18 individual requests for assistance 0 (last year: 10) and provided 10 group sessions of face-to-face training to 2011–12 2012–13 298 attendees (last year: 18). Year

The helpdesk service is provided Hours of computer training Visits Monday to Saturday from 7.30 am to 7.30 pm. * Figures for earlier years are not available. In earlier years we measured the number of computer sessions provided.

19 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

— Provided 38 education sessions (last year: 34), 3 more than our target []

Judicial officers’ feedback • “Don’t try to do too much and • “Would have appreciated more shows how we can improve have too many speakers. There sessions which were directly relevant has not really been the opportunity to our work eg court situations, • “This seminar would have been of having Q&A and discussion particular aspects of law etc. more useful and effective if it were at the end of very valuable and Sociological stuff is interesting but combined with site visits to the excellent papers that merited more overall not that useful.” [Local Court buildings that were discussed.” time being allocated.” [Industrial Annual Conference, August 2012] [Land and Environment Court Relations Commission Annual • “We need to brief speakers, even Twilight Seminar, “Good Design”, Conference, October 2012] eminent ones, better. There is February 2013] • “More sessions of shorter duration. no point in the majority of their • “Perhaps some interactive More interactive sessions after time being spent on general sessions or workshop sessions lunch. No talks that last 1½ hours – it introductory stuff. They need to rather than just papers being is lost after 20 minutes.” [Local Court dive into the heart of their topic delivered. Would be good to do site Annual Conference, August 2012] sooner.” [Supreme Court Annual visits of developments approved Conference, September 2012] by the courts and controversial.” • “More colleague chat time – we [Land and Environment Court only connect two or so times a Annual Conference, May 2013] year.” [Children’s Court Section 16 meeting, October 2012] Figure 7. Education events and publications 2008–13

2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 2012–13 2013–14 result result result result target result target Annual conferences 5 5 6 4 5 5 5 Workshops — country & metropolitan magistrates 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Workshops — judgment writing 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 Pre-Bench training sessions* 4 16 10 4 6 3 4 Week-long orientation programs** 3 4 3 3 2 3 2 Cross-jurisdictional seminars 1 1 3 0 2 2 2 Ngara Yura Program 4 3 2 3 2 2 2 Supreme Court seminars 1 2 2 4 2 3 2 Industrial Relations Commission seminars 2 3 3 0 1 0 1 Land and Environment Court seminars/workshops/field trips 5 7 6 6 6 9 6 District Court seminars 4 3 3 5 4 3 4 Local Court seminars – – 3 1 4 3 2 Children’s Court seminars – 2 2 3 2 2 2 Drug Court practitioners’ conference 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 Gaol visit 2 3 1 0 2 1 2 Publications: includes bench book updates, bulletins, 24 23 23 21 21 25 22 journals, education monographs and training DVDs Total education events 38 39 37 34 35 38 35 Total education events and publications 62 62 60 55 56 63 57

* The number of pre-Bench training sessions is determined by the number of appointments to the Local Court each year. ** Includes participants from NSW at the National Judicial Orientation Program, jointly conducted with the National Judicial College of Australia and the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration.

Figure 8. Conference paper database use 2010–13

Users 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 % Target hits hits hits change

Supreme Court 148 199 151 -24% 10%

District Court 289 321 289 -10% 10%

Local Court 600 701 1131 61% 10%

Land and Environment Court 90 56 17 -70% 10%

Industrial Relations Commission 29 19 19 0% — 10%

Total 1,156 1,296 1,607 24% 10%

20 Continuing judicial education program

Strategies: how we deliver our continuing judicial education program

The NSW public expects their judicial officers to be impartial, independent and perform to the highest professional standard. Judicial officers come to their role as highly skilled professionals so our program is designed to assist in their transition from practitioner to impartial adjudicator. From there, we aim to continuously renew judicial skills and provide information about changes to the law, court procedure and community values.

Our strategic focus is on interactive learning Adult education is most effective when it draws out the adult’s experience. With a focus on interactive learning, our approach involves participants in the learning process and is based on enhancing their skills, attitudes and knowledge in a judicially-relevant environment. As individuals have varied learning styles, we provide a range of programs, presentation styles, and resources to suit different needs. Our program includes: • induction and orientation sessions for new judicial officers • annual conferences for all NSW courts • skills-based workshops • seminars • field trips • distance education • Aboriginal cultural awareness sessions and community visits • digital and multi-media resources Ruth Windeler (right), our Education Director, and Tanya Su, the Senior Conference • online and hard copy publications Coordinator, work closely with judicial officers to design and deliver our education program. The mult-faceted program aims to continuously renew judicial skills and inform including a conference paper database judicial officers about changes to the law, court procedure and community values. • computer training and support.

Our judicial education program is judge- led and judge-driven. Our professional educator, Ruth Windeler, works with the Figure 9. Judicial education design process Standing Advisory Committee on Judicial Education, the education committee of Standing each court, and the committees of judicial Judicial Advisory Judicial Experts in Commission Committee Community Complaints officers that oversee our publications. These officers the field members on Judicial committees identify judicial training needs Education and develop materials and courses. Figure 9 below shows how this process works and Appendix 4 on p 92 gives details about our committees. Judicial officers who serve Education Director and Court Education and Bench Book Committees on these committees generously give their time and expertise. Concerns raised by the public in the complaints process also Education program inform this design process.

Our continuing judicial education policy incorporates the national standard for judicial professional development (see Appendix 3 on p 91).

21 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Education and training highlights for 2012–13

Managing the transition to An important communications receive and collate their anonymous online resources [] achievement this year has been to responses for immediate display. During develop a custom-built subscriber the year, we successfully introduced Last year, the NSW Department of database. Known as “EDI”, or the the tool into select seminars and Attorney General and Justice provided “Education Directory Interface”, we conferences. See case study on p 25. an iPad™ to every magistrate in can now directly email judicial officers NSW and judicial officers from all individually or as a group with details of courts are increasingly using iPads™ our education program. EDI also captures Reporting change through and mobile technology in their daily all our conference and publications our publishing program work. Our focus this year has been information. EDI has been developed in Regular online and hard copy to manage the transition from hard accordance with our obligations under publications are an efficient way to copy to the delivery of soft copies of the Privacy and Personal Information communicate change to judicial officers the magistrates’ primary resource: the Protection Act 1998 (NSW). and to promote an exchange of ideas. Local Court Bench Book. Some of our Our flagship publications, the Judicial publications are in e-format only and all As a result of the e-newsletter, our Officers’ Bulletin and The Judicial our publications are available in pdf or ability to directly email judicial officers, Review inform judicial officers about html format on the Judicial Information and better marketing of our education current legal issues and changes to Research System (JIRS) or our website program, we have seen a growth in court practice and procedure. Articles at www.judcom.nsw.gov.au. We have attendance at education events and published in these publications this year also provided specialised training for a 24% increase in the use of our are detailed in Appendix 7 on p 97. magistrates to learn how to use their conference paper database. iPads™ effectively, specifically to Our bench books are practical loose access JIRS. For more information on leaf reference works that assist judicial JIRS. See p 31. officers to conduct criminal and civil “[The trials. They include relevant legislation, Communicating our case law, sentencing principles, message [] e-newsletter is] a procedural guidelines, suggested jury directions and sample orders. Bench A monthly e-newsletter, promised last great idea. Very books help improve consistency of year and launched this year, informs helpful to get all judicial approach and reduce the judicial officers about upcoming risk of appealable error. Committees education events. The newsletter is also that information in comprised of current and retired linked to a database which contains judicial officers, executive members recent conference papers, presentations one document.” of the Commission and Commission and audio links published on JIRS. This staff write and update the bench provides access for judicial officers books. Considerable effort is required in city and regional locations to a rich to maintain their currency to ensure educational resource. The majority Promoting interactive that changes are reported quickly and of papers from our conference and accurately. Bench books are available seminar program are loaded onto the learning [] online through the Judicial Information database to allow for the sharing of Last year we committed to introducing Research System (JIRS), our website knowledge, expertise and information an audience response system into our and as a hard copy publication. across jurisdictions. Audio podcasts of education program. This tool creates select seminars are added so that judicial interactive presentations by using simple, officers who are unable to attend an intuitive polling software and response event can listen to the presentation. devices. The tool facilitates two-way communication by allowing the presenter to ask questions of the audience and

High level communication skills are an essential judicial attribute. During the year we conducted two advanced workshops for judicial officers to further refine their judgment writing skills.

22 Continuing judicial education program

Highlights from our publishing program for 2012–13 — Exceeded last year’s annual report target and produced 25 publications (last year: 21) and resources for judicial officers’ professional reference []

Publishing highlights for the year include: • exceeding our annual report target and providing 25 publications (last year: 21) to keep judicial officers and others up to date with professional reference material [] • meeting our annual report promise to launch a new online resource handbook for Children’s Court magistrates. The Children’s Court of NSW is a unique court with a specialised practice for children and young people in its criminal and care and protection jurisdictions. The Children’s Court of NSW Resource Handbook is designed to assist new Land and Environment Court judges participate in a field trip to Bomaderry Children’s Home, Children’s Court magistrates in their 23 May 2013. induction in the field and to also inform lawyers and others who work in this field. The Handbook contains information for Conducting field trips both criminal and care and protection “I write to express A field trip for Supreme and District matters. The online book is linked to other Court judges to observe the relevant Commission publications [] our gratitude electronic evidence and technical • issuing plain English revisions of gathering capability of the Special suggested jury directions in the Criminal and appreciation Services Group, NSW Police Trial Courts Bench Book. See p 32 Force, was a highlight this year. for all your work Judges were able to observe the • publishing an education monograph telecommunications interception about the origins and history of the in bringing to system and gain an insight into how Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW) to fruition the … commemorate the 100th anniversary of electronic evidence is obtained to use that court in December 2012 Children’s Court in the trial process. • updating the Equality Before the Law of NSW Resource Land and Environment court judges Bench Book. This is an important and commissioners visited Ballast reference book that provides judicial Handbook.” Point, an $11 million award-winning officers with information about the redevelopment on Sydney Harbour’s particular needs of specific sections His Honour Judge Peter foreshore. The redevelopment’s of the community and suggests ways Johnstone, President of the archaeologist explained how that judicial officers can adapt court Children’s Court sustainable design principles and proceedings to ensure that individuals community consultation informed the receive a fair and just outcome. design process. Details of all our publications are in Appendix 8 on p 98. Connecting judicial officers through annual court “Not only are conferences Annual conferences for each court conferences are an important way to exchange essential to our ideas and information and promote collegiality. The conference ongoing professional programs are broad in range and include court-specific sessions and development, but important updates on legal and policy they allow so well for developments. During the year we organised five annual conferences, exchange of ideas one for each of the courts. about how to do A complete list of topics presented at things.” the conference program is found at Appendix 5 on p 93. Participant at the Local Court Annual Conference 2012

23 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Improving communication Highlights from the seminar program for 2012–13 skills [] Clear and authoritative communication Our seminar program offers a wide Providing Aboriginal cultural is an essential judicial skill and one range of topical and educationally awareness: the Ngara Yura that can be refined in skills-based sound sessions for judicial officers. workshops. Last year we committed Program • Land and Environment Court to organising communications training Raising judicial awareness about judges and commissioners for the Land and Environment Court. Aboriginal culture and Indigenous learned about the principles The Maura Fay Group led two one- disadvantage is an important part of of good architectural design day workshops for this court. Each our work. was a hands-on session focusing on and how architects interpret Local Environment Plans and understanding and managing the impact The Ngara Yura (meaning “to hear and Development Control Plans. of the message, body language and listen to the people” in Eora) Program vocal flexibility, advanced listening and • A seminar for the District Court grew out of recommendations of the information gathering, and managing a discussed a range of practical Royal Commission into Aboriginal courtroom or on-site challenge. issues for judges involved in judge- Deaths in Custody in 1991: these can alone trials rather than running a be found at Appendix 9 on p 99. We trial with a jury. employed an Aboriginal Project Officer, • With our strategic focus on mobile Mrs Tammy Wright (until December technology, we have conducted 2012) and Mrs Joanne Selfe (from May “[T]he best and regular seminars for judicial 2013), who works with a committee most practical officers on how to effectively to develop education and training use the Judicial Information activities. Committee membership is course in my Research System (JIRS) on found in Appendix 4 on p 92. an iPad™ and an iPhone. In judicial career. addition, the JIRS resources A highlight this year was a trip around Has energised iPad™ app, developed in-house Sydney Harbour on the Tribal Warrior. and launched last year, provides A group of judicial officers learned my interest in access to an updating content about Sydney Harbour landmarks, feed of recent legal developments their Aboriginal names and history, and writing effective and the Commission’s bench their significance to Aboriginal people. judgments.” books in a format optimised for They also visited Clark Island to learn tablet computers. See p 31 for about traditional ways of fishing and food gathering. We reported on the Participant at judgment information about JIRS. visit in the Judicial Officers’ Bulletin writing workshop Appendix 6 on p 96 provides a full list and this was sent to all judicial officers of our judicial education seminars, in NSW, justice sector agencies and workshops and field trips presented law libraries. We also ran a seminar throughout the year. to explain the kinship system for judicial officers to learn about the components of moiety, totem, skin names, language, traditional affiliations and individual identity. The seminar achieved its objective to show some of the ways that Aboriginal people face particular problems when interacting with the mainstream Australian legal system.

To advise about Aboriginal drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs, we created a new online page on JIRS with details about eligibility and links to relevant web sites.

Our website contains a section about the Ngara Yura Program, the Committee members, community visits and conferences and seminars. This can be accessed at www.judcom.nsw.gov.au.

The Commission’s Ngara Yura Program aims to raise judicial awareness about Aboriginal culture and Indigenous disadvantage. At a Ngara Yura seminar, Ms Lynette Riley (pictured left) highlighted how Aboriginal people face particular problems when interacting with the mainstream Australian legal system.

24 Continuing judicial education program

Challenges Case studies • Encouraging judicial officers to meet the national standard of Developing magistrates’ training Developing interactive learning five days a year of professional and presentation skills [] through the audience response development. Local Court magistrates often present system [] • Ensuring high attendance at education and training sessions to One of the goals we set in last year’s annual conferences. their colleagues. To be effective, the annual report was to implement • Continuing to offer a range of presenters need to understand how to an audience response system to activities within the 2013–14 design and deliver their sessions based encourage interactive learning. This budget. on adult learning principles and the is based on the well-documented • Encouraging presenters to adopt fact that people have different learning understanding that education is more interactive presentation styles. To develop best practice, our most effective when it involves the styles in their sessions. judicial educator and the educator from participant in the learning process. the National Judicial College conducted We purchased an audience response a workshop for six magistrates so they system (known as “clickers”) to use in The year ahead could learn about the processes that select education and training sessions. facilitators use to encourage audience The participant is given his/her Our strategic planning is focused on participation, how to develop a session individual clicker to provide feedback the transition to online publications plan, and how to use training resources and answers during an education as iPads™ and mobile applications effectively. The magistrates each had session. The results are compiled and supersede hard copy publications. to develop their own session on a visually displayed in graph form so In the coming year, we will finalise chosen topic and present the session that participants can compare their the transition to delivering online for about 25 minutes. The session was feedback/answers with those of their publications for the Local Court. We then subject to rigorous evaluation to colleagues. Anonymity is assured. The will also explore online options for the determine whether it was communicated process encourages full participation other courts. effectively and encouraged audience in a peer-based learning environment. participation. The six magistrates found The clickers have been a huge Evaluations from our surveys show the workshop to be a practical way to success. We plan to purchase more so that interactive sessions have more enhance their knowledge and capability that all judicial officers can benefit from educational benefit than lecture-style in running interactive, skills-based this learning process. sessions. During the year, we will training sessions. increasingly use the audience response system to encourage interactive learning.

We will coordinate a multi-agency group to develop a training DVD on bail to educate judicial officers, police officers and other bail authorities about the new Bail Act 2013 commencing in May 2014.

We will work with an advisory group to develop an education DVD outlining the judicial process in relation to domestic violence matters, an area that has been the subject of extensive legislative review. The DVD will include the perspectives of victims of domestic violence, judicial officers, legal practitioners, police and domestic violence support officers. The DVD will also address the recidivism risk of perpetrators and highlight the services and programs available for perpetrators.

A strategic focus is on promoting facilitation skills so that judicial officers can effectively develop and deliver educationally sound presentations. We will work with the Local Court to assist magistrates to design and deliver education programs. Pictured with Education Director, Ruth Windeler, is Professor James Raymond, an internationally renown judgment-writing consultant. Professor Raymond’s focus is on A Ngara Yura event will be a assisting judicial officers to refine one of their most important judicial skills through advanced judgment writing workshops. community visit to Campbelltown, a centre in south-western Sydney with a large Indigenous population.

25 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Research and sentencing program

Objective: improved consistency in sentencing and reduced errors

Results and trends 2012–13 • Achieved a 1.9% decrease in expenditure due to efficiency measures [] • Use of the Judicial Information Research System (JIRS) exceeded last year’s annual report target and was at an all-time high, growing at an overall rate of 15% [] • Use of website sentencing and criminal law reference material has exceeded last year’s annual report target, growing an overall rate of 21% (page hits) [] • We achieved our goal to develop a mobile application and adapt JIRS for mobile devices [] • Published 8 updates to the Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book and the Sentencing Bench Book (last year: 6) [] • Published two Sentencing Trends & Issues papers and a monograph for sentencing in fraud cases []

Contents Performance and satisfaction ...... 27 Strategies: how we deliver our research and sentencing program . . . .30 Case studies ...... 33

26Legend: [] = met or exceeded target; see p 110 for photo caption. back to Contents Research and sentencing program

Performance and satisfaction — Achieved a 1.9% decrease in expenditure due to efficiency measures[ ]

Financial performance is best practice in how we produce Court growth came after iPads™ were sound this professional reference material. issued to magistrates in early 2012. Next year, we will develop an action Use of JIRS in the District Court (by We spent $2.11 million on our research plan to implement recommendations judicial officers and support staff) held and sentencing program (last year: considered to be useful. Overall, the steady in 2012–13 (a slight increase $2.15 million), representing 35% of our audit found that the bench books were but less than 1%). Commercial law overall expenditure. There was a 1.9% regularly used and highly regarded. firms and community law organisations decrease in research and sentencing Their currency, accuracy and overall increased their use of JIRS by 12% expenses due to efficiency measures. usefulness were especially valued. and government agencies by 6%, A major challenge will be to maintain while there was a 7% fall in the use the high quality and range of our of JIRS through computers located at research and sentencing program Output and satisfaction with professional associations — possibly within the 2013–14 budget. our program reflecting law firms’ growing use of JIRS at their own premises. Research and sentencing performance National benchmarking is not for the year met, and in some cases Overall, government agencies, currently possible exceeded, our targets. including the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Public Comparing our performance with Defenders, and Legal Aid NSW, are other State, national and international JIRS experiences unprecedented growth the most frequent direct users of providers of sentencing information JIRS (44%). Judicial officers and their is not currently possible as no other The use of JIRS substantially grew support staff directly account for 32% provider has a directly comparable during the year. Overall, there has been of hits (up from 27% in 2011–12). system or information equivalent to the a 15% growth in use, exceeding our Prosecution and defence lawyers use service that the Judicial Information target by 10% (last year: 12% growth). JIRS to make legal submissions to the Research System (JIRS) provides. JIRS had an average of 113,666 hits court on issues relating to the conduct each month and exceeded 144,500 hits of trials and sentencing. In this way, for the first time in a single month (in judicial officers receive the benefit of Our program has been May 2013). information on JIRS. favourably audited Figure 10 below shows how the use During the year, the Internal Audit Who is using JIRS? of JIRS is split and the change in use Bureau audited two of our flagship Judicial officers and their support staff over a three-year period. The growth publications, the Criminal Trial Courts in the Supreme and Local Courts have in usage is shown in Figures 11 and 12 Bench Book and the Sentencing Bench increased their use of JIRS markedly on p 28. Book, to ensure that we are meeting (39% and 63% respectively). The Local

Figure 10. Overall JIRS use 2010–13

Users 2010–11 Use of 2011–12 Use of 2012–13 Use of Change JIRS JIRS JIRS hits % hits % hits % %

Supreme Court 10,795 1.0 13,452 1.1 18,649 1.4 +38.6

District Court 107,140 10.1 128,238 10.8 128,709 9.4 +0.4

Local Court 149,139 14.0 175,649 14.8 286,335 21.0 +63.0

Land and Environment Court 2,471 0.2 2,102 0.2 609 0.0 –71.0

Industrial Relations Commission 839 0.1 592 0.0 546 0.0 –7.8

Government agencies* 515,692 48.4 571,143 48.0 603,630 44.3 +5.7

Professional associations** 56,254 5.3 54,562 4.6 50,749 3.7 –7.0

Other subscribers*** 222,121 20.9 244,321 29.5 274,763 21.1 +12.5

Total 1,064,451 100.0 1,190,059 100.0 1,363,990 100.0 +14.6

* Includes staff of the NSW and Commonwealth DPP, Department of Attorney General and Justice, Legal Aid NSW, NSW Police Prosecutors, and any other State or federal public sector agency, excluding judicial officers and their associates. ** The Bar Association of NSW and Law Society of NSW. *** Includes law firms, universities, libraries and community organisations.

27 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

— Use of the Judicial Information Research System (JIRS) exceeded last year’s annual report target and was at an all-time high, growing at an overall rate of 15% [] — We achieved our goal to develop a mobile application and adapt JIRS for mobile devices []

The availability of the bench books since August 2012 via the “JIRS App” “How great a job on iPads™ (Figure 15), which have been issued to magistrates and police JIRS does. I use prosecutors in the last two years, may have contributed to the decline in it daily, all day, on downloads of the Sentencing Bench the Bench.” Book in 2012–13. Since August 2012, iPad™ users, including an unknown number of magistrates and police A Local Court magistrate prosecutors, downloaded over 400 copies of the Sentencing Bench Book, and close to 500 copies of the Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book. Users now have the choice to read bench How is JIRS being used? books online using the Commission’s There was a 14% increase in the use website or JIRS, or else download of the Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book the bench books to read offline using (page hits) and nearly 42% increase the Commission’s website, JIRS, or in PDF downloads from JIRS of this the JIRS App for iPad™. While the bench book. There was a 7% increase overall use of the publications has in the use of the Sentencing Bench been growing strongly, some users will Book (page hits) and a 26% decrease have been switching from one mode “The [Sentencing in PDF downloads from JIRS of this of access to another — or even using bench book. more than one at the same time. Bench Book] is Information about how JIRS operates is invaluable, very found below at p 31. well resourced.”

A Crown Prosecutor

Figure 11. Number of JIRS pages accessed each month in 2012–13

150

125

100

75

50 Page hits (’000) 25 0 TargetJunMayAprMarFebJanDecNovOctSepAugJul 2012 2013

Figure 12. Number of JIRS pages accessed each year 2008–13

1400 1.36 1200 1.19 1.20 1.01 1.06 1000 0.93 800 600 400 Page hits (million) 200 0 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 Target

28 Research and sentencing program

— Use of website sentencing and criminal law reference material has exceeded last year’s annual report target, growing an overall rate of 21% (page hits) []

Figure 13. Criminal law and sentencing publications accessed on Website use of our resources has JIRS (page hits) grown Use of online sentencing and criminal law Access: JIRS publications 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 Change publications has strongly increased on the hits hits hits % Commission’s public website as shown Sentencing Bench Book 40,857 43,449 46,557 +7.2 in Figures 16 and 17. There was a 42% Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book 31,472 34,727 39,663 +14.2 increase in the use of the Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book (page hits) and there Research monographs 999 1,441 797 -44.7 were over 1,500 downloads of this bench Sentencing Trends & Issues 450 380 407 +7.1 book during 2012–13. There was a 20% growth in the use of the Sentencing Bench Book (page hits) and there were over 1,000 Figure 14. Criminal law and sentencing publications PDFs downloads of the full bench book from the downloaded from JIRS website during 2012–13. See p 22 for an explanation of a bench book. Access: PDF documents 2011–12 2012–13 % change Publication PDFs PDFs Output has exceeded our targets Sentencing Bench Book 337 250 -25.8 Our research and sentencing publications for the year included: Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book 210 298 +41.9 • 3 research studies (last year: 2) • 8 updates to the bench books (last Figure 15. Criminal and sentencing publications downloaded to the year: 6) Commission’s JIRS App for iPad™ • 184 items on the JIRS news page Access: JIRS App for iPadTM 2011–12 2012–13 about important cases and legislation (last year: 190 items) Publication PDFs PDFs • 184 sentencing summaries on JIRS Sentencing Bench Book – 407 (last year: 158) Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book – 489 • 4 Special Bulletins to inform judicial officers of the details and impact of major criminal cases (last year: 4). Figure 16. Criminal and sentencing publications accessed from website More details of these publications are Criminal Trial 218,654 found below on p 32 and in Appendix 8 on Courts p 98. Bench Book Sentencing 202,448 Bench Book Our research program is highly regarded Sentencing 40,026 Trends & Issues Judicial officers, the courts, justice agencies and the legal profession have high regard for 6,367 Research JIRS and also our independent research. This monographs can be measured through the increasing use 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 of JIRS, described above. We also received Page hits specific requests for information from judicial officers and the legal profession. This year we 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 responded to nine requests for substantial research information from judicial officers (last year: 13) and 31 non-judicial enquiries Figure 17. Criminal and sentencing publications downloaded from the (last year: 33). We gave four conference and Commission’s website seminar presentations about our research program (last year: five) for which we Access: Commission’s website 2011–12 2012–13 % change received very positive feedback. Information Publication PDFs PDFs about these presentations is found on p 45 in the “Engaging with our partners” section. Sentencing Bench Book 234 1,030 340

Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book 257 1,549 502

29 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Strategies: how we deliver our research and sentencing program — We met our objective to produce current, accurate and useful professional material as the internal audit review disclosed [] — We achieved our goal to publish two Sentencing Trends & Issues papers and a monograph for sentencing in fraud cases [] — We exceeded our goal (6 updates) and published 8 updates to the Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book and the Sentencing Bench Book (last year: 6) []

When a court sentences a person when conducting a criminal trial, • publishing changes to the criminal convicted of a criminal offence, it must procedural guidelines, suggested law (case law and legislation) on follow settled principles and apply jury directions and sample orders. JIRS. Through the “Recent Law” them in a consistent way. Similarly, Statistical information is presented component of JIRS, we summarise when a person pleads not guilty to in easy-to-read charts and graphs all significant criminal High Court an offence, the criminal trial must be • providing detailed information on decisions; every NSW Court of conducted according to law. Part of our sentencing principles and practice Criminal Appeal decision where statutory mandate is to assist judicial in the Sentencing Bench Book the court altered the sentence(s) officers responsible for conducting supplemented by recent law news imposed at first instance; important criminal trials and also to promote a and easy-to-follow statistical interstate appellate decisions consistent approach to sentencing. information on JIRS concerning Commonwealth sentencing and the interpretation of • providing guidance on the Our research and sentencing program is the Uniform Evidence Act; all cases sentences that other judicial officers designed to facilitate informed decision where the standard non-parole have given in similar circumstances making in the tasks of conducting a trial provisions were applied; and other by publishing sentencing statistics and sentencing an offender. We achieve selected appeals which involve a and summaries of appeal decisions this without interfering with a judicial sentencing principle. officer’s independence. The program’s on JIRS and in the monthly Judicial strategies involve: Officers’ Bulletin. The Bulletin is Our Director, Research and Sentencing sent to all judicial officers and • providing sentencing information is Hugh Donnelly. He works with government law and justice and explaining criminal law a small team of researchers and agencies in NSW developments through online and statisticians. He also convenes a print platforms. Our bench books • researching and publishing committee of judges and a retired and original research studies information on sentencing judge to keep the Criminal Trial Courts are published in hard copy and trends in print and online. Our Bench Book current. More details online through JIRS and on our original research studies include about the committee can be found in website. Bench books set out in monographs and papers that Appendix 4 on p 93. logical order the major legislation analyse sentencing trends and and precedents which apply issues

“The [Criminal

Our research and sentencing Trial Courts and program is designed to facilitate informed decision Sentencing] making when a judicial officer conducts a trial or sentences bench books are an offender. Responsible for the program is the Director, incredibly helpful. Reseach and Sentencing, Hugh Donnelly, pictured with If you could only Research and Sentencing Manager, Pierette Mizzi (left) have two things in and Senior Reseach Officer, Georgia Brignell. court they would be the two.”

District Court judge

30 Research and sentencing program

Our strategic focus is to To maintain the currency, accuracy, maintain JIRS timeliness and accessibility of JIRS, we continually monitor the “[The JIRS resources JIRS is an online database for judicial law and update the database. officers and legal practitioners. app] … has helped me It is the principal means for We check the currency of all with my daily work … communicating changes to the legislation on JIRS each week criminal law. The database is the and on a daily basis monitor immensely … It has first of its kind in Australia and is developments in case law, recognised as a world leader in legislation and government policy. outstanding display the field of computerised legal These developments are analysed which makes this databases. It is an extensive, and added to our databases and interconnected and hypertext-linked publications. To ensure the integrity app easy to decipher resource that provides modules of of our statistics, we audit all higher reference material for judicial officers courts data received from the information from.” presiding over trials or sentencing. Bureau of Crime Statistics and JIRS provides rapid and easy access Research (BOCSAR). A JIRS app user to the courts’ decisions.

