County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report This report provides a summary The County Court of Victoria is of the County Court’s strategic priorities, major projects and the intermediate tier of the state’s achievements for the financial year 2012–2013. A full list of the court hierarchy. It is the major Court’s activities for 2012–2013 is available on the Court’s website at trial court in the state of Victoria. www.countycourt.vic.gov.au.
Contents
Report of the Chief Judge 1 Year at a Glance 2 The County Court of Victoria 4 Jurisdiction of the County Court of Victoria 5 Criminal Jurisdiction 6 Civil Jurisdiction 13 The County Court and the Community 16 The County Court on Circuit 18 Judicial Professional Development 20 Judicial Contributions to Boards, Committees and User Groups 22 Non-Publication Orders 23 Judges of the County Court 24 Supporting the Judges of the County Court 26 Report of the CEO 27 Report of the Principal Registrar 28 Self-Represented Litigants 29 Court Operations 30 Financial Report 31 Court Usage Data 32 Report of the Chief Judge
The number of cases finalised by the County Court has again increased this financial year. This has been the trend over the last few years.
The civil jurisdiction has reported a rise in Serious Injury This helped to streamline and simplify processes in the applications and there has been a significant increase in the Directions List. The pilot has already reduced delay by 10 to 12 number of finalisations due, in large part, to the concerted effort weeks. I anticipate other benefits to be realised when the pilot by the Court to manage the ongoing pressure in the Damages and is evaluated in the second half of the year. Compensation list. This is an area of the Court’s work which has A particularly pleasing development which demonstrates the been a cause for concern for a number of years. Court’s innovative strength was the design and rollout of iManage. Over the report year, 431 judgments were delivered in the Court’s Developed last year, iManage is a sophisticated electronic document civil jurisdiction. 302 of these judgments (70%) were in Serious management system for criminal files. It has now been successfully Injury applications, although these initiations constitute only introduced at our circuit locations in regional Victoria. iManage is 26% (1,739 out of 6,682) of the total number of proceedings already helping to reduce delay and deliver an improved service to initiated in the civil jurisdiction. Serious Injury adjudications regional locations. We are able to better manage circuit cases and must be obtained before a common law claim for damages can use valuable circuit court time more efficiently. be instituted by litigants who have suffered personal injury in a The implementation of iManage into the Melbourne County Court workplace or as a transport accident. The repeal of section 134AE is the next step in this process of innovation and improvement. It of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) has meant that judges will yield significant benefits including substantial time saving no longer need to give “detailed reasons which are as extensive for registry and judicial staff by eliminating the physical file. and complete as the Court would give on a trial of an action”. Fundamental to the expansion of iManage to the Melbourne However, the continuing large number of contested Serious Injury registry is an electronic document lodgement system that provides applications has required that 15 judges be primarily allocated to for third party filing directly intoiManage . The Court hopes to this jurisdiction. secure funding over the next financial year to enable us to build In 2012-2013 the Victorian WorkCover Authority (VWA) was a this capacity. Once established at Melbourne, we will expand respondent to 228 serious injury applications in which judgments electronic filing to all our regional courts and unify practice were delivered. Only 40 (or 18%) of these applications were across the State. This exciting project is also the first step in a dismissed. Plaintiffs were successful in the remaining process which will see us transform into a paperless Court. 188 (or 82%) of the applications. For Transport Accident The Court welcomed increased support from the State Commission contested applications, 77% of the applications Government provided in the 2013 May State Budget. In were successful and 23% of the applications were dismissed. particular, the Court was pleased to receive funding for These figures, particularly in the case of the VWA, the County Koori Court including the expansion reflect the position that has existed for many years of sittings into Melbourne. I would also like to – the VWA is a litigant which consistently loses acknowledge funding provided for the stabilisation at least 80% of the applications it contests. I of the Case List Management System. The continue to hope that in the future greater modernisation of the system continues to be a consideration is given, and a more realistic priority for the Court. assessment of the prospects of success The County Court, in partnership with the other conducted, before litigation that is both costly courts and VCAT, advanced its preparation for the and time consuming is proceeded with. impending arrival of the independent administrative In the criminal jurisdiction, the Court continues entity for all courts and tribunals, Court Services to grapple with the impact of sentencing and other Victoria. This is a truly exciting journey which will reforms which have had the effect of substantially ultimately place Victorian courts in the enviable expanding the judicial function over recent position of being self administered. years. Now, more than ever, judges are required During the report year the Court welcomed Judge to monitor, supervise and review an increasing David Brookes, Judge Ian Gray (State Coroner), number of consequential orders arising out of, Judge John Jordan, Judge Peter Couzens (Children’s but not limited to, the Crimes (Mental Impairment Court President), Judge Christopher Ryan, Judge and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, the Serious Sex Paul Cosgrave and Judge Gavan Meredith. The Court Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009 and farewelled Judge Tim Wood, Judge Barbara Cotterell the Sentencing Act 1991. Whilst recognising that this (now Reserve Judge), Judge Ross Howie, Judge Jennifer is a legitimate trend, and an appropriate response by Coate, Judge Margaret Rizkalla, Judge Giuseppe Gullaci, Government, it nevertheless creates resource issues for Judge Timothy Ginnane and Judge Julian Leckie. the Court that to date, have not been resolved. I extend my thanks and appreciation to the judges and The Court has continued to deliver on a number of staff for their professionalism, hard work and total successful innovations including the ongoing progress dedication to the Court and its important work. of the 24 Hour Initial Directions Pilot. The pilot was expanded to include matters that proceed as a straight hand-up brief with a plea of not guilty.
Chief Judge Rozenes
County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report 1 Year at a Glance
The number of cases finalised by the County Court has increased in this financial year from 11,395 in 2011–2012 to 11,462 in 2012–2013. To read about the criminal jurisdiction of the Court, turn to page 6. For more detail on the civil jurisdiction, see page 13.
6,284 5,178 civil cases criminal cases
7,000 7,000
6,000 6,000 2,998 2,792 5,000 5,000 appeals
4,000 11,462 4,000
3,000 3,000 2,386 cases 2,438 finalised 2,000 2,000 trials and pleas
1,000 1,000
5,959 6,284 5,436 5,178 finalised finalised finalised finalised 2011–2012 2012–2013 2011–2012 2012–2013
TOTAL CIRCUIT CASE ACTIVITY DISPOSALS BY METHOD OF FINALISATION
initiated Criminal disposals Civil disposals Default appearance Other Notice discontinuance Settled at mediation Other Finalised by consent before trial Trial conviction Trial acquittal Nolle Prosequi Discontinuance order Notice of dismissal Judgment at trial Trial turned plea of guilty Finalised by consent at trial Plea of guilty Judgment by consent (Rule 59.06)
2,000 1,937 1,953 finalised 2,000
1,881 pending 1,799
1,500 1,500 1,404 1,339
1,000 1,000
500 500 109 1,493 1,412 800 422 209 343 937 563 874 537 281 14 183 178 315
0 2011–2012 2012–2013 0 2012–2013
2 County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report Commenced: Number of cases Finalisation: initiated during the Number of cases reporting period completed during (including supervision the reporting period. order cases). Cases no longer active.
2011–2012 2012-2013 % change TOTAL COUNTY COURT CASES: Commenced 11,456 12,209 6.6% Finalised 11,395 11,462 0.6% Pending 10,083 10,631 5.4% Overall County Court Clearance Ratio (%) 99.5% 93.9% % disposed within 12 months 67.2% 64.6% TOTAL CIVIL CASES: Commenced 6,350 6,682 5.2% Finalised 5,959 6,284 5.5% Pending 7,552 7,828 3.7% Overall Civil Clearance Ratio (%) 93.8% 94.0% % disposed within 12 months 47.0% 48.0% Pending: TOTAL CRIMINAL CASES (INCLUDING APPEALS): Number of active/ Commenced 5,106 5,527 8.2% Finalised 5,436 5,178 open cases as at the 4.7% Pending 2,531 2,803 end of the reporting 10.7% Overall Criminal Clearance Ratio (%) 106.5% 93.7% period. % disposed within 12 months 84.2% 85.9% Criminal Trials and Pleas: Commenced 2,216 2,463 11.1% Finalised 2,438 2,386 2.1% Pending 1,586 1,641 3.5% Trials and Pleas Clearance Ratio (%) 110.0% 96.9% Clearance rate: % disposed within 12 months 72.0% 76.0% How many cases Criminal Appeals: finalised as a Commenced 2,890 3,064 6.0% percentage of Finalised 2,998 2,792 6.9% initiations. Pending 945 1,162 23.0% Appeals Clearance Ratio (%) 103.7% 91.1% % disposed within 12 months 94.0% 93.0% TOTAL ADOPTION CASES: Applications Considered 54 56 3.7% Adoption Orders Made 61 50 18.0% Applications Pending 2 2 0.0%
COURTROOM USAGE 2012-2013 MONTHLY RESERVATIONS V MONTHLY USAGE
For the year ending 1,200 30 June 2013, courtroom usage (8,904 days) was 1,000 Usage 370 days more than reserved. The Supreme 800 Court accounted for 57 of these days. 600 More details on page 32. Reservations
400
200
0 Jul 12 Aug 12 Sep 12 Oct 12 Nov 12 Dec 12 Jan 13 Feb 13 Mar 13 Apr 13 May 13 Jun 13
County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report 3 The County Court of Victoria
REPORT OF THE CHAIR Our Vision OF THE INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR COURT EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE To be a leader in court excellence, delivering the highest standard of Judge Davis justice to the community we serve and inspiring public confidence in In 2010, the County Court adopted the International Framework for Court Excellence the rule of law. (IFCE). The IFCE was developed by the International Consortium for Court Excellence in order to provide a framework of values and a methodology to assist courts to improve the Our Values quality of justice and court administration they deliver. Among other areas, the Framework identifies the critical importance of maintaining public trust and confidence. Respect: The Framework is also a resource for assessing the performance of a court against seven Work cooperatively as a detailed areas and provides guidance to courts intending to improve their performance in Whole of Court. order to achieve excellence. The IFCE guides the Court towards achievement of its goals by Treat people well. offering management styles and standards that are fundamental to the delivery of a court of Integrity: excellence and the creation of important public value. It utilises recognised organisational Honest ethical and reasonable improvement methodologies while reflecting the special issues that courts face. The IFCE behaviour. also incorporates case studies, court performance improvement processes and a range of available tools to measure court performance and development. Fairness: The IFCE is based on a self-assessment process against the relevant criteria which guides Treat people equally and impartially. the Court in setting priorities for the future. As part of implementing the IFCE the County Transparency: Court has committed to periodically collecting data regarding its performance as rated Open and reasoned decision making. against the Framework’s seven areas of excellence. This process is known as organisational Clear, understandable processes. self-assessment and provides the Court with information to assist in planning improvement actions and gauging progress over time. The County Court completed its second self- Timeliness: assessment this year. Our scores for the two self-assessments we have undertaken are below. Responsive and focused on delivering quality service. IFCE’S Areas of Excellence 2011 2012 Possible Score Score Score Professionalism: 1: Court Leadership and Management 56.9 70.2 120 Competent, capable and proficient. 2: Court Planning and Policies 46.7 56.7 100 Continuous review and 3: Court Proceedings 56.7 53.3 100 improvement. 4: Court Resources 63.3 70.0 100 5: Public Trust and Confidence 73.3 132.0 220 Our Objectives 6: User Satisfaction 54.0 75.0 180 7: Affordable and Accessible Court Services 112.0 128.0 180 As part of the implementation of Banding Score 462.9 585.2 1,000 the International Framework for Total Percentage 46% 59% 100% Court Excellence, the County Court adopted the areas of excellence in International experience suggests that courts with scores in the range of 40% to 60% the Framework as court objectives: have a sound, effective approach in place and are achieving good performance levels. Our To provide fair, effective and efficient scores demonstrate this satisfactory level of performance and also show improvement in court processes. six areas of excellence. Through the self-assessment process we have identified areas for improvement and the inclusion of these projects in our Annual Business Plans has resulted To reinforce public trust and in actions to address the gaps. confidence in the court. In 2012 the County Court became a member of the International Consortium for Court To continue to improve court Excellence which recognised the Court’s commitment to achieving court excellence. The performance and quality. Court hopes to secure additional funding over the coming year in order to enable us to Lead a modern and innovative court. complete the important work of embedding the IFCE as the foundation management model Be accessible to our court users. for the County Court. Build our people and resource capabilities.
