2011–2012 Annual Report This report provides a summary The of is of the County Court’s strategic priorities, major projects and the intermediate tier of the state’s achievements for the financial year 2011–12. A full list of the court hierarchy. It is the major Court’s activities for 2011–12 is available on the Court’s website trial court in the state of Victoria. at www.countycourt.vic.gov.au.

Contents

Report of the Chief Judge 1 Year at a Glance 2 The County Court of Victoria 4 The Court’s vision, values and objectives 4 International Framework for Court Excellence 4 Jurisdiction of the County Court of Victoria 5 The Court and the Community 6 The County Court on Circuit 8 Criminal Jurisdiction 10 Civil Jurisdiction 13 Judges of the County Court of Victoria 18 Judicial Professional Development 19 Judicial Contributions to Boards, Committees and User Groups 20

Supporting the Judges of the Court 21 Report of the CEO 22 Report of the Principal Registrar 23 Court Operations 24 Financial Report 26 The Year Ahead 27 Court Usage Data 28 Report of the Chief Judge

The 2011-12 financial year proved to be another satisfactory year for the Court both in terms of productivity and innovation.

In the criminal jurisdiction, the Court maintained a reduction During the year, the Court, together with its IT provider - Interform in the time to trial without a significant reduction in the number - designed an electronic document management system, which of cases which proceeded to verdict. Sexual offences continued will be trialled in the Latrobe Valley, with a view to rolling it out to constitute just under half of our criminal trials (43%) and the to the rest of the circuit courts by the end of 2013. iManage is a number of supervision order applications and reviews under the sophisticated document management system which makes the idea Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009 has of the electronic file a reality, giving a more transparent and effective continued to grow over the last year. way of managing our regional cases. It is anticipated that the project will help reduce the delay and cost of collating, maintaining and The Court has sustained its efforts, aimed at addressing delay and searching court documents and will increase the availability of boosting efficiency, by the establishment of a new listing initiative. case information to all parties associated with a proceeding. Stage The new 24 Hour Initial Directions Hearings Pilot will reduce the two of the of the process will permit parties to electronically file time to trial by fixing the initial directions hearing the morning documents. This may be the first step to a paperless court. after the committal order. This will have the effect of immediately reducing delay by 10 - 12 weeks. The Pilot aims to capitalise The civil jurisdiction represents one third of the work of the on the opportunity provided at the end of contested committal Court and continues to occupy 22 judges of the Court. Four judges proceedings where counsel, briefed and conversant with the case, remain in the Commercial List which accounts for almost 40% of can provide a realistic assessment of whether a matter should go initiations in civil. The Damages and Compensation List remains to trial. Counsel will also assist the List Judge to obtain realistic dominant in the civil jurisdiction accounting for almost 60% of and accurate estimates of expected trial length and issues in initiations. Pressure in the Serious Injury Division has not eased dispute, and to promptly allocate a trial date to those matters over the report period. Over the coming year, the Court will be identified as certain trials. The Court is pleased to announce the reviewing all aspects of the civil jurisdiction including allocation commencement of a pilot program in January 2013. I thank the of judicial resources, the civil listings system and registry Office of Public Prosecutions, Victoria Legal Aid, the Criminal Bar processes. Association and the private profession for their collaboration The Judicial Settlement Conference track in WorkCover in this exciting and innovative project. serious injury applications commenced during the report Over the past financial year, there has been a continued year. The aim of the program track was to encourage and concerted effort by judges and circuit staff to clear early settlement of cases and early results indicate that the backlog of old cases in our circuit locations. Major the program has proven successful. As at 30 June 2012, successes have been achieved over the report period. approximately 30% of the cases conferenced had settled I am pleased that the Government has commenced at the Judicial Settlement Conference or within building works to remediate the sad state of the the following 60 days. With the agreement of the court facilities at and relevant stakeholders, it is proposed to hand over which will ensure that the Court can continue to the conduct of the settlement conferences to the deliver services to these communities. Conditions parties in late 2012. at require urgent investment. For the During the report year the Court welcomed foreseeable future the Court will continue with Judge Richard Smith, Judge Michael the practice of bringing three or more Bendigo Macnamara and Judge William Stuart. circuits each year to , in an effort to The Court farewelled Judge Frank Shelton deal with the backlog at Bendigo. and Judge Lance Pilgrim. This year also marks a decade since the I would like to thank the judges and staff of the opening of our new facility in 2002. Back County Court for their unstinting commitment then I described our court building as ‘an to the Court and its important work. impressive architectural statement, a distinctive and identifiable public building We all look forward to another challenging year. with imaginative use of space and light.’ Those We will learn what impact the new sentencing sentiments still hold true. The Court continues to initiatives and the Government’s budgetary measures showcase the very best in courtroom design, utility will have on the Court and its ability to meet its goals. and innovation. There is much to do.