Figure 18. The Judicial Information Research System (JIRS): a complete judicial decision support system

Description What we do JIRS Component

Early notice of important • identify significant decisions and legislative changes Announcements and legal developments • extract core principles of case law and legislation and post online Recent Law • print and distribute monthly Recent Law flyer

Statistics on the range and • receive data from BOCSAR Sentencing statistics frequency of penalties imposed • audit data in similar cases • process and load data on JIRS within 1–4 months of receipt

Full text of judgments and case • receive cases from High Court, Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA), Court of Case law summaries for selected cases Appeal, Supreme Court, Land and Environment Court, Industrial Relations Commission, District Court and Local Court • advance notes supplied by Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions • post judgments within 1 working day of receipt • prepare Recent Law items within 14 days of receipt for important decisions • prepare important CCA case summaries within 2 weeks of receipt • link cases and summaries to sentencing principles and practice component and the Criminal Trial Courts and Civil Trials Bench Books

Concise commentary on • take sentencing principles from new cases and legislation and post as Sentencing principles sentencing principles Recent Law items and practice • link principles in bench book to case law and legislation (Sentencing Bench Book)

Practice and procedure manuals • identify significant decisions and legislative changes which impact on the Bench books for the various courts containing content of the bench book current statements of relevant • bench book committees consider content and draft amendments and legal principles, sample orders special bulletins and suggested jury directions • publish updates on JIRS and in hard copy

All NSW and Commonwealth • receive legislation from NSW Parliamentary Counsel’s Office and Legislation Acts and Regulations Commonwealth Attorney General’s Department • process and load legislative changes within 24 hours of receipt • alert users to commencement date of criminal legislation via Recent Law items • link legislation to relevant case law and sentencing statistics • verify currency of legislation weekly

Monographs, Sentencing Trends • identify relevant topic or research area Publications & Issues, Judicial Officers’ • commission author Bulletin, The Judicial Review • edit and typeset manuscript • publish in hard copy and online

Essential information on • identify relevant service providers Services directory treatment options and • maintain currency of information rehabilitation facilities

31 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Research and sentencing highlights for 2012–13

Modified JIRS for iPads™ and Published sentencing study for Revised the Criminal Trial Courts mobile devices [] fraud offences [] Bench Book [] Following the Local Court’s transition to As promised in last year’s annual report, The Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book is iPads™ and the general take-up of mobile we published a research monograph, an online and hard copy resource which technology, our focus this year has been to Sentencing in fraud cases, Research provides suggested directions for how a trial adapt JIRS so that it can be easily accessed Monograph 37 in September 2012. The judge might explain the law to a jury. During on a variety of these platforms. Our systems monograph examined sentencing for fraud the year, we extensively revised the bench team developed and launched an app offences in NSW. book to ensure that the suggested jury (for Apple® iPad™ users) to provide an directions are clear, comprehensible and, as updating content feed of recent NSW and The prevalence and means of committing far as possible, avoid the use of technical Commonwealth legal developments (case fraud has dramatically changed in recent legal language. See the case study below. law and legislation). The app also allows years due to technology, particularly through the use of the internet. The numbers of the user to manage personal copies of the fraud victims have increased as has the Challenges electronic versions of our bench books. cost to the community. In 2009, the NSW • An ongoing significant challenge is the This app is designed to be of use for Parliament created harsher penalties for fraud offences to show that it was treating accuracy and timeliness of sentencing judicial officers, lawyers and police fraud as a serious crime. Our study data that the courts send to the prosecutors, as well as law students from examined the new statutory scheme for Commission. Inaccurate and late data NSW, particularly in locations where there fraud offences, in particular: affect our targets to load statistical is limited internet access. information onto JIRS due to the extra • the reasons for the reforms time that our research staff need to During the year, we made 12 • the legislative framework for fraud, audit the data. While the timeliness enhancements to JIRS including: forgery and identity offences in NSW and quality of the data have continued • improving the use of JIRS for mobile • a comparison of Commonwealth to improve this year, the error rates users and other States’ provisions for fluctuate within acceptable and • indicating the status of uncommenced consistency unacceptable levels. We continued to and partially commenced NSW • the applicable sentencing principles in work with the BOCSAR and court staff legislation fraud cases. to address these problems and our principal statistician produced regular The monograph has been published in hard • adding Children’s Court judgments error reports to inform the Audit and copy, on JIRS and on our public website at • adding improvements to “Offence Risk Management Committee. www.judcom.nsw.gov.au. Packages” and the addition of 20 • We frequently receive requests for offence packages for the most common substantial sentencing information offences dealt with in the Local Court Published two Sentencing from government agencies. Balancing • developing an improved sentencing Trends & Issues papers [] these requests with our core work with date calculator limited staff is a challenge. During the year we published two focused • adding paging for easier navigation of studies on sentencing. The first1 examined search results common offences in the NSW higher courts, The year ahead • adding videos to JIRS on topics following on from our study published last such as how to use the sentencing year of the top 20 common offences in the Our core research focus is to ensure that statistics. Local Court. The study reported on the 20 JIRS remains relevant so that judicial most common offences that the District officers and practitioners are kept up-to- Created a new Court of Appeal and Supreme Courts finalised in 2010 and date with the criminal law and practice and procedure. database on JIRS presented general findings about the profile of offenders and the frequency of offences. During the year we worked with the NSW We will research and produce a monograph Court of Appeal to create a tailor-made The second study2 analysed 13,401 on sentencing for Commonwealth drug research tool for this court on JIRS. Users sentences of imprisonment imposed over offences; two Sentencing Trends & now have direct access to decisions of seven years. The study examined the law Issues papers; and regular updates to the interest from the Court of Appeal, all other as it relates to setting a non-parole period Sentencing Bench Book and the Criminal Australian intermediate Courts of Appeal of a sentence. A non-parole period is the Trial Courts Bench Books. and a number of international appeal minimum period that a convicted offender courts, including the United Kingdom, must spend in full-time custody. As far as Our technology focus will continue to be the United States of America, Canada, the approach to setting a non-parole period on adapting JIRS so that it can be easily accessed and searched on iPads™, tablet Singapore, Hong Kong, India and New is concerned, NSW has one of the harshest computers and hand-held devices, and on Zealand. Legal practitioners can also statutory regimes in Australia. The non- developing mobile apps. access relevant guidelines and practice parole period must not be less than 75% notes. A special “Research Tools” section of the full-term sentence unless the court finds that there are special circumstances Last year the Internal Audit Bureau has been specifically created to assist recommended that we migrate to a fully judges and practitioners with civil case for it to be less. The second study analysed cases where a court found that special online environment with our bench books. law and summaries relevant to practice in We will investigate the feasibility and appeal courts. circumstances existed and recorded the reasons for the finding. The study further effectiveness of this recommendation. compared NSW sentences to Victoria.

1 “Common offences in the NSW higher courts: 2010”, Sentencing Trends & Issues No 41, published December 2012. 2 “Special circumstances under s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999”, Sentencing Trends & Issues No 42, published June 2013. 32 Research and sentencing program

Case studies

Analysing a significant Explaining how to use One enhancement is a new “Outline sentencing law decision context evidence in a sexual of trial procedure”. The new section provides a sequential summary of the In 2011, the High Court of Australia assault trial steps in a criminal trial with an overview decided, in a case known as Muldrock In a sexual assault trial, the judge allowed of pre-trial procedures, the trial (Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 evidence to be admitted of domestic process, the course of the evidence, CLR 120), that the NSW Court of violence offences that the accused addresses, the summing up and jury Criminal Appeal (the CCA) had erred in husband had committed against his deliberations. The section explains, in the way it applied statutory standard wife, the alleged victim. The evidence simple terms, each stage of the trial non-parole periods (in R v Way (2004) was of two specific incidents involving process from the Crown’s filing of the 60 NSWLR 168). NSW judges in the the husband slapping and kicking his indictment to the discharge of the jury District and Supreme Courts had wife (in 1999) and pushing his fingers after it delivers its verdict. Extensive followed Way’s case to set the non- down her throat (in 2001). The judge cross-references to other relevant parole period for an offence. The High admitted the evidence to show the type sections of the Bench Book have Court’s decision threw into doubt the of relationship the husband and the been inserted. The Bench Book now sentences of offenders sentenced wife had. A jury convicted the husband includes additional helpful suggestions according to Way’s case. See p 45, of sexual intercourse without consent that might be followed as a matter Legal Aid NSW and the Aboriginal Legal and he appealed his conviction to the of practice, although not necessarily Service commenced a review of those CCA.* That court found that the trial required by law, and written suggested sentences. We assisted in identifying judge had made an error in admitting the directions for the judge to give the jury. offenders who were sentenced before evidence of domestic violence as it was the Muldrock decision. There were not relevant and did not assist the jury to two potential methods for offenders decide whether the sexual assault had Monitoring sentencing to revisit their cases. First, an offender occurred. The evidence of prior domestic patterns in the NSW higher could appeal against his or her sentence violence was not necessary to place the courts on the ground that the sentence was sexual assaults in a meaningful context Our statutory mandate is to assist too severe. Secondly, the defendant or to better explain the wife’s account the courts to achieve consistency in could ask the court that imposed the of what occurred. The evidence had to sentencing. One way we do this is to sentence to reopen proceedings. One do more than demonstrate the nature of analyse the sentencing data that the offender applied to the CCA to reopen their relationship to be relevant. It had courts provide to us and report on his case under section 43 of the Crimes to place the events complained about in discernible trends. In late 2012, we (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. their true context. The CCA had previously increased his published the third in the Sentencing sentence following a successful Crown This case showed that there are Trends & Issues series examining Appeal decided before Muldrock. still problems arising in trials where sentencing patterns in NSW courts in The CCA sat five judges to hear this “context” or “relationship” evidence is 2010. The series provide an overview of significant appeal. This was potentially admitted. To assist trial judges in this sentencing patterns for courts exercising the first in a line of cases. The CCA said difficult area of law, we published a criminal jurisdiction in NSW and can that a sentencing judge could not use special bulletin which was emailed to be used as a benchmark to compare section 43 to reopen a sentence that he all judicial officers, an announcement sentencing patterns in the future. or she had imposed before Muldrock on JIRS, and a summary of the The third study* analysed penalties was decided. Section 43 could only decision in the Judicial Officers’ imposed for the top 20 offences that be used to correct a penalty contrary Bulletin. During the year we rewrote the NSW higher courts heard in 2010 to law. The CCA said that a Muldrock/ commentary to explain the decision and compared our findings with our Way error did not generally fall into this and reviewed the jury directions in the 2002 study. The study found that the category. Rather than going back to the Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book. type of principal offences has remained court which had sentenced the offender, stable, despite significant legislative the offender should lodge an appeal * Norman v R [2012] NSWCCA 230 amendments since the 2002 study. against sentence. The study also found that, while longer To explain this important decision* Revising jury directions sentences are being imposed for several and its impact on sentencing law, we of the top 20 offences as a result of An overriding duty of a judge in a legislative amendments, the imposition of published a timely announcement and criminal trial is to ensure that the a summary of the decision on JIRS and full-time imprisonment has remained at accused receives a fair trial. To provide very high levels and steady since 2002. in the Judicial Officers’ Bulletin. We also guidance for all judges, including those closely analysed Muldrock appeals and who do not usually preside in criminal The study was published on our updated the Sentencing Bench Book. trials, we have extensively revised website, on JIRS, and sent to all judicial the commentary and many of the officers in NSW and our subscribers. * Achurch v R (No 2) [2013] NSWCCA 117 directions in the Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book over the last 12 months. * “Common offences in the NSW higher We made judicial officers aware of this courts: 2010”, Sentencing Trends & extensive work in a detailed article in Issues, No 41, published December 2012 the Judicial Officers’ Bulletin.

33 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Examining complaints

Objective: to promote public confidence in the judiciary

Results and trends 2012–13 • There was a 54% increase in expenditure as two Conduct Divisions were formed • There was a 35% decrease in the number of complaints received with 71 complaints lodged (last year there were 110 complaints because two complainants between them lodged 34 complaints) • The completion rate achieved for the preliminary examination of the majority of complaints was 6 months [] • We examined 98% of complaints received within 10 months [] • A continuing trend is that an allegation of failure to give a fair hearing is the most common cause of complaints

Contents Performance and satisfaction ...... 35 Strategies: how we examine complaints ...... 38 Case studies ...... 41

Legend: [] = met or exceeded target; see p 110 for photo caption. back to Contents 34 Examining complaints

Performance and satisfaction — There was a 54% increase in expenditure as two Conduct Divisions were formed — 98% of complaints were examined within 10 months []

Our financial performance is Complaints received and This year, 63 individuals made 71 sound examined complaints about 53 judicial officers. Two complainants made five complaints We spent $740,000 on our complaints Complaints made to the Commission each. Another complainant made three function (last year: $482,000), during the year have decreased from complaints and seven complainants representing 12% of our overall last year’s five-year high. We received made two complaints each. The expenditure. The 54% increase in 71 complaints (last year: 110) which rest of the complaints were lodged complaints’ expenditure is due to a is close to the five-year average of individually. This year, we examined 85 Conduct Division being convened this 73 complaints a year. An analysis complaints (last year: 97) including the year. of the most common causes for 39 complaints pending as at 30 June complaints shows that the majority of 2012. At 30 June 2013 there were 21 complaints (62%) arise from allegations complaints pending. Figure 20 shows High standards in line with of a failure to give a fair hearing or international benchmarking how we dealt with all complaints during bias. Most complaints of this nature this year and Figure 21 compares the The Judicial Commission has, until were dismissed. Page 37 has more numbers of complaints received and this year, been the only Australian information about trends in the types of examined over the last five years. organisation that examines complaints complaints made. against a judicial officer. Our timeliness standards favourably compare with Figure 19. Time taken to conduct preliminary examination of the Canadian Judicial Council and the complaints 2008–13 Office for Judicial Complaints in the United Kingdom. These organisations 3 mths 6 mths 9 mths 12 mths 13 mths 20 mths aim to finalise the majority of (target 90%) (target 100%) complaints that do not require 66% 92% 100% – – – further investigation within 90 days 2008–09 of lodgement. Since April 2013, the 2009–10 61% 91% 98% 98% 100% – Federal Court, the Family Court and the 2010–11 39% 95% 98% 100% – – Federal Circuit Court of Australia have introduced a complaints process. It is 2011–12 26% 68% 97% 100% – – not yet possible to benchmark against 2012–13 22% 78% 93% 98% – 100% outcomes of these processes.

This year, we conducted the preliminary Figure 20. Particulars of complaints examined 2010–13 examination of 22% of complaints within 90 days (last year: 26%). Within 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 six months we had examined 78% of complaints (last year: 68%) so our Complaints pending at 30 June 22 26 39 timeliness has improved this year. Complaints made during the year 60 110 71 We were unable to meet our target Total number of complaints 82 136 110 to finalise the majority of complaints within 12 months as there were delays Complaints examined and dismissed under 50 79 79 in obtaining information for two related ss 18 and 20 of the Judicial Officers Act complaints. We were able to finalise Complaints referred to head of jurisdiction 3 7 4 98% of complaints within 10 months. Complaints referred to Conduct Division – 4 2 Figure 19 compares the time taken to conduct the preliminary examination of Complaints withdrawn 3 7 4 all complaints over five years against Total number of matters finalised 56 97 89 our targets and it shows that this year’s Complaints pending at 30 June 26 39 21 timeliness is close to the five-year average of 99% of complaints examined within 12 months. We met our target to Figure 21. Complaints received and examined 2008–13 acknowledge all complaints received within five working days. The United 120 110 Kingdom Office for Judicial Complaints 100 90 aims to acknowledge complaints 85 received within two working days. 80 70 71 64 60 55 56 60 49 Number 40 20 0 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13

Complaints received Complaints examined 35 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

— The completion rate achieved for the preliminary examination of the majority of complaints was 6 months []

Complaints examined and Figure 22. Number of complaints examined and dismissed 2008–13 summarily dismissed Of the 85 complaints examined, the 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 Commission examined and dismissed Complaints examined 49 64 56 90 85 79 (93%) under section 20 of the Judicial Officers Act 1986. This is Complaints dismissed under 43 88% 56 88% 50 89% 79 88% 79 93% slightly more than the five-year average s 20 of 89% of complaints dismissed after the preliminary examination. Figure 22 shows the percentage of complaints Figure 23. Criteria for dismissing complaints dismissed under section 20 over five years compared with all complaints Criteria Section Number of examined. Figure 23 shows the complaints criteria adopted under section 20 for dismissing complaints. The complaint was frivolous, vexatious or not in good 20(1)(b) & (h) 6 faith and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, further consideration of the complaint would be Referred four complaints or was unnecessary or unjustifiable. to the relevant head of The person complained about was no longer a judicial 20(1)(g) 4 jurisdiction officer. The Commission referred four The person complained about was no longer a judicial 20(1)(g) & (h) 1 officer and having regard to all the circumstances of the complaints that were not summarily case, further consideration of the complaint would be or dismissed to the relevant head of was unnecessary or injustifiable. jurisdiction (last year: seven). This action was taken because, in the The complaint was frivolous, vexatious or not in good 20(1)(b), (f) & (h) 6 faith and related to the exercise of a judicial or other Commission’s opinion, while the function that is or was subject to adequate appeal or complaints did not warrant the review rights. Having regard to all the circumstances of attention of a Conduct Division, some the case, further consideration of the complaint would be further action was required. The or was unnecessary or unjustifiable. complainants and the judicial officers The complaint related to the exercise of a judicial or other 20(1)(f) & (h) 40 concerned were advised of this action. function that is or was subject to adequate appeal or review rights and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, further consideration of the complaint would Referred two complaints to be or was unnecessary or unjustifiable. the Conduct Division Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, 20(1)(h) 22 Following the preliminary examination, further consideration of the complaint would be or was the Commission referred two unnecessary or unjustifiable. complaints about a judicial officer to Total number of complaints dismissed under s 20 79 the Conduct Division (last year: four). The Conduct Division examinations will commence next financial year. The Crown Solicitor and Senior and On 4 January 2013 the Conduct Other work and activity of the Junior Counsel were instructed to assist Division, as part of its function, made a Conduct Division the Conduct Division in its inquiry. report of its findings. On 14 May 2012, following a preliminary In examining the complaints, the It determined that the complaints examination that the Commission Conduct Division considered the made against the magistrate in conducted under section 18 of the material available to the Commission, respect of the conduct in hearing the Judicial Officers Act, the Commission including the magistrate’s responses proceedings in three matters before determined that four complaints to issues raised by the Commission the Local Court were substantiated. against a magistrate of the Local during its preliminary examination. The Division formed the opinion that, Court concerning alleged misconduct The Conduct Division also initiated while the conduct fell below that should not be dismissed and should investigations by the Crown Solicitor expected of a judicial officer, it did not be referred to the Conduct Division for and Counsel Assisting. Statements were justify Parliamentary consideration investigation. obtained from witnesses, and sound of the removal of the judicial officer recordings and transcripts of the Local from office. It concluded the matter The Conduct Division appointed by the Court proceedings were reviewed. should be referred back to the Chief Commission to examine the complaints Magistrate to deal with as the relevant consisted of the Honourable Justice Following its preliminary examination head of jurisdiction. Patricia Bergin, the Honourable of the complaints, the Conduct Anthony Whealy QC and Ms Rosemary Division determined that the hearing in Sinclair AO. connection with the complaints should take place in public. That hearing was 36 held on 18 December 2012. Examining complaints

— There was a 35% decrease in the number of complaints received with 71 complaints lodged (last year: 110 complaints) — A continuing trend is that a complaint of failure to give a fair hearing is the most common cause of complaints

Attorney General referred no Information gathered from complaints is complaint is dealt with on its merits, matters used to develop education sessions on but the Commission cannot correct an topics such as providing a fair hearing allegedly wrong decision. A court of The Attorney General of NSW may refer and avoiding bias, avoiding inappropriate appeal is the appropriate avenue for a matter to the Commission under comments and discourtesy, domestic determining whether the judicial officer section 16(1) of the Judicial Officers violence and sexual assault issues and made an error in law or fact or if there Act and this is treated as a complaint. cultural awareness training. Figure 24 was a miscarriage of justice. This year, the Commission received no provides a five-year overview of patterns references from the Attorney General in complaints. Incompetence: six complaints alleged (last year: two). judicial incompetence. This category accounted for 8% of all complaints In 2012–13, we identified the Declared a complainant (last year: 11%). following patterns: vexatious Common causes of complaint: Inappropriate comments and The Commission has power under the allegations of failure to give a fair discourtesy: seven complaints Judicial Officers Act to declare a hearing and an apprehension of bias alleged that a judicial officer made complainant vexatious. This year, the continue to be the most common inappropriate comments and six Commission declared vexatious a grounds of complaint. In 2012–13, complaints alleged discourtesy. These complainant who made 23 complaints these two categories accounted for two categories accounted for 18% of about 23 judicial officers over a one- 62% of complaints (last year: 81%) all complaints received this year (last month period in the previous financial with 31 complaints of alleged failure to year: 16%). year. All the complaints were dismissed give a fair hearing and 13 complaints Complaints arising from AVO for lack of substance. The effect of the of alleged bias. An unsuccessful party proceedings: some complaints declaration is that the Commission may to legal proceedings or a person who arise out of proceedings involving disregard any further complaint from represented him or herself in court applications for apprehended the vexatious complainant until the often makes this type of complaint. violence orders (AVOs). In many declaration is revoked. Complaints of bias are usually instances, the complaints arose from accompanied by particular allegations a misunderstanding of the judicial role. about the judicial officer’s conduct. Responded to informal The trend has increased this year with 16% of complaints arising from AVO enquiries Substitution for appeals: a complaint We attended to 406 telephone, face- is often made that a judicial officer proceedings (last year: 8%). to-face and written enquiries from made a wrong decision. This type of Self-represented litigants making potential complainants (last year: 426). complaint is usually made when a complaints: another trend we party to litigation is aggrieved by an have noted is the high proportion unfavourable decision but, for one Monitored complaints to of complaints that self-represented reason or another, does not wish to people make. This year, self- identify trends appeal to a higher court. Instead, represented litigants made 49% of all Each year, we track patterns in the type a personal complaint against the complaints. and volume of complaints to identify judicial decision-maker is made to areas that may need to be addressed the Commission, frequently alleging in our judicial education program. bias or incompetence. Such a

Figure 24. Common causes of complaint: basis of allegation 2008–13

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10 Number of complaints

0 0 Failure to give Incompetence Collusion Delay fair hearing Bias Inappropriate Discourtesy Other comments

2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13

37 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Strategies: how we examine complaints

There are around 350 judicial officers Our website provides information purpose. A Conduct Division has in NSW who handled more than to help people understand the the same functions, protections and 730,000 matters during 2012–13. The types of complaints we deal with, immunities as a Royal Commission. In small number of complaints from year possible outcomes, how to make the Commission’s 26-year history, 18 to year compared to the number of a complaint, and a complaints Conduct Divisions have been formed. judicial officers and the high volume of form for downloading. For those The Commission decides on the three litigation indicates the high standard without internet access, we provide members of a Conduct Division — of judicial ability and conduct in NSW a hard copy plain English brochure two are judicial officers (one may be and the community’s willingness to Complaints against judicial officers and a retired judicial officer) and one a accept decisions if they are made in a complaints form. Our website is at community representative that the NSW accordance with the due process of law. www.judcom.nsw.gov.au. Parliament nominates.

A Conduct Division’s hearings may Our strategic focus is on How we deal with complaints be held in public or in private. The independence and efficiency and enquiries judicial officer being investigated has, in all cases to date, been provided Our statutory mandate is to deal with Examining the complaint complaints about a judicial officer’s with financial assistance for their ability or behaviour. We do this by: Within five working days, we legal representation before a Conduct acknowledge in writing any complaint Division. The Crown Solicitor and • examining complaints quickly, received. If the complaint relates to a Senior and Junior Counsel are independently, objectively and court matter, we obtain sound recordings instructed to assist a Conduct Division. effectively and a transcript of the proceeding. The • advising the complainant and Commission investigates the complaint A Conduct Division’s work involves the judicial officer involved of the in private to decide if it requires further gathering evidence about the complaint, outcome of the complaint action. In all cases, we advise the holding hearings and deciding • providing information, publications judicial officer that a complaint has whether a complaint is partly or wholly and talks about our role and been made and provide the judicial substantiated. A Conduct Division does function officer with the complaint documents. not have the power to remove a judicial If the examination shows no wrong officer; the Governor of NSW, acting • providing informal advice over the conduct, the Commission dismisses on the advice of Parliament, bears this telephone and face-to-face the complaint under criteria set out in ultimate responsibility. The power to • monitoring patterns in complaints section 20 of the Judicial Officers Act remove a judicial officer is protective and addressing recurring issues in and we explain to the complainant and not punitive. our judicial education program. in writing why the complaint was dismissed. The Judicial Commission’s complaints function is protective. We have no power to discipline judicial officers, Complaints that require further only to protect the public from action judicial officers who are not fit for If the complaint shows conduct which office or who lack the capacity to is lawful but not appropriate, the discharge their duties. Our function Commission may refer the complaint is also to protect the judiciary from to the relevant head of jurisdiction and unwarranted intrusions into their judicial provide all supporting material. The independence. Commission may recommend some action to prevent the problem occurring How to make a complaint again or that the judicial officer be counselled. The complainant and the Anyone may make a complaint about judicial officer complained about are the ability or behaviour of a judicial advised of the action taken. officer. A formal complaint must: • be in writing Complaints referred to a Conduct • identify the judicial officer Division concerned and the complainant If the Commission does not summarily • be supported by a statutory dismiss a complaint, it may refer the declaration that verifies the complaint to a Conduct Division. particulars of the complaint This is not a standing body but is a • be lodged with the Chief Executive panel especially convened for this of the Commission.

We will assist complainants with We provide comprehensive information about translation and interpreting services the complaints process on our website at if required. There is no fee and legal www.judcom.nsw.gov.au. A plain English representation is not required. brochure is also available for people who do not have access to a computer. 38 Examining complaints

If a Conduct Division forms an opinion that a complaint could justify Parliamentary consideration of the judicial officer’s removal, the Conduct Division must present to the Governor of NSW a report setting out its findings of fact and its opinion. A copy of the report must be given to the judicial officer complained about, the Commission, the Attorney General and, after the Attorney General lays the report before both Houses of Parliament, the complainant. The judicial officer may be invited to address Parliament to show cause why Parliament should not request the Governor to remove the judicial officer from office. Parliament then considers and votes on whether the conduct justifies removal.

If the Parliamentary vote is in favour of removal, the Governor then removes the judicial officer from office on the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity. To date, this has never occurred.

If the Conduct Division forms the Part of Executive Assistant Cheryl Condon’s role is to provide members of the public with opinion that a wholly or partly information about the Commission’s complaints process. substantiated complaint does not justify Parliamentary consideration of the judicial officer’s removal from office, it must send a report to the We are usually able to help people by Challenges relevant head of jurisdiction setting providing information or an explanation, out its conclusions. The report may referring them to another agency, • Meeting timeliness targets when include recommendations about the or advising them of the process for there are delays in obtaining steps that might be taken to deal with making a complaint to the Commission. information to investigate the complaint. A copy of the report is Enquiries often relate to matters that complaints. should be dealt with on appeal to a provided to the judicial officer and the • Explaining to a disappointed higher court and, in these cases, we Commission. complainant why their complaint advise the person to seek independent was dismissed. legal advice. Formal complaints governance The Commission’s formal complaints What we cannot deal with The year ahead work is governed by the Judicial The complaints function is only Officers Act1986, the Judicial Officers Our strategic focus is to ensure that concerned with investigating Regulation 2012 and two documents, all complaints are handled quickly, complaints about a judicial officer’s the Complaints against judicial officers: independently, objectively and ability or behaviour. We do not have the guidelines (see Appendix 1 on p 87) effectively. In this way, we will promote power to: and the Conduct Division: guidelines public confidence in the judiciary and for examination of complaints (see • examine allegations of criminal protect the judiciary from unwarranted Appendix 2 on p 89). Figure 25 on p 40 or corrupt conduct as these intrusions into their independence. explains how the complaints process are matters for the police or the works. Independent Commission Against We will aim to finalise the majority of Corruption complaints that do not require further Informal enquiries • review a case for judicial error, examination within 90 days and examine mistake or other legal grounds all complaints within 12 months. Informal enquiries are regularly made to the Commission from members of the • discipline or sanction a judicial A Conduct Division will be formed to public, the legal profession, the media, officer examine two complaints which the and others. • examine complaints about retired Commission has referred. judicial officers, federal judicial officers, arbitrators, assessors, Information gathered from complaints registrars, chamber registrars, will be used to develop education members of tribunals or legal sessions on topics such as providing representatives. a fair hearing and avoiding bias, avoiding inappropriate comments and discourtesy, domestic violence, sexual assault issues, and cultural awareness training.

39 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Figure 25. How the complaints process works

1 The Commission receives The Commission Commission members a written complaint acknowledges receipt of undertake a preliminary accompanied by a statutory the complaint and notifies examination of the declaration verifying the the judicial officer complaint complaint particulars

2 Complaint summarily Complaint referred to appropriate Complaint referred to dismissed head of jurisdiction who may Conduct Division for counsel the judicial officer or make examination administrative arrangements within his or her court to avoid recurrence of the problem. Complainant and judicial officer notified

3 Complainant and Complaint wholly or partly Complaint wholly or partly judicial officer notified substantiated but does not substantiated and could of decision justify removal justify removal

Conduct Division reports Conduct Division reports to relevant head of to Governor setting out jurisdiction setting out its opinion that the matter conclusions including could justify parliamentary recommendations as to consideration of steps that might be taken removal to deal with the complaint

Copy of report provided The Attorney General lays to judicial officer and the the report before both Commission Houses of Parliament

Complainant notified of Parliament considers decision whether the conduct justifies the removal of the judicial officer from office

4 Judicial officer Judicial officer removed not from office by Governor removed on the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity.

See Appendix 1 on p 87 for further details of the complaints process.

40 Examining complaints

Case studies

Failure to act in a judicial Judicial officer retired during Inappropriate questions manner course of examination The complaint The complaint The complaint The complainant, who was represented The complainant appeared before a The complainant alleged that a District by counsel, alleged that a District Court magistrate charged with a number Court judge, when dealing with an appeal judge, when dealing with an application of offences. He complained to the from the Local Court, had failed to give for variation of bail, asked inappropriate Commission that because he had him a fair hearing. The complainant questions. refused to enter a plea he had been represented himself at the hearing. taken into custody at the magistrate’s The Commission’s examination direction. The Commission’s examination The Commission reviewed the The Commission obtained a transcript transcript of the short hearing and his The Commission’s examination of the hearing and began to review Honour’s judgment. The examination revealed that the judge dealt with The Commission reviewed the the complaint. Prior to completing the the application and refused the transcript of the proceedings and examination, the Commission was variation that the complainant sought. the judicial officer’s response to the advised that the judge had recently The Commission, in dismissing the complaint. The investigation confirmed retired and had not been appointed an complaint, noted that the judge was that the complainant had declined to acting judge. In those circumstances, entitled to ask the questions and his enter a plea to the charges. Following the Commission was required to cease decision to refuse the application was an exchange between the magistrate examining the complaint. made in the exercise of his judicial and the complainant about the plea, discretion. Accordingly, his conduct The Commission has no jurisdiction the magistrate had him arrested and during the proceedings did not raise over a former judicial officer. The placed in custody, although later questions of wrong conduct under Judicial Officers Act required the directed that he be released without the Judicial Officers Act and it was charge. The Commission was of the Commission to dismiss the complaint determined that further consideration view that the judicial officer did not as the person complained about was of the complaint was unnecessary. handle the situation in an appropriate no longer a judicial officer. While this judicial manner and his action was an outcome may be disappointing for a error of judgment. The Commission complainant, the Commission has no Allegations of failure to give determined that it should not dismiss power to do more about the concerns a fair hearing raised. the complaint and referred the matter The complaint to the Chief Magistrate. The complainant was represented Substitution for appeal by a solicitor. He appeared before a Rudeness during a The complaint magistrate in the Local Court to answer criminal charges that the police had sentencing hearing The complainant represented herself in laid. He complained to the Commission The complaint AVO proceedings. She alleged that a that he had not received a fair hearing. The complainant alleged that in a magistrate did not listen to her side of This was because the magistrate had District Court sentencing hearing, the story and made an order not based allegedly discriminated against him and the judge had been rude, arrogant on the evidence before the court. had not allowed him to raise questions and disrespectful to the solicitor that he wanted the police to answer representing his daughter and that the The Commission’s examination which he had previously sent to the sentence imposed was excessive. The Commission dismissed the court for the magistrate to ask. complaint after reviewing the sound The Commission’s examination recording of the proceedings. The The Commission’s examination The Commission reviewed the Commission noted that the complainant The Commission reviewed the transcript transcript of the hearing. The had a right of appeal to the District of the proceedings and the documentary examination revealed that the judge Court against the magistrate’s decision. material that the complainant provided. had been courteous, professional The examination revealed that the People who are not satisfied with and judicial in dealing with both the magistrate had been fair and objective the outcome of a case often make a hearing and the solicitor. There was no throughout the proceedings and complaint to the Commission instead of evidence to support the allegations. there was no evidence to support the lodging an appeal. The Commission’s role The Commission found no wrong allegation of discrimination. is to examine complaints about ability conduct and also noted that there had or behaviour. It does not have authority In its advice to the complainant that been an appeal against the sentence to review judicial decisions, including the complaint had been dismissed, to the Court of Criminal Appeal. The findings of fact and law. That is a matter the Commission particularly noted Commission was of the view that, for courts of appeal and is recognised that if there were questions that the as there was no wrong conduct and in the provisions of section 20 of the complainant had wished to be asked of an adequate right of appeal existed, Judicial Officers Act, which requires the police, he should have instructed the Judicial Officers Act required it to the Commission to dismiss complaints his solicitor to ask those questions dismiss the complaint. summarily where there is an avenue of in cross examination of the police appeal or review available. witness, as it is not the role of a judicial officer to cross-examine a witness.

