LAW REFORM COMMITTEE

Inquiry into legal services in rural Victoria

Mildura – 18 July 2000

Members

Mr D. McL. Davis Mr A. J. McIntosh

Ms D. G. Hadden Mr R. E. Stensholt

Mr P. A. Katsambanis Mr M. H. Thompson

Mr T. Languiller

Chairman: Mr M. H. Thompson

Deputy Chairman: Ms D. G. Hadden

Staff

Executive Officer: Ms P. Raman

Research Officers: Ms S. Vohra and Ms M. Mason

Witness

Mr G. Chirgwin, Registrar, Mildura Magistrates Court.

The CHAIRMAN — All evidence taken before this committee is taken under the provisions of the Parliamentary Committees Act and is protected from judicial review; however, any comments made outside the precinct of the hearing do not have such protection. All evidence is being recorded by Hansard, and you will have the opportunity of correcting a proof version which will be forwarded to you. If you would return that to our staff, that would be of assistance.

Thank you very much for rearranging your travel plans and other activities to enable you to contribute to today’s hearing; it is much appreciated.

Mr CHIRGWIN — Thank you. My full name is Graeme Chirgwin and I am the current registrar at the Mildura court. I will start with the more specific areas of the report. Firstly, the Mildura court region extends from the South Australian border at Renmark south to Murrayville, also on the South Australian border, and then east across to Swan Hill.

To give you an idea of the size of the region, it takes up roughly 13 pages on the Victorian state Melway map. It is a very large country area that we look after, with the largest centre being Mildura. Courts are currently situated at Mildura, Robinvale, Ouyen and Swan Hill. Historically, courts were located at Red Cliffs, Merbein, Manangatang, Murrayville, Sea Lake and Walpeup. At no stage could we say that any criticism has been attached to the closing of those courts.

We currently service Ouyen court on a needs basis, attending at least six times a year and allocating more sittings as required. We attend at Robinvale on a fortnightly basis and we sit at Mildura basically on a daily basis. There is no permanent magistrate at Mildura. We run a rotation system of magistrates from the metropolitan area.

Mr McINTOSH — Under the rotation system from the metropolitan area, does someone based in Melbourne come up here for a period of time?

Mr CHIRGWIN — Yes. The program started back in 1990. The rotation period was initially three months; this year we are running a pilot program of six-week periods. The reason behind that is that a number of the newer appointees have difficulties being away from home for a three-month period. We are initially piloting that six-week period to see if it is feasible.

Mr McINTOSH — Under that scheme, do the magistrates go home at weekends or do they stay up here for the full period?

Mr CHIRGWIN — We lease for them a fully furnished two-bedroom unit which is quite comfortable, and they have access to a motor vehicle. We provide a return flight once a fortnight. That can be utilised either by a partner or by the magistrates themselves. We have a Supreme Court circuit which sits in Mildura at least once a year. We have no difficulty obtaining the services of a Supreme Court circuit at any other time. We are fortunate that if we need a circuit visit, we get it. We have a minimum of five County Court circuits per year. With the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT)hearings, the residential tenancies and small claims tribunals sit on a fortnightly basis. On one fortnight they will sit for two days and on the next they will sit for one day. The Family Court also attends Mildura. During the past financial year the Family Court utilised our facilities for a total of 55 days. We also provide facilities for other agencies, including the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, and we provide facilities for courts outside the jurisdiction. The New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission in particular and other tribunals find it much easier to convene courts in Mildura than across the river at Wentworth.

In relation to the use of technology in the region, Mildura was one of the first country courts to trial videoconferencing. We conducted a pilot program, and videoconferencing is now an everyday part of our life in the courtroom. We use the videoconference unit at Mildura up to three times a day, with varying applications.

Mr McINTOSH — Is it being used today?

Mr CHIRGWIN — It would be. We have already used it this morning for a Magistrates Court remand and a Children’s Court matter. Yesterday we used the facility on at least three occasions, not only with a one-to-one link, but a four-point link with three prisoners at varying locations in Melbourne and practitioners in Melbourne at the same time. That is a common occurrence.

Ms HADDEN — You have a high usage for videoconferencing with criminal matters?