4 County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report Jurisdiction of the County Court of Victoria
Civil Criminal Jurisdiction Jurisdiction
Commercial Damages & Adoption and General Sexual County List Compensation Substitute Crime Offences Koori List Parentage List List Court Order List
Banking Applications and Division Finance List As the principal trial court in Victoria, the Court’s jurisdiction is as follows:
Criminal Jurisdiction Building Defamation The County Court can hear all indictable offences, except treason, murder Cases Division Division and related offences. The broad range of offences dealt with includes serious theft, armed robbery, drug trafficking, sexual offences, fraud and dishonesty offences, culpable driving, serious assault and income and sales tax offences. The majority of offences arise under Victorian legislation; however, the Court also deals with a number of offences under Commonwealth legislation. Expedited General Cases Division Criminal Appeals Division The Court hears appeals from the criminal jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court as well as appeals relating to family violence intervention orders under the Family Violence Protection Act 2008. The County Court hears appeals from the criminal and family divisions of General Family the Children’s Court. Division Property Division Civil Jurisdiction The County Court has an unlimited monetary jurisdiction in civil matters. Cases heard in this jurisdiction include commercial matters, building disputes and damages arising from a wide range of incidents including Medical medical negligence, serious injury and defamation. The Court has original Division jurisdiction in WorkCover matters.
Adoption and Substitute Parentage Order List The Court has jurisdiction to make parentage orders and orders relating to adoption and change of name. Serious Injury Division
WorkCover Division
County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report 5 Criminal Jurisdiction
REPORT OF THE JUDGE IN CHARGE OF THE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION Judge Taft
During 2012-2013 the County Court of Victoria finalised 361 jury a changing profile of criminal trials. Judges are required to hear trials which ran to verdict, 1,693 pleas (including 281 trials which longer and more difficult cases than in the past. resolved as pleas) and 2,792 appeals. That workload is marginally Unfortunately there is a real risk that the Court will be unable less than the previous year but the statistics mask the increasing to adequately sustain the volume of its core work – jury trials, length of criminal trials and the growing demand on judges to hear pleas and appeals – without further resources. Judges are and determine new categories of cases. required to determine ever larger numbers of applications, The state wide proportion of all cases that were finalised as a plea of reviews and renewals of Supervision Orders under the Serious guilty fell to 71% from the 73% of last year. However, across the state, Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009 together the proportion of sex cases that resolved as a plea of guilty increased with breaches of Supervision Orders. Compensation applications from 45% to 51%. for injury arising from offending are increasing in number, as are supervisory orders and reviews made pursuant to the Crimes The number of pending trials and pleas on circuit remains (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997. It is unchanged but inroads have been made in reducing the number anticipated that additional judicial resources will be needed of pending circuit appeals. to hear disputed applications for non-publication orders. If Over the past year 76% of cases were finalised within the volume of such work markedly increases, there will be an 12 months of initial listing which represents an inevitable rise in the number of unreached trials and pleas and improvement from the figure of 72% of the previous year. unacceptable delay in hearing cases. The Court has sought to identify the length of criminal In the coming years it is very probable that more prosecutions trials and has gathered data of estimates of trial of historical sex cases will emerge from the Victorian length provided to the Court by prosecution and Parliamentary Inquiry into the Handling of Child defence counsel. While these estimates do Abuse by Religious and Other Organisations and the not necessarily correspond to the actual time Commonwealth Royal Commission into Institutional that a criminal trial takes to conduct, the Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Criminal trials data suggests that the proportion of ‘small which arise from these inquiries are likely to be legally trials’ (1-5 days) has halved from 62% of all complex and the age and health of defendants will pose trials in 2008 to 31% in 2013. During the further difficulties. The current resources of this Court same period, every category of longer trial are unlikely to match the community demand for speedy has significantly increased. These figures disposition of such cases. do suggest that the increased volume of Judges in this Court have embraced the Jury Directions evidence in criminal trials – including Act 2013 which is directed to simplifying jury directions forensic evidence, and product from listening in criminal trials and we welcome the prospect of further devices, telephone intercepts and the internet – legislative intervention to assist judges in giving simpler together with greater legal complexity results in and clearer jury directions.
Judge Taft
6 County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report CRIMINAL WORKLOAD METHOD OF DISPOSAL 2012-2013 (% CASES FINALISED AS A PLEA OF GUILTY) appeals trials pleas 6,000 100% pleas (incl. sex oence) pleas – sex oences 5,000 80% 76 73 75 7072 71 4,000 2,205 2,602 2,992 2,998 2,792 60% 3,000 55 50 51 51 40% 51 51 2,000 513 384 402 378 361 1,597 1,696 1,738 1,776 1,693 1,000 20%
0 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 0 Circuit Melbourne Statewide
PENDING CIRCUIT CASES: COMPARISON DISTRIBUTION OF CRIMINAL TRIAL LENGTH BETWEEN 2010-2013 (ESTIMATES) 2008-2013 1 - 5 days 600 As at 30 Jun 2013 70 6 - 10 days As at 30 Jun 2012 11 - 15 days 535 20 days 535 As at 30 Jun 2011 60 500 > 20 days As at Feb 2010 50 400 350 322 344 40 300 388 322 335 344 401 350 281 30 200 20 100 10
0 Crime (trials and pleas) Appeals 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report 7 REPORT OF THE JUDGE IN CHARGE OF THE CRIMINAL LIST Judge Hannan
The County Court conducts two Criminal List courts at 9am every after hearing from counsel and gives directions in relation to any morning. The primary function of the Criminal List courts is to outstanding matters. In consultation with Criminal Listings, give directions to ensure that trials, pleas and appeals are ready the list judge assists in allocating matters to trial judges as they for hearing on the listed date. The General Crime List hears 20 become available. Where matters resolve, the list judge arraigns to 25 matters between 9am and 10am, and a smaller number of the accused and sets a plea date. Directions are given in relation matters are heard in the Sexual Offences List. The General Crime to provision of material for plea hearing in accordance with the List is heard prior to normal sitting hours to ensure practitioners Criminal Procedure Practice Note to ensure that plea judges have can attend without impacting their other work commitments. all relevant material in advance of the plea. This allows judges to Persons in custody appear via video link to assist in efficient time deliver ex tempore, or ‘same day’, sentences (where appropriate) management. and thus maximises available hearing time. As of 21 January 2013, all matters (except sexual offences) which The General Crime List judge also hears all remand applications are the subject of a committal order in the Magistrates’ arising from execution of County Court warrants and any Court with a plea of ‘not guilty’ are listed in the General associated applications for bail. Immediately following the Crime List court at 9am the following morning calling of the Reserve List, the General Crime List judge hears for an Initial Directions Hearing (24 hour Initial applications including those regarding subpoenas, applications Directions Hearing pilot). Counsel who appeared to compel Victoria Legal Aid to fund, applications to pre-record at the committal are required to attend and the evidence and any other pre-trial applications made by the Court hears from both prosecution and defence as parties. The Sexual Offences List judge hears applications to to possible resolution, or the listing of a trial, compel production of confidential communications. including requiring counsel to identify issues Where further time is available, the list judge hears pleas upon trial, pre-trial issues, witness numbers and appeals. and availability, and funding. The Court The allocation of a judge to the role of list judge facilitates has found that having committal counsel management of matters before the Court and allows parties attend within 24 hours results in clearer to list applications and mentions which would otherwise identification of issues and better trial have a significant impact upon the time of busy trial judges. estimates. It also decreases the delay which It also gives the profession a clear contact point for the listing previously existed between committal and of urgent applications, and confidence that the matters will be initial directions hearing and thus has the determined expeditiously. effect of decreasing delay to trial date. The Judge in Charge of the Criminal List has the additional In addition to the 9am General Crime List, responsibility of meeting and consulting with listings, registry the General Crime List judge presides over and external parties and agencies in order to determine the 10.30am Criminal Reserve List. This listing protocols and practices, which require monitoring and list consists of all unallocated trials, pleas adjustment to accommodate the fluid nature of the Criminal and appeals. The list judge prioritises the list List and maximise the use of judicial time.