41 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Engaging with our partners

Objective: to engage with the community; to share our knowledge and experience

Results and trends 2012–13 • We exceeded our target and saw a 23% increase in the public use of our online resources [] • An audit of the Lawcodes database showed that we are meeting best practice in the creation and maintenance of offence codes which benefit all NSW justice sector agencies [] • Participant satisfaction with the Community Awareness of the Judiciary Program was 90% (see p 44) [] • Our research assistance to NSW government agencies was substantial. A major contribution was assisting the NSW Law Reform Commission on their jury directions project

Contents Performance and satisfaction ...... 43 Strategies: how we worked with our partners this year . . . . 45 Case studies ...... 47

Legend: [] = met or exceeded target; see p 110 for photo caption. back to Contents 42 Engaging with our partners

Performance and satisfaction — We exceeded our target and saw a 23% increase in the public use of our online resources [] — An audit of the Lawcodes database showed that we are meeting best practice in the creation and maintenance of offence codes which benefit all NSW justice sector agencies []

Website use of our resources Presentations about our work Providing information, advice has increased [] are well received and substantial research Public use of our online resources grew Executive staff delivered 28 presentations assistance at an overall rate of 23%, following last this year (last year: 29). The presentations Our Chief Executive, Ernest Schmatt year’s 51% growth. This exceeds our covered our work and role in the criminal PSM, responded to nine media target of 5% growth, and this trend justice system, specific research projects enquiries about our work (last year: 19) is shown at Figure 26. Details of our that we have recently undertaken, adult and we attended to 406 telephone, publishing program are on p 23 and all learning principles and learning styles face-to-face and written enquiries from our publications are listed at Appendix 8 and communication. A particular focus potential complainants (last year: 426). on p 98. of presentations this year has been to educate judicial officers, students and Our research and sentencing team To our online library, we added the 2 community groups about the Judicial responded to 31 substantial research monographs, two Sentencing Trends Information Research System (JIRS). See enquiries (last year: 33) mainly from & Issues papers published during the Appendix 15 on p 103 for further details NSW criminal justice agencies year, as well as 20 updates to our of these presentations. including the: bench books. See p 32 for further • Department of Attorney General details of these. Our Lawcodes program has and Justice concerning sentences We distributed 35 free copies of our been audited for child sexual assault offences • State Debt Recovery Office educational DVDs on request and 72 free The Internal Audit Bureau conducted copies of our research monographs to an independent audit of our Lawcodes • Office of the Director of Public law libraries, community organisations, program this year to ensure that we are Prosecutions teachers and students (last year: 225 meeting best practice in how changes in • Legal Aid NSW concerning DVDs; 135 monographs). Commonwealth and State legislation are prosecutions under the Education identified and entered into the database Act 1990 that all NSW justice agencies use. • NSW Law Reform Commission, particularly on their jury directions The audit found that the Lawcodes and sentencing projects (see case database and associated processes study on p 47). are well controlled. There are sound procedures, system-based controls and checks to ensure that all necessary changes to the database are identified and comprehensively and accurately entered into the system.

Figure 26. Website use of our resources

2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 Change Target hits per hits per hits per hits per % % month month month month Civil Trials Bench Book 8,089 10,159 16,741 22,009 31.5 s 5 s

Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book 8,161 9,988 12,794 18,221 42.4 s 5 s

Sentencing Bench Book 6,873 7,902 14,034 16,871 20.2 s 5 s

Local Court Bench Book 7,540 4,872 5,849 8,282 41.6 s 5 s

Sentencing Trends & Issues – 1,937 3,372 4,086 21.2 s 5 s

Sexual Assault Trials Handbook 1,454 1,516 1,948 1,935 -0.7 5 s

Research monographs – 365 539 531 -1.5 5 s

Equality before the Law Bench Book 158 157 192 208 8.3 s 5 s

DVDs – 136 191 194 1.6 s 5 s

Education monographs 567 1,210 1,876 55.0 s 5 s

43 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

— Participant satisfaction with the Community Awareness of the Judiciary Program was 90% []

In late 2012, we conducted the first Community Awareness of the Judiciary Program. The program, run over seven weeks, was designed to increase community understanding about the work of the courts and judicial officers. The feedback from participants showed that the program was highly regarded and achieved its goal to raise awareness and promote communication between the community and judicial officers.

“Community Awareness of role of judicial officers and some of the • “Excellent – the more contact the Judiciary Program” was challenges they face. The program also I have with judges the more assisted the judicial officers involved confidence I have in the system.” highly valued to gain more accurate feedback about • “Open, friendly and frank Evaluations from the participants and community views. discussion which was refreshing.” presenters at this inaugural program were very positive. The program aimed Comments from participants show how • “Excellent, practical and engaging to assist in overcoming any perception worthwhile the program was: presentation. Well worth our while.’” that judicial officers are out of touch • “Seven weeks was a big • “Excellent session once again – so and out of reach of the community. commitment but so worth it!” much to learn and to take back to The majority of respondents indicated colleagues.” • “For the first time in my life I they gained both an insight into the saw an insight into the judicial judicial system and an insight into the system that helped me gain an appreciation.”

Pictured are participants at the Community Awareness of the Judiciary Program with Chief Executive, Ernest Schmatt PSM (far right).

44 Engaging with our partners

Strategies: how we worked with our partners this year — Our research assistance to NSW government agencies was substantial. A major contribution was assisting the NSW Law Reform Commission on their jury directions project

Community engagement, sharing our During the year, the Chief Executive This year we: knowledge, and capacity building in and our Aboriginal Project Officer gave • coded and distributed all new and the region is an important part of our presentations to HSC legal studies amended offences within four days mission. In our 26 years of operations, students and their teachers about the of their commencement we have developed expertise in Judicial Commission’s sentencing and • responded to all enquiries from judicial support and case management education programs. See the case Lawcodes users within 24 hours systems, continuing judicial education study below. and sentencing. We inform the public • consolidated the new road transport and community groups about our work, legislation. provide pro bono and commercial Working with other NSW This project involved close liaison with assistance to national and international Government agencies Roads and Maritime Services, State judiciaries and justice sector agencies, Throughout the year, the Commission Debt Recovery Office and the NSW and exchange information and ideas partnered with the NSW Government Police Force and the coding of this new with other judicial education providers. and other criminal justice and legislation was well in advance of the government agencies to provide scheduled commencement date of 1 July expertise, assistance and exchange 2013. Informing through the information including working with: Community Awareness of the • a NSW Legislative Council Select Judiciary Program [] Committee established to review Engaging with other jurisdictions A major community engagement the partial defence of provocation National and international courts regularly focus this year was the inaugural to murder. The Select Committee seek our advice and assistance to develop Community Awareness of the Judiciary visited the Commission to discuss their own programs and systems and Program. The seven-week program the Commission’s published research to assist in organising conferences. The was designed to increase community into this defence and information that Commission also has a strong focus on understanding about the role of the we hold in the Judicial Information capacity building in the Asia Pacific Region judiciary and courts in NSW and to Research System (JIRS) database on and sharing our expertise with developing promote communication between murder and manslaughter offences countries. During the year we: judicial officers and community • the NSW Law Reform Commission • hosted five official visitors (last year: 10) members. Community representatives on their jury directions project (see and six delegations to our Sydney met with judicial officers and the case study below) office (last year: two). Details of these visits can be found in Appendix 12 participated in sessions and exercises • Legal Aid NSW and the Aboriginal on p 101 about sentencing, bail, judicial conduct Legal Service on their review of in and out of court, and attended a people sentenced for a standard • worked with the Queensland Supreme Q&A forum. See the case study below. non-parole period offence to Court Library on a new MOU for ensure that the sentence was not the delivery of the Queensland Sentencing Information System Informing the NSW public, contrary to a 2011 decision of the High Court of Australia (Muldrock v • worked with the National Judicial universities, schools and The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120) College of Australia and the community groups • the NSW Drug Court and Commonwealth Director of Public The Commission’s website provides Compulsory Drug Treatment Prosecutions to provide the free access to most of our resources Correctional Centre, to host, Commonwealth Sentencing Database and publications. Readers can access maintain and support their case • supported, hosted and maintained monographs, DVDs, Sentencing management systems the Commonwealth Sentencing Trends & Issues papers, and all of • the Forum Sentencing team to Database our handbooks and bench books are support and maintain the Forum • worked with the Justice and available in html and PDF format for Sentencing case management Community Safety Directorate of free download to personal computers system, offered at 13 Local Courts the ACT Government to develop a and e-book readers. Bench books are in NSW. sentencing database for the ACT loose-leaf reference publications that • participated in the “Judicial Dialogue set out legislation, case law, principles, We also maintained the Lawcodes on HIV, Human Rights and the procedural guidelines, suggested jury database which allows NSW justice Law” in Asia and the Pacific held directions and sample orders. Judicial agencies to electronically exchange in Bangkok, Thailand. Participants officers principally use bench books to information using the database included members of the judiciary assist them to conduct trials but they of unique codes for all NSW and from across Asia and the Pacific also contain invaluable guidance for the Commonwealth criminal offences dealt region and representatives from select legal profession, government agencies, with in NSW. General access to the judicial education institutions. The academics and law students. Bench database is provided on our website. meeting was jointly organised by the books are regularly updated to ensure Joint United Nations Program on HIV/ their currency and accuracy. AIDS (UNAIDS), the United Nations Development Program and the International Commission of Jurists

45 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

• worked with the Supreme and • the Asia Pacific Coroners’ Society Challenges National Courts of Papua New Planning Committee for their 2012 Guinea to develop the PNG Sydney conference • Assisting other government Sentencing Database. We signed • meetings of the Australia and agencies usually requires a the MOU in February 2013 and New Zealand Judicial Educators substantial effort and this must be preliminary work on the database Group. The Group met to share balanced with our core work. has commenced information and experiences about • Participating in overseas missions • worked with the federal Department benchmarking and standards, and hosting delegations and of Sustainability, Environment, Aboriginal cultural awareness visitors must be balanced with our Water, Population and Communities programs, planning for training core statutory responsibilities and to examine the feasibility of programs, and to review the services. developing a National Water existing judgment writing program Regulation Sentencing Database with a view to updating this and (NWRSD). The NWRSD will inform replenishing the base of trainers. The year ahead judicial officers throughout all In October 2012 an extended Australian jurisdictions and assist group met including judicial Following on from the success of the them to make consistent decisions representatives from each of inaugural Community Awareness of when sentencing for water offences. the Australian and New Zealand the Judiciary Program in late 2012 (see judicial education bodies and case study opposite), we will organise a Linking with other judicial from Papua New Guinea and the second program in late 2013. education providers Singaporean courts • working with the National Judicial A focus will be to develop sentencing In our 26 years of operation, we have College of Australia on the online databases for the Supreme and built strong links with Australian and judicial education clearing house National Courts of PNG, further to international judicial education bodies. the MOU signed in February 2013; • meetings with the National Judicial Sharing knowledge and experience the ACT Government, further to the College of Australia to discuss how and assisting these organisations with agreement signed with the Justice and we can work more closely with the advice and planning is part of our Community Safety Directorate of the College and the courts to further mission. ACT Government in March 2013. the value of judicial education During the year, we participated in activities a number of forums, committees, • two National Judicial Orientation conferences and steering groups in programs (October/November connection with our judicial education 2012 in Queensland and March role. Appendix 11 on p 100 has full 2013 in NSW) organised jointly details of these including: with the National Judicial College • the national Continuing Legal of Australia and the Australasian Education Association of Australia Institute of Judicial Administration. Conference in Melbourne

We regularly assist judiciaries from the Asia Pacific region that are interested in learning about our judicial education, research and sentencing, and complaints work. Official visitors and delegations visit the Commission during the year to obtain information about our programs. Our Chief Executive, Ernest Schmatt PSM, is pictured (centre) with a delegation from the Ministry of Justice, People’s Republic of China, 18 September 2012.

46 Engaging with our partners

Case studies

Our Chief Executive, Ernest Schmatt Engaging with HSC legal Working with the NSW Law PSM, will continue to participate as studies students Reform Commission on an active member of the Asia Pacific Judicial Reform Forum, a member The Chief Executive of the Commission, simplifying jury directions of the Executive Committee and the Mr Ernest Schmatt PSM, and our In a jury trial, the trial judge will provide Board of Governors of the International Aboriginal Project Officer, Mrs Tammy instructions to the jury. These directions Organisation for Judicial Training and Wright, gave a presentation to 250 HSC are designed to assist the jurors to a member of the Advisory Board of legal studies students and their teachers understand the law and issues that the Commonwealth Judicial Education at the “Crime and Law Study Day” arise during the criminal trial and Institute. in November 2012. The presentation how jurors should use the evidence focused on the Commission’s admitted to enable them to reach a sentencing and education programs verdict. In 2007, the NSW Government Connecting with the and included a demonstration of the requested that the NSW Law Reform community: raising Judicial Information Research System. Commission (NSWLRC) investigate awareness of the judiciary [] Mrs Tammy Wright provided information how directions are used and how they to the students about the Commission’s could be improved to ensure that they There is a perception, often fostered Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Program assist rather than confuse the jury. Our in the media, that judicial officers and for judicial officers: the Ngara Yura Director, Research and Sentencing, are “out of touch and out of reach” Program. Hugh Donnelly, was a member of the of ordinary community values. Our expert panel that advised the NSWLRC. mission (see p 2) is to foster public Their work culminated in the Jury confidence in the judiciary and in Directions report tabled in the NSW October/November 2012 we developed Parliament in March 2013. The report and ran an innovative program to recommended greater use of our promote community understanding of Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book and the judiciary. Community representatives suggested a number of refinements to were invited to attend the seven the bench book. We have extensively sessions and learn about judicial revised the bench book over the last 12 officers’ day-to-day work in the justice months, as detailed on p 33. system of NSW. Our aim was to foster two-way engagement so that the community representatives would take back the knowledge they gained to their respective communities. The community representatives met with judicial officers; discussed their work; listened to and participated in sessions and exercises Participants at the Community on sentencing, bail, judicial conduct Awareness of the Judiciary in and out of court; attended court Program in November 2012. hearings; attended a general Q&A forum; and shared their views about the justice system with the judicial officers. The 13 invited participants represented media organisations, industry groups, charities, NSW Police Force, victims’ advocacy groups, Aboriginal communities, the Federation of Parents’ & Citizens Association, and multicultural groups.

Participants’ evaluations showed that the program was very well-received and achieved its objective to promote a two- way exchange of information between the community and judicial officers.

In 2013 we will follow up with the participants to ascertain whether they have shared their experiences with their respective communities.

We plan to offer a second Community Awareness of the Judiciary program in Chief Executive Ernest Schmatt PSM (left) and Hugh Donnelly, Director, Research and late 2013. Sentencing, with HSC legal studies students from Ku-ring-gai Creative Arts High School.

47 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Our people

Objective: to retain highly skilled professionals who enjoy working at the Commission

Results and trends 2012–13 • The Judicial Commission was one of the highest rated agencies in the 2012 NSW Public Service Commission’s People Matter Employee Survey • Internal annual staff survey measured 100% staff satisfaction, a 4% growth [] • Our staff turnover rate for this year was at a five-year low of 2.5% [] • We exceeded NSW Government benchmarks to employ women, Aboriginal people and people from a culturally and linguistically diverse background [] • Our Equal Employment Opportunity Management plan 2012– 2015, promised in last year’s annual report, has been finalised and published on our intranet []

Contents Performance and satisfaction ...... 49 Our workplace environment ...... 50

Legend: [] = met or exceeded target; see p 110 for photo caption.

48 back to Contents Our people

Performance and satisfaction — The Judicial Commission was one of the highest rated agencies in the 2012 NSW Public Service Commission’s People Matter Employee Survey — Internal annual staff survey measured 100% staff satisfaction, a 4% growth []

More than 60,000 NSW government Our people feel highly valued, with employees participated in the Public 96% strongly agreeing or agreeing Service Commission’s People Matter that their work directly contributes to Our yearly staff Employee Survey, conducted in 2012. our achievements and success. The The survey measured job satisfaction, majority of staff (85%) feel accountable survey shows well-being at work and commitment for the quality of their work and 100% to the organisation. The results show consider they are using their skills and that 100% of that the Judicial Commission rated very knowledge in their current role. respondents enjoy highly compared to other agencies (see Figure 27). Most staff (88%) consider that working at the their working environment is safe, Our annual internal staff survey discrimination-free and comfortable. Commission. measured how committed, stimulated Eighty-nine per cent of staff consider and supported our people were. This they achieve a work/life balance with year, we received a 66% response rate our flexible work practices (see p 51). (last year: 68%). All respondents (100%) believe they have the resources to manage their The survey has again shown that we Overall satisfaction with our workload and enhance productivity (last need to focus on developing more organisation has grown this year with year: 96%). Satisfaction with training effective communication strategies with 100% of staff who responded to our opportunities continues to improve 19% expressing dissatisfaction with internal staff survey positive about with 85% of staff strongly agreeing or how information and knowledge are the Commission (last year: 96%). agreeing that they are provided with shared in the organisation (last year: Fifty-eight per cent of people strongly adequate training (last year: 84%). agreed and 42% agreed that they 16%) and 27% of staff expressing no enjoyed working at the Commission. The survey has shown continued opinion (last year: 32%). Ninety-two per improvement over the year in teamwork cent of staff strongly agreed or agreed and cooperation with 84% of staff that they receive constructive feedback feeling positive about this (last year: about their individual performance (last 76%). Only two staff members or year: 84%) with only one staff member 8% were dissatisfied with this factor disagreeing. (last year: 8% were dissatisfied with teamwork).

Figure 27. Judicial Commission’s ratings in the NSW Public Service Commission’s People Matter Employee survey

Where Judicial Commission scored ABOVE the sector

Question Agency Sector % +ve score % +ve score 4d I believe senior managers provide clear direction for the future of the organisation 93 46 2h I feel that senior managers listen to employees 94 49 5b My organisation involves employees in decisions about their work 87 42 14a My organisation has good procedures and processes for recruiting employees 100 56 13e I have confidence in the ways my organisation resolves greivances 93 50 9c I feel my job is secure 93 51 10a My performance is assessed against clear criteria 100 61 5a I feel that change is handled well in my organisation 80 42 8e My organisation inspires me to do the best in my job 93 56 8d My organisation motivates me to help it achieve its objectives 93 56 Where Judicial Commission scored BELOW the sector Question Agency Sector % +ve score % +ve score Not applicable

49 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Our workplace environment — Staff turnover rate for this year was at a five-year low of 2.5%[ ]

Remuneration of senior Figure 28. Executive positions management 2011–12 2012–13 Senior executive remuneration is determined by the Judicial Commission Level* Total Female Total Female in accordance with section 6 of the 6 1 0 1 0 Judicial Officers Act 1986 and is equivalent to the Chief and Senior 3 1 0 1 0 Executive Service (CES/SES) in the 2 2 1 2 1 NSW Public Service. Figure 28 shows Total 4 1 4 1 the number of executive positions at the Commission and their equivalent * Equivalent to CES and SES levels in the NSW Public Service. remuneration levels to the CES/SES.

Our staff Figure 29. Five-year comparison of average number of employees by employment category Our staff are essential to the Judicial Commission’s success and to ensuring 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 we meet our goals and deliver our services. Senior Executive 4 4 4 4 4 Sentencing/judicial education 31 30 31 32 31 The Commission employed 39 people in legal education, legal Administration/management 4 4 3 4 4 research, information technology and support administrative roles (last year: 40). Total 39 38 38 40 39* Figure 29 shows the average number of employees in these roles over a five- * 34.2 full-time equivalent year period. Our small staff numbers mean that retired judicial officers sometimes help us in specialised tasks Figure 30. Staff turnover 2008–13 such as developing new bench books Acceptable turnover limit and examining complaints. 15

Serving judicial officers also assist 10.0 in our work by generously giving 10 9.0 their time to serve on our various committees. Appendix 4 on page 92 Per cent 5 provides details of all our committees. 3.0 3.0 2.5

Retaining our staff 0 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 The turnover rate for permanent staff decreased this year to 2.5% (last year: 3%). This rate is being maintained at Staff were awarded a 2.5% salary well below our acceptable turnover Consultants increase from 1 July 2012 which rate of 15%, suggesting that we are an This year we engaged no consultants. reflected the increase provided to public employer of choice for the majority of sector employees under the Crown our people: see Figure 30. Setting wages and conditions Employees (Public Sector–Salaries Our long service rate is very high with The Commission is an employer under 2008) Award. Senior executives were more than half our staff having 10 or the Judicial Officers Act. Conditions awarded a 2.5% increase from more years’ service (54%) and a further of employment mirror those of the 1 October 2012. 10% of staff having five or more years’ NSW Public Service and there were We contribute 9% of each employee’s service. no changes to these conditions this salary to First State Super or a year. Public Service members who superannuation fund of choice. accept a position with the Commission Employees have the option to contribute Satisfactory staff retain their superannuation rights and from their salary and to salary sacrifice attendance benefits. contributions to their fund. During 2012–13: • no industrial action occurred • average sick leave was 6 days (last year: 6 days).

50 Our people

Providing flexible work arrangements To help our employees perform optimally and balance work with family and personal obligations, we have adopted a “flexible working practices agreement”. All requests for flexible working arrangements are assessed on their merits in line with this policy. Staff also benefit from our “flexible working hours” policy that provides staff with options to arrange their working hours. Our staff survey showed that 89% of employees agreed that the organisation provides them with a good work/life balance (last year: 84%).

Our working arrangements are published on the staff intranet and are in line with the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet’s flexible work practices policy and guidelines.

Communicating with our employees Regular round table meetings are held throughout the year and are Lawcodes is a database which allows all NSW justice agencies to electronically exchange information using standard codes for all NSW and Commonwealth an opportunity for staff to learn offences dealt with in NSW courts. General access to the database is provided about work-related activities and on our website. Pictured are Stephen Cumines, Manager of Lawcodes and Maree developments. All staff are invited and D’Arcy, the Commission’s Librarian. one member of staff is encouraged to give a special presentation about business developments or special projects at each meeting. Reports of Providing professional Staff take-up of training opportunities the meetings are published on our training and development has declined this year. Twenty staff intranet. members (51%) attended 26 training Employees identify their training and days at a cost of $22,610 (last year: Our employees are informed about development needs in relation to their 80 training days). Staff attended policies and procedures via our intranet performance improvement plan as part a variety of training opportunities and noticeboards. Directors have an of their yearly performance review. including: open-door policy and publish monthly Managers encourage staff to take up reports about their department’s training opportunities through skills • conferences and seminars to progress. Departmental managers development courses, leadership further professional development have regular meetings with employees courses, tertiary study assistance and in areas such as sentencing law, to discuss workflow and work-related work secondments. Our target is for continuing legal education and issues. employees to spend at least two days current legal issues each year on training and development. • systems and IT workshops (software development and Inducting new staff network administration) The Commission’s Chief Executive and • in-house training on the new the relevant Director welcome all new Education Directory Interface. See employees to the Commission. p 22 for details. Managers guide new staff through an induction process so that they are aware of and acknowledge: • the Commission’s role and profile • office facilities and workplace health and safety information and procedures • key policies and procedures that ensure acceptable behaviour • conditions of employment and entitlements • our Code of Conduct.

51 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

— We exceeded NSW Government benchmarks to employ women, Aboriginal people and people from a culturally and linguistically diverse background [] — Our Equal Employment Opportunity Management plan 2012–2015, promised in last year’s annual report, has been finalised and published on our intranet []

Commission staff have daily access • opportunities for staff to act in Challenges to the Judicial Information Research higher positions System (JIRS) to keep up to date • flexible work arrangements for • Encouraging busy staff to with legal developments. Our staff with family and personal balance their work commitments employees also attended educational obligations with training and development activities provided for judicial officers, • information is available about opportunities. including in-house seminars on legal the NSW Government’s developments and visits to Aboriginal • Maintaining regular staff meetings Spokeswoman’s Program, and the communities as part of our Ngara Yura and effective inter-office Government’s employment and Program. See p 24 for information. communication. development strategy “Making the public sector work better for The year ahead Providing for equal women”. employment opportunity The training and development budget An EEO Management Plan was will increase next year. This is one We are committed to providing a developed in November 2012 to strategy to turn around the decline diverse, fair and safe workplace for identify and remove any systematic in this year’s take-up of training our people. Our corporate planning barriers that prevent EEO groups opportunities. Managers will also for equal opportunity is aligned with participating and being promoted in encourage staff to identify personal the NSW Government’s Public Sector employment. Workforce Strategy 2008–12. Almost training opportunities during their three quarters of our people are women yearly performance reviews. (72%) and over 23% are from culturally Recognising our diverse backgrounds (see Figure 31). achievements Regular staff meetings and an We ensure: e-newsletter will promote inter-office Commission staff attended the communication, one area identified • a workplace culture that has fair Australasian Reporting Awards held in the staff survey as needing practices and behaviours in June 2013 in Melbourne to accept improvement. • a workplace free from a gold award for our 2011–12 Annual discrimination, harassment and Report. Under our EEO Management Plan, disadvantage. We publish policies we will continue to foster a workplace about these on our intranet and culture that supports employment there were no complaints of equity and diversity and is aligned with discrimination or harassment this the NSW Government’s Public Sector year (last year: none) Workforce Strategy 2008–12.

We will continue to value our staff and investigate more effective communication strategies so that our high staff satisfaction is maintained.

Education Director, Ruth Windeler, and Publishing Manager, Kate Lumley, accept the Commission’s gold award at the Australasian Reporting Awards in Melbourne in June 2013.

52 Our people

Joanne Selfe is our Aboriginal Project Officer. She works with the Commission’s Ngara Yura committee to run Aboriginal cultural awareness training for judicial officers.

Remy Ripoll, Senior Finance Officer, is part of our Corporate Services team which manages the Commission’s finances and payroll.

Figure 31. Five-year trends in the representation of EEO groups1

% of total staff 2

EEO Group 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 Target Women 61 58 66 65 72 50 Aboriginal or TSI 2 0 0 0 2.6 2.6 English not 1st language 17 18 23 20 21 19

Disability3 0 0 0 0 0 n/a People with a disability requiring 0 0 0 0 0 1.1 (2011) work-related adjustment4 1.3 (2012) 1.5 (2013)

1. These percentages reflect staff numbers as at 30 June 2013. 2. Excludes casual staff. 3. Per cent employment levels are reported but a benchmark level has not been set. 4. Minimum annual incremental target.

Note: The Distribution Index is not calculated when EEO group or non-EEO group numbers are less than 20. As a result, we are unable to publish the details of trends in the distribution of salary levels of EEO group members.

53 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Our governance, policies and processes

Objective: to realise our vision, carry out our mission, hold to our values and achieve our goals

Results and trends 2012–13 • Governance oversight is firmly established with 10 Commission meetings held, 4 Audit and Risk Management Committee meetings held, and two internal audit reviews conducted [] • The Audit and Risk Management Committee reviewed the Internal Audit Plan 2012–13 [] • We achieved a safe workplace with no worker’s compensation claims or work health and safety prosecutions [] • We met our sustainability objective and reduced our energy use. Over five years, we have achieved a 14% reduction in our energy consumption []

Contents Our governance practices ...... 55 Our policies ...... 58 Our processes and technology ...... 60 Sustainability ...... 61

54Legend: [] = met or exceeded target; see p 110 for photo caption. back to Contents Our governance, policies and processes

Our governance practices — Governance oversight is firmly established with 10 Commission meetings held, 4 Audit and Risk Management Committee meetings held, and two internal audit reviews conducted []

Our governance practices ensure that: Commission functions Commission meetings • we fulfil our statutory functions The Commission may delegate any of Ten Commission meetings were held effectively and efficiently its functions to a Commission member, during the year (last year: 11). Figure 32 • we are accountable for our actions officer or committee. The Commission gives details of each member’s has delegated duties to the Chief attendance. Members are required • risk management and auditing Executive, including its function as an to attend each meeting, unless leave processes are properly understood employer and its access to information of absence is granted. The quorum and managed, and obligations. The Commission has for a meeting is seven members, and • our leadership helps us to realise established committees to assist in at least one must be an appointed our vision, carry out our mission, carrying out designated responsibilities. member. The Chief Executive hold to our values and achieve our Appendix 4 on p 92 has details about attends all meetings to report on the goals. these committees. The Commission Commission’s operations. Meeting seeks independent professional advice papers are circulated one week before Responsibilities of official when necessary to perform certain the meeting to allow sufficient time for and appointed Commission functions. members to review agenda items and seek further information. members The Commission members set strategic Remuneration arrangements directions, appoint the executive For the members Figure 32. Commission members’ meeting attendance management team, approve budgets Appointed members receive a fee and publications, present judicial for fulfilling their responsibilities education sessions and conduct the including attending meetings, Meetings Meetings attended eligible preliminary examination of all complaints. examining complaints, setting strategic to attend The official members who are judicial directions, and approving budgets officers provide valuable information and publications. Their annual rate Official members about judicial officers’ education needs of remuneration is $27,500. The Chief Justice 10 10 and bring their significant experience NSW Statutory and Other Offices Hon T Bathurst of the judicial role to determining Remuneration Tribunal determines this Hon Justice 6 6 complaints. The appointed members in accordance with section 50 of the Allsop AO provide useful information about Judicial Officers Act 1986. No fees are community expectations of judicial Hon Justice 4 4 paid to official members. Beazley AO officers and have input into the education program. Hon Justice 10 10 Role of Chief Executive Boland Members are informed about The Chief Executive is responsible for Hon Justice 8 10 operational issues by: all of the Commission’s operations Preston • the Chief Executive’s monthly and for the preparation of the financial Hon Justice 10 10 report that covers functional and report in accordance with Australian Blanch AM financial matters Accounting Standards and the Public His Honour 10 10 • briefings on issues as they arise Finance and Audit Act 1983. This Judge Henson includes establishing and maintaining • contact with senior executives as Appointed members internal controls relevant to the required. preparation of the financial report. Dr J Cashmore AO 7 8 Ms R Kaldor AO 1 1 Conflicts of interest Appointment of Chief Executive Prof B McCaughan 10 10 Official members are judicial officers The Chief Executive is appointed on a AM and this could result in a conflict of five-year contract under section 6(1) of Mr N Gupta 9 10 interest if a member were the subject of the Judicial Officers Act. Commission Mr D Giddy 7 7 a complaint. Commission policy is that members review the Chief Executive’s a judicial member will not participate performance each year. in any discussion or decision involving a complaint against him or her. No member will participate in any discussion or decision where that member has a possible conflict of interest.

55 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

— The Audit and Risk Management Committee reviewed the Internal Audit Plan 2012–13 []

In 2012–13, Commission members: Legislative charter Audit and risk management • examined 85 complaints made We operate under the Judicial Officers The Chief Executive has overall about judicial officers. See p 35 Act 1986 and the Judicial Officers accountability and responsibility for the • referred four complaints to the Regulation 2012. Our principal Commission’s operations. The Audit relevant head of jurisdiction for functions under the Judicial Officers and Risk Management Committee attention. See p 36 Act are to: provides independent advice and support to the Chief Executive on risk • referred two complaints to a • organise and supervise an management, control and governance Conduct Division. See p 36 appropriate scheme for the continuing education and training processes. The committee operates • approved publications, including of judicial officers under a charter that the Commission The Judicial Review (two issues); has approved and is responsible for • assist the courts to achieve Research Monograph No 37, reviewing: Sentencing in fraud cases; consistency in imposing sentences • internal audit and control Education Monograph No 5, • examine complaints against functions, including assessing their A matter of fact: the origins judicial officers. effectiveness and compliance with and history of the NSW Court section 11 of the Public Finance of Criminal Appeal; Sentencing We also: and Audit Act 1983 Trends & Issues No 41, “Common • give advice to the Attorney • the adequacy and quality of the offences in the NSW Higher General on such matters as the internal control structure Courts: 2010”; Sentencing Commission thinks appropriate Trends & Issues No 42, “Special • financial statements and reporting • liaise with persons and circumstances under s 44 of the organisations in connection with • financial and operational Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act the performance of our statutory management 1999. See pp 23, 32 functions • management responses to audit • approved an MOU with the Supreme • enter into and carry out contractual reports and National Courts of Papua arrangements for the supply New Guinea to develop the PNG • internal audit results property or services that make Sentencing Database. See p 45 • risk management strategies: their use of information technology, effectiveness and internal results. • approved the agreement with the expertise, or other goods or ACT Justice and Community Safety services that the Commission has The Audit and Risk Management Directorate to develop the ACT developed in the exercise of our Committee comprises Mr Peter sentencing database. See p 45. functions. Whitehead (independent Chair), Mr Alex Smith AM (external member) and Relationship with the NSW Changes to legislation Mr Murali Sagi PSM (internal member). Their qualifications and details are Government Section 43 of the Judicial Officers Act detailed below. The Judicial Officers Act established and the definition of judicial officer in the Commission as an independent section 3(1) were amended to include Mr Peter Whitehead BA LLB TEP statutory corporation. The NSW reference to the President of the was appointed on 31 July 2008 Parliament provides the majority of Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The and renewed on 1 July 2011 for our funding and we are required to Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act two years. He is the Client Director, report annually to Parliament. The 2013 made the amendments which Traditional Trustee Company Services, Commission may give advice to the commenced on 4 March 2013. This Act Myer Family Company Ltd. He was Attorney General on appropriate will establish the Civil and Administrative previously the National Manager matters and the Attorney General may Tribunal in NSW, the President of which Fiduciary Solutions, Perpetual Trustees refer a complaint about a judicial officer will be a judicial officer. and until 30 June 2009 was the NSW to the Commission. The Attorney Public Trustee. General may request information about The Judicial Officers Regulation 2012 a complaint and the Commission was made under the Judicial Officers Mr Alex Smith AM was appointed must provide this information unless Act. The Regulation commenced on 1 July 2009 for two years and renewed it is not in the public interest to do so. 1 September 2012 and remade, with on 1 July 2011 for two years. Mr Smith The Commission must also notify the no substantial changes, the Judicial is the former Deputy Director General, Attorney General when a complaint has Officers Regulation 2006 (which Department of Premier and Cabinet, been referred to the Conduct Division was repealed on 1 September 2012 NSW and has had 40 years’ experience and how and when the complaint is by section 10(2) of the Subordinate in the NSW public sector having held finalised. Legislation Act 1989). The new senior positions in the Department of Regulation deals with the manner Premier and Cabinet and the Department and form in which complaints against of Land and Water Conservation. judicial officers are to be made to the Judicial Commission. It has no new operational or budgetary changes which impact on the Commission.