Chief Judge Rozenes

County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report 1 Year at a Glance

The number of cases finalised by the County Court has increased in this financial year from 11,117 in 2010–11 to 11,395 in 2011–12. To read about the criminal jurisdiction of the Court, turn to page 10. For more detail on the civil jurisdiction, see page 13.

5,959 5,436 civil cases criminal cases

6,000 6,000

5,000 5,000 2,438 2,350 trials and 4,000 11,395 4,000 pleas 3,000 3,000 2,998

cases 2,992 2,000 finalised 2,000 appeals

1,000 1,000

5,959 5,775 5,436 5,342 finalised finalised finalised finalised 2011–12 2010–11 2011–12 2010–11

TOTAL CIRCUIT CASE ACTIVITY DISPOSALS BY METHOD OF FINALISATION 2011–2012

initiated Civil disposals Criminal disposals Judgment by Consent (Rule 59.06) Notice of dismissal Finalised by consent at trial Default Appearance Notice Discontinuance Finalised by consent before trial Judgment at trial Settled at mediation Other Plea of Guilty Trial turned plea of guilty Trial Conviction Trial Acquittal Nolle Prosequi Discontinuance Order Other

2,000 1,937 1,898 finalised

1,853 pending 1,799 1,598 1,500 1,404

1,000

500 200 156 178 97 31 1,342 1,449 404 869 530 528 345 327 752 748 441

2011–12 2010–11

Civil Disposals Criminal Disposals consent at tiral Finalised by Judgement at trial Settled at mediation Other Default appearance Notice of discontinuance consent before trial Finalisation by 1,200 Notice of dismissal Trial turned plea of guilty Trial conviction Trial acquittal Noile prosequi 2 County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report Commenced: Number of cases Finalisation: committed or directly Number of cases indicted during the completed during reporting period the reporting period. (including supervision Cases no longer active. order cases).

2011–2012 2010–2011 % change TOTAL COUNTY COURT CASES: Commenced 11,456 11,812 3.0% Finalised 11,395 11,117 2.5% Pending 10,083 10,207 1.2% Overall County Court Clearance Ratio (%) 99.5% 94.1% % disposed within 12 months 69.0% TOTAL CIVIL CASES: Commenced 6,350 6,675 4.9% Finalised 5,959 5,775 3.2% Pending 7,552 7,314 3.3% Overall Civil Clearance Ratio (%) 93.8% 86.5% % disposed within 12 months 47.0% 56.0% Pending: TOTAL CRIMINAL CASES (INCLUDING APPEALS): Number of active/ Commenced 5,106 5,137 0.6% Finalised 5,436 5,342 open cases as at the 1.8% Pending 2,531 2,893 end of the reporting 12.5% Overall Criminal Clearance Ratio (%) 106.5% 104.0% period. % disposed within 12 months 84.2% 84.0% Criminal Trials and Pleas: Commenced 2,216 2,397 7.6% Finalised 2,438 2,350 3.7% Pending 1,586 1,830 13.3% Trials and Pleas Clearance Ratio (%) 110.0% 98.0% % disposed within 12 months 72.0% 70.0% Clearance rate: Criminal Appeals: How many cases Commenced 2,890 2,740 5.5% finalised as a Finalised 2,998 2,992 0.2% percentage of Pending 945 1,063 11.1% initiations. Appeals Clearance Ratio (%) 103.7% 109.2% % disposed within 12 months 94.0% 94.0% TOTAL ADOPTION CASES: Applications Considered 54 79 31.6% Adoption Orders Made 61 69 11.6% Applications Pending 2 12 83.3%

COURTROOM USAGE 2011-12 MONTHLY RESERVATIONS V MONTHLY USAGE For the year ending 1000 30 June 2012, a total of 1,006 usage more days were used than reserved. Court usage by the 800 Supreme Court is recorded as a County Court booking and reflected in the figure 600 reservations at right. Court usage by the Supreme Court was 232 days. 400 Additionally, third party bookings totalled 183 days. This includes one day by the 200 Children’s Court.