Mr CHIRGWIN — We have two distinct uses. In criminal matters we use it mainly for prisoners and practitioners. To give you an example of the use of videoconferencing in civil matters, during one recent civil circuit I estimate that we saved in excess of $15 000 in one morning. In the past, parties bringing medical practitioners or specialists to Mildura were required to either charter private flights or pay for them to travel on commercial flights. The specialists would travel to Mildura and tender a report; the legal practitioners might would ask them 15 minutes worth of senseless questions to justify their attendance, and they would then be excused. With the availability of a videoconferencing facility we now have the option of dialling experts at a given location, and they can produce their reports and go. The savings are astronomical and are passed on to the parties, because they are not outlaying those expenditures.

The CHAIRMAN — Are 15 minutes of senseless questions asked during videoconferencing as well? Mr CHIRGWIN — No. The witnesses are there, they produce their reports, and if there are any questions pertinent to their report they are questioned. Other than that, they are in and out straight away. This is anecdotal, but we have found that the process is 10 times quicker. A classic example that you might be able to relate to is that Dr Pryor, who does an enormous amount of work up here, has not been seen up here for four years. He lives by videoconferencing and swears by it.

Mr STENSHOLT — How do the barristers react to the videoconferencing?

Mr CHIRGWIN — Initially acceptance was very slow and there was a lot of reluctance. As I said, we ran the pilot programs here at Mildura and it was a slow process convincing them that it works, that it is good and that there are savings to be had. Since we established that, we have had no difficulties whatsoever, particularly in civil and County Court matters. Only in the past 12 months has it been truly extended to all jurisdictions, although not perhaps the Supreme Court. That court is still very reluctant to utilise the facility.

Mr McINTOSH — Why is that?

Mr CHIRGWIN — I cannot answer that.

Mr STENSHOLT — Where is the reluctance? Does it come from the judges?

Mr CHIRGWIN — I believe so.

Mr STENSHOLT — Or the barristers?

Mr CHIRGWIN — No, I believe it is more from the judiciary than the parties themselves.

Mr McINTOSH — It is becoming more and more common to use it. The remote witness facilities have been introduced and now they have to use them. The judges, barristers and solicitors are quite used to them now.

Mr CHIRGWIN — Initially, even if you were running a County Court trial, members of the Director of Public Prosecutions staff and defence barristers were very reluctant to use it. We would say to them, ‘Yes, the facility is there. There is no need to bring your witness from Sydney’, or wherever; however, there was a tendency to say, ‘No, we want to have the witness in the court face to face. You do not get the same aspect’. It has now been proven that, except for vital witnesses, videoconferencing succeeds.

Mr McINTOSH — Especially for expert witnesses such as doctors and psychologists. Mr CHIRGWIN — There is no need whatsoever to have them at the court; there is no doubt about that.

Mr McINTOSH — You mentioned Dr Pryor.

Ms HADDEN — He is from Ballarat.

Mr McINTOSH — He has not been here for four years because he gives his evidence by videoconferencing?

Mr CHIRGWIN — Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN — What is his expertise?

Mr CHIRGWIN — He is an orthopaedic surgeon. He was probably one of the first surgeons we got started on videoconferencing.

Mr McINTOSH — How do the surgeons deal with it? Do they accept it?

Mr CHIRGWIN — They love it, because they know they can schedule their days. If they have a videoconference at 10.30 a.m., for example, there is a certainty that it will go ahead at 10.30 a.m. and that they can be back in their offices that morning. As I said, in the past we would bring surgeons from Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide all the time. Even if they had the luxury of a privately chartered flight, the day is gone.

Mr McINTOSH — Where is the camera at the other end? Where does someone like Dr Pryor have to go to give his evidence? Does he have to go to the County Court?

Mr CHIRGWIN — No. Initially we scrounged, begged and borrowed, and we used the School of Mines at Ballarat for Dr Pryor. Then as it became better established, there were a number of sites we could go to. The hospitals all have sufficient videoconferencing sites that we can link into. Obviously the new court complex at Ballarat has a facility that we can go to. In a place like Ballarat there are any number of sites we can link into. There are sites in place Australia wide that you would not think possible.

Mr McINTOSH — I have done cases in the commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal where evidence is taken from experts from right around Australia by way of telephone links, and the only link you have with a witness is the telephone. The beauty of that is that the evidence can be given with the experts sitting in their offices. There is no requirement for them to go to any specialist facility. Do you know whether, with current technologies, it would be possible to take a television screen and camera to them? Mr CHIRGWIN — With modern technology we now have the ability even with our own videoconference unit to tap into a personal computer (PC) on a desk. The cost is minimal; with a $162 camera and a modem, we can physically tap into a PC and provide an audio and visual contact. The only difficulty with that is that it runs at a rate that is what we class as 128 Ks.