56 Our governance, policies and processes

Mr Murali Sagi PSM, Director, Outcomes 2012–13 Information Management and Corporate Services, Judicial Commission. Mr Sagi’s qualifications Four meetings were held during Risk management and business and biography are found on p 15. the year (last year: four). Figure 33 continuity provides details of attendance at those The committee: Others invited to attend the committee meetings. The committee monitored meetings included: the Chief Executive, and provided advice about the • monitored the level of accuracy of Mr Ernest Schmatt PSM; the Director following four areas. sentencing data from the courts of Research and Sentencing, and suggested steps to improve Mr Hugh Donnelly; Manager, Finance accuracy and Administration, Mr Malcolm Compliance with Treasury • monitored the currency of the Hozack; Mr Phil O’Toole of the Internal guidelines Commission’s Business Continuity Audit Bureau; Mr Jack Kheir and The committee ensured that Plan and assessed the results of Ms Caroline Karakatsanis of Financial compliance with Treasury Guidelines the periodic information technology Audit Services, The Audit Office of TPP09-05 is well advanced. The recovery testing NSW. committee reviewed and updated its • monitored the high level financial charter, established risk management performance standards and developed an internal • monitored the insurance risk Figure 33. Meeting attendance audit manual consistent with by Audit and Risk the standard set by the Treasury • reviewed the updated risk Management Committee Guidelines. The Commission’s Internal management policy Audit and RIsk Management Policy • noted the Commission’s response attestation is on p 59. to the NSW Law Reform Meetings Meetings attended eligible Commission’s Report on jury to attend Internal audit directions. Committee member The committee settled and accepted Peter Whitehead 4 4 the Internal Audit Plan for 2012–13. The External audit committee monitored: Alex Smith AM 4 4 The committee liaised with the external • the implementation of the 2009–10 auditor, The Audit Office of NSW, Murali Sagi PSM 4 4 Review of Conferences program and monitored the NSW Audit Client Invitees Invited to Service Plan for 2012–13. attend • the results of the 2012–13 Internal Audit program that reviewed the Ernest Schmatt 3 4 Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book, PSM Sentencing Bench Book and the Hugh Donnelly 1 1 Lawcodes database. Malcolm Hozack 4 4 • the performance of the outsourced Phil O’Toole 4 4 internal audit service provider, the Internal Audit Bureau. Jack Kheir 0 2 Caroline 1 2 Karakatsanis

The Audit and Risk Management Committee assists the Chief Executive to manage and control our risk exposures. Peter Whitehead (right) is the independent Chair of the committee. He is assisted by committee member Alex Smith AM (centre). Scott Webb (left) is invited to attend each committee meeting to represent the Internal Audit Bureau.

57 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Our policies

Risk management policy Multicultural policies and Our key multicultural strategies for 2013–14 will include: Our risk management policy is services program based on the Commission acting We consider the needs of a culturally • conducting a second Community as a responsible corporate citizen diverse society when planning our Awareness of the Judiciary committed to protecting our programs and service delivery. To program (see p 47). Prominent employees, consultants, customers, promote community harmony, access community leaders from contractors and their property as and equity, and to support the NSW Indigenous and culturally and well as the broader community and Multicultural Policies and Services linguistically diverse backgrounds environment from unnecessary injury, Plan, this year we: have been invited to participate in loss or damage. this program • employed 21 people (54%) from a non-English speaking background • providing sessions on cultural Our risk management policy is based diversity in our judicial education on a risk register which we regularly • updated information for judicial program. (see Appendix 5, p 93) review. New risks are identified, officers about the needs of people • updating information in the Equality considered, and rated by the senior from culturally and linguistically Before the Law Bench Book executives with the assistance of diverse backgrounds (CALD) internal auditors. The risk register who face potential barriers when • working with the Community feeds into the Internal Audit Plan which participating in court proceedings. Relations Commission to develop is finalised after discussion between This information, contained in the sessions on interpreters. the Chief Executive and internal Equality Before the Law Bench auditors. Our risk management policy Book, is also publicly available on Insurance is monitored by the Audit and Risk our website We are a member of the NSW Treasury Management Committee which reports • provided accredited interpreters for Managed Fund, a mandatory self to the Chief Executive. overseas delegations who visited insurance scheme for government us during the year: see Appendix agencies. This provides comprehensive The Commission’s risk register was 13 for the list of visitors and cover for physical assets such as plant updated during the financial year and delegations there were no major changes to our and equipment, motor vehicles and risk profile. The risk management • included “Guidelines for miscellaneous matters. The managed policy was updated in March 2013 and magistrates and judges when fund provides coverage for staff made available on the Commission’s working with interpreters in court” through workers’ compensation and for intranet following an annual half-day in the CALD section of the Equality the public through public liability cover. workshop for senior management (with Before the Law Bench Book the Internal Audit Bureau) to examine • conducted sessions on interpreters The calculation of the premium is key risks and confirm their currency and cultural diversity for the based on past performance. The and severity. “Cultural barriers in the courtroom” premium for this year was $20,740, sessions at the National Judicial comprising a Workers Compensation Orientation Program, November premium of $15,390 and a general Work health and safety policy 2012 and March 2013 (a joint insurance premium of $5,350 ($21,970 Our work health and safety (WHS) program with the National Judicial last year). policy is based on ensuring that our College of Australia and the staff and other people who are at the Australasian Institute of Judicial Privacy Management Plan Commission’s place of work are not Administration) During the year, we conducted no exposed to risks to their health or • provided interpreting and translation reviews under Part 5 of the Privacy and safety. The Chief Executive retains services for complainants ultimate responsibility for WHS risk Personal Information Protection Act • provided information about our management in our day-to-day 1998. Ngara Yura (Aboriginal cultural operations. During the year the WHS awareness) Program on our A draft Privacy Code of Practice and a policy was updated to reflect current website, in our annual report, draft Privacy Management Plan have legislation and WorkCover Authority and as part of the Community been prepared and will be finalised NSW requirements. Awareness of the Judiciary next year. The documents are designed A WHS trained representative carries program run in October and to deal with the unique issues that arise out a quarterly inspection and any November 2012 from our complaint handling function recommendations are attended to • employed an Aboriginal Project and the provision of sentencing without delay. Officer, Mrs Tammy Wright (until information. December 2012), and Ms Joanne Selfe (from May 2013) to guide our Aboriginal cultural awareness through the Ngara Yura Program. See pp 24, 53.

58 Our governance, policies and processes

Public access to Government Review of proactive release • updates to the following bench information program books and handbooks both in PDF and html format: Civil Trials Bench The Government Information (Public Our program to proactively release Book, Criminal Trial Courts Bench Access) Act 2009 (the GIPA Act) information involves reviewing Book, Equality Before the Law replaced the Freedom of Information information as it is published, and Bench Book, Local Court Bench Act 1989 from 1 July 2010. making it available online for free as Book, Sentencing Bench Book, soon as practical or as hard copy for a Sexual Assault Trials Handbook Section 125 of the GIPA Act requires fee. In addition, the Commission may that the Commission report each year also make further information available • the new Children’s Court of NSW on our GIPA obligations. about our administrative, research, Resource Handbook in PDF and sentencing and education functions html format. The Commission is authorised, unless it would be contrary to the public under section 7(1) of the GIPA Act to interest to provide that information. Access applications publicly release our information unless We received no formal access there is an overriding public interest During the year we released the applications, including withdrawn against disclosure. The Commission’s following information: applications (but not invalid complaint handling, investigative and • Annual Report 2011–12 applications). We refused no formal reporting functions are “excluded access applications, either wholly • Research Monograph No 37, information” under Schedule 2 of the or partly, because the application Sentencing in fraud cases GIPA Act. This means that an access was for information for which there application cannot be made for this • Education Monograph No 5, is a conclusive presumption of an information under the Act. A matter of fact: the origins and overriding public interest against history of the NSW Court of disclosure (information listed in Criminal Appeal Schedule 1, Clause 13 to the GIPA Act). • Sentencing Trends & Issues, No 41, “Common offences in the NSW Statistical information about formal Higher Courts: 2010” access applications is included in Appendix 16 on p 104. • Sentencing Trends & Issues, No 42, “Special circumstances under s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999”

Internal Audit and Risk Management Statement

Internal Audit and Risk Management Statement for the 2012–13 Financial Year for the Judicial Commission of NSW I, Ernest John Schmatt, Chief Executive, am of the opinion that the Commission has internal audit and risk management processes in place that are, in all material respects, compliant with the core requirements set out in Treasury Circular NSW TC 09/08 Internal Audit and Risk Management Policy.

In determining the model for internal audit service delivery, the Commission has considered the size of the agency in terms of both staffing levels and budget and the need to provide assurance, independent from operational management on risk management, control and governance processes and has outsourced the function.

I, Ernest John Schmatt, Chief Executive, am of the opinion that the Audit and Risk Management Committee for the Judicial Commission is constituted and operates in accordance with the independence and governance requirements of Treasury Circular NSW TC 09/08. The Chair and Members of the Audit and Risk Committee are: • Mr Peter Whitehead, independent Chair (Appointed on 31 July 2008 and renewed on 1 July 2011 for two years) • Mr Alex Smith AM, independent member (Appointed on 1 July 2009 and renewed on 1 July 2011 for 2 years ) • Mr Murali Sagi PSM, non-independent member Director, Information Management and Corporate Services (Appointed on 31 July 2008)

These processes provide a level of assurance that enables the senior management of the Judicial Commission to understand, manage and satisfactorily control risk exposures.

E J Schmatt Chief Executive, Judicial Commission of NSW Dated: 12 August 2013

59 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Our processes and technology — We achieved a safe workplace with no worker’s compensation claims or work health and safety prosecutions []

Efficient processes and use of Conducting performance Delivering our services and technology help us to build a safe and reviews publications electronically robust organisation for our people and deliver high quality services. Our performance management system We provide a range of online services, provides for regular reviews between including: supervisors and staff as well as formal • information about the Commission, Ensuring a safe working annual appraisals for employees. the complaints process and the environment Constructive feedback is given and complaints form. See pp 38–39 employees have the opportunity to The health and safety of our employees • the Judicial Information Research provide feedback to their manager. is a high priority. Our Audit and Risk System (JIRS). See p 31 Employees are encouraged to identify Management Committee oversees their training needs and work with • Lawcodes database. See p 43 our work health and safety (WHS) their manager to develop an individual compliance (see p 56). This year, we • bench books and handbooks, training plan. focused on: including the Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book, the Sentencing Bench • identifying hazards Guaranteeing our service and Book, the Civil Trials Bench Book, • minimising risks the Equality Before the Law Bench consumer response • conducting emergency evacuation Book, the Local Courts Bench drills. We guarantee to investigate complaints Book, the Sexual Assault Trials about judicial officers in a timely Handbook, the Children’s Court of We have a trained WHS representative and effective manner and to inform NSW Resource Handbook and the who conducts safety inspections complainants regularly about the Land and Environment Court of quarterly of the premises. Three progress of their complaints. Page 36 NSW Commissioner’s Handbook. employees are trained as fire wardens shows our targets and the time taken See p 99 and the building management to examine complaints over a five-year • research and education regularly updates their training. All staff period. If a complaint is dismissed publications. See p 98 participate in evacuation drills. and a complainant seeks to clarify the reasons for this, we respond promptly • publication orders on the NSW Three employees are trained to deliver to such a request. Government’s online shop at www. first aid, CPR and defibrillation, and shop.nsw.gov.au two employees received first aid • a Publication Guide and Access refresher training this year. We maintain Application Form for the purposes first aid kits in the workplace. of the GIPA Act. See p 59 • media releases, fact sheets and No workers’ compensation (WC) claims media statements were lodged this year (last year: none). There were no work-related illnesses • our current and previous annual or prosecutions under the Work Health reports. and Safety Act 2011 (last year: none). Providing library services We encourage staff to receive influenza immunisation and reimburse the cost of Our library provides support for our these immunisations. research, education and publishing programs. The librarian sources, gathers and distributes legal and related information, and undertakes research and publishing tasks. The librarian also Figure 34. Five-year trends in workers compensation claims and organises training to improve the online work health and safety prosecutions legal research skills of staff and to maximise the Commission’s investment 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 in legal information resources. WC WHS WC WHS WC WHS WC WHS WC WHS cases cases cases cases cases This year: • the library budget was maintained 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 at the 2011–12 level as a result of efficiency savings • the librarian arranged for presentations to court librarians and others of new developments in JIRS • 90 items (last year: 218) were added to the online catalogue so that the majority of the library’s holdings are now electronically available 60 Our governance, policies and processes

— We met our sustainability objective and reduced our energy use. Over five years, we have achieved a 14% reduction in our energy consumption []

• there was a 7.3% increase in Challenges reference enquiries (last year: 39% Sustainability decrease). Resources borrowed • A major challenge for the library Reducing our carbon footprint and from external libraries decreased services continues to be the high being part of the NSW Government’s by 3% (last year: 122% increase) cost of online access to legal commitment to being carbon neutral by • we renewed corporate membership subscription services. This puts 2020 is part of our mission. of the Australian Library and pressure on the Commission’s Information Association (ALIA) and This year, we achieved a 1% reduction in small library budget. the International Association of our energy consumption (last year: 5% • Review and compliance with Law Libraries (IALL) reduction). Figure 35 shows a five- internal audit recommendations • we continued to participate in the year comparison of the Commission’s must be balanced with our core NSW Justice Consortium. This energy use. operations. negotiates lower pricing structures with legal publishers and helps In line with the NSW Government’s us to achieve a better resourced Waste Reduction and Purchasing The year ahead library with increased online access Policy (WRAPP), we focused on to overseas and local databases reducing waste and increasing the The internal audit review of two of our while saving on subscription costs purchase of recycled paper and office bench books recommended that we migrate to a fully online environment. • our librarian attended the annual consumables. This year we recycled We will investigate the feasibility of this Australian Law Librarians’ 1.8 tonnes of waste paper (last year: recommendation and whether it will Association/New Zealand Law 1.8 tonnes) and bought 655 reams of introduce efficiencies in our publishing Librarians’ Association Conference, 100% recycled paper (last year: 692). process. “Respect the past, embrace the future”, held in Brisbane in Other sustainability measures included: Governance practices will continue September 2012 • reducing waste generation by to ensure accountability, risk recycling all paper, cardboard, • our librarian prepared for binding the management and internal auditing of toner cartridges and computer confidential meeting papers of the our organisation. Commission, a significant historical equipment archive which now contains 220 • providing information about A disclosure log will be maintained to volumes. environmental matters as a record information about any access standing item at staff meetings applications made to us as required by the GIPA Act. Managing our records • reducing the impact of carbon emissions by offsetting carbon During the year no files were disposed when purchasing air tickets for As a sustainability measure, we will of under our “functional retention and domestic and international travel regularly brief staff on our energy disposal authority”. The detailed records consumption and ways to reduce • using 100% power saving management policy on our intranet waste. We will give preference to computers and screens provides a framework and outlines conference venues that offset their responsibilities for the operation of the • minimising energy consumption carbon emissions. Commission’s Records Management after hours policy. This applies to records in all • using double-sided printing formats, including electronic records. • using online research platforms • using online payment of accounts received and rendered • publishing internal policies on our intranet.

Figure 35. Five-year trend in energy use

600 550 521 503 478 500 475 Target 400 300

Gigajoules 200 100 0 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 Year

61 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Our finances

Objective: to maintain our high quality programs within budget

Results and trends 2012–13 • Our financial result was a small surplus of $22,000, an increase of 22% [] • As budgeted for, there was a 2.4% increase in our revenue compared to the previous year’s decrease of 3.1% [] • We contained our expenses to an increase of 2.4%, compared to last year’s result of a 3.7% decrease

Contents Financial summary and performance ...... 63 Financial report ...... 65

Legend: [] = met or exceeded target; see p 110 for photo caption. back to Contents

62 Our finances

Financial summary and performance — Our financial result was a small surplus of $22,000, an increase of 22%[ ] — As budgeted for, there was a 2.4% increase in our revenue compared to the previous year’s decrease of 3.1% [] — We contained our expenses to an increase of 2.4%, compared to last year’s result of a 3.7% decrease

Our financial result was a surplus of Figure 36. Revenue $22,000 (last year: $18,000 surplus). 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 Revenue $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 As shown in Figure 36, our principal Government contributions 4,645 4,944 5,395 5,215 5,321 source of revenue is government Sale of goods & services 449 418 517 554 631 contributions of $5.321 million compared to last year of $5.215 million. Investment revenue 61 56 73 66 48 Other revenue 168 213 91 53 30 Other revenue items were $631,000 Total 5,323 5,631 6,076 5,888 6,030 from the sale of goods and services and $78,000 from interest and other sources. Figure 37. Expenses Expenditure As shown in Figure 37 expenses this 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 year totalled $6.008 million, being an $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 increase of $138,000 from last year. Employee related 3,868 3,986 4,022 4,334 4,247 Employee-related expenses were Other operating expenses 1,504 1,302 1,350 1,413 1,380 $4.247 million or 70.69% of total Other expenses 0 280 642 33 287 expenses. (Conduct Division) Depreciation & 99 87 80 90 94 Assets amortisation Total assets decreased marginally by Total 5,471 5,655 6,094 5,870 6,008 $39,000.

Liabilities Figure 38. Aged analysis at the end of each quarter Total liabilities decreased slightly by $61,000 mainly due to an increase in Quarter Current Less than Between 30 Between 60 More than payables. (within due 30 days and 60 days and 90 days 90 days date) overdue overdue overdue overdue Payment of accounts $ $ $ $ $ We paid all accounts on time and Sep 2012 7,852.15 nil nil nil nil were not required to pay penalty Dec 2012 19,385.08 nil nil nil nil interest on any account: see Figures Mar 2013 8,348.10 nil nil nil nil 38 and 39. Jun 2013 8,834.26 nil nil nil nil Consultants We did not engage any consultants this year. Figure 39. Accounts paid on time within each quarter

Quarter Total accounts paid on time Total amount Credit card certification paid

The Chief Executive certifies that Target % Actual % $ $ credit card usage in the Commission has met best practice guidelines Sep 2012 100 100 7,852.15 7,852.15 in accordance with Premier’s Dec 2012 100 100 19,385.08 19,385.08 Memoranda and Treasury Directions. Mar 2013 100 100 8,348.10 8,348.10

Jun 2013 100 100 8,834.26 8,834.26

63 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Challenges The year ahead

• Maintaining operations and Through efficiency savings, we will service levels in an environment of maintain expenditure to 2012–13 levels. tight budgetary restraint. We will consolidate existing • Continuing to generate significant partnerships and pursue new revenue to make up for the opportunities to raise revenue where shortfall between government there is a demand for our expertise contribution and expenses. in computerised case management, software development and educational services.

Financial report contents

Independent Auditor’s Report ...... 65 Certification of Financial Statements ...... 66 Statement of comprehensive income ...... 67 Statement of financial position ...... 68 Statement of changes in equity ...... 69 Statement of cash flows ...... 70 Summary of Compliance with Financial Directives ...... 71 Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements ...... 72 1. Summary of significant accounting policies ...... 72 2. Expenses excluding losses ...... 77 3. Revenue ...... 78 4. Gain/(Loss) on Disposal ...... 78 5. Other gains/(Losses) ...... 78 6. Service groups of the Commission ...... 78 7. Current assets — cash and cash equivalents ...... 79 8. Current assets — receivables ...... 79 9. Non-current assets — plant and equipment ...... 80 10. Intangible assets ...... 81 11. Current liabilities — payables ...... 82 12. Current/non-current liabilities — provisions ...... 82 13. Current liabilities — other ...... 82 14. Commitments for expenditure ...... 82 15. Contingent liabilities and contingent assets ...... 82 16. Budget review ...... 83 17. Reconciliation of net cash flows from operating activities to net cost of services ...... 83 18. Financial instruments ...... 83 19. After balance date events ...... 85

64 Our finances

Financial Report

65 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Certification of Financial Statements

Pursuant to section 45F of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, I state that: (a) the Judicial Commission’s Financial Statements are a general purpose financial report which has been prepared in accordance with applicable Australian Accounting Standards and other mandatory professional reporting requirements, the requirements of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, the requirements of the finance reporting directives published in the Financial Reporting Code for Budget Dependent General Government Sector Agencies, the Public Finance and Audit Regulation 2010 and the Treasurer’s Directions; (b) the financial statements exhibit a true and fair view of the financial position and transactions of the Judicial Commission of New South Wales for the year ended 30 June 2013; and (c) there are no circumstances which would render any particulars included in the financial statements to be misleading or inaccurate.

E.J. SCHMATT Chief Executive Dated: 21 August 2013

66 back to Financial reports contents Our finances

Judicial Commission of NSW Statement of comprehensive income for the year ended 30 June 2013

Actual Budget Actual 2013 2013 2012 Notes $’000 $’000 $’000

Expenses Excluding Losses Operating expenses Employee related 2(a) 4,247 4,283 4,334 Other operating expenses 2(b) 1,380 1,168 1,413 Depreciation and amortisation 2(c) 94 90 90 Other expenses 2(d) 287 – 33 Total Expenses Excluding Losses 6,008 5,541 5,870

Revenue Recurrent appropriation 3(a) 4,984 4,746 4,748 Capital appropriation 3(a) 110 150 89 Acceptance by the Crown Entity of employee benefits and other liabilities 3(e) 227 198 378 Sales of goods and services 3(b) 631 411 554 Investment revenue 3(c) 48 69 66 Grants and contributions 3(d) – – – Other revenue 3(f) 30 42 53 Total Revenue 6,030 5,616 5,888

Net Result 17 22 75 18 Other comprehensive income – – – TOTAL COMPREHENSIVE INCOME 22 75 18

The accompanying notes form part of these financial statements

back to Financial reports contents 67 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Judicial Commission of NSW Statement of financial position as at 30 June 2013

Actual Budget Actual 2013 2013 2012 Notes $’000 $’000 $’000

ASSETS Current Assets Cash and cash equivalents 7 1,437 1,549 1,530 Receivables 8 103 61 65 Total Current Assets 1,540 1,610 1,595

Non-Current Assets Plant and equipment 9 325 430 303 Intangible assets 10 4 5 10 Total Non-Current Assets 329 435 313

Total Assets 1,869 2,045 1,908

LIABILITIES Current Liabilities Payables 11 231 250 351 Provisions 12 482 389 473 Other 13 50 – – Total Current Liabilities 763 639 824

Non-Current Liabilities Provisions NC 12 12 – 12 Total Non-Current Liabilities 12 – 12

Total Liabilities 775 639 836

Net Assets 1,094 1,406 1,072

EQUITY Accumulated funds 1,094 1,406 1,072 Total Equity 1,094 1,406 1,072

The accompanying notes form part of these financial statements

68 back to Financial reports contents Our finances

Judicial Commission of NSW Statement of changes in equity for the year ended 30 June 2013

Accumulated Funds Total $’000 $’000

Balance at 1 July 2012 1,072 1,072 Net Result 22 22 Total other comprehensive income – – Total comprehensive income for the year 22 22 Balance at 30 June 2013 1,094 1,094

Balance at 1 July 2011 1,054 1,054 Net Result 18 18 Total other comprehensive income – – Total comprehensive income for the year 18 18 Balance at 30 June 2012 1,072 1,072

The accompanying notes form part of these financial statements

back to Financial reports contents 69 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Judicial Commission of NSW Statement of cash flows for the year ended 30 June 2013

Actual Budget Actual 2013 2013 2012 Notes $’000 $’000 $’000

CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Payments Employee related (4,100) (4,140) (3,847) Other (1,961) (1,326) (1,643) Total Payments (6,061) (5,466) (5,490)

Receipts Recurrent appropriation 5,034 4,746 4,748 Capital appropriation 110 150 90 Transfers to the Crown Entity – – – Sale of goods and services 844 411 689 Interest received 60 69 67 Grants and contributions – – – Other 30 221 53 Total Receipts 6,078 5,597 5,647

NET CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES 17 17 131 157

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Purchases of plant and equipment (110) (150) (90) NET CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES (110) (150) (90)

NET INCREASE/(DECREASE) IN CASH (93) (19) 67 Opening Cash and Cash Equivalents 1,530 1,568 1,463 CLOSING CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS 7 1,437 1,549 1,530

The accompanying notes form part of these financial statements

70 back to Financial reports contents Our finances

Judicial Commission of NSW Summary of Compliance with Financial Directives

2013 2012 Recurrent Expenditure/ Capital Expenditure/ Recurrent Expenditure/ Capital Expenditure/ Appropriation Net Claim on Appropriation Net Claim on Appropriation Net Claim on Appropriation Net Claim on Consolidated Consolidated Consolidated Consolidated Fund Fund Fund Fund $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 $’000 ORIGINAL BUDGET/ APPROPRIATION EXPENDITURE Appropriation Act 4,746 4,684 150 110 4,855 4,748 150 89 Additional – – – – appropriations 4,746 4,684 150 110 4,855 4,748 150 89 OTHER APPROPRIATIONS/ EXPENDITURE Treasurer’s 300 300 – – – – – – Advance Omitted Labour Expense Adjustment (62) – – – – – – – Total 4,984 4,984 150 110 4,855 4,748 150 89 Appropriations/ Expenditure/Net Claim on Consolidated Fund (includes transfer payments) Amount drawn 5,034 110 4,748 89 down against Appropriation Liability to 50 – – – Consolidated Fund*

The Summary of Compliance is based on the assumption that Consolidated Fund moneys are spent first (except where otherwise identified or prescribed). * Liability to Consolidated Fund represents the difference between the “Amount drawn down against Appropriation” and the “Total Expenditure/Net Claim on Consolidated Fund”.

back to Financial reports contents 71 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Judicial Commission of NSW Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013

1. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (a) Reporting Entity The Judicial Commission of New South Wales (the Commission) is a NSW government agency which does not have any entities under its control. The Commission is a corporation set up under the Judicial Officers Act 1986. The Commission is a not-for-profit entity, as profit is not its principal objective and it has no cash generating units. The reporting entity is consolidated as part of the NSW Total State Sector Accounts. These financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2013 has been authorised for issue by the Chief Executive on 21 August 2013.

(b) Basis of Preparation The entity’s financial statements are general purpose financial statements which have been prepared in accordance with: • applicable Australian Accounting Standards (which include Australian Accounting Interpretations); • the requirements of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 and Regulation; and • the Financial Reporting Directions published in the Financial Reporting Code for General Government Sector entities or issued by the Treasurer. Plant and equipment are measured at fair value through profit and loss. Other financial statement items are prepared in accordance with the historical cost convention. Judgements, key assumptions and estimations management has made are disclosed in the relevant notes to the financial statements. All amounts are rounded to the nearest one thousand dollars and are expressed in Australian currency.

(c) Statement of Compliance These financial statements and notes comply with Australian Accounting Standards, which include Australian Accounting Interpretations.

(d) Insurance The entity’s insurance activities are conducted through the NSW Treasury Managed Fund Scheme of self-insurance for Government entities. The expense (premium) is determined by the Fund Manager based on past claim experience.

(e) Accounting for the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Income, expenses and assets are recognised net of the amount of GST, except that: • the amount of GST incurred by the entity as a purchaser that is not recoverable from the Australian Taxation Office is recognised as part of the cost of acquisition of an asset or as part of an item of expense and • receivables and payables are stated with the amount of GST included. Cash flows are included in the cash flow statement on a gross basis. However the GST components of cash flows arising from investing activities which is recoverable from, or payable to, the Australian Taxation Office are classified as operating cash flows.

(f) Income Recognition Income is measured at the fair value of the consideration or contribution received or receivable. Additional comments regarding the accounting policies for the recognition of income are discussed below. (i) Parliamentary appropriations and contributions Except as specified below, parliamentary appropriations and contributions from other bodies (including grants and donations) are generally recognised as income when the Commission obtains control over the assets comprising the appropriations/contributions. Control over appropriations and contributions are normally obtained upon the receipt of cash. Appropriations are not recognised as income in the following circumstances: • ‘Equity appropriations’ to fund payments to adjust a for-profit entity’s capital structure are recognised as equity injections (i.e. contribution by owners) on receipt and equity withdrawals on payment to a for-profit entity. The reconciliation between the statement of comprehensive income, statement of summary of compliance with financial directives and the total appropriations is disclosed in Note 3(a). • Unspent appropriations are recognised as liabilities rather than revenue, as the authority to spend the money lapses and the unspent amount must be repaid to the Consolidated Fund. The liability is disclosed in Note 13 as part of ‘Current Liabilities – Other’. The amount will be repaid and the liability will be extinguished next financial year.

72 back to Financial reports contents Our finances

Judicial Commission of NSW Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013

(ii) Sale of Goods Revenue from the sale of goods is recognised as revenue when the entity transfers the significant risks and rewards of ownership of the assets. (iii) Rendering of Services Revenue is recognised when the service is provided or by reference to the stage of completion. (iv) Investment Revenue Interest revenue is recognised using the effective interest method as set out in AASB 139 Financial Instruments: Recognition and Measurement.