More details on page 28 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report 3 The County Court of Victoria

International Framework Our Vision for Court Excellence To be a leader in court excellence, delivering the The International Framework for Court Excellence (IFCE) is an highest standard of justice to the community we serve internationally recognised mechanism by which courts can self- and inspiring public confidence in the rule of law. assess and improve the quality of justice and court administration they deliver. The 2011 International Framework for Court Excellence (IFCE) Our Values Self-Assessment identified 21 improvement projects which guided the development of the Court’s 2011-12 Business Plan. Some Respect: of the projects, including the development of a media strategy, Work cooperatively as a Whole of Court. development of a new vision statement, a Court User Satisfaction Treat people well. Survey and increasing support for community engagement, have Integrity: already been completed. Honest ethical and reasonable behaviour. A number of other projects will be finalised over the next Fairness: 12 months, including: Treat people equally and impartially. • Assessing targets for case disposal. • Developing a Court Activity Model. Transparency: • Reviewing the Performance and Development Plans. Open and reasoned decision making. The County Court is extremely proud to have become a member Clear, understandable processes. of the International Consortium for Court Excellence. This Timeliness: membership recognises the Court’s commitment to achieving Responsive and focused on delivering quality service. court excellence. Professionalism: The 2012 IFCE Self-Assessment was undertaken in September Competent, capable and proficient. 2012. The projects identified in that Self-Assessment will be Continuous review and improvement. included in the 2012-2013 Business Plan. Completed Projects Our Objectives • Implement the International Framework for Court Excellence. As part of the implementation of the International • Produce a new vision statement for the Court. Framework for Court Excellence, the County Court adopted • Develop a media strategy. the areas of excellence in the Framework as court objectives. • Identify court data requirements. To provide fair, effective and efficient court processes. • Undertake a Court User Satisfaction Survey. To reinforce public trust and confidence in the Court. • Develop and implement a strategy to publish sentences and judgments on the Court’s website. To continue to improve court performance and quality. • Review in-court facilities for persons with disabilities or Lead a modern and innovative court. particular physical needs. Be accessible to our court users. • Support community engagement. • Develop a Terms Listing project in crime. Build our people and resource capabilities. • Develop a strategy for collection of qualitative data from court users. • Review facilities for staff with disabilities. • Review in-court support for self-represented litigants.

4 County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report Jurisdiction of the County Court of Victoria

Civil Criminal Jurisdiction Jurisdiction

Commercial Damages & Adoptions General Sexual County List Compensation Crime Offences Koori List List Court

Banking Defamation and Division Finance List As the principal trial court in Victoria, the Court’s jurisdiction is as follows:

Criminal Jurisdiction Building General The County Court can hear all indictable offences, except , 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 Family Cases Property Criminal Appeals Division 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 Medical Division Division the Children’s Court. 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 Serious medical negligence, serious injury and defamation. The Court has original Injury jurisdiction in WorkCover matters. Division Adoption and Change of Name The Court has jurisdiction to make orders relating to adoption and change of name. WorkCover Division

County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report 5 The Court and the Community

The County Court is an important part of the Victorian community. The judges of the Court welcome people into the Court so that they can have a better understanding of what judges do. It is important that members of the community understand how the Court works and have confidence in how it operates. The Court is generally open for the public to come and observe its proceedings; the Court also hosts some specialised programs and events throughout the year.