Mr McINTOSH — That is very slow?

Mr CHIRGWIN — The audio is relatively good, but there is a minor distortion in the video aspect of it. It is certainly suitable for court appearances. The normal rate we would run in courts is 384 Ks, which is the highest rate possible. That provides an excellent transmission rate with very little delay.

Mr STENSHOLT — Is there much use of video facilities the other way? In other words, are you called on to arrange for video facilities here in respect of courts in Melbourne and elsewhere?

Mr CHIRGWIN — All the time. As I said, the change has been a long process but it is now becoming accepted in a lot of areas. Witnesses required to give evidence in the County Court in Melbourne, for example, will now just walk into our office, go to a back room where we have a private office, and give their evidence.

Mr STENSHOLT — What is the usage rate of your facilities? Are you using them for an average of 4 hours a day, for example?

Mr CHIRGWIN — Not as such. On average we would probably use them for roughly 1 to 2 hours per week. However, that could be for anything up to 10 applications. As I said, if we are running a Magistrates Court we sometimes use it three times a day, and that might range from 5 minutes to 15 minutes. In particular, because of the difficulties of transporting prisoners throughout the state, prisoners are demanding that they be given a video link rather than having to physically appear in court.

Mr McINTOSH — The old jail order.

Mr CHIRGWIN — Yes, simply because of the way the prison system is established. Prisoners with beds at the Port Phillip Prison or the Melbourne Assessment Prison who have to give evidence at a court will lose their beds and their places and have to go for another assessment. Now they can walk from their rooms to a videoconference suite and have their remand hearings with little inconvenience. Not only is it convenient for the prisoner, but there is an astronomical prisoner transport cost saving for the government.

Ms HADDEN — They also lose their hierarchy and their power within the prison if they are moved. Mr CHIRGWIN — That is very important, and they make no bones about that.

Mr STENSHOLT — Has there been any discussion about courts operating from one site and the magistrate or judge from another site?

Mr CHIRGWIN — During the pilot program, unfortunately we had to inform the magistrate 2 minutes before we started the court that his mother had died. Approximately 70 to 80 cases were listed for mention in Mildura. Within 15 minutes we had another magistrate on the line in Melbourne who dealt with the list that day by video link.

Mr STENSHOLT — It was used once and that was a couple of years ago.

Mr CHIRGWIN — We use it on a regular basis. Basically, while there is a court going we can get a magistrate. If we cannot get one from Melbourne, we get one from other places such as Ballarat, Bendigo, Shepparton and Geelong.

Mr STENSHOLT — How much use is made of that, where you are running a court here and the magistrate is somewhere else?

Mr CHIRGWIN — With the Mildura circuit, we sit in Mildura five days a week, and in the alternate week we are in Mildura on Monday, Robinvale on Tuesday, Swan Hill on Wednesday — and sometimes on Thursday — and then Ouyen, which leaves Mildura without a magistrate for four days every fortnight and three in other fortnights. We use videoconferencing while the magistrate is away for people in custody and domestic violence matters. We can continue without a magistrate simply because of the videoconferencing facility.

The CHAIRMAN — Do you conduct actual hearings?

Mr CHIRGWIN — We do, yes.

The CHAIRMAN — If the list at Broadmeadows is jammed is there a capacity for those matters to be transferred to a hearing in Mildura?

Mr CHIRGWIN — It works more in the reverse. When we get our list jammed here we ring Melbourne and ascertain whether a magistrate is available to deal with our list.

The CHAIRMAN — How often would that happen?

Mr CHIRGWIN — We can do it any time we need to. We would do it perhaps once or twice a month. Mr STENSHOLT — Do you have any figures or statistics on the use of videoconferencing and the use of remote magistrates?

Mr CHIRGWIN — I know we do a physical return in relation to that. I have recently had a discussion with the people who are responsible for the statistics and because of the way they are initially collated there are some discrepancies. From memory, we certainly are the most prolific users of videoconferencing in country Victoria, apart from the Melbourne Magistrates Court, which stands to reason because of our geographical remoteness.

Mr STENSHOLT — You do not keep your own statistics?

Mr CHIRGWIN — We do not keep them in Mildura, no. They are kept in Melbourne. I could not give you the actual figures on a yearly basis. They are retained by the Victorian Government Court Recording Service.