Judge Hannan
8 County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report REPORT OF THE JUDGE IN CHARGE OF THE KOORI COURT Judge Smallwood
There is no customary law applied. There are no traditional An extract from Judge Smallwood’s speech at launch punishments. What the Elders do is connect. They bring home of County Koori Court Melbourne, 24 June 2013: who the accused is. They create prospects for rehabilitation or a determination to rehabilitate when objectively there are not any. The Koori Court is now a permanent feature of the County Court’s criminal jurisdiction. Koori Court We have had accused with pages and pages of prior convictions for works. The Koori Court model has resulted in a violent offences, who have served jail terms and are institutionalised. dramatic decrease in the amount of reoffending and a The Elders can always get them to say: “I don’t want to be like this dramatic increase in the compliance with orders. any more”. Each hearing begins with formal arraignment on the charges. The most powerful thing for a non Koori to watch is the respect – the The offences are read out and the accused must plead guilty. Then respect engendered by the Elders, given by them to the accused, and the Elders start talking in a ‘sentencing conversation’. The Elders in response, is clear. Koori accused have said that this is the first have no say in the sentence that is ultimately handed down, but time they can actually remember what is said in court. This is the they connect with the accused through ‘genetic memory’, telling first time they have been spoken to like a human being, as opposed to them who they are and giving them an incentive to change. the person up the back of the courtroom who gets sent to jail. What the Koori Court is doing is turning Koori experience of the justice As the Judge in Charge of the Koori Court, I have never seen system around. an accused who has not engaged with the process, even the ones who come in thinking they will get a lighter sentence After the sentencing conversation, the Judge goes back up on the out of the Koori Court. On many occasions, it is possible bench, fully robed, and delivers the sentence. This brings home to observe an offender with years of drug dependence or to the community as well as the accused that the sentence has alcohol abuse, sitting there, as someone they respect, nothing to do with the Elders. tells them who they are. That is the starting point. The Koori Court is the only sentencing court in The Elders keep at them. It is very powerful. Australia for Aboriginal accused in a higher There is a real sense of personal responsibility jurisdiction. The majority of offending relates to driven into the accused. Koori Court is no soft violence, often involving alcohol and involving touch. We imprison offenders at about the same extended family members. The Koori Court does rate and for the same length of time. The Koori not deal with family violence, sexual Court is about reducing reoffending. offences or intervention order breaches.
Judge Smallwood
County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report 9 The Koori Court has heard and finalised 24 cases this year, and this will increase next financial year with the expansion to Melbourne. State Government funding was obtained to extend regular sittings in Melbourne from July 2013. In preparation, 12 judges and a number of Elders and Respected Persons have undergone training for the Koori Court’s expansion to Melbourne. Koori Court Melbourne was launched by Chief Judge Rozenes, Attorney-General Robert Clark MP, Elders and Respected Persons in June. View the launch at http://www.scv2.webcentral.com.au/ county/kooriecourt/# The Koori Court could not succeed without the support and commitment of all the Elders and Respected Persons, and the Co-ordinator, Terrie Stewart. The Court congratulates Terrie for winning this year’s Regional Koori Justice Award (in the Adult/ Elder category) for her work in improving justice outcomes for Koori people in the County Koori Court and Magistrates’ Koori Court and building positive relationships between the Koori community and the judiciary.
Angela Clarke (Respected Person), Chief Judge Rozenes, Aunty Joan Vickery (Elder), Judge Smallwood Judge Smallwood, Andrew Jackomos and Attorney-General Robert Clark. “90% of the time, we know the blackfella which is good because it means [they] can’t tell us lies. But when we know the accused, well then we get a grasp of the family history. In this way, we are able to draw a complete picture of the man, and tell that to the sentencing Judge.” Uncle Lloyd Hood, Koori Court Elder
Back row: Judges Cannon, Lawson, Parsons, Montgomery, O’Neill and Mullaly. Front row: Judge Smallwood, Chief Judge Rozenes and Attorney-General Robert Clark.
10 County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report “Knowing themselves doesn’t take away from what they have done but I want them to understand who they are and I tell them, ‘you’re my relative, you’re blood. So what you do, reflects on me as well. It’s hard enough to be a blackfella without you going out there, carrying on and doing the wrong thing’.” Uncle Lloyd Hood, Koori Court Elder
County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report 11 REPORT OF THE JUDGE IN CHARGE OF THE SEXUAL OFFENCES LIST Judge Cannon
During the period 2012-2013, sexual offences continued to feature As Judge Mullaly reported last year, applications concerning as a major proportion (19%) of the Court’s criminal caseload, confidential communications between a complainant and their although there was a slight drop in the number of these types of counsellor can be extremely time consuming for the list judges. cases compared with 2011-2012. Sexual offence cases also continue There has been a tendency by some legal practitioners to leave to represent a major proportion (41%) of our criminal trials. such applications until the last moment which can threaten to derail a trial or place all concerned under undue pressure. In a bid The law in relation to sexual offences is complex and the jury to avoid this situation, a standard timetable has been introduced directions can be confusing and lengthy. Therefore, the recent which requires any notification for leave to issue a subpoena to be introduction of the Jury Directions Act 2013 has been most filed with the Court at least eight weeks before the trial date. This welcome. This piece of legislation promises to reduce the number requirement has been incorporated into the Criminal Procedure and type of directions given in many trials and to reduce the time Practice Note. taken to summarise evidence and counsel’s addresses. In addition to conducting the Sexual Offences List, the judges Earlier this year, the County Court practice note was amended involved also take part in various law reform committees and to maximise the efficient management of sexual offence speak at seminars on topics relevant to sexual offences. trials. In almost all cases where a matter is to proceed as a trial, a standard timetable is set at the initial directions Having officially taken over the role of Judge in Charge hearing which is expected to be complied with. In of the Sexual Offences List at the beginning of 2013, I general, the level of compliance has been fairly good. knew that I had ‘large shoes to fill’, due to the tremendous work which had been done by my predecessors, Judges User group meetings are conducted periodically with Sexton, Pullen and Mullaly. Thanks to them, and many members of the legal profession to ensure that the others involved in the List, the transition has been quite concerns of list judges or initiatives which are to smooth. be undertaken by the Court are communicated to representatives for bodies such as the Office I thank Judges Sexton, Pullen, Taft, Patrick, Lacava of Public Prosecutions, Victoria Legal Aid, the and Mullaly for their assiduous efforts in conducting Victorian Bar, the Law Institute of Victoria and the Sexual Offences List. This involves directions the Child Witness Service. These representatives hearings and mentions at 9am every week day, may also express their concerns or raise queries followed by a range of matters such as plea hearings, about the Sexual Offences List. The meetings subpoena arguments, bail hearings and applications are invaluable, as they provide a means whereby for supervision orders and review. the Court can obtain feedback which is used I also thank Judge Hannan for her assistance and to assess, and, if necessary, to improve its support in my new role, as well as the list associates, processes. They are also an effective means Kate Nassios and Natalie Perrera, former list associate, for concerns or initiatives of those running the Elise Badke, my associate, Bronwyn Hammond, my Sexual Offences List to be conveyed to many of tipstaff, Greg Pusch, and all those from Registry for those who work in the area. all that they do to ensure that the list runs so well, day after day.
Judge Cannon
12 County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report Civil Jurisdiction
Since 2007, the County Court has had an unlimited monetary jurisdiction in civil matters, which it shares with the Supreme Court. In 2012-2013, 6,284 matters were finalised in the civil jurisdiction.