REPORT OF THE CHAIR OF THE MEDIA The guidelines also provide for sentences of significance and public interest to be published by AUSTLII. In future, some will AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE alsoLaw be posted Week on the Court’s website. Of necessity, sentences will Judge Howard be editedThe Court in conformity introduced with the non-publication inaugural ‘Q & A orders with the and some personalChief Judge’details as will part be ofremoved Law Week to address activities, legislative, providing privacy andan identity opportunity theft concerns. for 100 legal studies students, and their The Media and Communications Committee is principally teachers, to engage with the Chief Judge in an informal The guidelines have been well received by the media and may be concerned with the Court’s engagement with the community, setting. The Chief Judge also responded to media articles accessed on the Court’s website. The committee will continue to the media, court staff and users. and was a guest on Jon Faine’s ABC radio program. monitor the operation of the guidelines, in consultation with media Over the report period the Committee comprised the Chief Judge, representativesThe Courts’ annual and lawyers, Open Dayand forgenerally the public deal featured with media the issuesever myself as chair, and Judges McInerney, Shelton, Gaynor, Mason, as theypopular arise. BBQ hosted by the Chief Judge. All monies raised Gucciardo and Saccardo, ably assisted by the Chief Judge’s were donated to Berry Street, an organisation providing former Strategic Advisor, Andrea David, the Court’s Media welfare and support to children and their families. and Communications Manager, Anna Bolger and the Court’s The Opening of the Legal Year function, organised by the Information Services Manager, Ian Edwards. International Commission of Jurists, was held in Waldron Hall for over 200 guests from the courts, the legal profession Guidelines for the Media and members of the public. Following positive consultation with court journalists and media lawyers, the ground- breaking County Court Guidelines for the Media were launched on 14 May 2012. The guidelines respond to technological changes in the way news is gathered and reported in a modern democracy and aim to make the media’s task an easier one. The objectives of the guidelines are to promote transparency of proceedings and the principle of open justice; to facilitate fair and accurate reporting of matters before the Court; and to communicate with the public and develop community understanding of the work of the Court. Naturally, the interests of justice may sometimes require the making of non- publication orders. Professional journalists are registered with the Court and permitted to use laptops, tablets and mobile phones in court for note-taking, text messaging and filing stories, although not for instant publication without permission. Sentences may be recorded to promote accurate reporting and, if the judge agrees, filmed for broadcast and web streaming. Simplified processes have been introduced to enable journalists to access court documents and exhibits. The fee for journalists to search civil files has been waived.

Top: Law Week Q & A with the Chief Judge. Bottom: Courts’ Open Day chefs at work: Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Bowman (Vice-President VCAT), Chief Magistrate, Ian Gray, and Rudy Monteleone (Acting CEO, Magistrates’ Court of Victoria).

6 County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report Supporting Court Officers in Nauru ‘ My time in Nauru was rewarding, challenging and very enjoyable. Everyone I met in Nauru was friendly, warm and eager to learn and I thank the Chief Justice of Nauru, the Federal Court and Chief Judge Rozenes for facilitating my visits to Nauru.’ Guillaume Bailin Associate to His Honour, Chief Judge Rozenes This year, the Chief Judge’s Associate, Guillaume Bailin, had the unique opportunity to visit Nauru twice with the Chief Justice of Nauru, the Honourable Geoffrey Eames AM QC, to provide training and support to Court officers in Judge Sexton with participants in the - China Nauru. Guillaume’s visit was funded by the New Zealand Human Rights Technical Co-operation Program. Government through the Pacific Judicial Development Program administered by the Federal Court of Australia. Judges Out and About Nauru is an eight-square-mile island in the South Pacific north The Court actively engaged with the community in various east of Queensland and is the world’s smallest republic with a ways over the past financial year. For example, Judge population of around 10,000 people. The law in Nauru is a blend Smallwood addressed academic groups about the Court’s of five bodies of law, namely Nauruan Statute law, Nauruan ; Judge Carmody was the guest of honour at the customary law, common law, some adopted statutory law of re-opening of the Charlton courthouse in June 2012; and Queensland and a number of statutes from the United Kingdom. circuit judges took part in the Victoria Law Foundation The focus of Guillaume’s visit was to train the court officers Education Program regional visits and spoke to community who staff the single registry of the Magistrates’, District, organisations and schools in circuit towns. Family and Supreme Courts of Nauru, with a view to building Judge McInerney was on the judging panel for the 2012 their capacity in terms of undertaking Associate-type duties. Victoria Law Foundation Legal Reporting Awards which This task involved creating an operational manual for use by recognise and promote excellence in legal journalism. the court staff, implementing templates for court forms, and the development of guides for criminal and civil procedure The Court hosted visits by, and judges spoke to, several in Nauru. In addition to his training duties, Guillaume also overseas delegations and groups of international students. provided legal and chambers support to the Chief Justice. These included a group of police commissioners from South Korea; participants in the China - Australia Human Rights Guillaume also successfully implemented a major project in Technical Cooperation Program; officers from the Vietnam Nauru — an electronic file/document management system. Supreme Peoples Procuracy; Beijing scholars concerned with At no cost to the Court, key documents and all training material discrimination against women; and a delegation from the was uploaded to a shared folder. This system extended to Chinese Public Service interested in registry operations and sharing templates with practitioners, as well as creating listing procedures. electronic court files for the visiting justices to access offsite in advance of hearings.