Mr McINTOSH — Is there any risk that it will become so good you will not have a magistrate up here?

Mr CHIRGWIN — I do not think that would ever happen in that you always physically have to have the face of the judiciary here. We use it as a tool and as a tool only. We do not use it as a replacement. If we do use it as a replacement it is only on an ad hoc basis, obviously to get us over a problem at the time. If we did not have the judiciary we would never deliberately administer or set up a court hearing unless it was exceptionally necessary. We use it as a tool and as an assistant, and it is a very effective one.

I refer to other specific areas such as the electronic lodgment of data. We have found that it is far too cost prohibitive to be used by local practitioners in Mildura. They are still probably in the unique situation where they can have a member of their office deliver the material to the court and have it back an hour or 2 hours later. That is probably a luxury of being in a small country town.

Mr STENSHOLT — How do the people in Robinvale and Swan Hill handle this?

Mr CHIRGWIN — We have a permanent clerk in attendance at Swan Hill three days a week and she manages Kerang the other two days. We attend Robinvale on a court day only. If there is any lodgment process it is forwarded by mail or DX. That leads me to another area — if we had sufficient staffing I would like to be in a position where we could provide a shop front at Robinvale on at least one half-day and at Ouyen perhaps one day a month, and even provide shopfront assistance to other outlying areas. In country areas a lot of people still refer to the Magistrates Court as the Court of Petty Sessions. We have an enormous number of elderly people who, when they receive a letter that they do not understand from Centrelink or from another government agency, take it off to the courthouse to get the clerk of courts to explain it to them. Unfortunately, that is a fact of life and is something that does not change.

In the past we had staff in small country towns who were able to provide that facility. We do not have that now. When we visit Ouyen we utilise the shire offices, and people are reluctant to come in with matters that are not physically related to court matters simply because they do not like people knowing what their business is. The same would apply to Robinvale. Yet we are fortunate we have a proper court set up at Robinvale. With Ouyen we utilise the services of the shire offices and take all our facilities there. We do not have computer link-ups or anything like that; we physically bring it back to Mildura to process it.

Mr STENSHOLT — Coming back to Robinvale, do solicitors have the capacity to lodge documents electronically or does the post office have the capacity for individuals to lodge them?

Mr CHIRGWIN — Currently, for want of a better term, you have to have a licence to lodge it into the court-link system. I believe the fees to obtain that permission are cost prohibitive in that a practitioner at Robinvale may lodge one document in probably three or four months and it would not be a viable option.

Mr McINTOSH — Is there not a real problem with the security aspect of electronic lodgment in that if you give outside access to those facilities, even through the Internet, it becomes very difficult to then protect the system or preserve the integrity of the system?

Mr CHIRGWIN — The court system we work on is nicknamed court link. One of the difficulties we have at this stage is that by working off remote servers, if we have access to the Internet or anything such as that, there is always the strong possibility that the system can be infiltrated. That is one of the major reasons we have difficulty in providing Internet facilities. Electronic data that is lodged physically goes to Melbourne, not to the individual court. That creates difficulties in that you have lodged your initial complaint at Melbourne, the process might be returnable at Mildura but there is no hard copy there. It causes difficulties but it is something that the current Magistrates Court system is working on.

Mr STENSHOLT — Do you think a switching mechanism somewhere or other should make it possible to transfer something like an ordinary email?

Mr CHIRGWIN — There are firewalls in the system, but I believe the technicians count numerous strikes per day where people have tried to infiltrate the system. The biggest difficulty we have is that we work on an intranet rather than the Internet, and in today’s technology it is insufficient. It is outdated.

Referring back to the facilities we have at Mildura, we would be able to provide a much better service to the community and provide better access to the relative jurisdictions if we had the facility to do it. Our biggest difficulty is that we physically do not have the room or the ability to do it. The Supreme and County courts building which we are operating in now has no handicapped access. We are unable to heat the building and we cannot sufficiently cool it. It does not even have hot water. The building is completely insufficient. I realise it is not within the agenda of this committee, but I extend an invitation to committee members to at some stage examine the current facilities because in my view they are nothing less than appalling.

Ms HADDEN — How long has the court been operating out of the current site?

Mr CHIRGWIN — The current site was the site of the first court. We purchased the bank building next door in 1986 on a temporary basis. I transferred to Mildura in 1989 and part of my brief, when I first came, was to undertake the renovations to the complex. That to this day still has not taken place, for varying reasons.