REPORT OF THE JUDGE Finalisations in the Damages IN CHARGE OF THE and Compensation List 2012–2013 DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION LIST Judge Misso
I was appointed as the Judge in Charge of the List in November 2012 1,441 as the successor to Judge Davis, whose work over the preceding six General Division 1,587 years has been responsible for shaping the List and its success. Serious Injury Division The Judicial Settlement Conference track (which Judge Davis designed, implemented and conducted) was partially successful in facilitating the early resolution of WorkCover Serious Injury applications and reducing the number of cases proceeding to trial. 83 The introduction of the track brought into the thinking of the parties WorkCover the necessity to find an appropriate solution to resolving WorkCover Division Serious Injury applications in a List which was large and which was 210 224 Other Medical Division at risk of producing unacceptable delay from the date on which the initiating process was filed to the date of trial. The judicial settlement conferences are no longer presided over by judges. The parties are now responsible for maintaining Judge Saccardo continues as the Judge in Charge of the Medical the track as an essential part of the Court’s interest in Division, and Judge Wischusen continues as the Judge in Charge requiring appropriate dispute resolution. of the WorkCover Division. The successful use of amended timetabling orders has resulted in the reduction in the size of court books Alternative Dispute Resolution filed at the hearing of WorkCover Serious Injury applications. The significant changes previously Judicial settlement conferences have become a implemented in the Directions Group have necessary part of case management in each of continued to reduce the time taken to process the Divisions of the List. At present, the Family orders. A review of the management of the List Property Division continues to conduct judicial has resulted in a reduction of the volume of settlement conferences at the request of the correspondence received by the Directions parties which has produced a high settlement rate Group from parties seeking orders on the at a time in the proceeding when the costs of the papers and referral of proceedings to litigation are relatively modest. Judicial settlement directions hearings. conferences are conducted from time to time in the other Divisions. During the financial year, 3,805 cases were initiated and 3,545 cases were finalised Reserve List in the List, which was an increase on the previous financial year with 3,710 cases The Reserve List has continued to operate efficiently, initiated and 3,424 cases finalised. In with every effort being made to avoid cases not being 2012-2013, the List accounted for 57% of reached. The number of ‘not reached’ cases in the all civil cases initiated in the Court. 2012-2013 financial year was 146 compared to 139 in the previous financial year. Of the cases finalised, approximately 45% (1,587) were in the Serious Injury Division Directions Group and 41% (1,441) were in the General Division. There was an increase in the number of cases The Directions Group continues to manage the administrative finalised in the General Division compared with mention process in the directions hearing system in the List. the previous financial year, with 1,245 cases The Directions Group continues to receive a large volume finalised. of correspondence. In the previous financial year it was approximately 16,000 pieces of individual correspondence. It Of the 563 judgments written across the civil produced approximately 7,000 orders. The Directions Group jurisdiction of the Court state-wide, 61% has taken measures to reduce the time taken to produce orders (345) were written in the Serious Injury on the papers, including the generation of template orders in Division, 9% (49) in the General Division and Serious Injury cases where upon the filing of an appearance, 2% (12) in the Family Property Division. orders are immediately generated without the necessity for the My responsibilities as the Judge in Charge parties to prepare orders and submit them. Other measures are of the List include the Applications Division, presently being debated to determine how greater efficiency might the Defamation Division, the General be achieved, given the volume of litigation and the necessity to Division, the Serious Injury Division and produce such a large volume of orders. the Family Property Division. Judge Misso
County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report 13 REPORT OF THE JUDGE IN CHARGE OF THE COMMERCIAL LIST Judge Kennedy
The Commercial List grew again in the year 2012-2013 with Such disputes often involve complex issues and include initiations rising to 2,718 representing an increase of 10%. applications to remove caveats; for freezing orders; and for Commercial initiations constitute some 40% of all civil initiations summary judgment. with 2,592 commercial cases finalised in the year. The associates of the commercial judges perform invaluable work, Four judges continued to be nominated by the Chief Judge particularly the associates of the list judges. The List, particularly bi-annually to be primarily responsible for the work in the the Duty Judge, also continued to be supported by the Directions Commercial List. During the report year, the nominated Group. The Directions Group performs a major role in reducing the commercial judges included Judges Anderson, Lewitan, cost of litigation by enabling the Court and judges to be directly Lacava, as well as Kennedy. accessed through correspondence, thus avoiding unnecessary court appearances. The year also saw the appointment of a new commercial judge, Judge Cosgrave. This followed on from the departure of Judge A significant number of unrepresented litigants appeared in Ginnane on his appointment to the Supreme Court. His commercial matters, both at interlocutory hearings and trials. contribution to the Commercial List for some four years The List was assisted in this context by the appointment of a is appreciated by his colleagues. On his departure, Self-Represented Litigant Coordinator, Courtney Ryrie. Work Judge Anderson stepped in as Judge in Charge of the was also undertaken to generate an Unrepresented Litigants Building Division. Protocol with the Bar which was of great assistance in managing self represented persons in the Commercial List. Commercial cases were aggressively listed, with trial judges double or triple booked. Most of the cases were The Commercial Judges appreciate the ongoing listed for trial within six months of being issued. participation of the profession in its effective operation. To this end, regular users group meetings in the Banking The Commercial List Duty Judge continued and Finance, Building Cases and Expedited Divisions to perform the tasks formerly carried out by were held. Such consultation led to a wholesale revision the Practice Court Judge after the Practice of the Commercial List Practice Notes during the Court was abolished at the beginning of report year. In April 2013, Judge Kennedy and Judge 2010. The Duty Judge system has ensured Cosgrave also addressed the Commercial Bar on the that interlocutory disputes, which are an operation of the list. incidence of heavy commercial litigation, are quickly and appropriately determined by a specialist judge with experience in commercial disputes.
Judge Kennedy
14 County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report REPORT OF THE JUDGES IN CHARGE OF THE ADOPTION AND SUBSTITUTE PARENTAGE ORDER LIST Judge Pullen & Judge Hampel
The Adoption List was renamed in 2012-2013 the Adoption and Other Parentage Orders Substitute Parentage Order List, to reflect the court’s increased The Court is authorised to make substitute parentage orders jurisdiction to make parentage orders. in respect of children born as a result of an approved surrogacy For two years, Judge Kennedy has shared responsibility for the arrangement under the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act Adoptions List. She has now relinquished that role, and we wish to 2008. The Act permits altruistic (non commercial) surrogacy record our thanks to her for her dedicated service. Judge Hampel arrangements, and authorises the Court to recognise the has taken her place, and has assumed responsibility for the commissioning parents as the legal parents of a child born to a Substitute Parentage Orders and other parentage applications. surrogate mother. The Adoption Registrar is Jason Kaye, who has recently taken over In addition, following amendments to the Status of Children from Lia Barberio. We thank Lia for her commitment to the List Act 1974, female partners of women who used donor sperm to and welcome Jason into the role. conceive a child are entitled to the same legal recognition as a parent as male partners of women whose children were donor Adoptions conceived. The amendments have retrospective operation, and authorise the Court to make parentage orders In 2012-2013 the County Court granted a total of 52 adoptions. recognising the birth mother’s partner as a parent of These relationships were formally recognised and registered by children born before the Act was amended. the Court. The majority of these were heard in Melbourne, the remainder in County Court circuit towns. In 2012-2013, five substitute parentage orders and two parentage orders were made under the Status of The adoption hearings involve formal and informal aspects. Children Act 1974. The legal recognition of parentage There is recognition of the adoption and finality of the for these families is an important step in their process, and the informal aspect allows family and quest to found a family, and the hearings, like the friends to be present at the adoption hearing and to take adoption hearings, are as much a celebration as photographs to record the happy event. There is also a a formal pronouncement of the orders. They recording of the hearing for the parties to keep. too are often attended by extended family and Once again, we thank the Lions Club Victoria who friends; and teddy bears, photos and, at times, donated teddy bears, always a favourite, to be given to tears are all part of the day. the child adoptees. Other Adoption Act Applications Other applications dealt with by the Adoptions Registrar include Discharge of Adoptions and Applications for Information regarding birth parent(s) and background. There were four Discharge Applications in 2012-2013. When these are granted, it dissolves the Adoption Order and the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages reinstates the original Birth Certificate, often changing the name of the child and reinstating the names of the birth parents. The Court also has the power to deal with applications pursuant to section 99 of the Adoption Act 1984. Such applications allow birth parents, relatives and adoptees to apply to the Court for information regarding a previous adoption.
Judge Pullen
County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report 15 The County Court and the Community
The County Court is an important part of the Victorian community. The Court adheres to the principle of open and transparent justice and invites members of the community to observe proceedings in action. It is important that members of the community understand what judges do and have confidence in their sentences and judgments. The Court hosts visiting delegations, school groups and individual members of the public. It also holds special events including the Courts Open Day.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR Notable sentences and judgments will be posted, which will better enable the community to assess for itself the whole of a sentence OF THE MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS or judgment which may be the subject of public comment or COMMITTEE discussion. Judges are working to anonymise published sentences and judgments to protect the identity of victims and to avoid Judge Howard identity theft.
The Media and Communications Committee acts as a go-between Non-Publication Orders for the community, the media, court staff and users. The Court is reviewing its database of non-publication orders Over the report period, the Committee comprised the Chief Judge; and undertaking an audit to determine those which are no longer myself as chair; and Judges McInerney, Gucciardo, Mason, O’Neill, required or relevant. The Court has also made submissions to and Saccardo. Judges Coate and Gaynor retired from the Committee Government as to law reform in this area. and were replaced by Judges Wilmoth and Kings. The Strategic Adviser to the Chief Judge, Carly Lloyd, and the Court in the Community Court’s Operations Manager, Ian Edwards, support the work of The Court hosted a number of public and legal profession events the Committee. During the year, Communications Manager, Anna over the year, including the Opening of the Legal Year Bolger, resigned and was replaced by Strategic Communications function, organised by the International Commission Manager, Kerry O’Shea. of Jurists. Once again, tours of the Court and presentations from Relations with the Media judges were a highlight of Law Week in May. Events Following the successful launch of the Guidelines for the Media included tours of the jury facilities, the artworks, the in May 2012, the Committee has established a very positive public areas and behind the scenes in the court on-going working relationship with the media and rooms. Court Network held a session explaining court reporters. The Court invites the media to make how it supported those who come to Court. suggestions to improve the operation of the Guidelines, The Judge in Charge of the Koori Court, which aim to facilitate the activities of the media Judge Smallwood, also explained how the and assist with educating the community about the Court works with Koori offenders. This important work of the Court. was in advance of the Koori Court’s official opening in Melbourne. Kerry O’Shea maintains daily contact with media representatives, facilitates the filming of proceedings The Chief Judge, Michael Rozenes, was as well as provides sentences and judgments where joined by judicial colleagues in hosting the available. ever popular barbecue on the forecourt. Gold coin donations supported Berry Street, Social Media an organisation providing welfare and support to children and their families. The Court notes the increasing use of social media as a tool to broadcast information about Court activities. The number of followers of the Court’s Twitter account (@CCVMedia) increases steadily and will be a focus over the coming year. Social media platforms can present a challenge to the integrity of jury trials and this issue will be closely monitored by the Court and the Committee over the next year. Website The Court is undertaking a redesign of its website to make it more user-friendly and accessible. A number of technical issues have been identified and will be addressed. The new website will allow greater visibility of new content, better promotion of news and alerts and automatic content archiving. It will also integrate the Court’s Twitter feed throughout the site. Judge Howard
16 County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report Schools Visit Program and Other Visitors to the County Court The schools program has continued to evoke enthusiastic support from the Year 11 and 12 VCE students who visit the Court. During the year, 4,500 students, 240 teachers and 25 judges took part in the program. This program involved each group of students participating in an informal question and answer session with a judge on topics as diverse as: • Curriculum questions arising from the Year 11 and 12 Legal Studies course; • Discussions as to criminal sentencing issues or the pressure associated with the role of a judge. Court’s Open Day BBQ: Chief Judge Rozenes with Following this session, the students were allocated to a court to Chief Magistrate Lauritsen. observe the process of a trial or a criminal plea. The program is now in its third year. There is a growing tendency of the students to confront judges with sometimes challenging questions, which allow the students and teachers to gain insight into the life and work of a judge. Equally the ability of judges to discuss, with large numbers of young adults, issues such as the pitfalls associated with recreational drug use or irresponsible behaviour whilst in charge of motor vehicles, provides the Court with a unique opportunity to influence tendency towards such behaviour in a positive way. The program is co-ordinated by Judge Saccardo and his staff. Judge Saccardo and Judge Parrish also attended a number of school campuses during the year to address Year 12 Legal Studies students. The court also hosted a number of other visitors and delegations, including a group of Chinese lawyers hosted by the Law Institute Opening of the Legal Year in Waldron Hall. of Victoria and Masters in Journalism students from Melbourne (Image courtesy of ICJ Victoria) University.