(g) Assets (i) Acquisitions of assets The cost method of accounting is used for the initial recording of all acquisitions of assets controlled by the entity. Cost is the amount of cash or cash equivalents paid or the fair value of the other consideration given to acquire the asset at the time of its acquisition or construction or, where applicable, the amount attributed to that asset when initially recognised in accordance with the requirements of other Australian Accounting Standards. Assets acquired at no cost, or for nominal consideration, are initially recognised at their fair value at the date of acquisition. Fair value is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction. Where payment for an asset is deferred beyond normal credit terms, its cost is the cash price equivalent, i.e. deferred payment amount is effectively discounted at an asset-specific rate. (ii) Capitalisation thresholds Plant and equipment and intangible assets costing $1,000 and above individually (or forming part of a network costing more than $1,000) are capitalised. Individual items of computer or office equipment costing $500 and above and having a useful life of more than one year are also capitalised. (iii) Revaluation of property, plant and equipment Physical non-current assets are valued in accordance with the “Valuation of Physical Non-Current Assets at Fair Value” Policy and Guidelines Paper (TPP 07-1) (as amended by NSWTC 12/05 and NSWTC 10/07). This policy adopts fair value in accordance with AASB 116 Property, Plant and Equipment. Plant and equipment is measured on an existing use basis, where there are no feasible alternative uses in the existing natural, legal, financial and socio-political environment. However, in the limited circumstances where there are feasible alternative uses, assets are valued at their highest and best use. Fair value of plant and equipment is determined based on the best available market evidence, including current market selling prices for the same or similar assets. Where there is no available market evidence, the asset’s fair value is measured at its market buying price, the best indicator of which is depreciated replacement cost. As the entity does not own land, building or infrastructure assets, management does not believe that the revaluation of physical non-current assets every five years is warranted, unless it becomes aware of any material difference in the carrying amount of any class of assets. Most of the entity’s assets are non-specialised assets with short useful lives and are therefore measured at depreciated historical cost, as a surrogate for fair value. (iv) Impairment of plant and equipment As a not-for-profit entity with no cash generating units, AASB 136 Impairment of Assets is not applicable. This is because AASB 136 modifies the recoverable amount test to the higher of fair value less costs to sell and depreciated replacement cost. This means that, for an asset already measured at fair value, impairment can only arise if selling costs are material. Selling costs are regarded as immaterial. (v) Depreciation of plant and equipment Depreciation is provided for on a straight-line basis for all depreciable assets so as to write off the depreciable amount of each asset as it is consumed over its useful life to the entity. All material separately identifiable components of assets are depreciated over their shorter useful lives. The estimated useful lives of the asset classes are: Computer Equipment 3 years Furniture and Fittings 15 years Office Equipment 5 or 10 years

73 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Judicial Commission of NSW Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013

(vi) Maintenance Day-to-day servicing costs or maintenance are charged as expenses as incurred, except where they relate to the replacement of a part or component of an asset, in which case the costs are capitalised and depreciated. (vii) Leased assets A distinction is made between finance leases which effectively transfer from the lessor to the lessee substantially all the risks and benefits incidental to ownership of the leased assets, and operating leases under which the lessor effectively retains all such risks and benefits. Where a non-current asset is acquired by means of a finance lease, the asset is recognised at its fair value at the commencement of the lease term. The corresponding liability is established at the same amount. Lease payments are allocated between the principal component and the interest expense. Operating lease payments are charged to the statement of comprehensive income in the periods in which they are incurred. (viii) Intangible assets The entity recognises intangible assets only if it is probable that future economic benefits will flow to the entity and the cost of the asset can be measured reliably. Intangible assets are measured initially at cost. Where an asset is acquired at no or nominal cost, the cost is its fair value as at the date of acquisition. All research costs are expensed. Development costs are only capitalised when certain criteria are met. The useful lives of intangible assets are assessed to be finite. Intangible assets are subsequently measured at fair value only if there is an active market. As there is no active market for the entity’s intangible assets, the assets are carried at cost less any accumulated amortisation. The entity’s intangible assets are amortised using the straight line method over a period of three (3) years. Intangible assets are tested for impairment where an indicator of impairment exists. If the recoverable amount is less than its carrying amount the carrying amount is reduced to recoverable amount and the reduction is recognised as an impairment loss. (ix) Loans and receivables Loans and receivables are non-derivative financial assets with fixed or determinable payments that are not quoted in an active market. These financial assets are recognised initially at fair value, usually based on the transaction cost or face value. Subsequent measurement is at amortised cost using the effective interest method, less an allowance for any impairment of receivables. Any changes are accounted for in the net result for the year when impaired, derecognised or through the amortisation process. Short-term receivables with no stated interest rate are measured at the original invoice amount where the effect of discounting is immaterial. (x) Impairment of financial assets All financial assets, except those measured at fair value through profit and loss, are subject to an annual review for impairment. An allowance for impairment is established when there is objective evidence that the entity will not be able to collect all amounts due. For financial assets carried at amortised cost, the amount of the allowance is the difference between the asset’s carrying amount and the present value of estimated future cash flows, discounted at the effective interest rate. The amount of the impairment loss is recognised in the net result for the year. (xi) De-recognition of financial assets and financial liabilities A financial asset is derecognised when the contractual rights to the cash flows from the financial assets expire; or if the entity transfers the financial asset: • where substantially all the risks and rewards have been transferred or • where the entity has not transferred substantially all the risks and rewards, if the entity has not retained control. Where the entity has neither transferred nor retained substantially all the risks and rewards or transferred control, the asset is recognised to the extent of the entity’s continuing involvement in the asset. A financial liability is derecognised when the obligation specified in the contract is discharged or cancelled or expired. (xii) Other Assets Other assets are recognised on a cost basis.

74 Judicial Commission of NSW Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013

(h) Liabilities (i) Payables These amounts represent liabilities for goods and services provided to the entity and other amounts. Payables are recognised initially at fair value, usually based on the transaction cost or face value. Subsequent measurement is at amortised cost using the effective interest method. Short-term payables with no stated interest rate are measured at the original invoice amount where the effect of discounting is immaterial. (ii) Employee benefits and other provisions a. Salaries and wages, annual leave, sick leave and on-costs Liabilities for salaries and wages (including non-monetary benefits), annual leave and paid sick leave that are due to be settled within 12 months after the end of the period in which the employees render the service are recognised and measured in respect of employees’ services up to the reporting date at undiscounted amounts based on the amounts expected to be paid when the liabilities are settled. Unused non-vesting sick leave does not give rise to a liability as it is not considered probable that sick leave taken in the future will be greater than the benefits accrued in the future. The outstanding amounts of payroll tax, workers’ compensation insurance premiums and fringe benefits tax, which are consequential to employment, are recognised as liabilities and expenses where the employee benefits to which they relate have been recognised. b. Long service leave and superannuation The entity’s liabilities for long service leave and defined benefit superannuation are assumed by the Crown Entity. The entity accounts for the liability as having been extinguished resulting in the amount assumed being shown as part of the non-monetary revenue item described as “Acceptance by the Crown Entity of employee benefits and other liabilities”. Long service leave is measured at present value in accordance with AASB 119 Employee Benefits. This is based on the application of certain factors (specified in NSWTC 12/06) to employees with five or more years of service, using current rates of pay. These factors were determined based on an actuarial review to approximate present value. The superannuation expense for the financial year is determined by using the formulae specified in the Treasurer’s Directions. The expense for certain superannuation schemes (i.e. Basic Benefit and First State Super) is calculated as a percentage of the employees’ salary. For other superannuation schemes (i.e. State Superannuation Scheme and State Authorities Superannuation Scheme), the expense is calculated as a multiple of the employees’ superannuation contributions. c. Other Provisions Other provisions exist when: the entity has a present legal or constructive obligation as a result of a past event; it is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation; and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation.

(i) Equity and reserves (i) The category ‘Accumulated Funds’ include all current and prior period retained funds. (ii) Separate reserve accounts are recognised in the financial statements only if such accounts are required by specific legislation or Australian Accounting Standards.

(j) Budgeted Amounts The budgeted amounts are drawn from original budgeted financial statements presented to Parliament in respect of the reporting period, as adjusted for section 24 of the Public Finance and Audit Act 1983 where there has been a transfer of functions between departments. Other amendments made to the budget are not reflected in the budgeted amounts.

(k) Comparative information Except when an Australian Accounting Standard permits or requires otherwise, comparative information is disclosed in respect of the previous period for all amounts reported in the financial statements.

75 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Judicial Commission of NSW Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013

(l) New Australian Accounting Standards issued but not effective The following new Accounting Standards have not been applied and are not yet effective. • AASB 9, AASB 2010-7 and AASB 2012-6 regarding financial instruments • AASB 13, AASB 2011-8 and AASB 2012-1 regarding fair value measurement • AASB 119, AASB 2011-10 and AASB 2011-11 regarding employee benefits • AASB 1053 and AASB 2010-2 regarding differential reporting • AASB 2011-4 removing individual KMP disclosure requirements • AASB 2012-1 regarding fair value measurement – RDR requirements • AASB 2012-2 regarding disclosures – offsetting financial assets and financial liabilities • AASB 2012-3 offsetting financial assets and financial liabilities • AASB 2012-5 regarding annual improvements 2009-2-11 cycle • AASB 2012-7 regarding RDR • AASB 2012-9 regarding withdrawal of Interpretation 1039 • AASB 2012-10 regarding transition guidance and other amendments • AASB 2012-11 regarding RDR requirements and other amendments. The Commission does not expect the adoption of these Standards in future periods to materially impact the financial statements.

76 Judicial Commission of NSW Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013

2013 2012 $’000 $’000

2. EXPENSES EXCLUDING LOSSES (a) Employee related expenses: Salaries and wages (including recreation leave) 3,597 3,563 Superannuation – defined benefit plans 84 91 Superannuation – defined contributions plans 194 178 Long service leave 138 283 Workers’ compensation insurance 15 15 Payroll tax and fringe benefit tax 219 204 4,247 4,334

(b) Other operating expenses: Operating lease rental expense – minimum lease payments 467 487 Fees for services 53 58 Contractors 215 165 Conferences 166 144 Printing 70 115 Member fees 96 82 Stores and equipment 9 10 Books and periodicals 59 59 Postal and telephone 59 64 Training 23 28 Travel expense 18 36 Electricity 33 27 Insurance 5 5 Auditor’s remuneration – audit of the financial statements 19 19 Recruitment – – Maintenance 11 29 Other 77 85 1,380 1,413

Reconciliation – Total maintenance Maintenance expense – contracted labour and other (non-employee related), as above 11 29 Employee related maintenance expense included in Note 2(a) – – Total maintenance expenses included in Note 2(a) + 2(b) 11 29

(c) Depreciation and amortisation expense Depreciation Computer equipment 51 46 Office furniture 23 21 Office equipment 14 17 88 84 Amortisation Intangible assets 6 6 94 90 (d) Other expenses Conduct Division 287 33 287 33

back to Financial reports contents 77 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Judicial Commission of NSW Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013

2013 2012 $’000 $’000

3. REVENUE (a) Appropriations and Transfers to the Crown Entity Recurrent Appropriations Total recurrent draw-downs from NSW Treasury (per Summary of Compliance) 5,034 4,748 Less: Liability to Consolidated Fund (per Summary of Compliance) 50 – (per Statement of Comprehensive Income) 4,984 4,748

Capital appropriations Total capital draw-downs from NSW Treasury (per Summary of Compliance) 110 89 Less: Liability to Consolidated Fund (per Summary of Compliance) – – (per Statement of Comprehensive Income) 110 89

(b) Sale of goods and services Sale of goods 90 78 Rendering of services 541 476 631 554

(c) Investment revenue Interest 48 66

(d) Grants and contributions Contributions – –

(e) Acceptance by the Crown Entity of employee benefits and other liabilities

The following liabilities and/or expenses have been assumed by the Crown Entity or other government entities:

Superannuation — defined benefit 84 90 Long service leave 138 283 Payroll tax 5 5 227 378

(f) Other revenue 30 53

4. Gain/(Loss) on Disposal

5. Other Gains/(Losses)

6. SERVICE GROUPS OF THE COMMISSION Judicial Education, Research & Sentencing, and Examination of Complaints Service description: This service group covers the provision of education services to promote a better informed and professional judiciary, sentencing information to ensure consistency in sentencing, and the effective examination of complaints in accordance with statutory provisions.

78 back to Financial reports contents Judicial Commission of NSW Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013

2013 2012 $’000 $’000

7. CURRENT ASSETS — CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS Cash at bank and on hand 1,437 1,530 1,437 1,530

For the purpose of the statement of cash flows, cash and cash equivalents include cash at bank and cash on hand.

Cash and cash equivalent assets recognised in the statement of financial position are reconciled at the end of the financial year to the statement of cash flows as follows:

Cash and cash equivalents (per statement of financial position) 1,437 1,530 Closing cash and cash equivalents (per statement of cash flows) 1,437 1,530 Refer Note 18 for details regarding risk, liquidity risk and market risk arising from financial instruments

8. CURRENT ASSETS — RECEIVABLES Sale of goods and services 10 3 Other receivables 4 6 Interest receivable 22 33 Prepayments 67 23 103 65

Details regarding credit risk, liquidity risk and market risk, including financial assets that are either past due or impaired, are disclosed in Note 18.

back to Financial reports contents 79 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Judicial Commission of NSW Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013

2013 2012 $’000 $’000

9. NON-CURRENT ASSETS — PLANT AND EQUIPMENT Plant and Equipment Total At 1 July 2012 – fair value $’000 $’000 Gross carrying amount 1,393 1,393 Less: Accumulated depreciation and impairment 1,090 1,090 Net carrying amount — at fair value 303 303

At 30 June 2013 – fair value $’000 $’000 Gross carrying amount 1,480 1,480 Less: Accumulated depreciation and impairment 1,155 1,155 Net carrying amount — at fair value 325 325

Reconciliations Reconciliations of the carrying amounts of plant and equipment at the beginning and end of the current and previous financial year are set out below. Plant and Equipment Total Year ended 30 June 2013 $’000 $’000 Net carrying amount at start of year 303 303 Additions 110 110 Disposals – – Depreciation 88 88 Net carrying amount at end of year 325 325

Plant and Equipment Total At 1 July 2011 – fair value $’000 $’000 Gross carrying amount 1,313 1,313 Less: Accumulated depreciation and impairment 1,015 1,015 Net carrying amount — at fair value 298 298

At 30 June 2012 – fair value $’000 $’000 Gross carrying amount 1,393 1,393 Less: Accumulated depreciation and impairment 1,090 1,090 Net carrying amount — at fair value 303 303

Reconciliation Reconciliation of the carrying amounts of plant and equipment at the beginning and end of the current and previous financial year are set out below. Plant and Equipment Total Year ended 30 June 2012 $’000 $’000 Net carrying amount at start of year 298 298 Additions 90 90 Disposals – – Depreciation 85 85 Net carrying amount at end of year 303 303

80 back to Financial reports contents Judicial Commission of NSW Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013

2013 2012 $’000 $’000

10. INTANGIBLE ASSETS Software Total As at 1 July 2012 – fair value $’000 $’000 Gross carrying amount 98 98 Accumulated amortisation and impairment 88 88 Net carrying amount 10 10

As at 30 June 2013 – fair value $’000 $’000 Gross carrying amount 98 98 Less: Accumulated amortisation and impairment 94 94 Net carrying amount — at fair value 4 4

Reconciliation Reconciliations of the carrying amounts of plant and equipment at the beginning and end of the current and previous financial year are set out below.

Software Total Year ended 30 June 2013 $’000 $’000 Net carrying amount at start of year 10 10 Additions – – Disposals – – Amortisation 6 6 Net carrying amount at end of year 4 4

Software Total As at 1 July 2011 – fair value $’000 $’000 Gross carrying amount 98 98 Accumulated depreciation and impairment 83 83 Net carrying amount 15 15

As at 30 June 2012 – fair value $’000 $’000 Gross carrying amount 98 98 Less: Accumulated amortisation and impairment 88 88 Net carrying amount — at fair value 10 10

Reconciliation Reconciliations of the carrying amounts of plant and equipment at the beginning and end of the current and previous financial year are set out below.

Software Total Year ended 30 June 2012 $’000 $’000 Net carrying amount at start of year 15 15 Additions – – Disposals – – Amortisation 5 5 Net carrying amount at end of year 10 10

back to Financial reports contents 81 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Judicial Commission of NSW Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013

2013 2012 $’000 $’000

11. CURRENT LIABILITIES — PAYABLES Creditors 145 172 Accrued salaries, wages and on-costs 86 174 Other (including GST payable) – 5 231 351 Details regarding credit risk, liquidity risk and market risk, including a maturity analysis of the above payables are disclosed in Note 18.

12. CURRENT/NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES — PROVISIONS Employee benefits and related on-costs Current Recreation leave 257 255 On-costs 225 218 482 473

Non-Current On-costs 12 12 12 12

Aggregate employee benefits and related on-costs Provisions — current 482 473 Provisions — non-current 12 12 Accrued salaries, wages and on-costs (refer Note 11) 86 174 580 659

13. CURRENT LIABILITIES — OTHER Liability to Consolidated Fund 50 – 50 –

14. COMMITMENTS FOR EXPENDITURE Operating lease commitments Future non-cancellable operating lease rentals not provided for and payable:

Not later than one year 536 540 Later than one year and not later than five years 695 1,237 Later than five years – – Total (including GST) 1,231 1,777

Operating lease commitments, which relate to rent and motor vehicles, are not recognised in the financial report as liabilities. The total commitments for expenditure as at 30 June 2013 include input tax credits of $112,000 ($162,000 in 2012) which are recoverable from the Australian Tax Office.

15. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES AND CONTINGENT ASSETS The entity has no contingent liabilities (2012: nil) or contingent assets (2012: nil) as at 30 June 2013.

82 back to Financial reports contents Judicial Commission of NSW Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013

2013 2012 $’000 $’000

16. BUDGET REVIEW Net Result The actual net result is under budget by $53,000. This is mainly due to lower recurrent drawdown of $62,000 than allowed on the publishing budget, excluding the Conduct Division incurred expenditure of $287,000 against treasury advances of $300,000.

Assets and Liabilities Non-current Assets are under budget by $106,000. This is mainly due to lower than expected Capital purchases.

Current Liabilities are over budget by $124,000 mainly due to increased employee provisions of $93,000 and liability to the Consolidated Fund of $50,000 included in other creditors.

Cash Flow from Operating Activities Net Cash Flows from operating activities resulted with a positive $17,000 is under budget of $131,000 by $114,000. This is mainly due to lower capital appropriation.

17. RECONCILIATION OF NET CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES TO NET COST OF SERVICES Net cash used on operating activities 17 157 Decrease/(increase) in Crown Entity Liability (50) – Depreciation (94) (90) Decrease/(increase) in provisions (8) (71) Increase/(decrease) in receivables and prepayments 38 (30) Decrease/(increase) in creditors 119 34 Cash transfers to Consolidated Fund – 18 Net Result 22 18

18. FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS The entity’s principal financial instruments are outlined below. These financial instruments arise directly from the entity’s operations or are required to finance the entity’s operations. The entity does not enter into any trade financial instruments, including derivative financial instruments, for speculative purposes.

The entity’s main risks arising from financial instruments are outlined below, together with the entity’s objectives, policies and processes for measuring and managing risk. Further quantitative and qualitative disclosures are included throughout these financial statements.

The Chief Executive has overall responsibility for the establishment and oversight of risk management and reviews and agrees policies for managing each of these risks. The Audit and Risk Management Committee assists the Chief Executive in fulfilling these responsibilities. Risk management policies are established to identify and analyse the risks faced by the entity, to set limits and controls and to monitor risks. Compliance with policies is reviewed by the internal auditors on a continuous basis.

back to Financial reports contents 83 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Judicial Commission of NSW Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013

(a) Financial instrument categories Carrying Amount

2013 2012 Note Category $’000 $’000

Financial Assets Cash and cash equivalents 7 N/A 1,437 1,530 Receivables1 8 Loans and receivables (at amortised cost) 36 42

Financial Liabilities Payable2 11 Financial liabilities measured at amortised cost 231 351

Notes 1. Excludes statutory receivables and prepayments (ie not within scope of AASB 7). 2. Excludes statutory payables and unearned revenue (ie not within scope of AASB 7).

(b) Credit Risk Credit risk arises when there is the possibility of the entity’s debtors defaulting on their contractual obligations, resulting in a financial loss to the entity. The maximum exposure to credit risk is generally represented by the carrying amount of the financial assets (net of any allowance for impairment).

Credit risk arises from the financial assets of the entity, including cash, receivables, and authority deposits. No collateral is held by the entity. The entity has not granted any financial guarantees.

Credit risk associated with the entity’s financial assets, other than receivables, is managed through the selection of counterparties and establishment of minimum credit rating standards.

Cash Cash comprises cash on hand and bank balances within the NSW Treasury Banking System. Interest is earned on daily bank balances at the monthly average NSW Treasury Corporation (TCorp) 11am unofficial cash rate, adjusted for a management fee to NSW Treasury. This rate was 2.65 per cent at 30 June 2013 (3.44 per cent at 30 June 2012).

Receivables — Trade Debtors All trade debtors are recognised as amounts receivable at balance date. Collectability of trade debtors is reviewed on an ongoing basis. Procedures as established in the Treasurer’s Directions are followed to recover outstanding amounts, including letters of demand. Debts which are known to be uncollectible are written off. An allowance for impairment is raised when there is objective evidence that the entity will not be able to collect all amounts due. This evidence includes past experience, and current and expected changes in economic conditions and debtor credit ratings. No interest is earned on trade debtors. Sales are made on 30 days terms.

The entity is not materially exposed to concentrations of credit risk to a single trade debtor or group of debtors. Based on past experience, debtors that are not past due (2013: $8,519; 2012: $2,902) or are 12 months past due (2013: $760; 2012: $0) are not considered impaired and together these represent 100% of the total trade debtors.

Total Past due Considered but not impaired impaired 2013 $’000 $’000 < 3 months overdue 3 months – 6 months overdue > 6 months overdue 1 1 – 2012 < 3 months overdue – – – 3 months – 6 months overdue > 6 months overdue

84 Judicial Commission of NSW Notes to and forming part of the Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2013

(c) Liquidity Risk Liquidity risk is the risk that the entity will be unable to meet its payment obligations when they fall due. The entity continuously manages risk through monitoring future cash flows and maturities planning to ensure adequate holding of high quality liquid assets.

During the current and prior years, there were no defaults or breaches on any loans payable. No assets have been pledged as collateral. The entity’s exposure to liquidity risk is deemed insignificant based on prior periods’ data and current assessment of risk.

The liabilities are recognised for amounts due to be paid in the future for goods or services received, whether or not invoiced. Amounts owing to suppliers (which are unsecured) are settled in accordance with the policy set out in NSW TC 11/12. For small suppliers, where specified, payment is made no later than 30 days from the date of receipt of a correctly rendered invoice. For other suppliers, if trade terms are not specified, payment is made no later than the end of the month following in which an invoice or statement is received. For small business suppliers, where payment is not made within the specified time period, simple interest must be paid automatically unless an existing contract specifies otherwise. For payments to other suppliers the Head of an authority may automatically pay the supplier simple interest.

(d) Market Risk Market risk is the risk that the fair value or future cash flows of a financial instrument will fluctuate because of changes in market prices. The Commission does not have any investments or interest bearing liabilities and therefore has minimal exposure to market risk.

(e) Fair Value compared to carrying amount Financial instruments are recognised at amortised cost, which approximates the fair value because of their short- term nature.

19. AFTER BALANCE DATE EVENTS There are no events subsequent to balance date which affect the financial report.

End of audited Financial Statements

back to Financial reports contents 85 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Appendice contentsAppendices

Appendix 1 Complaints against judicial officers: guidelines ...... 87

Appendix 2 Conduct Division: guidelines for examination of complaints . .89

Appendix 3 Continuing judicial education policy ...... 91

Appendix 4 Committees ...... 92

Appendix 5 Conference topics ...... 93

Appendix 6 Judicial education seminars, workshops and field trips . . . 96

Appendix 7 Articles that we published this year ...... 97

Appendix 8 Publications list ...... 98

Appendix 9 Ngara Yura Program ...... 99

Appendix 10 Assistance to other jurisdictions and organisations . . . . .100

Appendix 11 Working with other organisations ...... 100

Appendix 12 Visitors to the Commission ...... 101

Appendix 13 Overseas visits ...... 101

Appendix 14 Exchange of information ...... 102

Appendix 15 Commission officers’ presentations ...... 103

Appendix 16 Access to government information ...... 104

Appendix 17 Other compliance matters ...... 106

Glossary ...... 106

Index ...... 107

Five-year overview ...... inside back cover

back to Contents page

86 Appendices

Appendix 1 Complaints against judicial officers: guidelines

1 Overview • a plain English brochure outlining the complaints process The objective of the Commission’s complaint function is to • assistance to potential complainants with translation and ensure that complaints about the ability and behaviour of interpreting services judicial officers are investigated in a timely and effective manner • responding to telephone and face-to-face enquiries, and in order to: • giving talks on the complaints process to interested groups. a) enhance public confidence in the judiciary of NSW, and b) promote good practices and high standards of judicial 3.5 Acknowledge receipt of complaints performance. All complaints submitted to the Commission in proper form will be acknowledged in writing within one week of receipt. The Judicial Officers Act 1986 provides a means for people to complain about the conduct of a judicial officer and to have those 4 Complaints not within the Commission’s jurisdiction complaints examined by an independent body. An important role 4.1 The Commission does not review a case for judicial error, mistake, of the Commission is not only to receive and examine complaints or other legal ground. Reviews of those matters are the function of made against judicial officers, but to determine which complaints appellate courts. require further action. 4.2 Allegations of corruption against a judicial officer are required These guidelines are designed to assist people to understand the to be referred by the Judicial Commission to the Independent Commission’s complaint function, including the principles and Commission Against Corruption for that body to investigate. procedures adopted by the Judicial Commission. The detailed provisions of the complaint function are in Part 6 of the Act. 5 Investigating a complaint 5.1 Receipt of a complaint 2 Who is a judicial officer? On receiving a complaint, the Commission will conduct 2.1 A “judicial officer” under theJudicial Officers Act means: a preliminary examination into the matter. In every case, • a judge or associate judge of the Supreme Court the judicial officer is advised of the fact that a complaint • a member (including a judicial member) of the Industrial has been made and provided with a copy of the complaint Relations Commission documentation. • a judge of the Land and Environment Court 5.2 Preliminary examination • a judge of the District Court The preliminary examination of all complaints must be • the President of the Children’s Court undertaken by Commission members at a properly constituted • a magistrate, or meeting of the Commission. The quorum for a meeting is seven • the President of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal members, of whom at least one must be an appointed member.1 • the President of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Commission cannot delegate the preliminary examination of a complaint except to a committee, which must consist entirely 2.2 The definition of “judicial officer” includes acting appointments of members and include at least one appointed member. to a judicial office but does not include arbitrators, registrars, chamber registrars, assessors, members of tribunals or legal The initial investigation will often involve an examination of representatives. transcripts, sound recordings, judgments, court files and other relevant material. It may also involve taking statements from 2.3 The Commission has no power to examine complaints against relevant persons. If necessary, a response to the complaint is federal judicial officers or a person who is no longer a judicial sought from the judicial officer. officer. 5.3 Confidentiality 3 Making a complaint The preliminary examination of a complaint by the Commission will be conducted, as far as practicable, on a confidential 3.1 Who can make a complaint? basis. The legislative requirement of confidentiality protects the A complaint may be made to the Commission by any person or judiciary from unjust criticism and protects those who furnish may be referred to the Commission by the Attorney General. information to the Commission in the course of its examination 3.2 Legislative requirements of a complaint. The Judicial Officers Act requires that a complaint is in writing The proceedings of the Commission and all information and and that it identifies the complainant and the judicial officer materials, written or oral, obtained by the Commission in the concerned. The Judicial Officers Regulation 2012 requires that course of its preliminary examination are confidential. particulars of a complaint are verified by statutory declaration and that the complaint is lodged with the Chief Executive of the 5.4 Time standards for finalisation of investigations Commission. The Commission aims to finalise the investigation of 90% of complaints within six months of receipt and 100% within 3.3 Assistance to complainants 12 months of receipt. If a person cannot write, he or she may contact the Commission and assistance will be provided to put the complaint in writing. If interpreting or translation assistance from another language 6 Complaints against a judicial member of the to English is required, the Commission will make arrangements. Commission A judicial member of the Commission will not participate in any 3.4 Advice to the public discussions or decisions involving complaints against him or her. The Commission provides further advice to the public about the complaints process through: 7 Action following preliminary examination • its website which provides an easy to understand guide to the Commission’s complaints process, detailed information Following its preliminary examination, the Commission must about possible outcomes of complaints, and a complaints take one of the following actions: form for downloading • summarily dismiss the complaint • refer the complaint to the relevant head of jurisdiction, or • refer the complaint to the Conduct Division.

1 The Governor of NSW appoints members. They are persons appointed on the nomination of the Minister who, in the opinion of the Minister, have high standing in the community. 87 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Appendix 1: Complaints against judicial officers: guidelines continued

The Commission will act in accordance with the principles of 10 Reference to the Conduct Division natural justice in conducting its examination of a complaint. 10.1 Where a complaint has not been dismissed following the Before referring a matter to the head of jurisdiction or the preliminary examination by the Commission, and has not been Conduct Division, the Commission provides the judicial officer referred to the head of jurisdiction, it must be referred to the with an opportunity to respond to the complaint and to present Conduct Division. additional information that may assist the Commission in its investigation into the matter. 10.2 The function of a Conduct Division is to examine and deal with a particular complaint that has been referred to it by the 8 Summary dismissal Commission. 8.1 A complaint must be summarily dismissed if one or more of the 10.3 A Conduct Division is constituted by a panel of two judicial grounds under section 20(1) of the Act exist, whether or not it officers (one of whom may be a retired judicial officer) and one appears to be substantiated. These grounds are: • the complaint is one that the Commission is required not of the two community representatives nominated by Parliament. to deal with The membership of the Conduct Division will be determined • the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or not in good faith by the Commission. The Commission will also appoint one • the subject matter of the complaint is trivial member of the Conduct Division as Chairperson. • the matter complained about occurred at too remote a time 10.4 Where a complaint is referred to the Conduct Division the to justify further consideration Commission will, as soon as practicable after the decision • in relation to the matter complained about, there is or was is made, advise the complainant and the judicial officer available a satisfactory means of redress or of dealing with of the action taken. The Commission will also advise the the complaint or the subject-matter of the complaint Attorney General of its decision and, in each case, request the • the complaint is about a judicial decision, or other judicial appointment of a legal practitioner or practitioners to assist the function, that is or was subject to a right of appeal or right Conduct Division as counsel. to apply for judicial review • the person who is the subject of the complaint is no longer 11 Examination of a complaint by the Conduct Division a judicial officer, or • in all the circumstances further consideration of the 11.1 The Conduct Division must conduct an examination of the complaint is unnecessary or unjustifiable. complaint referred to it (section 23).

8.2 Where a complaint is summarily dismissed the Commission will, 11.2 In conducting the initial examination or investigation of a as soon as practicable after its determination is made, inform the complaint referred to it by the Commission the legislation complainant in writing and provide the reasons for dismissing the requires that, as far as practicable, this will take place in private complaint. This will include a reference to the relevant provisions (section 23(3)). of the legislation that have been applied in the handling and determination of the complaint. The judicial officer will also be 11.3 Meetings of the Conduct Division advised in writing of the Commission’s determination. The initial examination of a complaint will involve the members of the Conduct Division and may include counsel assisting in its 8.3 Many of the complaints that are dismissed by the Commission, meetings. As part of this initial process a venue and timetable for because they disclose no misconduct, are nonetheless helpful the investigation will be determined. in the improvement of the judicial system. The feedback from the examination of complaints has provided valuable 11.4 Preliminary matters information for the further development of judicial education Preliminary matters necessary prior to the commencement of a programs conducted by the Commission. hearing, including: 8.4 The Commission may declare a person to be a vexatious • interviewing the complainant and other potential witnesses complainant, if the person habitually and persistently, and • taking statements mischievously or without any reasonable grounds, makes • gathering documents and other material, and complaints. This section applies whether the complaints are • preparing a brief of evidence, about the same or different judicial officers. will be undertaken by counsel assisting the Conduct Division. The Commission may disregard any complaint made by the This will be under the direction of the Conduct Division. person while the declaration is in force. 11.5 Medical or psychological examination Where the Conduct Division is of the opinion that a judicial officer 9 Reference to a head of jurisdiction about whom a complaint has been made may be physically or 9.1 Where a complaint has not been dismissed following the mentally unfit to exercise efficiently the functions of a judicial preliminary examination by the Commission, but in its opinion office, it may request the officer to undergo a medical or it does not justify reference to the Conduct Division, the psychological examination (section 34). Commission may refer the matter to the relevant head of jurisdiction. 12 Hearings by the Conduct Division 9.2 The Commission will notify the head of jurisdiction in writing 12.1 The legislation provides that the Conduct Division may hold of its decision and will formally refer the matter, including all hearings in relation to a complaint and that a hearing may relevant material, for attention. be held in public or in private, as the Conduct Division may determine (section 24(2)). 9.3 In referring a complaint to the head of jurisdiction the Commission may include recommendations as to what steps 12.2 Release of information might be taken to deal with the complaint, such as counselling The Conduct Division has power to give directions preventing by the head of jurisdiction. the public disclosure of evidence given at its hearings (section 9.4 Where a complaint is referred to the relevant head of jurisdiction 36(1)). the Commission will, as soon as practicable after the decision is made, advise the complainant and judicial officer of the action taken.