Mr McINTOSH — As I understand it, the government has announced the provision of funds for the building of the new court facility. I understand there is also a local committee, chaired by Russell Savage, the local member, for the location of that courthouse. Were you a member of that committee?

Mr CHIRGWIN — I was also a member of that committee. The actual steering committee was chaired by Cr Peter Byrne. Mr Savage was a member of the committee. A site was chosen by the site committee after consultation with the court users groups. That was forwarded to the Attorney-General and he indicated that he accepted that recommendation.

Mr McINTOSH — That is the CBD site here.

Mr CHIRGWIN — It is a vacant block of land and utilises the current court.

Mr McINTOSH — That was the recommendation of the committee.

Mr CHIRGWIN — The committee considered other sites within the Mildura region and found the current CBD site outweighed any other options.

Mr McINTOSH — At this stage essentially all you are doing is waiting for the Attorney-General to announce the detail of that new court facility. Mr CHIRGWIN — Without going into areas with which I am completely unfamiliar, I mention that I have a briefing this afternoon with members of the Department of Justice, and I believe it is their view that something else will take place.

Mr McINTOSH — I do not want to go into any confidences or otherwise, but it is just waiting on some final detail?

Mr CHIRGWIN — I believe so.

Ms HADDEN — You said the proposal is for the new court to be built on vacant land behind the current site.

Mr CHIRGWIN — That was the recommendation. We could provide much greater community access to VCAT facilities, but we physically do not have the space or the ability to do it.

Mr McINTOSH — The committee has heard about the tensions that occur between different courts — Family Court, VCAT, Magistrates Court, County Court, and the Supreme Court — and the use of facilities. Did the committee of which you were a member look at providing adequate court facilities so that all the different courts could be appropriately housed and serviced?

Mr CHIRGWIN — The steering committee looked at the option of a site where a serviceable court complex could cater for all those needs. The unfortunate thing is that when courts are allocated to country areas, the pecking order starts, obviously, with the state courts and the Victorian Supreme Court. They take their fixtures, the County Court takes its fixture, and unfortunately it gets to the end of the line where the Family Court is basically left scratching and filling in the gaps. That is a problem that occurs in Mildura.

Mr McINTOSH — Is it something that sways the Family Court from coming on circuit to Mildura?

Mr CHIRGWIN — I believe it does simply because inevitably every year we have a problem in that we have difficulty catering for its needs. It basically has to take what is left.

Mr McINTOSH — The committee has heard evidence elsewhere criticising the Family Court for not providing appropriate or adequate circuit facilities to rural and regional Victoria.

Mr CHIRGWIN — That possibly would also include Mildura. As I said, the Federal Court utilised our building for 55 days in the last calendar year. Unfortunately I am probably not the best person to say whether that is sufficient or not. That is something the practitioners would have a much greater knowledge of, simply because when the Family Court comes it uses our facilities but it brings its own files and administration staff. Basically our role is to provide a facility for them, and I know that we have difficulty providing that facility.

Ms HADDEN — Do they bring two counsellors on circuit with them as well?

Mr CHIRGWIN — Traditionally, the counselling service was utilised in Mildura are. These days it is almost non-existent.

Ms HADDEN — The counsellors do not travel with the court circuit?

Mr CHIRGWIN — I believe they will travel on circuit with a court. In the past Mildura was able to access the counsellor service on a regular basis. We would provide interview rooms for them and they were able to access clients on impartial ground. That facility is not provided any more, certainly not to the extent it used to be.

The CHAIRMAN — Taking into account your expertise and experience in the use of technology in Mildura, which may well be state of the art in Victoria in terms of using videoconferencing and other facilities, do you have any thoughts about what could optimise legal service delivery in rural regions of Victoria?

Mr CHIRGWIN — I see no difficulty in basically establishing shopfronts in any country town. With the use of a laptop computer and a modem, we can access our court facilities and provide any facility you need. You no longer need the traditional old courthouse infrastructure. That is why, given sufficient resources, I would like to expand on places like Robinvale, Ouyen and Murrayville, which currently have nothing.

Mr McINTOSH — Let’s take Ouyen as an example, which is a bit over an hour’s drive south of Mildura. You sit there six times a year?

Mr CHIRGWIN — Yes.

Mr McINTOSH — The shopfront you would provide there would be open every day or for one or two days a week?