Law Institute of Victoria President, Reynah Tang (right of Chief Judge Melbourne University’s Masters in Journalism students Rozenes) brought a delegation of Chinese Lawyers to the Court. meet Judge Howard .
County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report 17 The County Court on Circuit
Judges of the County Court, together with Court staff, are committed to delivering fair and accessible justice to the community it serves. This includes making justice accessible in regional Victoria.
In addition to the main court house located in Melbourne’s CIRCUIT CASE ACTIVITY BY LOCATION 2012-2013 central business district, Judges of the Court hear cases at Valley Latrobe Bairnsdale Ballarat 12 courts situated in the major regional centres grouped as Bendigo Horsham Mildura Sale Geelong Shepparton Wangaratta Warrnambool Wodonga 1,000 follows: • Latrobe Valley/Gippsland region managed by Judge Smallwood – Morwell, Sale and Bairnsdale. 800 • North Central region managed by Judge Wilmoth – Bendigo, Shepparton, Wangaratta, Wodonga. • Northwest region managed by Judge MP Bourke – 600 Mildura. • Southwest region managed by Judge Mullaly – Ballarat, Geelong, Horsham, Warrnambool.
400 The County Koori Court in the Latrobe Valley/Gippsland region is managed by Judge Smallwood. Civil Cases 200 Overall the number of outstanding civil cases in circuit courts has reduced from 732 cases to 723 (a decrease of 9 cases or 1.23%). There has been some success in reducing the number 0 Initiated Finalised Pending of civil cases between one and two years since initiation, with a reduction from 179 cases to 151 cases (a reduction of 28 cases or 15.64%). However, there has been a very slight increase in the number of civil TOTAL CIRCUIT CASE ACTIVITY cases over two years old, from 87 cases to 600 91 cases (an increase of 4 cases or 4.60%). No. criminal cases trials 2,000 No. sexual o ence trials
1,500
1,000
500
0 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 Initiated Finalised Pending
Judge Wilmoth
18 County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report Mildura
Shepparton Wodonga Wangaratta Horsham Bendigo
Ballarat Melbourne Bairnsdale Sale Geelong Warrnambool Morwell
Criminal Cases A measure of success of the strategies being used to overcome In the Latrobe Valley/Gippsland region, double circuits have listing problems in some of the regional courts is that there has continued to be used successfully, with two judges sitting at the been a very significant overall reduction from 25 to 10 (60%) court at the one time. This, together with the Block Briefing pilot in the number of cases which were more than two years old initiated by Victoria Legal Aid (VLA), has continued to boost (post-committal). There has been a slight reduction from 45 to productivity. The pilot involves VLA block-briefing a single defence 44 (2.22%) in the number of cases which were between one and counsel, using a daily briefing fee in legally aided circuit court trials. two years old (post-committal), and an increase from 252 to 281 The same counsel is briefed to conduct a block of all matters in a (11.51%) in the number of more recent cases, those which were particular circuit, providing a consistent approach to representation under one year old (post-committal). and negotiations. Another initiative, the iManage project, was implemented in most Crime on Circuit regional courts. The remaining implementations were scheduled A new strategy was implemented in Bendigo in February 2013 to take place at the Ballarat and Bendigo courts in early 2013- in an effort to reduce the number of outstanding criminal trials. 2014. iManage is a sophisticated document management system With the cooperation of the Office of Public Prosecutions, the 30 producing an electronic file, thereby providing a more transparent oldest trials in the list were selected for an intensive period of and effective way of managing our regional cases. It enables the list ‘special mentions’, held over a week. This resulted in seven plea judge in Melbourne to have complete and immediate access to all hearings, with two trials heard immediately following the week of documents filed. It enables parties to electronically file documents, mentions. An adaptation of this strategy is planned for Shepparton and will replace the paper court file. Early feedback on its capacity later in the year, and will be considered in future as a useful tool in to promote efficiency has been very positive. reducing delay. Efforts are being made to permit flexibility in the running of Another strategy deployed was the continuation of additional circuit sittings, in order to meet changing needs. Later this year an Bendigo sittings held in Melbourne. These strategies have helped additional circuit will be held in Warrnambool, in order to avoid reduce the number of pending criminal trials, pleas and appeals. unnecessary delay in that part of the Southwest region. In particular, the reduction in the number of trials older than two years (post-committal) has been significant, with only two remaining, a reduction from nine.
County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report 19 Judicial Professional Development
REPORT OF THE CHAIR OF THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Judge Gucciardo
In 2012-2013, the Judges of the County Court affirmed their A first look at theJury Directions Act 2013 was undertaken. This commitment to judicial excellence by their participation in a legislation will gradually but radically change the landscape of jury number of varied and challenging professional development directions in criminal trials in Victoria and judges have been active activities within and outside the Court. in its development and implementation. The annual County Court Judges’ Conference, held over three days The conference further explored two new research projects which, in April, provided the judges with the opportunity to focus on the through judges’ participation, will evaluate comprehension of experiences of the recent past, to share the insights gained through directions by juries and collect valuable data on juries’ views on their work, to explore the challenges ahead and to identify the sentencing practices. areas in which professional development will be most effective. Judges also provided comprehensive commercial law and serious According to recent effective models of education and professional injury updates and developments. development, judges have both led workshops and seminars The recent focus on ‘well being’ as part of the professional and invited experts in various fields to look at the practice, the development of judges has led to a renewed commitment and philosophy and experience of judging. implementation of peer support networks and judicial and staff Judges have embraced new technologies in order to facilitate counselling services which are available at Court. presentations as well as their access to databases and court-wide The year has seen many judges taking up the challenges of networks of information to streamline and make their work professional development as significant contributors within more efficient. the justice system, in cooperation with many of the stakeholders The extensive contents of the conference are indicative of the in this field. expanding fields of jurisprudence which confronts judges daily. They have been faculty members for most of the Judicial College The conference dealt with: of Victoria seminars and workshops including: • understanding the methodology and mindset of sexual • delivering oral decisions, offenders and ‘whole of story’ investigation techniques • evidence based law, • the assessment of witness credibility particularly in • understanding digital forensic evidence, eyewitness and identification evidence • sentencing, and • developing and understanding new practices and processes for • understanding personality disorders. plea and sentence hearings More than ever, judges have expanded their commitment to • exploring legislation about gross violence offences education within the profession and have offered a lot of their time • the availability and content of new Community Corrections and energy to various initiatives. programs Some of the most significant have been: • understanding the implementation of iManage, a document management system and the path towards becoming a paper- • the Schools Program, in which judges speak to secondary less Court. school students throughout the year • updates on the Evidence Act 2008 provisions regarding hearsay • collaboration across jurisdictions to achieve a measure evidence and the unavailability of witnesses of uniformity and consistency with the Supreme Court • practical considerations in discharging a jury or jurors and Magistrates’ Court in regards to non-publication orders, reporting restrictions in criminal matters, drafting • understanding the impact of the Law Library of Victoria anonymous reasons, media relations and accessing and project understanding social media. • developing simple jury directions in cases involving tendency and coincidence evidence Judges have spoken at conferences about the ‘psychology of • exploring the jurisprudence of the ‘Briginshaw test’ in the white collar crime’ and at the Victorian Commercial Teachers’ context of section 140 of the Evidence Act 2008 and the Association conference. They have participated in training standard of proof in civil proceedings programs for prosecutors with the Office of Public Prosecutions in relation to sex trials. Judges contributed to the development • focusing on the work and challenges of the Youth Parole Board program for trial counsel with Victoria Legal Aid. They have and juvenile justice undertaken international online programs on child pornography and social networks.
20 County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report The Professional Development Committee has fostered closer cooperation with the law schools and provided judges for Monash University Law Students’ Society mooting competitions and the Monash trial practice course. Judges have participated in ‘Bar to Bench’ discussions on relevant issues of practice for the Victorian Bar and continued to support the Australian Advocacy Institute and the Victorian Bar with their participation in advocacy training and jury directions workshop. Judges have also led advocacy training for judges’ associates. They have participated in courses presented by the National Judicial College of Australia, undertaken judicial leadership programs and attended the Biennial District and County Court conference in Brisbane in 2013. An important initiative has been the setting up of a weekly forum to give judges an opportunity to discuss and share experiences particularly the implementation of the new jury directions, enabling them to share their experiences and insights from criminal trials. Judicial professional development is an integral part of judicial excellence at the County Court and judicial officers have embraced its challenges to remain a progressive force in the administration of justice in Victoria.