88 Appendices

12.3 Royal Commissions Act 1923 13.2 Report to the head of jurisdiction The function of the Conduct Division is to inquire further If the Conduct Division forms an opinion that the matter is into the complaint about the judicial officer. In doing so wholly or partly substantiated but does not justify Parliamentary the Conduct Division has the functions, protections and consideration of the removal of the judicial officer complained immunities conferred by the Royal Commissions Act 1923 about from office, it must send a report to the relevant head of on commissioners appointed under that Act. The Royal jurisdiction setting out its conclusions. The report may also include Commissions Act applies to any witness summoned by or recommendations as to what steps might be taken to deal with appearing before the Conduct Division. the complaint. A copy of this report is also provided to the judicial officer and the Commission. 13. Reports of the Conduct Division 13.1 Report to Governor and others 14. Annual Report If the Conduct Division has formed an opinion that the matter The Judicial Officers Act 1986 requires that certain information, could justify Parliamentary consideration of the removal of the including statistics and information about complaints disposed judicial officer complained about from office, it must present to of during the year, be reported to Parliament. This information the Governor a report setting out its findings of fact and that appears in the Annual Report of the Commission. The Report is opinion. A copy of the report must also be furnished to the available in hard copy from the Commission or can be found on Commission, the Attorney General and to the complainant. The its website (www.judcom.nsw.gov.au). copy to the complainant is provided only after it has been laid before each House of Parliament.

Appendix 2 Conduct Division: guidelines for examination of complaints

1 Introduction 3 Referrals under Part 6A — Suspected impairment of These guidelines have been formulated by the Judicial judicial officers Commission to assist a Conduct Division in the exercise of its The Conduct Division has the same functions in relation to the function in the examination of complaints against judicial officers. examination of a matter referred to it under Part 6A of the Act as it has in relation to the examination of a complaint (section The Conduct Division is not a standing body but is appointed by 39F(2)). the Judicial Commission when a particular complaint or reference under Part 6A of the Act is referred to it for examination. 4 Examination of complaint by the Conduct Division The relevant provisions of the legislation relating to the Conduct 4.1 The Conduct Division must conduct an examination of the Division are contained in Division 3 of Part 6 and Part 6A of the complaint referred to it (section 23). Judicial Officers Act 1986. These include: (a) the constitution of a Conduct Division 4.2 In conducting the initial examination or investigation of a complaint referred to it by the Commission the legislation (b) the examination of complaints requires, that as far as practicable, this will take place in private (c) hearings by the Conduct Division (section 23(3)). (d) powers of the Conduct Division, and (e) reports. 4.3 Meetings of the Conduct Division The initial examination of a complaint will involve the members 2 Referral of complaints to the Conduct Division of the Conduct Division and may include counsel assisting in its meetings. As part of this initial process a venue and timetable 2.1 Following the preliminary examination of a complaint by for the investigation will be determined. the Judicial Commission, if the complaint is not summarily dismissed under one or more of the grounds under section 4.4 Minutes 20(1) of the Act, the Commission may either refer the complaint The legislation requires that the Conduct Division will keep full to the relevant head of jurisdiction (section 21(2)) or refer the and accurate minutes of the proceedings of each meeting of matter to a Conduct Division. the Division (clause 5, Schedule 3, Judicial Officers Act 1986).

2.2 The function of a Conduct Division is to examine and 4.5 Preliminary matters investigate a particular complaint that has been referred to it by Preliminary matters necessary prior to the commencement of a the Commission. hearing, including: • interviewing the complainant and other potential witnesses 2.3 A Conduct Division is constituted by a panel of two judicial • taking statements officers (one of whom may be a retired judicial officer) and one of the two community representatives nominated by Parliament. • gathering documents and other material, and The membership of the Conduct Division will be determined • preparing a brief of evidence, by the Commission. The Commission will also appoint one will be undertaken by counsel assisting the Division. This will be member of the Conduct Division as Chairperson. under the direction of the Division. 2.4 A formal instrument of delegation appointing a Conduct 4.6 Medical or psychological examination Division (including the Chairperson) will be executed by the Where the Conduct Division is of the opinion that a judicial officer members of the Commission. about whom a complaint has been made may be physically or 2.5 Where a complaint is referred to a Conduct Division the mentally unfit to exercise efficiently the functions of a judicial officer, Commission will, as soon as practicable after that decision it may request the officer to undergo a medical or psychological is made, advise the complainant and the judicial officer examination (section 34). of the action taken. The Commission will also advise the Attorney General of its decision and, in each case, request the appointment of a legal practitioner or practitioners to assist the Conduct Division as counsel.

back to Appendices contents 89 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Appendix 2: Conduct Division: guidelines for examination of complaints continued

5 Hearings by the Conduct Division 6 Legal representation before the Conduct Division The legislation provides that the Conduct Division may hold 6.1 The Attorney General will appoint a legal practitioner or hearings in relation to a complaint and that a hearing may practitioners to assist the Conduct Division and to present the be held in public or in private, as the Conduct Division may case against the judicial officer. This assistance is provided determine (section 24(2)). by senior and junior counsel and a solicitor (usually the Crown Solicitor). 5.1 Public or private hearings If the Conduct Division decides to conduct hearings into a 6.2 The judicial officer being complained about will in most complaint, it has to consider whether the hearings should be held instances appear at the hearing and be represented by in public or private or both. senior and junior counsel and a solicitor. Funding of the legal representation is subject to approval by the Attorney General. In exercising its discretion in relation to hearings and as to whether hearings should be held in public or in private or partly 6.3 The Conduct Division may also give permission for other people in public and partly in private, the main criteria the Division including a complainant to appear at the hearing and have legal should consider include: representation. (a) is it in the public interest to hold the hearing or part of the hearing in public or in private? 6.4 The right to legal representation for persons appearing at a hearing of the Conduct Division is a matter for the discretion (b) does the type of allegation under consideration (eg of the Division. Consistent with procedural fairness, the ability, behaviour, delay, impairment) require confidential Commission is of the view, that as a general guide and treatment? wherever it is practicable to do so, the Conduct Division should (c) is it desirable, because of the confidential nature of any consent to legal representation for persons appearing at its evidence or matter, to hold a hearing or part of a hearing in hearings. private? (d) is there a need to protect a person who provides 6.5 In exercising its discretion to consent to legal representation, the information to the Conduct Division as part of its main criteria the Division should consider include: investigation? (a) is the witness incapable of representing him or herself? (e) would public confidence in the authority of the judiciary be (b) is the matter likely to affect an individual’s rights or interest? undermined by a public or private hearing? (c) would the granting of representation enhance the fairness (f) is it necessary to close a hearing to protect the reputation of the proceedings? of a judicial officer from untested or unverified evidence? (d) would the proceedings be conducted with more efficiency and expedition if representation were or were not granted? 5.2 Persons who may be present at private hearings (e) would the cost of the Inquiry be reduced if representation If a hearing or part of a hearing is to take place in private, the were granted? Conduct Division may determine the persons who may be present. As a general guide these may include: (a) the judicial officer complained about 7 Reports (b) the legal representatives of the judicial officer 7.1 Report to Governor and others (c) counsel assisting the Conduct Division If the Division has formed an opinion that the matter could justify (d) support staff assisting the Conduct Division Parliamentary consideration of the removal of the judicial officer complained about from office, it must present to the Governor a (e) any person referred to in section 24(6)(b) and their legal report setting out its findings of fact and that opinion. A copy of representatives, and the report must also be furnished to the Commission, the Attorney (f) witnesses including expert witnesses. General and the complainant. The copy to the complainant 5.3 Release of information is provided only after it has been laid before each House of The Conduct Division has power to give directions preventing Parliament. the public disclosure of evidence given at its hearings (section 7.2 Report to the head of jurisdiction 36(1)). If the Division forms an opinion that the matter is wholly 5.4 Royal Commissions Act 1923 or partly substantiated but does not justify Parliamentary The function of the Conduct Division is to inquire further consideration of the removal of the judicial officer complained into the complaint about the judicial officer. In doing so about from office, it must send a report to the relevant head the Conduct Division has the functions, protections and of jurisdiction setting out its conclusions. The report may also immunities conferred by the Royal Commissions Act 1923 include recommendations as to what steps might be taken to on commissioners appointed under that Act. The Royal deal with the complaint. A copy of this report is also provided to Commissions Act applies to any witness summoned by or the judicial officer and the Commission. appearing before the Conduct Division.

5.5 Record of proceedings A transcript of proceedings should be made and kept whenever the Conduct Division meets as a body to receive evidence, hear testimony, or hear the arguments of counsel regarding matters before the Division.

90 Appendices

Appendix 3 Continuing judicial education policy

Guiding principles 8. providing special education services to meet the needs of Pursuant to section 9(1) of the Judicial Officers Act 1986 the Judicial isolated judicial officers both in the suburbs and country, and on Commission may organise and supervise an appropriate scheme for circuit/rotation; specifically relating to improved access to legal the induction, orientation and continuing education and training of information judicial officers. The purpose of continuing professional development 9. promoting the supply of computer support facilities and supplying for judicial officers is to: appropriate training • enhance their professional expertise 10. providing an extended range of education services for the • facilitate development of their judicial knowledge and skills, and assistance of judicial officers, including interdisciplinary and • promote the pursuit of juristic excellence. extra-legal courses, where appropriate. The delivery of this scheme should integrate conference, publication and computer National standard for judicial professional development support services, in order to facilitate the access to and the use A national standard or benchmark for the amount of time that of education services in an effective and convenient manner for should be available for each member of the Australian judiciary for judicial officers professional development has been developed by the National Judicial 11. promoting and conducting the research and development of College of Australia and endorsed by the Council of Chief Justices educational practices to enhance the effectiveness of continuing of Australia, chief judges, chief magistrates, the Judicial Conference judicial education. of Australia, the Association of Australian Magistrates, and judicial education bodies throughout Australia: Roles and responsibilities The Judicial Commission has ultimate responsibility to define its policy The standard, which was reviewed in late 2010, is that each judicial and strategies in relation to the provision of the above-mentioned officer should be able to spend at least five days each calendar year services and to determine the direction and the priority of all activity participating in professional development activities relating to the undertaken in the name of the Commission. judicial officer’s responsibilities. The Standing Advisory Committee on Judicial Education (which This standard need not be met in each year but can be met on comprises the chairpersons of the Education Committees of each the basis of professional development activities engaged in over a of the State’s courts, or their representatives) has responsibility to period of three years. advise the Commission on matters of continuing judicial education, to This standard can be met, in part, by self-directed professional implement Commission policy and strategy and, where appropriate development. and as requested, to coordinate the activities of the respective Education Committees of each court. Judicial officers should be released from court duties to enable them to meet this standard. However, judicial officers should The Education Committees of each court, subject to the head of commit some private time to meet the standard. jurisdiction, shall have responsibility to develop and manage the program of educational activities conducted by each court.

Services The staff of the Commission have the responsibility to advise and The Commission is sensitive to the need to provide a range of assist each of the above bodies, and to act on their instruction to education services to meet the differing needs of each court and administer and implement the continuing judicial education program. individual judicial officers. Evaluation The scheme of continuing judicial education should be structured to The Commission will evaluate the effectiveness of its program of be of benefit to all judicial officers in each jurisdiction and to address continuing judicial education activities in order to: the differing needs of judicial officers throughout the duration of their • ensure that it provides useful assistance and benefits to judicial careers. officers in the performance of judicial duties, and Specifically, the education program should apply the Commission’s • provide feedback to presenters to ensure their sessions meet the resources in the most effective delivery of services defined by content needs of judicial officers. (law, procedure, management and administration, and judicial skills) Feedback from judicial officers based on specified learning objectives is and level of application (induction, update, experience exchange, desirable for each educational activity. Input requested will include: specialisation and refresher). • whether or not the learning objectives are met These services may include: • the program’s usefulness and relevance 1. inducting new appointees with comprehensive training and • the appropriateness of the content of sessions and materials orientation • the delivery 2. updating all judicial officers on important recent changes in law, • suggest improvements for future programs, and procedure and practice • suggestions for themes or topics for future activities relevant to 3. producing bench books for each court, with a process for regular judicial officers. updating 4. publishing the Judicial Officers’ Bulletin on a regular basis to inform judicial officers of current law and to promote the consideration of important judicial issues 5. promoting the development of an improved scheme for indexing and accessing important judgments 6. facilitating continuing judicial education through the exchange of experience and discussion of topical issues, convening meetings and discussion groups, and publishing articles and other papers 7. providing refresher services to meet the needs of judicial officers

back to Appendices contents 91 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Appendix 4 Committees

Education Committees District Court Education Committee Education Committees for each court meet on a regular basis to discuss: • Her Honour Judge Ashford (Chair & member) (until May 2013) • content and design of judicial education programs • His Honour Judge Neilson • evaluation results of judicial education programs, and • His Honour Judge Woods QC • recommendations for change. • Her Honour Judge Hock • His Honour Judge Berman SC The Standing Advisory Committee on Judicial Education comprises the chairpersons of the Education Committees of each of the State’s • His Honour Judge Zahra SC courts or their representatives. It advises the Commission on matters • His Honour Judge Lakatos SC of continuing judicial education, implements Commission policy and • His Honour Judge Elkaim SC strategy, and, where appropriate and as requested, coordinates the • His Honour Judge Levy SC activities of the Education Committees. • Her Honour Judge Wells SC The Education Director, Ms Ruth Windeler, convenes Education • His Honour Judge Lerve Committee and Standing Advisory Committee meetings, and provides • Mr C Smith, Judicial Registrar (until October 2012) professional input to the committees. • Mr J Howard, Judicial Registrar (from November 2012) • Ms R Windeler, Education Director, Judicial Commission of NSW Standing Advisory Committee on Judicial Education (Convenor) • The Honourable Justice Basten, Supreme Court (Chair) • The Honourable Justice Walton, Industrial Relations Commission Local Court Education Committee • The Honourable Justice Biscoe, Land and Environment Court • Her Honour Deputy Chief Magistrate Mottley • His Honour Judge Lakatos SC, District Court • Her Honour Deputy Chief Magistrate Culver (Chair) • Her Honour Deputy Chief Magistrate Culver, Local Court • His Honour Magistrate Dr Brown RFD • Ms R Windeler, Education Director, Judicial Commission of NSW • His Honour Magistrate Dunlevy (Convenor) • Her Honour Magistrate Freund • His Honour Magistrate Grogin Supreme Court Education Committee • His Honour Magistrate Guy • The Honourable Justice Basten (Chair) • His Honour Magistrate Heilpern • The Honourable Justice Beazley AO (until March 2013) • Her Honour Magistrate Huber • The Honourable Justice J Campbell (until December 2012) • His Honour Magistrate Mabbutt • The Honourable Justice Nicholas (until March 2013) • Her Honour Magistrate Wahlquist • The Honourable Justice White (from November 2012) • Ms A Passe De Silva, Policy Officer • The Honourable Justice Hislop • Ms R Windeler, Education Director, Judicial Commission of NSW • The Honourable Justice Hoeben AM RFD (Convenor) • The Honourable Justice Johnson • The Honourable Justice Harrison Ngara Yura Committee • The Honourable Justice Fullerton • The Honourable Justice Rothman AM (Chair from December 2012) • The Honourable Justice Schmidt • The Honourable Justice Pepper • The Honourable Justice Garling RFD • His Honour Judge Norrish QC (Chair & member) (until November • The Honourable Justice Black (from October 2012) 2012) • Ms L Murphy, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Registrar • His Honour Judge Haesler SC (from January 2013) • Ms R Windeler, Education Director, Judicial Commission of NSW • Her Honour Deputy Chief Magistrate Mottley (Convenor) • His Honour Magistrate Dick • Mr T Chenery, an Anaiwan man Industrial Relations Commission Education Committee • Professor M Davis, Director, Indigenous Law Centre, Faculty of Law, • The Honourable Justice Haylen (Chair) UNSW • The Honourable Justice Staff (from March 2013) • Mr E Schmatt PSM, Chief Executive, Judicial Commission of • Commissioner I Tabbaa NSW • Mr M Grimson, Industrial Registrar, Industrial Relations Commission • Ms R Windeler, Education Director, Judicial Commission of NSW • Ms R Windeler, Education Director, Judicial Commission of NSW (Convenor) (Convenor) • Mrs T Wright, Aboriginal Project Officer, Judicial Commission of NSW (until November 2012) Land and Environment Court Education Committee • Ms J Selfe, Aboriginal Project Officer, Judicial Commission of • The Honourable Justice Pain NSW (from May 2013) • The Honourable Justice Biscoe (Chair) • Commissioner L Pearson • Ms L Walton, Acting Registrar, Land and Environment Court • Ms R Windeler, Education Director, Judicial Commission of NSW (Convenor)

92 back to Appendices contents Appendices

Bench Book Committees Equality before the Law Bench Book Committee The day-to-day work of revising the content of bench books is • The Honourable Justice Beazley AO (Chair) delegated to individual Bench Book Committees, acting on behalf of • The Honourable Justice Basten the Commission. • The Honourable Justice Rothman AM Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book Committee • His Honour Judge Norrish QC • The Honourable Rod Howie QC (Chair) • Dr M Dodson AM • The Honourable Justice Johnson • Dr J Cashmore AO • The Honourable Justice Latham • Mr E Schmatt PSM, Chief Executive • The Honourable Justice RAH Hulme • Ms R Windeler, Education Director • His Honour Judge Lakatos SC • Ms K Lumley (Convenor) • Mr H Donnelly (Convenor) Sexual Assault Trials Handbook Committee Civil Trials Bench Book Committee • His Honour Judge Ellis (Chair) • The Honourable James Wood AO QC (Chair) • His Honour Judge Knox SC (until August 2012) • The Honourable Michael Campbell QC • Her Honour Judge Sarah Huggett (from February 2013) • The Honourable Justice Garling RFD • His Honour Judge Stephen Norrish (from February 2013) • His Honour Judge Nielson (from March 2012) • Dr Judith Cashmore AO (from February 2013) • His Honour Judge Elkaim SC • Mr Hugh Donnelly, Director, Research and Sentencing • His Honour Judge Townsden • Ms R Windeler, Education Director • Mr E Schmatt PSM, Chief Executive • Ms P Buckland (Convenor) • Ms R Windeler, Education Director Audit and Risk Management Committee • Ms F Findlay (Convenor from 16 January 2012) • Mr Peter Whitehead BA LLB TEP, appointed 31 July 2008, • Ms Antonia Lomny (Convenor until 16 January 2012 ) renewed 1 July 2011 for two years. Mr Whitehead’s qualifications and experience are found on p 56. Local Court Bench Book Committee • Mr Alex Smith AM, appointed 1 July 2009 for two years and renewed • Her Honour Deputy Chief Magistrate Mottley on 1 July 2012 for two years. Mr Smith’s qualifications and • Her Honour Deputy Chief Magistrate Culver (from 26 July 2011) experience are found on p 56. • Her Honour Magistrate Baptie (from 7 November 2011) • Mr Murali Sagi PSM, Director, Information Management and • Ms A Passe De Silva, Policy Officer Corporate Services, Judicial Commission. Mr Sagi’s qualifications • Ms Roslyn Cook (Convenor) and biography are found on p 15.

Appendix 5 Conference topics

Annual Conferences Industrial Relations Commission of NSW Annual Conference, Supreme Court of NSW Annual Conference, September 2012 October 2012 • “Keynote Address: Adrift in a Sea of Information: How Courts • “Catastrophic Climate Risk and Disaster Law”, Professor Grapple with Electronically Stored Information”, Judge Diane Rosemary Lyster, Professor of Climate and Environmental Law, Wood, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Sydney Law School, University of Sydney • “The Application of the Implied Freedom of Political • “Industrial Relations and Job Quality”, Professor John Buchanan, Communication to State Constitutional and Electoral Laws”, Director, Workplace Research Centre, University of Sydney Professor Anne Twomey, Professor of Constitutional Law, Sydney • “Good Faith and Mutual Trust in Employment”, The Honourable Law School Justice Stephen Rothman AM, Supreme Court of NSW • “Toxic Torts and Epidemiological Evidence”, Lord Robert Walker • “The Work of the Federal Magistrates”, Federal Magistrate Rolf of Gestingthorpe, Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Driver • “A Chat about Criminal Law”, The Honourable Justice Robert A • “The Fair Work Ombudsman Explains his Litigation Policy”, Hulme, Supreme Court of NSW Mr Nicholas Wilson, Fair Work Ombudsman and Ms Lynda • “Two Fundamental Questions for the Law of Trusts”, The McAlary-Smith, Executive Director, Education and Major Honourable Justice James Edelman, Supreme Court of Western Employers Branch, Fair Work Ombudsman Australia • “Tackling Depression in the Legal Profession”, Dr Robert Fisher, • “Social Networking Technologies and the Courts”, Professor Brian Head of Department of Psychiatry and Psychological Services, Fitzgerald, Executive Dean, Faculty of Law, Australian Catholic St Vincent’s Private Clinic and Hospital University • “The Work of the Ngara Yura Committee”, His Honour Judge • “The Application of International Law to the Military”, Air Commodore Stephen Norrish QC, District Court of NSW Paul Cronan AM • “The Work of the Australian Indigenous Education Foundation”, • “Kimberley Rock Art”, Dr June Ross, Adjunct Associate Professor, Mr Andrew Penfold, Chief Executive, Australian Indigenous University of New England Education Foundation

back to Appendices contents 93 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Appendix 5: Conference topics continued

• “Natural Gas from Coal”, Mr Rick Wilkinson, Chief Operating • “Judicial Bullying”, The Honourable Keith Mason AC QC, Officer, Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Chairman, Tristan Jepson Memorial Foundation and Dr Robert Association (APPEA) and Mr Duncan Fraser, Vice-President, Fisher, Head of Department of Psychiatry and Psychological National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) and Chair, NFF Mining and Services, St Vincent’s Private Clinic and Hospital Coal Seam Gas Taskforce • “Current Issues in Sentencing”, His Honour Judge Martin • “Workload and Case Management Update and New Directions Blackmore SC in Industrial/Employment Law: Everything you wanted to know but did not like to ask”, The Honourable Justice Walton, Vice- Local Court of NSW Annual Conference, August 2012 President • “Evidence Act”, His Honour Judge Gordon Lerve, District Court of • “Has Arbitration Been Lost or Diminished as an Industrial NSW and Magistrate Ian Guy Option?”, Mr Jeffrey Phillips SC, Barrister • “Criminal Law Update”, The Honourable Justice Robert A Hulme, • “Implications for the IRC Arising from the Review of the NSW Supreme Court of NSW Industrial Relations System”, The Honourable Justice Roger • “Children: The Impact of Domestic Violence and Predictors of Boland, President Late Engagement in Criminal Behaviour — Part A: Domestic Land and Environment Court of NSW Annual Conference, Violence — The Psychological Impact on Children”, Mr Mark May 2013 Allerton, Director, Children’s Court Clinic • “Children: The Impact of Domestic Violence and Predictors of • “Aboriginal Heritage”, Ms Tanya Koeneman, Senior Aboriginal Late Engagement in Criminal Behaviour — Part B: Factors which Heritage Officer, Heritage Branch, Office of Environment and Predict Juvenile Reoffending”, Ms Jackie Fitzgerald, Deputy Heritage, Ms Sharon Veale, Partner, Godden Mackay Logan Director, Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research Heritage Consultations and Mr Russell Couch, Group Manager, Strategic Coordination, Aboriginal Affairs NSW • “Civil Law Update”, His Honour Judge Michael Elkaim SC, District Court of NSW • “Biodiversity and Indigenous Issues”, Mr Bill Gammage, Historian and Adjunct Professor, Humanities Research Centre, Australian • “Custodial Classifications and In-gaol Programs”, Mr Terry National University Halloran, Executive Director, Classification and Case Management and External Leave Programs, Corrective Services NSW and • “Field Trip to the Bomaderry Children’s Home”, Ms Tanya Mr Kevin O’Sullivan, Director, Offender Programs Unit, Corrective Koeneman, Senior Aboriginal Heritage Officer, Heritage Branch, Services NSW Office of Environment and Heritage • “Current Trends in Drugs”, Mr Paul Dillon, Drug and Alcohol • “Fact or Law: The Question Without an Answer?”, The Research and Training Australia Honourable Justice Margaret Beazley AO, President, NSW Court of Appeal • “Physiology of Alcohol and Substance Abuse”, Dr Judith Perl, Clinical Forensic Medicine Unit, NSW Police • “ADR Craft”, Ms Mary Walker, Barrister • “Managing the Contribution of Speeding to Death and Serious • “Statistics”, Professor Gerry Quinn, Professor and Associate Injury on our Roads”, Ms Marg Prendergast, Acting General HOS (Warrnambool), School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Manager, Centre for Road Safety, Transport for NSW Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment, Deakin University • “Local Solutions to Recidivism”, Mr Shane Phillips, Chief Executive Officer, Tribal Warrior Association and Superintendent • “Criminal Law Update”, presented by The Honourable Justice Luke Freudenstein, Commander, Redfern Local Area Command, Richard Button, Supreme Court of NSW and paper by The NSW Police Honourable Justice Peter Johnson, Supreme Court of NSW • “Work-Life Balance”, Professor Trevor Waring AM, Conjoint • “Architecture and Heritage: Enabling Well-Designed Outcomes”, Professor of Psychology, University of Newcastle Mr Howard Tanner, Tanner Kibble Denton Architects • “Open Forum”, His Honour Judge Graeme Henson, Chief • “The New Planning System for NSW: White Paper and Exposure Magistrate, Her Honour Deputy Chief Magistrate Jane Mottley Draft Bills”, Miss Elizabeth Lamb, Director, Legislation and Reform and Her Honour Deputy Chief Magistrate Jane Culver and Mr Peter Holt, Manager, Infrastructure and Land Release, Department of Planning and Infrastructure Other conferences • “Courtcraft Panel”, The Honourable Justice Monika Schmidt, Supreme Court of NSW and The Honourable Tom Wodak, Retired Local Court of NSW Southern and Northern Regional Judge, County Court of Victoria Conferences, March and May 2013 • “Coronial Session”, His Honour Magistrate Ian Guy and District Court of NSW Annual Conference, April 2013 His Honour Magistrate Ian Cheetham • “Judge Yourself: Professionals Keeping Healthy”, Professor • “Recent Developments in the Children’s Court”, His Honour Simon Willcock, Head, Discipline of General Practice, Sydney Judge Peter Johnstone, President of the Children’s Court Medical Program, University of Sydney and Dr Vicky Phillips, • “Sentencing for Domestic Violence”, Her Honour Magistrate Principal Exercise Physiologist, ExPhys Geraldine Beattie • “Court of Criminal Appeal Review”, The Honourable Justice • “Sentencing Workshop”, His Honour Magistrate Greg Grogin Robert A Hulme, Supreme Court of NSW • “More iPadsTM for Magistrates”, Ms Joy Blunt, Systems Officer — • “Child Care Appeals”, His Honour Judge Peter Johnstone Training, Judicial Commission of NSW • “Civil Liability Update”, His Honour Judge Phillip Mahony SC • “Magistrates’ Entitlements”, Ms Jacinta Haywood, Executive • “Rural Crime and its Consequences”, His Honour Judge Gordon Officer to the Chief Magistrate Lerve • “Standards of Proof Attaching to Various Applications”, His • “Court of Appeal Review”, The Honourable Justice Cliff Hoeben AM Honour Magistrate Michael Allen RFD, Chief Judge at Common Law, Supreme Court of NSW • “Controlling the Court”, His Honour Magistrate David Heilpern • “Developments in Online Resources”, Mr Murali Sagi PSM, • “Case Management”, His Honour Magistrate Rob Rabbidge and Director, Information Management and Corporate Services His Honour Magistrate Garry Still and Ms Joy Blunt, Senior Systems Officer — Training, Judicial • “Developments in JIRS”, Mr Murali Sagi PSM, Director, Commission of NSW Information Management and Corporate Services, Judicial • “Oral Language Competence in Young Offenders”, Associate Commission of NSW Professor Pamela Snow, School of Psychology and Psychiatry, Monash University

94 Appendices

Children’s Court of NSW Section 16 Meeting, October 2012 • “Assessing the Credibility of Witnesses”, Dr Richard Kemp, • “Placement Principles in Care Proceedings involving Aboriginal Psychologist, University of NSW and His Honour Judge Michael Children”, Ms Amanda Bridge, Child and Family Services Boylan, District Court of South Australia Manager, Great Lakes/ Manning Aboriginal Children’s Service • “Court Craft — The Trial from Hell”, The Honourable Justice and Ms Dana Clarke, CEO, Burrun Dalai Out of Home Case and John McKechnie, Supreme Court of Western Australia and The Family Support Service Honourable Justice Alan Wilson, Supreme Court Queensland • “Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, s 32”, His Honour • “Judgment Writing”, Mr Tom Wodak, retired judge of the County Magistrate Paul Mulroney Court of Victoria and The Honourable Justice Debra Mullins, • “Unacknowledged Accidental Injuries”, His Honour Judge Peter Supreme Court Queensland Johnstone, President of the Children’s Court • “Cultural Barriers in the Court Room”, Ms Maria Dimopolous, • “What Follows YDAC?”, Her Honour Magistrate Joan Baptie Myriad Consultants • “Shuttle Conferences”, Ms Juliette Northcote and Mr David Croke, • “Interpreters”, Mr Paul Hellander, Government Interpreting and Children’s Registrars Translating Centre, South Australia • “Parents under the Care of the Minister”, Ms Nicola Callandar and • “Litigants in Person”, The Honourable Justice Peter Murphy, Ms Edwina Hunter, Children’s Registrars Family Court of Australia (Brisbane) • “Working with People with a Muslim Background”, Ms Rana Sabih, • “Court Room Control and Communication”, His Honour Judge Children’s Registrar Geoff Muecke, District Court of South Australia and His Honour Judge Graham Anderson, County Court of Victoria • “Private Sessions: Options Available and Issues to Consider when Dealing with Unrepresented Clients and ILRs”, Ms Kathy • “Managing your Time and Resources”, Dr Ron Cacioppe, Williamson, Children’s Registrar Managing Director, Integral Development, The Honourable Justice John Byrne, Supreme Court Queensland, The Honourable Justice • “Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, s 33”, Ms Toni Steven Rares, Federal Court of Australia and His Honour Judge Anderson, Clinical Nurse Consultant, Justice Health, Dr Claire Stephen Norrish, District Court of NSW Gaskin, Clinical Director Adolescent Mental Health, Justice Health and Ms Carolynn Dixon, Manager, Adult Court Liaison Team, • “Sentencing”, Professor Arie Freiberg, Faculty of Law, Monash Justice Health University and The Honourable Terry Buddin SC • “A Conversation about Trauma and Attachment”, Ms Sue Foley, • “Wrap up Session”, Ms Ruth Windeler, Education Director, Senior Social Worker, CAPTOS Coordinator, Department of Judicial Commission of NSW Psychological Medicine, Children’s Hospital Westmead National Judicial Orientation Program, March 2013 Children’s Court of NSW Section 16 Meeting, June 2013 (joint program with NJCA and AIJA) • “Care and Protection Issues and Reforms”, Ms Jeevani Korathota, • “Familiarisation”, Ms Ruth Windeler, Education Director, Judicial Executive Director, Vulnerable Children and Families, Community Commission of NSW Services, Ms Kate Alexander, Senior Practitioner, Community • “Judicial Conduct in and Out of Court”, The Honourable Chief Services and Ms Donna Mapledoram, Team Leader STCO Project, Justice John Doyle, Supreme Court of South Australia and The Community Services Honourable Chief Justice Wayne Martin, Supreme Court of • “Sentencing Issues”, Her Honour Magistrate Jo Keogh and Western Australia His Honour Magistrate Albert Sbrizzi • “The Exercise of Discretions”, The Honourable Justice Monika • “Justice Health Referrals — Confidentiality”, His Honour Schmidt, Supreme Court of NSW and The Honourable Terry Magistrate Graham Blewitt Buddin SC • “Care and Protection Q&A”, Mr Walter Sponza, Children’s • “Managing your Time and Resources”, Dr Ron Cacioppe, Registrar Managing Director, Integral Development, The Honourable Justice • “Autism Awareness”, Ms Anne Davis, Children’s Registrar Robert Benjamin, Family Court of Australia, The Honourable Justice John Byrne, Supreme Court Queensland, The Honourable • “Vicarious Trauma”, Ms Sonia Strounis, Children’s Registrar Justice Steven Rares, Federal Court of Australia and His Honour • “Overcoming Communication Difficulties in the Courtroom: The Judge Stephen Norrish, District Court of NSW Role of the Intermediary”, Ms Mary Woodward, Speech and • “Court Craft — The Trial from Hell”, The Honourable Justice Language Pathologist and Registered Intermediary (UK) John McKechnie, Supreme Court of Western Australia and The • “Transitioning Casework to NGOs”, Ms Wendy Foote, Deputy Honourable Justice Alan Wilson, Supreme Court of Queensland CEO Association of Children’s Welfare Agencies, Mr Geoff Taylor, • “Unconscious Judicial Prejudice”, The Honourable Keith Mason Executive Director Transition Office, Association of Children’s AC QC Welfare Agencies, Mr Nick Corrigan, Executive Director, Transition Office, AbSec, Ms Simone Walker and Ms Simone Czech, Family • “Assessing the Credibility of Witnesses”, Dr Richard Kemp, and Community Services Psychologist, University of NSW and His Honour Judge Michael Boylan, District Court South Australia • “Youth on Track”, Mr Brendan Thomas, Deputy Director General, Department of Attorney General and Justice • “Cultural Barriers in the Court Room/Interpreters”, Ms Maria Dimopolous, Myriad Consultants and Mr Paul Hellander, Government Interpreting and Translating Centre, South Australia Orientation programs • “Judgment Writing”, Mr Tom Wodak, retired Judge County Court National Judicial Orientation Program, October 2012 of Victoria and The Honourable Justice Debra Mullins, Supreme (joint program with NJCA and AIJA) Court Queensland • “Familiarisation”, Ms Ruth Windeler, Education Director, Judicial • “Litigants in Person”, The Honourable Justice Peter Murphy, Commission of NSW and Ms Jenny Green, Academic Director, Family Court of Australia (Brisbane) and Dr Grant Lester, Institute National Judicial College of Australia of Forensic Mental Health Victoria • “Judicial Conduct in and Out of Court”, The Honourable Chief • “Court Room Control and Communication”, His Honour Judge Justice John Doyle, Supreme Court of South Australia and The Geoff Muecke, District Court South Australia and His Honour Honourable Chief Justice Wayne Martin, Supreme Court of Judge Graham Anderson, County Court of Victoria Western Australia • “Maintaining Psychological and Physical Health”, His Honour • “Maintaining Psychological and Physical Health”, His Honour Chief Judge Michael Rozenes AO QC, County Court of Victoria, Chief Judge Michael Rozenes AO QC, County Court of Victoria, Ms Emma Stirling, Dietitian, Institute of Health and Fitness Victoria Ms Karen Inge, Dietitian, Institute of Health and Fitness Victoria and Dr Nigel Prior, Psychiatrist, Wentworth Clinic Queensland and Dr Nigel Prior, Psychiatrist, Wentworth Clinic, Queensland • “Wrap Up Session”, Ms Ruth Windeler, Education Director, • “Unconscious Judicial Prejudice”, The Honourable Keith Mason AC Judicial Commission of NSW QC, Chairman, Tristan Jepson Foundation