Mr CHIRGWIN — No, I would suggest that it be purely on a visiting basis. Whether you went for half a day a fortnight or incorporated it with other areas within the region, at least if you provided a set time at a set place, members of the public would know you would be there at that time and I am sure they would utilise it. Mr McINTOSH — Presumably a clerk or registrar would go down to Ouyen and be able to deal with members of the public on a personal basis?

Mr CHIRGWIN — That is on a personal basis.

Mr McINTOSH — If a list was generated in Ouyen, that could be dealt with by way of remote videoconferencing; is that what you are saying?

Mr CHIRGWIN — No. I am talking about providing front-line assistance to the members of the public on a personal basis. Our role as registrars does not involve just courts. On a daily basis we would have upward of 30 people per day bringing documents in for signature and other things like that that have no relation to courts as such.

Mr McINTOSH — Advice about the processes of the courts?

Mr CHIRGWIN — Traditionally we are still — for want of a better term — a poor man’s solicitor. A lot of people come to us initially seeking advice before they go to a solicitor’s office. When we are unable to assist, we say to them, ‘The best advice we can give you is that you have to accept professional legal advice’. That is the usual chain of events. Nine times out of 10 people will come to us first if they have no legal knowledge, hoping that we can assist them.

Ms HADDEN — You sit as a Coroner’s Court and as a Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal?

Mr CHIRGWIN — We cover all jurisdictions at Mildura. Everything from Children’s Court to coronial matters, the whole box and dice, is under the one roof.

Ms HADDEN — Do you have separate days for the Children’s Court?

Mr CHIRGWIN — We do, yes. Again we have difficulties in that we cannot completely comply with the legislation by providing separate buildings and so on for dealing with Children’s Court matters. A current example is that this morning we had the unsavoury prospect of running not only a Children’s Court but two jurisdictions together, being the family division and the criminal division, which is in conflict with the legislation. We also have people attending Magistrates Court matters later in the day. We have no other option, unfortunately.

Ms HADDEN — Do you stagger the times?

Mr CHIRGWIN — We do. Children’s Court starts at 9.30 a.m., and we attempt to deal with the family division first; however, inevitably with the various arrangements it is just not feasible. Ms HADDEN — You would probably be the only court, apart from those in Melbourne, that sits as a Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal in the state.

Mr CHIRGWIN — A lot of the files were transferred back to Melbourne. Again because of the geographic remoteness, once a file is processed and a hearing is required, the file is returned to us for determination. Over the past two years that has become minimal, but I believe with the current changes in legislation, that will be rectified.

Ms HADDEN — So the file is actually sent to Melbourne, it is activated and then it comes back for hearing?

Mr CHIRGWIN — Yes.

Mr McINTOSH — The Magistrates Court is sitting today as a Children’s Court, and later this afternoon it will hear criminal matters?

Mr CHIRGWIN — It will hear Magistrates Court criminal matters also, yes.

Mr McINTOSH — Is there a Supreme Court or County Court circuit at the moment?

Mr CHIRGWIN — Not at this stage. We will be starting a County Court criminal circuit in August.

Mr McINTOSH — When that occurs, does the Magistrates Court use the County Court building?

Mr CHIRGWIN — No, that building is exclusively used for the higher jurisdictions. As it turns out, that building is used in the vicinity of eight to nine months of the year solely for higher jurisdictional work.

Ms HADDEN — It is in a different location?

Mr CHIRGWIN — It is next door.

Ms HADDEN — That is the old bank?

Mr CHIRGWIN — Traditionally we had the old court, which everyone fitted into in the old days. The bank was then purchased on a temporary basis and we moved the administration and the Magistrates Court there.

Ms HADDEN — Do you have Court Network or Salvation Army assistance at the court?

Mr CHIRGWIN — No. We had a Court Network system but in the early 1990s, again due to lack of funding and Mildura’s geographical remoteness problems, the organisation could not subsidise the Mildura operation and it folded.

Mr STENSHOLT — Have there been any attempts to revive it?

Mr CHIRGWIN — I believe that 18 months or two years ago there was an attempt made, but I think that the volunteers who were there in the past were once bitten twice shy.

The CHAIRMAN — What is the rapport between the court and private practitioners in the town? Is there a good relationship?

Mr CHIRGWIN — We are privileged in having a very good relationship. Mildura is remote and it is unique, and the basic theme is that we are all on the same side. If a person appearing in court needs assistance, the local practitioners, to their credit, are always able to provide the assistance required.