Judge Gucciardo
County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report 21 Judicial Contributions to Boards, Committees and User Groups
EXTERNAL Boards Judges Adult Parole Board Judge Douglas, Judge Rizkalla Electoral Boundaries Commission Chief Judge Rozenes Forensic Leave Panel Judge Davis, Judge Gaynor, Judge Pullen, Judge Saccardo, Judge Howard Interim Law Library Board Chief Judge Rozenes (Chair), Judge Lacava (alternate), Judge Macnamara (VCAT) Judicial College of Victoria Board Chief Judge Rozenes Latrobe University Law School Board Judge Kennedy University of Melbourne Law School Foundation Judge Lawson Victorian Law Reform Commission Judge Hampel Youth Parole Board and Youth Residential Board Judge M Bourke, Judge Howie Councils, Committees And Reference Groups Aboriginal Justice Forum Judge Grant (concluded April 2013), Judge Smallwood Bail Reform Steering Committee Judge Morrish Child Witness Service Advisory Committee Judge Sexton Civil Procedure Advisory Group Judge Anderson, Judge Davis, Judge O’Neill, Judge Macnamara Cost Coordination Committee Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge O’Neill (alternate) Court of Appeal Reference Group Judge Hampel, Judge Taft Courts and Tribunal Services Advisory Council Chief Judge Rozenes Criminal Justice System Steering Committee Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Taft Criminal Procedure Manual Editorial Committee Judge Taft Criminal Listings Committee Judge Hannan (Chair), Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Cotterell, Judge Mullaly, Judge Cannon Judicial College of Victoria’s Criminal Charge Book Editorial Judge Douglas, Judge Gamble, Judge Maidment, Judge Morrish, Judge Mullaly Committee Judicial College of Victoria’s Civil Charge Book Editorial Judge Saccardo, Judge O'Neill, Judge Misso Committee Improving Judicial Communication with Jurors Project Judge Cannon, Judge Gaynor Management Committee Judicial Conduct Working Group Judge McInerney Judicial Conference of Australia, Governing Council Judge McInerney (representative), Judge Lewitan (alternate) Simplification of Jury Directions Project Judge Hampel, Judge Punshon, Judge Wilmoth, Judge Sexton, Judge Gamble Koori Court Reference Group Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Smallwood (Chair), Judge Gaynor, Judge Grant, Judge Lawson, Judge Parsons National Judicial College of Australia - Programs Advisory Committee Judge Gucciardo National Judicial College of Australia Council Judge Gucciardo (alternate) Sexual Assault Advisory Committee Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Mullaly, Judge Sexton, Judge Pullen Judicial College of Victoria Sexual Assault Manual Editorial Judge Sexton Committee Victims Support Agency Intermediary Project Judge Cannon Victims of Crime Consultative Committee Judge Cannon Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Judge Gray, Judge Sexton Judicial College of Victoria Victorian Sentencing Manual Judge Douglas, Judge Patrick
INTERNAL Councils, Committees And Reference Groups Judges Council of Judges Chief Judge Rozenes (Chair), All County Court Judges Council of Judges Executive Committee Current members: Chief Judge Rozenes (Chair), Judge Allen, Judge Cannon, Judge Davis, Judge Gucciardo, Judge Hampel, Judge Hannan, Judge Kennedy, Judge Lacava, Judge McInerney, Judge Misso, Judge Smallwood, Judge Taft, Judge Thornton, Judge Wilmoth Former members: Judge Bowman (Chair until Dec 2012), Judge Douglas, Judge Gaynor, Judge Mullaly, Judge O’Neill, Judge Rizkalla County Court Security Meeting Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Bowman, Judge Montgomery Criminal Legislative Implementation Committee Judge Dean (Chair) Emergency Management Planning and Recovery Committee Chief Judge Rozenes (Chair), Judge Bowman Research Committee Judge Davis, Judge Lacava Finance Committee Judge Lacava (Chair) iManage Implementation Project Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Hannan International Framework for Court Excellence Committee Judge Davis (Chair) Judicial Complaints Commission Committee Chief Judge Rozenes (Chair), Judge Davis, Judge Hampel, Judge Lewitan, Judge McInerney Law Reform Committee Judge Hampel (Chair), Judge McInerney, Judge Bowman, Judge Bourke Media and Communications Committee Judge Howard (Chair), Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Gaynor, Judge Gucciardo, Judge Mason, Judge McInerney, Judge Saccardo, Judge Wilmoth, Judge O'Neill, Judge Kings Mental Health Practitioner Steering Committee Judge Gaynor (Chair) Occupational Health and Safety Committee Judge McInerney (Chair), Judge Wischusen Professional Development Committee Judge Gucciardo (Chair), Judge Anderson, Judge Cohen, Judge Gaynor, Judge Hampel, Judge Ginnane, Judge Mullaly, Judge Wilmoth, Judge Kings Rules Committee Judge Misso (Chair), Judge Cohen, Judge Dean, Judge Murphy, Judge Stuart Social Club Committee Judge O'Neill (Chair), Judge Cannon, Judge Cotterell, Judge Misso, Judge Parsons Technology Innovation Group Chief Judge Rozenes Technology Upgrade and Refresh Committee Chief Judge Rozenes Judicial Terms and Conditions Committee Chief Judge Rozenes (Chair), Judge Wood, Judge McInerney County Court Research Committee Judge Davis, Judge Lacava Court User Groups Banking and Finance User Group Judge Anderson (Chair) Building List User Group Judge Ginnane (former Chair), Judge Anderson (Chair from May 2013) Commercial List User Group Judge Kennedy (Chair), Judge Lewitan Confiscation List User Group Judge Parsons (Chair) Criminal Users Group Judge Taft (Chair), Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Hannan, Judge Mullaly, Judge Cannon, Judge Sexton Family Property Division Judge Misso (Chair) Medical List User Group Meeting Judge Saccardo (Chair), Judge Lawson (alternate) Damages and Compensation User Group Judge Misso (Chair) Sexual Offences List User Group Judge Cannon (Chair from Dec 2012), Judge Sexton Office of Public Prosecutions User Group Judge Cannon
22 County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report Non-Publication Orders
In 2012-2013 Judges of the County Court issued 129 non-publication orders, made up of 68 orders terminated by a specified date or event and 61 unrevoked orders. In addition, 15 orders were revoked. The total number of orders dealt with (144) is down when compared with the 167 non-publication orders dealt with in 2011-2012. Non-publication orders are made in the interests of protecting the administration of justice on the application of the Director of Public Prosecutions, defence or by initiation of the judge. An order is revoked where a judge has made an order revoking the non-publication. Other orders may expire on a specific event, for example a jury verdict. Orders are registered on a database and distributed to media and media lawyers by the Court.
Until End further date/ 2012-2013 Financial Year order event Revoked 1 July 2012 – 31 December 2012 Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009 s. 184 2 13 1 County Court Act 1958 s. 80 27 22 3 Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 s. 75 2 3 0 1 January 2013 – 30 June 2013 Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009 s. 184 and s. 183 3 9 1 County Court Act 1958 s. 80 25 16 10 Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 s. 75 2 5 0
There are a number of acts under which judges can make orders prohibiting publication of information. These include: • The Serious Sex Offenders (Supervision and Detention) Act 2009 • The Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 • The County Court Act 1958 • The Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 • The Confiscation Act 1997 Section 80 of the County Court Act 1958 empowers the Court to make non-publication orders and section 80AA sets out the circumstances in which non-publication orders can be imposed. As the table above shows, the majority of non- publication orders made by the Court are under this section. 80AA Circumstances in which an order may be made under section 80 The court may make an order under section 80 if in its opinion it is necessary to do so in order not to— A. endanger the national or international security of Australia; or B. prejudice the administration of justice; or C. endanger the physical safety of any person; or D. offend public decency or morality; or E. cause undue distress or embarrassment to the complainant in a proceeding that relates, wholly or partly, to a charge for a sexual offence within the meaning of theCriminal Procedure Act 2009; or F. cause undue distress or embarrassment to a witness under examination in a proceeding that relates, wholly or partly, to a charge for a sexual offence. In order to get a clearer picture of the circumstances in which non-publication orders are imposed, the Court has implemented a process to record how many orders are made under each subsection of section 80 of the County Court Act 1958. A number of orders made are in relation to the protection of those who are assisting the police with enquiries (these would fall under subsection (c) above) or in relation to on-going proceedings (which would fall under subsection (b) above). There are few orders made in relation to the other subsections. .
County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report 23 Judges of the County Court
At the end of the report year there were 66 Judges of the County Court. The County Court of Victoria has a high proportion of female judges and there is now a greater diversity of ages, backgrounds and experience.