Schools visit program The highly regarded schools visit program was administered by Judge Saccardo and his staff. About 25 volunteer judges spoke to a total of 4,646 legal studies students and teachers who visited the Court twice daily, five days per week. Students learnt about the legal system, questioned the judges, toured the Court and observed criminal cases. Judges also attended metropolitan and regional schools so they could speak to other school groups. The Court considers this activity a vital way in which it can continue to explain the work of the Court to the Judge Saccardo addresses students during their community and to address its concerns. visit to the Court

County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report 7 The County Court on Circuit

Judges of the County Court, together with Court staff, are committed to delivering fair and accessible justice to all Victorians.

The following results were achieved over the report period: In addition to the main court house located in Melbourne’s central • Overall reduction from 40 to 25 (37.5%) business district, judges of the Court hear cases at thirteen circuit in the number of cases which were more courts situated in the major regional centres grouped as follows: than two years old (post committal). • Latrobe Valley/Gippsland region • Overall reduction from 69 to 45 cases (35%) managed by Judge Smallwood — in the number of cases which were between Sale and . one and two years old (post committal). • North Central region managed by • Overall reduction from 279 to 252 (9.7%) Judge Wilmoth — Bendigo, Shepparton, in the number of cases which were under Wangaratta, . one year old (post committal). • Northwest region managed by Judge MP Bourke — Mildura. • Southwest region managed by Judge Parsons — , , Hamilton, Horsham, . Shepparton The County Koori Court in the La Trobe Wodonga Wangaratta Valley and Gippsland is managed by Horsham Judge Smallwood. Bendigo Some limited success has been achieved over the report period in the civil circuit Ballarat Hamilton jurisdiction with the overall number of Melbourne Bairnsdale outstanding civil matters in circuit courts Sale having fallen from 811 cases to 732 (a decrease Geelong of 79 cases or 9.7 %). Civil cases over two years Warrnambool Morwell old since initiation have also reduced from 101 cases to 87 (a reduction of 14 cases or 13.8%).

CIRCUIT CASE ACTIVITY BY LOCATION 2011-12 TOTAL CIRCUIT CASE ACTIVITY Warnambool

Wangaratta Bairnsdale Ballarat Bendigo Hamiliton Mildura Geelong Wodonga Shepparton Horsham Morwell Sale 1,000 2,000

800 1,500

600

1,000

400

500 200

0 0 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 pending finalised initiated pending finalised initiated

No.No. criminal criminal cases cases trials trials No.No. sexual sexual o ence oence trials trials