95 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Local Court of NSW Magistrates’ Orientation Program, • “Court Craft in Practice”, Her Honour Deputy Chief Magistrate June 2013 Jane Culver, Her Honour Deputy Chief Magistrate Jane Mottley, • “Orientation”, Ms Ruth Windeler His Honour Magistrate David Heilpern, His Honour Magistrate Ian Guy and Ms Ruth Windeler • “Adult Learning Principles, Learning Styles and Learning Preferences”, Ms Ruth Windeler • “Mutual Observation”, Her Honour Deputy Chief Magistrate Jane Mottley • “Judicial Attributes”, His Honour Magistrate David Heilpern • “Commonwealth Sentencing”, His Honour Magistrate Ian Guy • “Self-represented Litigants”, His Honour Magistrate Ian Guy • “iPadTM Workshop”, Ms Joy Blunt, Systems Officer – Training, • “Judicial Attitudes”, His Honour Magistrate David Heilpern Judicial Commission of NSW • “Sentencing Principles”, Her Honour Deputy Chief Magistrate • “Managing Child Witnesses”, Associate Professor Judy Cashmore Jane Culver AO, Sydney Law School, University of Sydney • “Ethical Dilemmas You May Have Encountered”, Her Honour • “Group Sentencing Exercise 2 — Discussion and Comparison”, Deputy Chief Magistrate Jane Culver His Honour Magistrate David Heilpern and His Honour Magistrate • “Judicial Practice”, His Honour Magistrate David Heilpern Ian Guy • “Judicial Communication”, Ms Ruth Windeler • “Stress Management”, His Honour Magistrate David Heilpern and • “Decision Making/Judgments”, Her Honour Magistrate Sharon Mr Philip Harvey, retired magistrate Freund • “Sentencing Exercise 3”, His Honour Magistrate David Heilpern • “Oral Judgments Workshop”, Her Honour Magistrate Sharon and His Honour Magistrate Ian Guy Freund • “Everything You Wanted to Know But Were Afraid to Ask”, • “Bail”, Her Honour Deputy Chief Magistrate Jane Mottley Her Honour Deputy Chief Magistrate Jane Mottley • “Group Sentencing Exercise 1 — Discussion and Comparison”, His Honour Magistrate David Heilpern

Appendix 6 Judicial education seminars, workshops and field trips

Supreme Court of NSW Seminar Series District Court of NSW Seminar Series • “The Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act • “Referring Matters to the Mental Health Review Tribunal”, 2010 One Year On — Some Legal and Practical Issues”, The Professor Dan Howard SC, President, Mental Health Review Honourable Justice Peter Johnson, Supreme Court of NSW, His Tribunal and Ms Sarah Hanson, Forensic Team Leader, Twilight Honour Judge Paul Lakatos SC, District Court of NSW and Her Seminar, 14 August 2012 Honour Deputy Chief Magistrate Jane Culver, Local Court of • “Personal Property Securities Act”, Professor John Stumbles, NSW, Twilight Seminar, 25 July 2012 Professor Finance Law, University of Sydney, 15 May 2013. • “JIRS Apps for the iPadTM”, Mr Ernie Schmatt PSM, Chief • “Judge Alone Trials”, His Honour Judge Greg Woods QC, Twilight Executive, and Mr Murali Sagi PSM, Director, Information Seminar, 12 June 2013 Management and Corporate Services, Judicial Commission of NSW, Twilight Seminar, 13 February 2013 Local Court of NSW Workshops and Seminars • “Independence of the Malaysian Judiciary”, Zaki Tun Azmi, • “The Industrial Jurisdiction”, Chief Industrial Magistrate Greg Hart, Former Chief Justice of Malaysia, Twilight Seminar, 10 May 2013 Workshop, 30 July 2012 • “Judgment Writing Workshop for the Local Court”, Professor James Land and Environment Court of NSW Seminars, Workshops Raymond, Legal Writing Consultant, 20–21 September 2012 and Field Trips • Local Court Metropolitan Seminar Series II, 12–16 November 2012 • “Court Craft”, The Honourable Justice Nicola Pain, Senior • “Standards of Proof Attaching to Various Applications”, Commissioner Tim Moore, Commissioner Graham Brown and His Honour Magistrate Michael Allen TM Acting Registrar Leonie Walton, Twilight Seminar, 22 August 2012 • “More iPads for Magistrates”, Ms Joy Blunt, Systems Officer • “The Nuts and Bolts of Giving Effect to Criminal Sanctions — — Training, Judicial Commission of NSW Part 2”, His Honour Judge Stephen Norrish QC, District Court of • “Magistrates’ Entitlements”, Ms Jacinta Haywood, Executive NSW, Twilight Seminar, 12 September 2012 Officer to the Chief Magistrate • “Controlling the Court”, His Honour Magistrate David Heilpern • “Field Trip to Ballast Point Park (Walama)”, Dr Wayne Johnson, Archaeologist, Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority, 3 October • “NSW Country Coroners Orientation Program”, Magistrate Hugh 2012 Dillon, Workshop, 13 December 2012 (joint program with National Judicial College of Australia). • “Communication in the Courtroom for Judges”, The Maura Fay Group, Workshop, 28 November 2012 • Local Court Metropolitan Seminar Series 1, 18–22 February 2013 • “Sentencing for Domestic Violence”, Her Honour Magistrate • “Communication in the Courtroom for Commissioners”, The Geraldine Beattie Maura Fay Group, Workshop, 29 November 2012 • “Sentencing Workshop”, His Honour Magistrate Greg Grogin • “Good Design”, Mr Ian Moore, Mr Adam Haddow, Mr William • “Developments in JIRS”, Mr Murali Sagi PSM, Director, Smart, Mr Jon Pizey and Ms Agi Sterling, Architects (with the Information Management and Corporate Services, Judicial cooperation of the Australian Institute of Architects), Twilight Commission of NSW Seminar, 28 February 2013 • “Case Management”, His Honour Magistrate Rob Rabbidge • “Visit to Redfern and ‘The Block’”, Mr Michael Mundine, CEO and His Honour Magistrate Garry Still Aboriginal Housing Company and Mr Greg Colbran, Project • “Facilitation Skills Program”, Ms Jenny Green, Academic Director, Manager DeiCorp, Field Trip, 21 March 2013 National Judicial College of Australia and Ms Ruth Windeler, • “Judicial Recusal”, Mr Arthur Moses SC, Barrister, Twilight Education Director, Judicial Commission of NSW, Workshop, Seminar, 8 May 2013 6 February 2013 (joint program with National Judicial College of • “JIRS App on the iPadTM”, Mr Murali Sagi PSM, Director, Australia) Information Management and Corporate Services, Judicial Commission of NSW, Twilight Seminar, 5 June 2013

96 back to Appendices contents Appendices

Ngara Yura Program • “Developments in Question Trails”, The Honourable Justice Rob • “Tribal Warrior Cultural Cruise”, Tribal Warrior Association, Field Chambers, Supreme Court of New Zealand, The Honourable Trip, 13 October 2012 Justice Reg Blanch AM and The Honourable Justice Elizabeth Fullerton, Twilight Seminar, 29 November 2012 • “Understanding Kinship”, Ms Lynette Riley, Senior Lecturer, University of Sydney, Twilight Seminar, 10 April 2013 • “Field Trip to the NSW Police Service Telecommunications Interception Branch, State Electronic Evidence Branch and State Technical Investigation Branch”, Commander Jeffrey Conly, Cross-jurisdictional State Electronic Evidence Branch, Acting Commander Arthur • “Advanced Judicial Writing”, Professor Bryan A Garner, Kopsias APM, Telecommunications Interception Branch, Acting Distinguished Research Professor of Law, SMU Dedman School Commander Gregory Taylor, State Technical Investigation Branch of Law and President of LawProse, Inc, Twilight Seminar, 30 July and Inspector Stuart Davis, Telecommunications Interception 2012 Branch, 27 February 2013 • “Cross-jurisdictional Judgment Writing Workshop”, Professor James Raymond, Legal Writing Consultant, 17–18 September 2012

Appendix 7 Articles we published this year

• The Honourable Chief Justice Tom Bathurst, “Beyond the stocks: • The Honourable Justice Peter McClellan AM, “Sentencing in the a community approach to crime” (2013) 11(2) TJR 165 21st century” (2012) 11(1) TJR 21 • The Honourable Justice Robert Chambers, “Question trails: a • The Honourable Justice Peter McClellan AM, “A matter of fact: reply to his Honour Judge Berman’s “Note of Caution” (2012) the origins of the Court of Criminal Appeal” (2013) 25(1) JOB 1 24(7) JOB 57 • Ms Pierrette Mizzi, “Consistency and the Commonwealth • His Honour Roger Dive, “The Drug Court now sits at the Downing Sentencing Database” (2012) 11(1) TJR 129 Centre” (2013) 25(1) JOB 6 • Her Honour Judge Yvonne Murphy, “Institutional child sexual • Mr Hugh Donnelly, “Assessing harm to the victim in sentencing abuse: the Irish experience” (2013) 25(4) JOB 29 proceedings” (2012) 24(6) JOB 45 • The Right Honourable Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, “Judges • Mr Hugh Donnelly, “Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book and professors: ships passing in the night?” (2013) 11(2) TJR 143 substantially revised” (2013) 25(5) JOB 39 • Dr Malcolm Pearse, “The effectiveness of Probation and Parole • The Honourable Justice James Edelman, “Uncommon statutory supervision in NSW” (2012) 24(7) JOB 53 interpretation” (2012) 11(1) TJR 71 • Dr Judith Perl, “The physiology of alcohol and substance abuse” • The Honourable Justice Robert French AC, Cooperation and (2012) 24(8) JOB 63 convergence — judiciaries and profession” (2012) 11(1) TJR 1 • The Honourable Chief Judge Brian J Preston, “Natural justice by • The Honourable Justice R A Hulme, “After Muldrock — sentencing the courts: some recent cases” (2013) 11(2) TJR 193 for standard non-parole period offences in NSW” (2012) JOB • The Honourable Chief Justice Trevor Riley, “Aborigines and the 24(10) 81 court: the Northern Territory experience” (2013) 11(2) TJR 177 • Mr Mark Ierace SC, “Judge-alone trials” (2012) 24(9) JOB 73 • Professor Anne Twomey, “The defining characteristics of • Professor Dianna T Kenny, “Violent young offenders in the criminal constitutional expressions and the nationalisation of the State justice system” (2013) 25(3) JOB 19 court system” (2013) 11(2) TJR 233 • The Honourable Michael Kirby AC CMG, “Judicial integrity in • The Honourable Justice Malcolm Wallis, “Judges as employees” South East Asia: principles, strategy and implementation” (2012) (2013) 11(2) TJR 215 24(11) JOB 91 • The Honourable Justice Mark Weinberg, “The labyrinthine nature • The Honourable Justice Emilios Kyrou, “Managing litigants in of federal sentencing” (2012) 11(1) TJR 47 person” (2013) 25(2) JOB 11 • Ms Mandy Young, “The Charter of Victims’ Rights: supporting • Ms Kate Lumley, “Raising Community awareness of the judiciary individuals in the criminal justice system” (2012) 24(6) JOB 43 and the work of the courts of NSW” (2012) 24(11) JOB 95 • His Honour Judge Mark Marien SC, “Cross-over kids — childhood and adolescent abuse and neglect and juvenile offending” (2012) 11(1) TJR 97

back to Appendices contents 97 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Appendix 8 Publications list

Many of the Commission’s publications are available to download 29 Full-time imprisonment in NSW and other jurisdictions: A national from the Commission’s website at www.judcom.nsw.gov.au. All and international comparison, 2007 Commission publications can be purchased through the NSW 30 Sentencing robbery offenders since the Henry guideline judgment, Government’s online shop at www.shop.nsw.gov.au. 2007 31 Diverting mentally disordered offenders in the NSW Local Court, Education Monographs 2008 1 Fragile bastion: Judicial independence in the nineties and beyond, 32 Achieving consistency and transparency in sentencing for 1997 environmental offences, 2008 2 A matter of judgment: Judicial decision-making and judgment 33 The impact of the standard non-parole period sentencing scheme writing, 2003 on sentencing patterns in New South Wales, 2010 3 The role of the judge, 2004 34 Sentencing Offenders convicted of child pornography and child 4 Statutory interpretation: Principles and pragmatism for a new age, abuse material offences, 2010 2007 35 Conviction appeals in NSW, 2011 5 A matter of fact: the origins and history of the NSW Court of 36 Sentencing for common offences in the NSW Children’s Court: Criminal Appeal, 2013 2010, 2012 37 Sentencing in fraud cases, 2012 Research monographs 1 The use of custodial sentences and alternatives to custody Sentencing Trends & Issues by New South Wales magistrates, 1990 (available only as a 1 The Children’s Court, March 1991 photocopy) 2 The impact of truth in sentencing: Part 1, The higher courts, 2 Community service orders: Views of organisers in New South March 1992 Wales, 1991 3 The impact of truth in sentencing: Part 2, The Local Courts, 3 Community service orders and periodic detention as sentencing June 1992 options: A survey of judicial officers in New South Wales, 1991 4 Sentencing in the Court of Criminal Appeal, February 1993 4 Sentencing juvenile offenders and the Sentencing Act 1989 5 Common offences in the Local Courts, March 1994 (NSW): The impact of legislative and administrative changes in the Children’s Court 1982–1990, 1991 6 Common offences in the higher courts, July 1994 5 A critical review of periodic detention in New South Wales, 1992 7 Sentencing homicide: The effect of legislative changes on the penalty for murder, June 1994 6 Sentencing drug offenders: Analysis of sentences imposed in the higher courts of New South Wales, 25 September 1989–31 8 From murder to manslaughter: Partial defences in New South December 1991, 1992 Wales, 1900 to 1993 7 “Special circumstances” under the Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW), 9 Common offences in the Children’s Court, May 1995 1993 10 Sentencing drink driver offenders, June 1995 8 Alcohol as a sentencing factor: A survey of attitudes of judicial 11 “Sentenced to the rising of the court”, January 1996 officers, 1994 12 The use of recognizances, May 1996 9 Sentence Indication Hearings Pilot Scheme, 1994 13 Sentencing deception offenders Part 1, The Local Courts, 10 Sentenced homicides in New South Wales 1990–1993, 1995 June 1996 11 The evidence of children, 1995 14 Sentencing deception offenders Part 2, The higher courts, 12 Judicial views about pre-sentence reports, 1995 October 1996 13 The Sentencing Act 1989 and its effect on the size of the prison 15 Driving causing death: Section 52A of the Crimes Act 1900, population, 1996 May 1997 14 Magistrates’ attitudes to drink-driving, drug-driving and speeding, 16 An overview of sentence and conviction appeals in the New South 1997 Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, March 1998 15 Child sexual assault, 1997 17 Kidnapping — Section 90A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), July 1998 16 Sentencing disparity and the gender of juvenile offenders, 1997 18 Common offences in the higher courts 1990–1997, August 1998 17 Sentencing disparity and the ethnicity of juvenile offenders, 1998 19 Sentencing offenders in the Local Courts — Effects of the Criminal Procedure (Indictable Offenders) Act 1995, February 18 Periodic detention revisited, 1998 2000 19 Sentencing drug offenders: Analysis of sentences imposed in the 20 Sentencing female offenders in New South Wales, May 2000 higher courts of New South Wales, 1 January 1992–31 December 1997, 1999 21 Protective custody and hardship in prison, February 2001 20 Apprehended violence orders: A survey of magistrates, 1999 22 Conviction and sentencing appeals in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal 1996–2000, February 2002 21 Sentencing dangerous drivers in New South Wales: Impact of the Jurisic guidelines on sentencing practice, 2002 23 Sentencing mentally disordered offenders: The causal link, September 2002 22 Circle sentencing in New South Wales: A review and evaluation, 2003 24 Bail: An examination of contemporary issues, November 2002 23 Sentenced homicides in New South Wales 1994–2001, 2004 25 Sentencing methodology: Two-tiered or instinctive synthesis?, December 2002 24 MERIT — A survey of magistrates, 2004 26 Sentencing trends for armed robbery and robbery in company: 25 Sentencing offenders convicted of child sexual assault, 2004 The impact of the guideline in R v Henry, February 2003 26 The nexus between sentencing and rehabilitation in the Children’s 27 Sentencing drink-driving offenders in the NSW Local Court, Court of NSW, 2005 March 2003 27 Crown appeals against sentence, 2005 28 Common offences in the Local Courts 2002, September 2003 28 Partial defences to murder in NSW 1990–2004, 2006

98 back to Appendices contents Appendices

29 Suspended sentences in New South Wales, November 2003 Handbooks 30 Common offences and the use of imprisonment in the District and • Sexual Assault Trials Handbook (online only) (2007–) Supreme Courts in 2002, March 2004 • Land and Environment Court of NSW Commissioners’ Handbook 31 The use and limitations of sentencing statistics, December 2004 (online only) (2010–) 32 Pre-sentence custody and other constraints on liberty, May 2005 • Children’s Court of NSW Resource Handbook (online only) (2013–) 33 Successful completion rates for supervised sentencing options, June 2005 Brochures 34 Trends in the use of s 12 suspended sentences, June 2005 • Complaints against judicial officers (updated 2013 reissue 2004) 35 Impact of the high range PCA guideline judgment on sentencing • Disabilities information (2001) drink drivers in NSW, September 2005 • From controversy to credibility: 20 years of the Judicial 36 Trends in the use of full-time imprisonment 2006–2007, Commission of New South Wales (2008) November 2007 • Judicial Commission of New South Wales (1997–) 37 Common offences in the NSW Local Court, November 2008 • Judicial Information Research System (2005) 38 Sentencing in complicity cases — Part 1: Joint criminal enterprise, • Judicial Information Research System: An invitation to subscribe June 2009 • Presentation pointers: Getting started and getting through your 39 Sentencing in complicity cases — Part 2: Abettors, accessories presentation (2008) and other secondary participants, February 2010 • Pro-bono schemes in NSW (2004) 40 Common offences in the NSW Local Court: 2010, May 2012 41 Common offences in the NSW higher courts: 2010, DVDs December 2012 • The role of the judge (2004) 42 Special circumstances under s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing • Concurrent evidence: New methods with experts (also accessible Procedure Act) 1999, June 2013 online) (2005) • Circle Sentencing in New South Wales (also accessible online) Journals (2009) • Judicial Officers’ Bulletin (Vols 1–25) (1988–) • The Judicial Review (Vols 1–11) (1992–)

Bench Books • Local Court Bench Book (1988–) • Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book (1989–) • Equality before the Law Bench Book (2006–) • Sentencing Bench Book (2006–) • Civil Trials Bench Book (2007–)

Appendix 9 Ngara Yura Program

The Judicial Commission is committed to promoting Aboriginal contemporary Aboriginal society, customs and traditions. Such programs cultural awareness. We established a program in 1992 which was should emphasise the historical and social factors which contribute to renamed the Ngara Yura Program in 2008. This program is designed the disadvantaged position of many Aboriginal people today and to the to inform judicial officers about Aboriginal society, customs and nature of relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities traditions and promote an exchange of ideas and information. It is today. The Commission further recommends that such persons should based on Recommendations 96 and 97 (reproduced here) of the Royal wherever possible participate in discussion with members of the Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, National Report, 1991, Aboriginal community in an informal way in order to improve cross- Vol 5, Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra. cultural understanding.”

“Recommendation 96: “Recommendation 97: That judicial officers and persons who work in the court service and That in devising and implementing courses referred to in in the probation and parole services and whose duties bring them Recommendation 96 the responsible authorities should ensure that into contact with Aboriginal people be encouraged to participate in an consultation takes place with appropriate Aboriginal organisations, appropriate training and development program, designed to explain including, but not limited to, Aboriginal Legal Services.”

back to Appendices contents 99 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Appendix 10 Assistance to other jurisdictions and organisations

In 2012–13 the Commission provided assistance and advice to the • Commonwealth Sentencing Database (CSD): we continue to following: host, maintain and support the CSD which is a joint project with the National Judicial College of Australia and the Commonwealth Judicial education Director of Public Prosecutions. • Asia Pacific Judicial Reform Forum (APJRF): The APJRF aims • Forum Sentencing Management System (FSMS): we continue to advance judicial reform in the Asia Pacific Region. The to host, maintain and support the case management system for Commission is a member of the APJRF Secretariat together with the Forum Sentencing Program for the Department of Attorney the High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of NSW, which General and Justice. is working to develop practical tools to assist member countries • Papua New Guinea Sentencing Database (PNGSD): The to implement judicial reform programs. Commission signed an MOU on 12 February 2013 with the • International Organization for Judicial Training (IOJT) — The IOJT National Courts of PNG and began preliminary work to develop a was established to promote the rule of law by supporting the sentencing database for the PNG courts. work of judicial education institutions around the world. The Chief • Australian Capital Territory Sentencing Database (ACTSD): Executive was elected to the Board of Governors in 2009 and the The Commission signed an agreement with the Justice and Executive Committee of the IOJT in November 2011. Community Safety Directorate of the ACT Government to develop Judicial support and case management systems a sentencing database on 12 April 2013. Preliminary work has begun on the database. • Drug Court Case Management System: we continue to host, maintain and support case management systems for the NSW Drug Court and the Compulsory Drug Treatment Correctional Centre. • Queensland Sentencing Information Service (QSIS): we continue to host, maintain and support QSIS. The Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney General have advised that the Supreme Court Library, Queensland (SCL) will take over responsibility for QSIS from 1 July 2013. The Commission will have to enter into a new MOU with the library.

Appendix 11 Working with other organisations

Our officers represent the Commission on a number of committees Mr Hugh Donnelly, Director, Research and Sentencing and steering groups. Details of their involvements are: Member of: • Sentencing Reference, NSW Law Reform Commission Mr Ernest Schmatt PSM, Chief Executive • Sexual Assault Review Committee, Office of the Director of • Member of the Executive Committee and the Board of Governors Public Prosecutions of the International Organization for Judicial Training • Member of the Advisory Board to the Commonwealth Judicial Mr Murali Sagi PSM, Director, Information Management and Education Institute, Halifax, Canada Corporate Services • Member of the Asia Pacific Judicial Reform Forum Secretariat Member of: • Member of the Australia and New Zealand Judicial Educators • Justice Sector Chief Information Officers’ Committee Group • Justice Sector Information Exchange Coordinating • Honorary Associate in the Graduate School of Government, Committee University of Sydney • Joined-up-Justice Governance Committee • Member of the National Judicial Orientation Program Steering • Member — Fellows Committee, Australian Computer Society Committee, National Judicial College of Australia Ms Kate Lumley, Publishing Manager Ms Ruth Windeler, Education Director • Adjudicator — Australasian Reporting Awards Member of: • Asia Pacific Coroners’ Society 2012 Conference Planning Ms Maree D’Arcy, Librarian Committee • Member, NSW Justice Consortium • Bail Reform Implementation Workshop (from December 2012) • National Judicial Orientation Program Steering Committee • Australia New Zealand Judicial Educators • Continuing Legal Education Association of Australasia

100 back to Appendices contents Appendices

Appendix 12 Visitors to the Commission

• Professor Kayo Minamino, Faculty of Law, Kyoto Women’s Delegations University, Japan, 7 February 2013 • 20 senior judges from various courts in the province of Hainan • Associate Professor Akiko Tejima, Faculty of Law, Kyoto Women’s in the People’s Republic of China, 17 September 2012 University, Japan, 7 February 2013 • 20 senior officials from the Ministry of Justice, People’s • Associate Professor Keiko Sawa, Faculty for the Study of Republic of China, representing 20 of the Chinese provinces, Contemporary Society, Kyoto Women’s University, Japan, 18 September, 2012 7 February 2013 • Delegation of four judges from Taiwan’s Judicial Yuan. • Judge Lim Keng Yeow, Subordinate Courts of Singapore, Dr Yu-Chen Kuo, a judge of the Taiwan High Court, led the 1 March 2013 delegation. Mr David Lin, the Director, Taipei Economic and • Professor Sarah Schrup and four law students, Northwestern Cultural Office, accompanied the delegation in Sydney, University School of Law, Chicago, 19 March 2013 23 October 2012 • Delegation of 10 Chinese judges visited the Commission as part of a tour of Australia and New Zealand. The visitors were with the Green Courts and Public Interest Litigation Project organised by the Research Institute of Environmental Law, Wuhan University, 7 November 2012 • Delegation of four judges and the Registrar General of the Supreme Court of Bhutan, 12 March 2013. • Delegation from the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors, Turkey, 1 May 2013

Appendix 13 Overseas visits

2–4 June 2013, the Commission’s Chief Executive, Mr Ernest Schmatt PSM, participated in the Judicial Dialogue on HIV, Human Rights and the Law in Asia and the Pacific held in Bangkok, Thailand. Participants included members of the judiciary from across Asia and the Pacific region and representatives from select judicial education institutions. The meeting was jointly organised by the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the United Nations Development Program and the International Commission of Jurists. UNAIDS covered the cost of the Chief Executive’s participation.

back to Appendices contents 101 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Appendix 14 Exchange of information

The Commission actively seeks to exchange information with International other government agencies, academic institutions and individuals. • American Judicature Society Since its establishment, the Commission has built strong links with • Asia Pacific Judicial Reform Forum similar organisations in other countries in order to share knowledge • Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges and experience, particularly in the areas of judicial education and criminological research. This has proved to be a most valuable • Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute, Halifax, Canada network and, as a result, the Commission now holds a wealth of • Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association, United information concerning these subjects. Kingdom • Court of Appeal for Ontario, Canada In 2012–13, the Commission had discussions and exchanged • Court of Appeal, Seychelles information with the following organisations: • Federal Court, Malaysia Australian • High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, India • Administrative Decisions Tribunal • High Court of Malaya • Attorney General’s Department (Cth) • High Court of Sabah and Sarawak • Australian Agency for International Development • Supreme Court of the Solomon Islands • Australian Bureau of Statistics • Institute of Judicial Studies, New Zealand • Australian Institute of Criminology • International Association of Women Judges • Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration • International Organization for Judicial Training, Israel • Bar Association of New South Wales • Judicial Education Reference, Information and Technical Transfer • Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (JERITT) Project, Michigan, USA • Centre for Democratic Institutions (ACT) • Judicial College, England and Wales • College of Law • Magisterial Services of Papua New Guinea • Office of Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions • National and Supreme Courts of Papua New Guinea • Community Relations Commission • National Association of State Judicial Educators, Michigan, • Continuing Legal Education Association of Australasia United States of America • Council of Australasian Tribunals • National Judicial Academy, Bhopal, India • Criminal Law Review Division, Department of Attorney General • National Judicial Institute, Canada and Justice • Philippines Judicial Academy, Manila • Department of Aboriginal Affairs • Subordinate Courts of Singapore • Department of Corrective Services • Supreme Court of Canada • Department of Attorney General and Justice (NSW) • Supreme Court of Indonesia • Department of Justice and Attorney General (Qld) • Supreme Court of the Philippines • Department of Premier & Cabinet • Supreme Court of Singapore • Federal Court of Australia • Supreme Court of Sri Lanka • High Court of Australia • Supreme People’s Court, Beijing, China • Independent Commission Against Corruption • Judicial College of Victoria • Judicial Conference of Australia • Law and Justice Foundation of New South Wales • Law Society of New South Wales • Legal Aid NSW • National Judicial College of Australia • New South Wales Law Reform Commission • New South Wales Police Force • New South Wales Sentencing Council • Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) • Ombudsman’s Office of NSW • Parliamentary Counsel’s Office • Public Defenders Office (NSW) • Roads and Maritime Services • Sentencing Advisory Council (Vic) • Supreme Court of Western Australia • University of New South Wales Faculty of Law • University of Sydney Faculty of Law • University of Western Sydney • University of Wollongong Faculty of Law • Workers Compensation Commission

102 back to Appendices contents Appendices

Appendix 15 Commission officers’ presentations

• Mr H Donnelly, “Sentencing for standard non-parole period • Mr M Sagi PSM, “Developments in JIRS”, presentation at the offences” Legal Aid NSW, Sydney, 27 July 2012 Local Court Magistrates Southern Regional Conference, Kiama, • Mr M Sagi PSM, Guest Speaker, presentation at Sydney 2012 15 March 2013 Australasian Parliamentary Counsel’s Committee Information • Ms R Windeler, “Familiarisation/Orientation”, presentation to the Technology Forum, Sydney, 3 August 2012 National Judicial Orientation Program, Manly, 17 March 2013 • Mr M Sagi PSM, “JIRS iPadTM App and JIRS”, presentation at the • Ms R Windeler, “Wrap-up”, presentation to the National Judicial Local Court Magistrates Annual Conference, Sydney, 3 August 2012 Orientation Program, Manly, 22 March 2013 • Mr E J Schmatt PSM & M Sagi PSM, “JIRS iPadTM App and JIRS”, • Mr M Sagi PSM, “JIRS iPadTM App and JIRS”, presentation to the presentation at the NSW Police Prosecutors Conference, Sydney, NSW Law Librarians, Sydney, 27 March 2013 3 August 2012 • Mr M Sagi PSM and Ms Joy Blunt, “Developments in Online • Mr M Sagi PSM, “Electronic Law Resources and Court Room Resources”, presentation at the District Court Judges Annual Technology”, presentation at the Australia and New Zealand Conference, Newcastle, 3 April 2013 Police Prosecutions Commanders’ Group Conference, Sydney, • Mr M Sagi PSM, “Developments in JIRS”, presentation at the 14 September 2012 Local Court Magistrates Northern Regional Conference, Coffs • Mr E J Schmatt PSM, “The Role and Function of the Judicial Harbour, 3 May 2013 Commission”, presentation for Thai judges organised by the • Mr M Sagi PSM and Mr H Donnelly, “JIRS iPadTM App and University of NSW, Sydney, 27 September 2012 JIRS and Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book Revisions”, • Ms R Windeler, “Familiarisation/Orientation”, presentation at the three presentations to the NSW Office of Director of Public National Judicial Orientation Program, Broadbeach, Prosecutions, Sydney, 7, 9 and 23 May 2013 28 October 2012 • Mr M Sagi PSM, “Demonstration of JIRS database by Judicial • Ms R Windeler, “Wrap-up”, presentation to the National Judicial Commission of NSW”, presentation at the 8th AIJA Court Librarians’ Orientation Program, Broadbeach, 2 November 2012 Conference, Sydney, 17 May 2013 • Mr E J Schmatt PSM, “The Judicial Commission and its role in the • Mr M Sagi PSM and Mr H Donnelly, “JIRS iPadTM App and JIRS Justice System in NSW”, presentation for Higher School Certificate and Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book Revisions”, presentation for Legal Studies Students at the Crime and Law Study Day, Sydney, the Public Defenders’ Office, Sydney, 22 May 2013 30 November 2012 • Mr E J Schmatt PSM, “Judicial Education — the NSW • Mr H Donnelly, “Specialised knowledge in child sexual assault Experience”, presentation at the Judicial Dialogue on HIV, Human cases” Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) Solicitors Rights and the Law in Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand, Conference, Sydney, 18 December 2012 4 June 2013 • Ms R Windeler with Ms J Green, Academic Director, National • Mr M Sagi PSM “JIRS App for the iPadTM”, Land and Environment Judicial College of Australia, “Review of Adult Learning Principles Court Twilight Seminar, Sydney, 5 June 2013 and Learning Styles”, presented at the Facilitation Skills Program • Ms R Windeler, “Familiarisation/Orientation”, presentation to the for NSW Local Court magistrates, Sydney, 6 February 2013 Magistrates’ Orientation Program, Kiama, 16 June 2013 • Mr M Sagi PSM, “JIRS iPadTM App and JIRS”, presentation to the • Ms R Windeler, “Adult Learning Principles, Learning Styles Supreme Court of NSW, Sydney, 13 February 2012 and Learning Preferences”, presentation to the Magistrates’ • Mr M Sagi PSM, “Developments in JIRS”, five presentations at Orientation Program, Kiama, 17 June 2013 the Local Court Magistrates Metropolitan Seminars, Sydney, • Ms R Windeler, “Judicial Communication”, presentation to the 18–22 February 2013 Magistrates’ Orientation Program, Kiama, 18 June 2013 • Mr E J Schmatt PSM, “Sentencing in NSW”, presentation for Higher School Certificate Legal Studies Students, Sydney, 6 March 2013

back to Appendices contents 103 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Appendix 16 Access to government information

Table A: Number of applications by type of applicant and outcome*

Access Access Access Information Information Refuse to Refuse to Application granted granted refused not held already deal with confirm/ withdrawn in full in part in full available application deny whether information is held Media 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Members of Parliament 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Private sector business 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not for profit organisations or 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 community groups Members of the public 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (application by legal representative) Members of the public (other) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

* More than one decision can be made in respect of a particular access application. If so, a recording must be made in relation to each such decision. This also applies to Table B.