JUDGES OF THE COUNTY COURT JUDGES OF THE COUNTY COURT Date Date appointed appointed His Honour Chief Judge Michael Rozenes AO 25 Nov 2002 His Honour Judge Mark Andrew Gamble 3 Feb 2009 His Honour Judge Michael Gerard McInerney 21 Jun 1994 His Honour Judge Howard Thomas Mason 3 Feb 2009 Her Honour Judge Marilyn Blanche Harbison 5 Feb 1996 His Honour Judge Gerard Paul Mullaly 7 Apr 2009 Her Honour Judge Carolyn Dianne Douglas 7 Oct 1997 Her Honour Judge Kathryn Elizabeth Kings 4 Nov 2009 His Honour Judge Graham Richard Anderson 17 Mar 1998 His Honour Judge James Damian Montgomery 17 Nov 2009 Her Honour Judge Pamela Dawn Jenkins 21 Apr 1999 His Honour Judge James Lloyd Parrish 17 Nov 2009 His Honour Judge John Richard Bowman 20 Feb 2001 His Honour Judge Michael Harry Tinney 16 Mar 2010 Her Honour Judge Rachelle Ann Lewitan AM 16 May 2001 Her Honour Judge Gabriele Therese Cannon 30 Mar 2010 Her Honour Judge Julie Ann Nicholson 3 Jul 2001 His Honour Judge Mark Edward Dean 28 Sep 2010 His Honour Judge Graeme Geoffrey Hicks 20 Aug 2001 His Honour Judge John Francis Carmody 7 Jun 2011 His Honour Judge John Arthur Smallwood 20 Aug 2001 His Honour Judge Richard John Haylock Maidment 21 Jun 2011 Her Honour Judge Susan Michele Cohen 20 Aug 2001 His Honour Judge Richard Hunter Smith 22 Jul 2011 Her Honour Judge Meryl Elizabeth Sexton 20 Aug 2001 His Honour Judge Michael Francis Macnamara 7 Feb 2012 Her Honour Judge Frances Elizabeth Hogan 2 Oct 2001 His Honour Judge William (Bill) Evan Stuart 28 Feb 2012 Her Honour Judge Irene Elizabeth Lawson 26 Mar 2002 His Honour Judge David George Brookes 7 Aug 2012 His Honour Judge Michael Patrick Bourke 10 Sep 2002 His Honour Judge Ian Leslie Gray 29 Nov 2012 Her Honour Judge Elizabeth (Liz) Mary Gaynor 10 Sep 2002 His Honour Judge John Anthony Jordan 1 Feb 2013 His Honour Judge Phillip James Coish 10 Sep 2002 His Honour Judge Peter Couzens 26 Mar 2013 Her Honour Judge Jane Anne Campton 22 Oct 2002 (effective 1 May 2013) His Honour Judge Roy Francis Punshon 8 Apr 2003 His Honour Judge Christopher James Ryan 26 Mar 2013 Her Honour Judge Wendy Anne Wilmoth 8 Apr 2003 His Honour Judge Paul James Cosgrave 7 May 2013 His Honour Judge Geoffrey (Geoff) Thomas Chettle 2 Dec 2003 (effective Her Honour Judge Frances Millane 2 Dec 2003 9 May 2013) Her Honour Judge Sandra Sabrina Davis 26 Oct 2004 His Honour Judge Gavan Frederick Meredith 28 May 2013 Her Honour Judge Felicity Pia Hampel 9 Feb 2005 RESERVE JUDGES Her Honour Judge Jeanette Gita Morrish 9 Aug 2005 His Honour Judge Francis (Frank) Shelton 5 Sep 1994 His Honour Judge Julian Peter Leckie 9 Aug 2005 His Honour Judge William (Bill) Rex White 28 Feb 1995 His Honour Judge Paul Douglas Grant 26 Apr 2006 His Honour Judge Lansell (Lance) David Pilgrim 7 Apr 1999 His Honour Judge David Anthony Parsons 22 Aug 2006 His Honour Judge Kenneth Ross Howie 22 Oct 2002 Her Honour Judge Susan Elizabeth Pullen 22 Aug 2006 Her Honour Judge Barbara Cotterell 27 Nov 2012 His Honour Judge Anthony (Tony) John Howard 3 Oct 2006 Her Honour Judge Lisa Anne Hannan 3 Oct 2006 RETIREMENTS His Honour Judge Michael Damian Murphy 24 Oct 2006 His Honour Judge Tim Denys Wood RFD 2 Aug 2012 Her Honour Judge Maree Evelyn Kennedy 1 May 2007 Her Honour Judge Barbara Ann Cotterell 26 Nov 2012 His Honour Judge Christopher Miles O’Neill 24 Jul 2007 (Now Reserve Judge) His Honour Judge Duncan Leslie Allen 21 Aug 2007 His Honour Judge Kenneth Ross Howie 26 Dec 2012 His Honour Judge Philip Gerard Misso 11 Dec 2007 Her Honour Judge Jennifer Ann Coate 30 Jan 2013 (appointed as Justice of Family Court of Australia) Her Honour Judge Katherine Louise Bourke 11 Dec 2007 Her Honour Judge Margaret Ann Rizkalla 1 Feb 2013 Her Honour Judge Jane Marie Josephine Patrick 15 Apr 2008 His Honour Giuseppe Gullaci 8 Feb 2013 His Honour Judge Peter Michael Edward Wischusen 15 Apr 2008 His Honour Judge Timothy James Ginnane 3 Jun 2013 His Honour Judge Paul Gregory Lacava 27 May 2008 (appointed Justice of the Supreme Court) His Honour Judge Frank Robert Gucciardo 27 May 2008 His Honour Julian Peter Leckie 30 Jun 2013 Her Honour Judge Christine Anne Thornton 14 July 2008 His Honour Judge Philip Mark Taft 29 Sep 2008 REGISTRAR His Honour Judge Frank Saccardo 2 Feb 2009 Ms Katie O’Keeffe 1 Dec 2008
24 County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report Newly appointed judges
His Honour Judge His Honour Judge His Honour Judge David George Brookes Ian Leslie Gray (State Coroner) John Anthony Jordan appointed 7 August 2012 appointed 29 November 2012 appointed 1 February 2013
His Honour Judge His Honour Judge His Honour Judge His Honour Judge Peter Couzens Christopher James Ryan Paul James Cosgrave Gavan Frederick Meredith (President Children’s Court) appointed 26 March 2013 appointed 7 May 2013 appointed 28 May 2013 appointed 26 March 2013
County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report 25 Supporting the Judges of the County Court
26 County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report Report of the CEO
Evi Kadar
This year has been a busy and productive period for the County I am pleased to report that our court users told us that they were Court and the Court’s administration, registry and judicial staff satisfied with the facility and the services provided. have continued to provide a high level of service to the Judges of the This year we implemented a lean thinking approach to some of the Court and our court users. Court’s processes. This has resulted in productivity gains and we The Court’s three year strategic planning cycle commenced in anticipate will be reflected in improved customer satisfaction in our 2012-2013 in which 14 initiatives were identified as high priorities. next Court User Survey. We will continue to apply this approach to These priorities are based on the seven areas of excellence within improve more streams of work into the next financial year. the International Framework for Court Excellence (IFCE) which The Court’s relationship with its facility owner, The Liberty Group the Court adopted in 2010. (TLG), continued to strengthen, and their management of this We completed over 80% of our initiatives in the Annual Business exceptional building is without peer. Plan 2012-2013 whilst also delivering a balanced budget. This was The coming year will again present its challenges as the Victorian a particularly significant achievement given the cost pressures and Courts and Tribunal system is established as an independent entity savings that the Court made in the year without any compromise and as the County Court continues on its journey to being a leader to service delivery. Careful management of our budget allowed in court excellence. us to gain maximum benefit from our resources. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Judges of the The County Court’s key focus is on continually driving Court who work tirelessly to deliver a high standard of justice improvement in what we do. The IFCE is the foundation on to all Victorians and to the Chief Judge for his leadership. which we assess and measure ourselves and we have reaped Most importantly I thank all the staff who continue to provide good results this year. We have improved in most areas of a professional and a high level of support to the Judges and court excellence as highlighted by Judge Davis on page 4 the Court. in this Annual Report. One of the areas identified for improvement through the IFCE self-assessment process was to better understand the needs of Court users in order to improve the quality and range of services the Court delivers. In response we undertook a comprehensive Court User Survey.
Evi Kadar Chief Executive Officer
County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report 27 Report of the Principal Registrar
Katie O’Keeffe
Registry Services Our People The registry continued to provide a high quality of service to Court Registry Planning Day users, the judiciary and their staff throughout the year. Our annual Registry Action Plan saw a number of initiatives implemented during This year our registry planning workshop was preceded by an the year under the leadership of the Registry Management Team. Employee Climate Survey. The survey sought feedback from staff in relation to communication, job satisfaction, customer service, rewards and recognition, management and performance. The Our Services feedback provided the basis for discussion about continuous Business Process Review of the Civil Registry improvement opportunities that will form projects for the annual Registry Action Plan. A priority for the Court has been to review the operations of the civil jurisdiction which included a review of all registry business procedures to document best practice and identify process Our Resources efficiencies. With the assistance of a facilitator, the registry Archiving adopted a lean thinking approach and, through value stream Over the past three years, the Registry has prepared old Court files for mapping, reviewed both the subpoena and administrative mention archiving to the Public Records Office of Victoria. The project will see process. Over 100 ideas for improvement were identified, and an the transfer of 68,575 files from 1902 through to 1994. This significant action plan for implementation has been developed. project enables historical files to be readily accessible to the public. Criminal List Court Review iManage Judge Hannan, her staff and nominated criminal iManage is an electronic document management system designed registry staff were involved in a review of the General to enable visibility of criminal court files in regional Victoria to the Crime List Court processes. The review identified regional list judges. A successful pilot was held in the Gippsland 40 ideas for improvement. Some of the ideas have Region in January 2013 prior to the system being rolled out to all already been implemented resulting in more efficient other regional locations. iManage has improved the planning of processes. Many of the outstanding initiatives will circuits and the regional list judges are able to more efficiently be implemented over the next six months. manage circuit criminal lists by having immediate access to Implementation of New Fees case information electronically. iManage has reduced the necessity for files to be sent from location to location reducing With the implementation of the County delay through lost files and documents and transportation Court (Fees) Regulations 2012, a new costs. The Court plans to implement iManage in Melbourne fee for searching subpoena records was once funding for an e-lodgement solution is secured. introduced. This change resulted in new processes for the subpoena team, and changes to the management of court Implementing Legislative Changes users accessing court records. The Registry has been involved in various legislative Implementation of the 24 Hour reforms during the year. Some minor changes have Initial Directions Hearing Pilot supported efficiencies such as the capacity to destroy copies of documents produced under subpoena, as well as The pilot was introduced on 21 January larger reforms such as those linked to the Sentencing Act 2013 and immediately reduced the time from 1991. Registry staff together with Associates and the Case committal to initial directions hearing from 10 List Management System team have worked together in to 12 weeks to 24 hours. A number of criminal implementing reforms that commenced on 16 January 2012. listings staff were involved in the implementation These reforms will proceed through to the end of 2014. phase of the pilot and continue to provide support to the judiciary and stakeholders in the ongoing expansion of the pilot. Circuits The Circuit Court Coordinator worked closely with Melbourne Continuous Improvements to the and regional staff to achieve optimal service in regional centres Administrative Mention Process and a continued focus upon reducing delays, particularly in the A number of initiatives implemented by the criminal jurisdiction. Some of the results achieved included Directions Group resulted in time savings and an overall reduction of cases more than two years old (post efficiencies. These initiatives included the committal) by 60% and a reduction of 2% of cases between one provision of guidelines for practitioners including and two years old (post committal). a booklet of standard orders available on the Court’s website; the introduction of a Directions Group webpage; and the automatic timetabling Katie O’Keeffe of orders for Serious Injury applications. Principal Registrar
28 County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report Self-Represented Litigants
The increasing number of self-represented litigants has been felt across Victorian courts. One of the fundamental reasons for the rise is the growing financial costs of litigation. In order to meet the Court’s objectives of affordable and accessible court services, the role of Self-Represented Litigant Coordinator was introduced in January 2013. The Coordinator, Courtney Ryrie, is the primary contact for the public, particularly litigants who wish to represent themselves in civil matters before the County Court of Victoria. The Coordinator is also available to assist in criminal proceedings. The Coordinator has established and maintained processes and procedures to assist self-represented litigants navigate their way through the court system by offering appropriate procedural and practical advice while also making suitable referrals to other agencies including Community Legal Centres.