Ms HADDEN — Do you have a specific duty solicitor scheme?

Mr CHIRGWIN — We have a duty solicitor scheme operated by the local practitioners. They run a roster system and manage it themselves. They attend to matters on what we call a mention day, and they make themselves available to anyone picked up on remand or whatever during the week they are on roster. We are probably very fortunate in that there is no real reason why any person in a magistrates criminal matter should ever have to go before a court unrepresented, unless it is by choice. That is quite unique to country Victoria.

Ms HADDEN — What is the size of your mention list?

Mr CHIRGWIN — It would average from between 70 to 90 mentions on a normal day.

Ms HADDEN — What is the population of Mildura?

Mr CHIRGWIN — The current population in the Mildura area is roughly about 25 000. If you take in the outlying areas such as Merbein, Red Cliffs, Irymple and the wider community, you are looking at roughly 50 000 to 55 000 people.

Mr STENSHOLT — Including Robinvale?

Mr CHIRGWIN — Robinvale would be separate again. I am talking about roughly a 30-kilometre radius. Mr STENSHOLT — In any event, how many people would there be in the north-west district that you cover with your various courts?

Mr CHIRGWIN — I would estimate 70 000 to 75 000 people in the whole region that we take in, but that would be a rough guess.

Ms HADDEN — What is the size of your mention list in each of Robinvale, Swan Hill and Ouyen?

Mr CHIRGWIN — I would estimate the figures for Robinvale at roughly 40 or 50 cases per month. The figure for Swan Hill would be in the vicinity of 75 to 100 per month.

Mr STENSHOLT — Swan Hill is once a fortnight?

Mr CHIRGWIN — Fortnightly, yes. Those figures relate specifically to Magistrates Court criminal matters; they would not include any form of civil process or domestic violence matters.

Ms HADDEN — I should have made myself clearer for non-lawyers, but I understand what you are saying. Can you tell us about your crimes family violence procedures and list?

Mr CHIRGWIN — Unfortunately we have a very high percentage of domestic violence in Mildura. In the period from 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999 Mildura had in the vicinity of 780 to 800 cases of domestic violence complaints issued and processed. That is a very high rate for country Victoria. I know that Bendigo, for instance, had in the vicinity of 500 cases. I believe that part of the reason we have a high percentage of domestic violence complaints may relate to the fact that we have a very high — for want of a better term — floating population. It is not unusual for people to congregate in Mildura.

Ms HADDEN — Does that figure of 780 or 800 represent applications issued or filed?

Mr CHIRGWIN — Yes.

Ms HADDEN — What percentage of applicants do not go through with it? Do you have a 50 per cent fallout rate, for example, or do they all go through?

Mr CHIRGWIN — No. Our percentage of withdrawals at the final hearing stage would be in the vicinity of 10 to 15 per cent. We have a very high rate. That can relate back to two things. The first is the police policy on domestic violence. I believe that the police in this region should have been commended for their attitude to domestic violence prior to June of last year. Of the total number of complaints that went through the court, the police were either the complainants or they assisted in the issuing of the process in roughly 80 to 85 per cent of cases. Due to a change in policy, under the current police instructions the police are complainants in under 5 per cent of cases. We have noticed a dramatic change in policy and in the policing of domestic violence matters.

The CHAIRMAN — You mentioned court closures in the area and the number of courts that have been closed. In what years would those courts have closed, do you know?

Mr CHIRGWIN — The smaller ones — Red Cliffs and Sea Lake — went through the changes in 1982 or 1983, I believe. That was the time when some 56 courts in Victoria were closed. In real terms they would have been doing minimal work at that stage. I do not suggest that it would be feasible or even economical to reopen courts in some of those areas. However, we should be able to provide a service to them, albeit not a physical court.

Under the current situation, if you are apprehended driving a vehicle between Mildura and Bendigo, you have the option of having the case dealt with at Mildura, or Ouyen if you live close enough, or Bendigo. They are the next two courts. That is a 430-kilometre difference. That is a large area, particularly if a civil matter requires attention.

The CHAIRMAN — The distance between Mildura and Bendigo is 450 kilometres.

Mr CHIRGWIN — That is correct, yes.

The CHAIRMAN — Thank you for your contribution. You have provided some excellent insights. Should you have any further comments you wish to make, particularly about the use of technology, please feel free to liaise with our executive officer.

Witness withdrew.