Table B: Number of applications by type of application and outcome

Access Access Access Information Information Refuse to Refuse to Application granted granted refused not held already deal with confirm/ withdrawn in full in part in full available application deny whether information is held Personal information applications* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Access applications (other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 than personal information applications) Access applications that are 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 partly personal information applications and partly other

* A personal information application is an access application for personal information (as defined in clause 4 of Schedule 4 to the Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009 (GIPA Act) about the applicant (the applicant being an individual).

Table C: Invalid applications

Reason for invalidity Number of applications Application does not comply with formal requirements (section 41 of the GIPA Act) 0 Application is for excluded information of the agency (section 43 of the GIPA Act) 0 Application contravenes restraint order (section 110 of the GIPA Act) 0 Total number of invalid applications received 0 Invalid applications that subsequently became valid applications 0

104 back to Appendices contents Appendices

Appendix 16: Access to government information continued

Table D: Conclusive presumption of overriding public interest against disclosure: matters listed in Schedule 1 of the GIPA Act

Number of times consideration used* Overriding secrecy laws 0 Cabinet information 0 Executive Council information 0 Contempt 0 Legal professional privilege 0 Excluded information 0 Documents affecting law enforcement and public safety 0 Transport safety 0 Adoption 0 Care and protection of children 0 Ministerial Code of Conduct 0 Aboriginal and environmental heritage 0

* More than one public interest consideration may apply in relation to a particular access application and, if so, each such consideration is to be recorded (but only once per application). This also applies in relation to Table E.

Table E: Other public interest considerations against disclosure: matters listed in table to section 14 of the GIPA Act

Number of occasions when application not successful Responsible and effective government 0 Law enforcement and security 0 Individual rights, judicial processes and natural justice 0 Business interests of agencies and other persons 0 Environment, culture, economy and general matters 0 Secrecy provisions 0 Exempt documents under interstate Freedom of Information legislation 0

Table F: Timeliness

Number of applications Decided within the statutory timeframe (20 days plus any extensions) 0 Decided after 35 days (by agreement with applicant) 0 Not decided within time (deemed refusal) 0 Total 0

Table G: Number of applications reviewed under Part 5 of the GIPA Act (by type of review and outcome)

Decision Decision Total varied upheld Internal review 0 0 0 Review by Information Commissioner* 0 0 0 Internal review following recommendation under section 93 of the GIPA Act 0 0 0 Review by ADT 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0

* The Information Commissioner does not have the authority to vary decisions, but can make recommendation to the original decision-maker. The data in this case indicates that a recommendation to vary or uphold the original decision has been made.

Table H: Applications for review under Part 5 of the GIPA Act (by type of applicant)

Number of applications for review Applications by access applicants 0 Applications by persons to whom information the subject of access application relates (see section 54 of the GIPA Act) 0

105 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Appendix 17 Other compliance matters

Application for extension of time No extension applied for. Code of Conduct The Code of Conduct is available to all staff on the Commission’s intranet. As no amendments were made in 2012–13, the Commission is not required to reproduce the Code of Conduct. Controlled entities, disclosure of The Commission has no controlled entities. Community Relations Commission, agreements with No agreements have been entered into. Disability Plan The Commission is not required to report on a disability plan under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002. Events with a significant effect on the succeeding year after Not applicable. the balance date Executive officers, performance Not reported because the Commission’s executive officers are not employed under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002 but under the Judicial Officers Act 1986. Funds granted to non-government community organisations None. Heritage management Not applicable. Implementation of price determination Not applicable. Land disposal The Commission does not own and did not dispose of any property. Major assets The Commission does not own any major assets. Multicultural Policies and Services Plan Refer to p 58. Public interest disclosure (PID) No public interest disclosures made. Requirements arising from employment arrangements Not applicable. Responses to reports of parliamentary committees and No significant matters requiring a response were raised. Auditor General Subsidiaries, disclosure of The Commission has no subsidiaries. Waste Refer to p 61 for our environmental reporting.

Glossary

AIJA — Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration Incorporated Appointed member — A non-judicial member of the Judicial Commission of NSW: see also Official member. Bench books — Reference books for judicial officers. Complaint — A complaint against a judicial officer about ability or behaviour, either made by a member of the public or referred to the Commission by the Attorney General. Conduct Division — A special panel that examines a particular complaint referred to it by the Commission. Education day — Calculated on the basis of 5 to 6 instructional hours attended by a judicial officer. Helpdesk — A telephone service for judicial officers that provides assistance with all aspects of computer usage. JIRS — Judicial Information Research System. Judicial Commission — 1. An independent statutory organisation established by the Judicial Officers Act 1986. 2. The appointed members and official members, collectively. Judicial Information — An online legal reference tool for judicial officers, relevant government organisations and members Research System (JIRS) of the legal profession. Judicial officer — As defined in theJudicial Officers Act 1986: • a judge or associate judge of the Supreme Court • a member (including a judicial member) of the Industrial Relations Commission • a judge of the Land and Environment Court • a judge of the District Court • the President of the Children’s Court • a magistrater • the President of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal, or • the President of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The definition of judicial officer includes acting appointments to a judicial office, but does not include arbitrators, registrars, chamber registrars, assessors, members of tribunals, legal representatives, retired judicial officers or federal judicial officers. Ngara Yura Program — Aboriginal cultural awareness program for judicial officers. NJCA — National Judicial College of Australia Official member — A judicial member of the Judicial Commission of NSW. Pre-Bench training — An induction program for newly appointed magistrates to assist them with their transition to the Bench. Vexatious complainant — The Judicial Officers Act 1986 empowers the Judicial Commission of NSW to declare as a vexatious complainant a person who habitually and persistently, and mischievously or without any reasonable grounds, makes complaints about judicial officers. The effect of the declaration is that the Commission may disregard any further complaint from the complainant.

106 back to Contents Appendices

Index

Apart from the title of publications or message ...... 10 lodgement of ...... 1, 35 legislation, entries in italic indicate compliance organisational structure ...... 2 looking at the last 5 years . . . . . 109 with statutory reporting requirements. presentations by ...... 45, 47 monitoring profile ...... 15 number of ...... 1, 4, 6, 10, 35 A role and responsibilities ...... 55 outcomes 2013–2014 ...... 5 Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Program — see also Ngara Yura Program . . . 5, 21, 24 strategic planning process . . . . . 5 particulars ...... 35 access to government information . . . 59 work health and safety policy . . . . 58 patterns, identifying ...... 37 access applications ...... 59 Children’s Court of NSW Resource performance results 2012–2013 . 6, 35–37 Handbook ...... 23, 59–60, 99 accounting policies, significant . . . 72–76 process (flowchart) . . . 21, 38–39, 60 Civil Trials Bench Book . . 31, 43, 59, 60, 99 Asia Pacific Judicial Reform Forum . . . 15, public confidence, promotion of . 34, 39 47, 100 code of conduct ...... 51, 105, 106 received ...... 1, 10, 35 assets ...... 63, 79, 80–81 Commission executive management team . 55 removal of judicial officer . . . . . 39 audit and risk management Commission meetings ...... 1, 55 self-represented litigants making business continuity ...... 57 Commission members . . 12–14, 40, 55–56 complaints ...... 37 committee . . . . 1, 32, 55, 56, 57, 83 committees strategies ...... 6, 38 financial statements and reporting . . 56 bench book committees . 22, 30–31, 93 structure (organisational structure) . . 2 governance practices ...... 55 education committees . . . . 21, 91, 92 substitution for appeals ...... 37 Internal Audit Plan 2012–13, review of . 56 establishment of ...... 55 targets ...... 36 Internal Audit and Risk Management serving judicial officers, on . . . . . 50 timeliness in dealing with . 10, 35, 39, 60 Policy, attestation ...... 59 Commonwealth Sentencing Database .45, 100 trends 2012–13 ...... 34, 37 risk management policy ...... 58 Community Awareness of the Judiciary vexatious complainant ...... 37 safe working environment . . . . . 60 Program . . . . 1, 4–5, 10, 44–47, 58 year ahead ...... 39 strategic planning ...... 5 Community Relations Commission, compliance working with ...... 58 Treasury Guidelines TPP09-05, internal audit recommendations . . . 61 complaints compliance with ...... 57 financial directives ...... 71 Auditor’s Report, Independent . . . 65–66 allegations of failure to give fair hearing ...... 35, 37 Public Finance and Audit Act 1983, Australasian Reporting Awards . . 52, 100 with s 11 of ...... 56 Attorney General, no referrals from . . 37 Treasury guidelines TPP09-05 . . . . 57 AVO proceedings ...... 37 B work health and safety ...... 60 benchmarking, international . . . . 35 bench books conference topics case studies ...... 41 committees ...... 93 annual conferences ...... 93–94 causes, common ...... 35, 37 highlights ...... 22 other conferences ...... 94 challenges ...... 39 iPad ™ technology . . . . 4, 24, 28, 32 orientation programs ...... 95 Chief Executive’s message . . . . . 10 internal audit review ...... 32, 61 consultants ...... 50 complainant guidelines . . . . . 87–88 online copies . . . . . 5, 10, 22, 28, 60 consumer response ...... 60 complaints process flowchart . . . 40 publically accessible ...... 3, 45 continuing judicial education program — see completion rate ...... 1 updates ...... 6, 22, 43, 45, 59 judicial education Conduct Divisions, referral to . 4–5, 34, 36, controlled entities, disclosure of . . . . 106 year ahead ...... 5, 61 38, 39 corporate functions ...... 5 budget review ...... 83 consumer response ...... 60 credit card certification ...... 63 Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research discourtesy ...... 37 (BOCSAR) ...... 31–32 Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book . . 28–33, dismissed, summarily ...... 36 43, 47, 57, 59, 60 examination of . . . . 1–2, 6, 35–41, 78 C expenditure ...... 34–35, 63 case studies ...... 25, 33, 41, 47 D failure to give fair hearing . . . . 35, 37 case management systems . . . . 45, 100 disability plan ...... 106 financial performance ...... 35 challenges . . . 25, 32, 39, 46, 52, 61, 64 form ...... 38–39 charter ...... 56–57 E formal complaints governance . . . 39 Chief Executive education — see judicial education further action, complaints requiring . 10 appointment of ...... 55 employees — see staff guidelines ...... 87–90 Asia Pacific Judicial Reform Forum, employment — see staff member of ...... 47 head of jurisdiction, referral to . . . 36 employment arrangements ...... 106 audit and risk management . . . 56, 58 history ...... 3 equal employment opportunity . . . . . 52 certification ...... 4, 63, 66 how to make ...... 38 Equal Employment Opportunity Management complaint lodged with ...... 38 inappropriate comments . . . . . 37 plan 2012–2015 ...... 52 governance ...... 2 incompetence ...... 37 Equality Before the Law Bench Book . . 23, 43, 58–59, 60, 99 induction of new staff by . . . . . 51 informal enquiries ...... 37, 39 environmental reporting and activities . . 61 internal audit and risk management investigation of ...... 6, 60 statement ...... 59 judicial education design process . 21, 39 environmental sustainability — see sustainability media enquiries, response to . . . . 43 judicial officers, against, guidelines . 89–90

back to Contents 107 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Index continued examining complaints — see complaints remuneration arrangements . . . . 55 highlights 2012–13 ...... 1, 22 executive officers results 2012–13 ...... 54 interactive learning ...... 22, 25 Chief Executive — see Chief Executive risk management — see audit and risk iPad™ technology . . . . . 19, 22, 24 performance ...... 106 management key results ...... 16 remuneration of senior management . 50 trends 2012–13 ...... 54 key services ...... 7 team profiles ...... 15 Government Information (Public Access) Act links with other judicial education 2009 extension of time, none applied for . . 106 providers ...... 46 access applications . . . . . 59, 104 external audit ...... 57 Local Court seminars and regional Chief Executive’s message . . . . . 10 conferences ...... 18 Review of proactive release program . 59 looking at the last 5 years . . . . . 109 F magistrates, orientation for new . . . 18 financial data/information — see financial statements; financial report H national benchmarking ...... 17 financial statements heritage management, not applicable to . 106 orientation programs ...... 18 cash flow ...... 70 health and safety — see work health and performance results 2012–2013 . . . 6 safety certification by CEO of ...... 66 pre-Bench induction training . . . . 18 history ...... 3 changes in equity ...... 69 presentation skills ...... 25 human resources — see staff comprehensive income ...... 67 publications ...... 20–22 financial position ...... 68 regional programs ...... 18 I inclusion of audited ...... 67–85 satisfaction and rating . . . . 1, 16–19 Independent Auditor’s Report . . . 65–66 notes to and forming part of . . . 72–85 seminar program ...... 24 insurance ...... 58 summary of compliance ...... 71 strategies ...... 21 internal audit ...... 56–57, 59, 61 financial management targets, exceeded ...... 16 International Organization for Judicial training judicial officers ...... 21 challenges ...... 64 Training ...... 5, 15, 47, 100 trends ...... 16 Chief Executive’s message . . . . . 10 iPad ™ technology . . . . .1, 3–5, 10, 24, highlights 2012–13 ...... 1 27–29, 32 twilight seminars ...... 18 result ...... 4 investment . . . . . 4, 10, 63, 67, 78, 109 workshops, skill-based . . . . . 18, 21 summary ...... 63 year ahead ...... 25 surplus ...... 1, 4, 10, 63 J Judicial Information Research System (JIRS) year ahead, the ...... 64 Judicial education accessibility and availability . 7, 22, 28, 31 financial report Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Program accuracy ...... 31–32 after balance date events . . . . . 85 — see Ngara Yura Program announcements ...... 31 cash flows statement ...... 70 annual court conferences . . . . 18, 21 bench books ...... 22, 31 certification of financial statement . . 66 attendance ...... 17–18, 22 case law ...... 31 changes in equity statement . . . . 69 audio podcasts ...... 10, 22 case studies ...... 33 comprehensive income statement . . 67 auditing ...... 17 challenges ...... 32 financial instruments ...... 83 case studies ...... 25 conference papers on . . . . 4, 10, 22 financial position statement . . . . . 68 challenges ...... 17, 25 Court of Appeal, new database . . . 32 Independent Auditor’s Report . . 65–66 Chief Executive’s message . . . . . 10 criminal law, publishing changes . . 30 notes ...... 72–85 communication training ...... 24 currency ...... 31 Forum Sentencing Program . . . . 45, 100 complaints, effect of, on . . . . 21, 39 electronic delivery ...... 60 freedom of information — see access to computer support ...... 21 enhancements ...... 7, 32 government information computer training, increased growth, unprecedented ...... 27 funding ...... 56, 90 demand for ...... 19, 22, 24 highlights 2012–2013 ...... 1 conference paper database . . . 20–22 history ...... 3 G conferences ...... 20 iPad ™, adapted for . . . . . 4–5, 10, glossary ...... 106 digital and multi-media resources . . 21 24, 28–29, 32 governance DVDs, training ...... 25 maintenance of ...... 31 accountability ...... 55 Education Directory Interface (EDI) . 22 organisational structure ...... 2 Chief Executive’s message . . . . . 10 education sessions ...... 16 publications accessed on . . . . 29, 31 conflicts of interest ...... 55 electronic evidence ...... 23 presentations of ...... 43, 60 formal complaints ...... 39 e-newsletter, monthly ...... 22 recent law ...... 31 highlights 2012–13 ...... 1 evaluation forms, new ...... 17 regard, high for ...... 29 meetings ...... 55 expenditure ...... 16 sentencing information and statistics ...... 30–31 members, appointed and office . . . 55 feedback ...... 20 services directory ...... 31 outcomes ...... 57 field trips ...... 21, 23 financial performance ...... 17 support system, complete judicial practices ...... 55–57 decision ...... 31 profile, of the Commission . . . . . 2 gaol visits ...... 18, 20

108 Appendices

timeliness of sentencing O payment of accounts ...... 61, 63 material ...... 7, 31–32 objectives . . 2, 5, 16, 26, 34, 42, 48, 59, 62 people — see staff use and usage of . . . . 6, 10, 26–29, organisational structure, profile personnel policies — see staff 32, 43, 52 legal basis of ...... 2, 56 policies ...... 58–59 working with other NSW agencies . . 45 mission, vision, purpose and values . . 2 Education Directory Interface, year ahead ...... 32 objectives ...... 2, 45 compliance with ...... 22 judicial officer — see also complaints organisational structure ...... 2 external costs in production of report . 108 allegations against ...... 37 performance ...... 6 reviews, no conduct of ...... 58 attendance of professional development President’s foreword ...... 8 activities ...... 17 profiles ...... 15 Privacy and Personal Information Protection complaints about ...... 37 orientation programs . . . . 6, 17–18, 20, 46, 95, 109 Act 1998 connecting through conferences . . 23 overseas visits ...... 101 Privacy Management Plan ...... 58 guidelines, complaints against . . 87–89 proactive release program, review of . . 59 number of ...... 38 P profiles ...... 15 professional reference ...... 16 parliamentary committees, responses to . 106 Commission’s profile ...... 2 training ...... 24 partners Member’s profiles ...... 12–14 Judicial Officers’ Bulletin . 3, 22, 24, 30–31, Executive team ...... 15 33, 91, 99 agencies, other justice sector . 2, 24, 27, 30, 32, 42 publications judicial performance ...... 6, 87 assistance to other jurisdictions and annual report 2011–2012 . . 17, 23, 25, The Judicial Review . . . . 22, 31, 56, 99 organisations ...... 45 28–29, 32, 52, 59 jury directions, simplification of . 23, 32–33, Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, articles published . . . . . 22, 91, 97 43, 45, 47 working with ...... 31 bench books . . . .3–6, 10, 22, 24, 27, case studies ...... 47 28–32, 43, 45, 50, 59, 99 K challenges ...... 46 brochures ...... 99 key results ...... 6 Chief Executive’s message . . . . . 10 DVDs ...... 7, 20, 43, 45, 99 key services ...... 7 Community Awareness of the Judicial education monographs . . 7, 20, 43, 98 Program ...... 42, 44, 47 electronic delivery of ...... 60 L courts’ case management systems, handbooks ...... 45, 99 support for ...... 45, 64 land disposal ...... 106 journals ...... 99 Lawcodes .1, 2, 7, 15, 42–43, 45, 57, 60, 106 Department of Attorney General and Justice, assisting ...... 43 research monographs . . . . 29, 43, 98 Legal Aid NSW . . . . 27, 33, 43, 45, 102 educating with free resources . . . 43 sentencing trends & issues . . 1, 4–5, 7, legislation, changes to ...... 31, 56 26, 29, 30–33, 43, 45, 56, 59, 98–99 global network of judiciaries . . . . . 2 legislative charter ...... 56 publishing program highlights 2012–13 ...... 1 liabilities ...... 63, 67, 68, 72, 74, 75, appreciation ...... 23 HSC legal studies students . . . . . 47 78, 82, 83, 84 highlights ...... 23 library service ...... 60–61 Indigenous communities — see also Ngara Yura Program reporting change ...... 22 information and advice, provision of . 43 public interest disclosure ...... 106 M international ...... 5 major assets ...... 106 International Organization for Judicial R management and structure — see also Training ...... 5 record management policy ...... 61 Commission members; executive officers judicial education providers . . 2, 45, 46 remuneration arrangements ...... 55 committees . . . . . 21–22, 31, 55, 92 Lawcodes database, audit research and sentencing program members, appointed and official . 12–13, response ...... 42–43 14 audit, favourable ...... 27 Legal Aid NSW, assisting . . . . . 43 our organisation case studies ...... 33 NSW Law Reform Commission, challenges ...... 32 President, foreword ...... 12–13 assisting ...... 43, 47 Chief Executive’s message . . . . . 10 mobile technology . . . . . 4, 22, 24, 32 NSW public, community and multicultural Multicultural Policies and Services Plan . 58 groups ...... 47 consistency in sentencing . . . . . 30 Office of the Director of Public context evidence in sexual assault trials ...... 33 N Prosecutions, assisting . . . . . 43 Court of Appeal database . . . . . 32 National Judicial Orientation Program . . 19, 20, online library, additions to . . . . . 43 46, 58, 95 outcomes ...... 5 criminal law developments . . . . . 30 National Water Regulation Sentencing presentations ...... 43 criminal law reference material use of ...... 26 Database ...... 5, 46 research assistance ...... 42–43 Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book . . 26, Ngara Yura Program . . . . 17, 20, 24–25, results 2012–13 ...... 42 47, 52, 58, 97, 99, 106 27, 29, 32 sharing expertise ...... 5 Aboriginal cultural awareness Expenditure ...... 26 sessions ...... 21, 24 satisfaction rate ...... 1, 42–44 financial performance, ...... 27 Aboriginal rehabilitation State Debt Recovery, assisting . . . 43 highlights 2012–13 ...... 1, 32 programs, new ...... 24 targets, exceeding ...... 42–43 iPad ™ ...... 10, 26, 32 committee ...... 93 trends 2012–13 ...... 42 Judicial Information Research System NSW government, relationship with . . . 56 website use of resources . . . . . 43 — see Judicial Information Research working with other organisations . . 100 System (JIRS) year ahead ...... 5 jury directions ...... 30–33

109 Judicial Commission of NSW / Annual Report 2012–13

Index continued

key results 2012–2013 ...... 26 Staff — see also Equal Opportunity T key services ...... 7 Management Program targets ...... 6–7 looking at the last 5 years . . . . . 109 annual internal staff survey . . . . . 49 technology — see mobile technology; iPad ™ monographs ...... 26 attendance ...... 50–51 technology outcomes ...... 5 challenges ...... 52 training — see judicial education performance results 2012–2013 . . . 6 Chief Executive’s message . . . . . 10 Treasury Guidelines TPP09-05, compliance with ...... 57 research studies ...... 29, 30 conditions, of ...... 50–51 trends 2012–13 . . 16, 26, 34, 42, 48, 54, 62 results 2012–13 ...... 26 consultants ...... 50 satisfaction rating ...... 1, 27 employee communication . . . 49, 51 V Sentencing Bench Book . 26–27, 29, 32 employment arrangements . . . . 106 values sentencing law decision . . . . 30, 33 equal opportunity ...... 52 community ...... 10, 21, 47 sentencing patterns ...... 33 five-year comparison ...... 50 our ...... 2, 6, 55 sentencing study for fraud offences . 32 flexible work arrangements . . . 49, 51 vision, our ...... 2, 54, 55 Sentencing trends & issues papers . 32–33 guaranteeing service and consumer response ...... 60 visitors ...... 45–46, 58, 101 sexual assault and evidence . . . . 33 induction ...... 51 targets, exceeded ...... 29 multicultural ...... 58 W trends 2012–13 ...... 26 performance reviews ...... 51 Waste Reduction and Purchasing Policy . 61 website use ...... 29 productivity ...... 49 work health and safety year ahead ...... 32 recognising achievements . . . . . 52 Audit and Risk Management revenue ...... 10, 62–64, 67, 78, 109 retaining ...... 50 Committee, role ...... 60 risk management, internal audit — see audit compliance ...... 60 and risk management remuneration, senior management . . 50 safe working environment . . 1, 51, 60 five-year trends ...... 60 information and procedures . . . . 51 S satisfaction rate ...... 1, 49 injuries and prosecutions, none . 1, 54, 60 sentencing — see research and sentencing senior management remuneration . . 50 policy ...... 58 Sentencing Bench Book . . . .6–7, 27–29, staff turnover rate, low ...... 50 31–33, 43 superannuation ...... 50 relevant statistic ...... 1 service group expenditure ...... 4 targets ...... 36 workplace environment ...... 50 service measures ...... 7 training and development . . . . . 49 services turnover rate ...... 50 Y customer response, guaranteeing . . 60 stakeholders — see partners year ahead . 5, 10, 25, 32, 39, 46, 52, 61, 64 electronic delivery of ...... 60 wages, setting ...... 50 year in brief ...... 4 library ...... 60–61 strategic focus . 5–6, 21, 24–25, 31, 38, 39 Sexual Assault Trials Handbook . . . 43, 59 strategic planning ...... 5, 6, 10 significant issues — see also Challenges . 10 subsidiaries, disclosure of ...... 106 sustainability ...... 61, 109

Contents page photos p 16 p 34 p 54 The Honourable Justice Robert Chambers of The historic Court House in Bathurst, built Antonia Miller, an editor in the Commission’s the New Zealand Supreme Court conducted a in 1880, houses sittings of the Local Court, Publishing section, is committed to sustainable seminar on jury question trails. He is pictured District Court and the Supreme Court of NSW. business practices. This year, the Commission (standing) with the Chief Judge of the District back to p 34 recycled 1.8 tonnes of waste paper, used 100% Court of NSW, the Honourable Justice Reg recycled paper, and achieved a 1% reduction in Blanch AM. p 42 energy consumption. back to p 16 Chief Superintendent Brad Shepherd, NSW back to p 54 Police, presented Chief Executive Ernest Schmatt p 26 PSM, with a copy of True Blue, a history of the p 62 Mr Murali Sagi PSM, our Director, Information NSW Police, at the conclusion of the 2012 Malcolm Hozack, Manager, Finance and Management and Corporate Services, gave Community Awareness of the Judiciary Program. Administration, is responsible for managing the a demonstration of the Judicial Information back to p 42 Commission’s payroll, finances and corporate Research System to magistrates at the Local services. Court annual conference in August 2012. p 48 back to p 62 back to p 26 Pictured are members of the Commission’s Information Management team who are Front and back cover responsible for maintaining the Judicial The Law Courts Building in Queen Square, Information Research System. Sydney, houses the High Court of Australia, the back to p 48 Federal Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of NSW. back to front cover, to back cover

Annual Report of the Judicial Commission of NSW 2012–13 ISSN 1441-8444 Cost: No external costs incurred in the production of this report Writer: Kate Lumley Format: The annual report is also available on the Commission’s website: Designer: Lorraine Beal www.judcom.nsw.gov.au Photography: Commission staff and archived photos

110 Looking at the last 5 years

2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 2012–13 Continuing judicial education program Number of judicial education days per year 1,396 1,554 1,389 870* 1,232 Number of educational programs 38 39 37 34 38 Overall satisfaction rating with judicial education programs 90% 91% 93% 95% 92% % of attendance by judicial officers at annual conferences 86% 90% 93% 77% 90% % of attendance at magistrates’ induction/orientation programs 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Average number of training days offered per judicial officer 5 5.2 5.3 4 5 Average number of training days undertaken per judicial officer 4.8 5.3 4.7 3.0* 4 % of judicial officers who attended at least 2 days of judicial training 86% 90% 93% 82% 90% Number of publications (including bench book updates, bulletins, journals, 24 23 23 21 25 education monographs and training DVDs)** Number of computer training hours*** – – – 109.5 331 Research and sentencing program JIRS usage (average page hits per month) 77,684 84,312 88,704 99,172 113,666 % of JIRS availability 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% Number of enhancements to JIRS 8 11 10 11 12 Timeliness of sentencing material on JIRS – Recent Law items posted on JIRS 2 wks 2 wks 2 wks 2 wks 2 wks – Judgments (within number of days of receipt) 1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day 1 day – Summaries of important judgments (within number of weeks of receipt) 4 wks 4 wks 6 wks 6 wks 5 wks – Sentencing statistics loaded on JIRS (within number of months of receipt) 1–3 mths 1–4 mths 1–4 mths 1–4 mths 1–4 mths Number of Sentencing Trends & Issues papers and monographs 2 2 3 2 4 Timely updates to the Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book and Sentencing 10 7 6 6 8 Bench Book** Lawcodes: % of new and amended offences coded and distributed within 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 4 days of commencement Examining complaints % of complaints acknowledged within 1 week of receipt 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% % of complaints examined within 6 months of receipt 92% 91% 95% 68% 78% % of complaints examined within 12 months of receipt 100% 98% 100% 100% 98% Complaints received (number) 55 70 60 110 71 Complaints examined (number) 47 64 56 90 85 People Staff (number) 39 38 38 40 39 Length of service: 5 years or greater 59% 73% 68% 58% 64% Governance policies and processes Access to information requests 0 0 0 0 0 Environmental sustainability Total energy used 550 GJ 521 GJ 503 GJ 478 GJ 475 GJ % of recycled paper used 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Finances Revenue from Parliament $4.645 M $4.944 M $5.395 M $5.215 M $5.321 M Retained revenue (sale of goods & services, investment income, etc) $678,000 $687,000 $681,000 $673,000 $709,000 Expenditure $5.471 M $5.655 M $6.094 M $5.870 M $6.008 M

* The Local Court Annual Conference was not held in the 2011–12 financial year. ** We changed our measure to include Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book updates in Research and sentencing. *** We changed our measure from 2010–11 to measure hours of computer training.

back to Contents