Advice provided by the Coordinator includes information around Lucille Thomas (Manager, Civil Registry/Client Services), timeframes, court fees and procedural requirements. The Katie O’Keeffe (Principal Registrar) and Courtney Ryrie Coordinator does not provide legal advice. (Self-Represented Litigant Coordinator). Since the commencement of the role, the Coordinator has received has been a great success and the Court has received excellent over 400 requests from self-represented litigants. The Coordinator feedback regarding this initiative. The short film focuses on each records comprehensive details and documentation pertaining to major step in a civil proceeding. The use of a visual and audio aid client requests. This information is analysed so that the Court can is a great way of enhancing understanding and ensures consistent continue to develop appropriate processes and procedures to cope information is being conveyed to self-represented litigants. An with the increasing demands that self-represented litigants place official launch of the Self-Represented Litigant initiative will be on the court system. held in the second half of 2013. The Coordinator meets regularly with Judiciary, the Principal The County Court website has been updated to include a dedicated Registrar and Registry managers, who review the activities and section for self-represented litigants – ‘Are You Representing performance of the Cordinator position and together develop new Yourself?’ This section includes litigation support for individuals ideas or alternative approaches to better target the needs of the representing themselves including simplified forms, the guide for Court and self-represented litigants. self-represented litigants, the short film and the contact details In April, with the assistance of Judge Misso, the Court made a of the Self-Represented Litigant Coordinator. These resources short film about the experience of self-represented litigants within greatly assist self-represented litigants in navigating through an the Court. The production of the Self-Represented Litigant film often complicated process.
County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report 29 Court Operations
Court User Survey The Liberty Group and Service The Court conducted a survey of Court users over a two week Partner Collaboration period in August 2012. The purpose of the survey was to collect The County Court of Victoria occupies a building managed under information directly from Court users about their experience a public private partnership between the State of Victoria and the and level of satisfaction with the services and facilities provided facility owners and operators, The Liberty Group (TLG). by the Court. TLG manages the facility with its service partners Honeywell, The survey was handed out by staff at the Court and was also Interform and G4S who provide building, information technology made available online via the Court’s website. There were 256 and security services to the Court. These services ensure the respondents with the majority (46%) being legal practitioners. smooth operation of the Court. Overall court users were very satisfied with the court facilities, In addition to operational requirements, TLG and service partners feeling safe in all parts of the building and with registry services. actively participate and collaborate with the Court on a range of Responses to the survey assisted the Court to identify areas of additional activities and services. service and amenity improvement. The charitable and community focused activities supported There were a number of recommendations arising from the survey by the Court, TLG and service partners include the Opening of including waiting times in registry during peak periods, court the Legal Year event in Waldron Hall, Ride to Work day, Public hearing start times, security screening and better promotion of Interest Law Clearing House legal breakfast, MS Australia’s 24 support services. Hour Mega Swim and the Berry Street Wishing Tree Appeal. TLG The Court has already commenced addressing several of the areas also provided assistance to Court Network with facilities for their identified as needing improvement. It is the Court’s intention to awards ceremony as part of National Volunteer Week. repeat the survey. In collaboration with TLG, G4S provides a safe and secure facility for staff, visitors and court users. The building is monitored 24/7 Online Legal Subscription Services through an on-site security command centre. G4S and their staff organise and participate in evacuation drills, and provide security The Court undertakes a review of its legal subscription and evacuation training. requirements each year to ensure appropriate subscriptions are maintained. The Court has also progressively migrated its legal In collaboration with TLG, Interform provides service desk subscription services from hardcopy to online services. and network support and this year established a Technology Innovation Group to explore future information technology The provision of online services ensures materials are always opportunities and solutions. current, complete and available whenever, wherever and on whatever device they are needed. In collaboration with TLG, Honeywell ensures the Court facility is fully operational and maintained to exacting standards. In addition to realising substantial savings, these changes ensure Significant works undertaken this year include the refurbishment the Court maintains a modern and sustainable approach to of public bathrooms and the replacement of large swathes of meeting its information subscription requirements. carpet in back of house and public areas of the building. It is a credit to Integrity Cleaning and everyone involved in the facility management who maintain the facility in its pristine condition.
Court Registry. County Court staff with service partners: The Liberty Group, Interform, G4S and Honeywell.
30 County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report Financial Report
The Operational and Financial Governance Statement sets out the OPERATING STATEMENT revenue (in the form of fines and fees collected) and operational FOR YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2013 expenditure of the Court for the year ended 30 June 2013, including comparisons with the previous year. 2011-2012 2012-2013 $ $ Victorian Government departments are required to produce their annual reports in accordance with Standing Direction 4 Financial Collection of Fines and Fees Management Reporting of the Financial Management Act 1994. Court Fines Information from entities of the Department of Justice, such as the (to Consolidated Revenue) 420,484 908,799 Court, are consolidated into the Department of Justice Annual Report. Court Fees (to Consolidated Revenue) 6,780,236 8,621,016 Collection of Fines and Fees • The County Court fee regulations sunsetted in December 2012. Court Photocopy Fees 1,256,988 846,949 New court fee regulations came into effect on 17 December Court Subpoena Viewing Fee - 23,288 2012. The majority of fees increased after a Regulatory Impact Statement was conducted. Court photocopy fees however, Total Revenue 8,457,708 10,400,052 decreased from $1.50 a copy to 60 cents a copy. Expenditure
Special Appropriation Collection of Fines and Fees Judicial Salaries and Allowances 26,969,995 27,305,756 Annual Appropriation $12,000,000 Photocopy Fees Court Fees Staff Salaries and On-Costs 13,846,726 14,373,432 $10,000,000 Court Fines Operating Costs:
$8,000,000 Bank Fees and Charges 2,767 2,922
$6,000,000 Contractors, Consultants and Agency 214,041 415,390 $4,000,000 Information Technology Expenses 138,088 198,186 $2,000,000 Jury Witness and 0 2011-2012 2012-2013 Award Payments 277 -
Other Operating Expenses 72,249 42,685
Special Appropriations Postage and Communication 285,653 283,824
• The Judicial Remuneration Tribunal (JRT) recommendation Printing, Stationery for a salary increase for judges was implemented. and Subscriptions 1,208,699 723,614
Annual Appropriations Rent and Property Services 68,982 124,674
• A new Workplace Determination for all Victorian Public Repairs and Maintenance 32,633 12,761 Service (VPS) staff was entered into during the report period. The Determination provided for a wage increase and a one off Staff Training and Professional bonus payment to eligible VPS staff. Development 32,666 95,059 • The Sustainable Government Initiatives (SGI) were announced Travel and Personal Expenses 1,415,169 1,122,519 at the start of the 2012-2013 budget. As a result, a number of staff Amortisation and Depreciation 634,217 603,042 were offered and accepted Voluntary Departure Packages (VDP). The VDP payouts were funded by Treasury and are therefore Total Annual Appropriation 17,952,167 17,998,108 excluded from the Court’s financial statement. • There was a significant reduction in printing, stationery and subscription costs in 2012-2013. This was due to the cancellation of hard copy legal subscriptions as the judges moved towards electronic legal subscriptions.
County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report 31 Court Usage Data
Court Reservation and Court Usage For the year ending 30 June 2013, courtroom usage (8,904 days) was 370 days more than reserved. The Supreme Court accounted for 57 of these days.
COURT RESERVATION AND COURT USAGE
2012-2013 Yearly Reservation 2012-2013 Year To Date Usage
Reserved Courtrooms Court Days Cumulative Monthly Cumulative Monthly Used Court Days Variation Monthly Cumulative Used Variation Usage Cumulative % July 646 646 720 720 74 74 111.46% August 864 1,510 1,002 1,722 138 212 114.04% September 706 2,216 750 2,472 44 256 111.55% October 841 3,057 851 3,323 10 266 108.70% November 899 3,956 884 4,207 -15 251 106.34% December 602 4,558 592 4,799 -10 241 105.29% January 244 4,802 212 5,011 -32 209 104.35% February 813 5,615 846 5,857 33 242 104.31% March 747 6,362 779 6,636 32 274 104.31% April 727 7,089 721 7,357 -6 268 103.78% May 842 7,931 888 8,245 46 314 103.96% June 603 8,534 659 8,904 56 370 104.34%
Third Party Use For the year ending June 2013, The Liberty Group hired out courtrooms on 337 occasions for arbitrations, mediations, hearings, moot courts and other appropriate uses. In April, The Liberty Group provided the location and facilities for the opening of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The preparation and planning for such an event takes weeks to arrange with involvement from a number of people and organisations with a range of skills and expertise including security, audio-visual and webcasting. This significant event was successfully hosted at the County Court. The Commissioners expressed their appreciation for the thoughtfulness, professionalism, careful planning, and dedication of all involved.
32 County Court of Victoria 2012–2013 Annual Report
County Court 250 William Street Melbourne Victoria 3000 Telephone: 03 8636 6510 countycourt.vic.gov.au