8 County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report Crime on Circuit Valley resulting in circuit sittings each alternate month but always with two judges at a time. This strategy has proved beneficial in the It is worth noting that since February 2010 the total number past in boosting the productivity of circuit sittings by increasing of outstanding criminal circuit cases has fallen from 549 cases the Court’s ability to over-list cases. With two judges sitting at one to 322, a reduction of 41%. Outstanding cases, which were time, one judge is allocated the urgent and sexual offence matters, between one and two years old (post committal), have fallen while the Court is able to allocate older cases to the other judge. In by 57% from 106 cases to 45 cases. Outstanding cases ,which this way, double circuits have facilitated the deliberate focus on were more than two years old (post committal), have reduced older cases. by 77% from 108 cases to 25 cases. This initiative also paved the way for Victoria Legal Aid’s Block In 2011-12 the County Court continued to implement a number Briefing pilot which commenced in the Latrobe Valley early in of strategies designed to reduce delays in hearing criminal cases 2012. Victoria Legal Aid block brief a single defence counsel in regional Victoria. In particular, there was a focus over the past using a daily briefing fee in legally aided circuit court trials. This year on scheduling old cases in the system. means that the same counsel is briefed to conduct a block of all Despite difficulties during the reporting period, including police matters in a particular circuit, providing a consistent approach to work bans and building works in the Shepparton, Wangaratta representation and negotiations. and Wodonga regions, the Court was able to reduce the number Another initiative aimed at the Latrobe Valley is the iManage of outstanding criminal cases across these three locations from project. iManage is a sophisticated document management system 94 cases to 61 cases. The backlog of cases at Shepparton alone which makes the idea of the electronic file a reality, providing has been reduced by 53%, from 59 to 28 cases. a more transparent and effective way of managing our regional The backlog of cases at Latrobe Valley has been reduced by 36%, cases. Through iManage, the list judge in Melbourne has complete from 75 to 48 cases. and immediate access to all documents filed. It is anticipated that the iManage project will facilitate further delay reduction by Two additional Bendigo circuit sittings were held in Melbourne decreasing the number and associated costs of matters not ready over the report period to combat the limited number of court rooms to proceed by virtue of not having access to information. available to cater for the County Court criminal list at Bendigo. A third will be held before the end of 2012. Despite these limited The capacity of the iManage system to interface with the Court’s facilities, the overall backlog of cases was reduced from 81 cases to Case List Management System (CLMS) has been established. 77 cases over the report period. Cases which were more than two The proof of concept was established in Melbourne by Judge years old (post committal) were reduced from 13 to 9 cases. Hannan and the Chief Judge. Stage two of the process will permit all parties to electronically file documents. It will be rolled out to In an effort to build on the Court’s good work and further reduce the Morwell Law Courts and its’ satellite courts in Bairnsdale and court delays in regional Victoria, the County Court is pursuing a Sale later in 2012. Stage two of the process will permit all parties number of other innovative initiatives in regional Victoria. These to electronically file documents and will replace the include increasing the number of double circuits at the Latrobe paper court file.

County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report 9 Criminal Jurisdiction

The County Court is the principal criminal trial court in Victoria. Most serious criminal offences are dealt with here. In 2011-12, the County Court heard 378 trials that ran to verdict and 327 trials that resolved as pleas of guilty before a verdict was announced. The County Court heard 1,776 pleas of guilty (including the 327 trials that resolved as pleas) and 2,998 appeals.

REPORT OF THE JUDGE IN CHARGE OF THE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION Judge Taft

Over the past year the Court has managed to sustain the high volume A sizable number of trials resolved into a plea at a late stage. of completed trials, pleas and appeals that was achieved in the In 2011-12, 327 pleas were entered immediately before jury preceding year. Across the state 378 trials ran to verdict of which 43% empanelment or before verdict. All such cases involve post- were sex trials. In the course of the year 1,776 pleas and 2,998 appeals committal delays of 12 months or more which could be avoided if were finalised. The state wide proportion of matters that resolved by a settlement could be negotiated at an earlier point. This Court is plea was some 73% but this figure fell to 45% for sex cases. committed to early identification of cases which are likely to result in pleas of guilty and to adopt more vigorous case management On a positive note, over the year 72% of matters were finalised after an accused is committed for trial at the Magistrates’ Court. within 12 months of committal and the delay between committal and trial has been reduced. In addition to this workload the Court determines a growing number of applications for Supervision Orders under the Major inroads have been made into the number of pending cases on Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009 circuit through a more aggressive listing policy, the contribution and necessary reviews of those orders. The hearing of these of registrars and staff, the cooperation of the Office of Public applications requires a commitment of almost two judges over Prosecutions and Victoria Legal Aid and targeting of the year. Compensation applications by victims pursuant to particular circuits which have large numbers of section 85B of the Sentencing Act 1991 are also increasing in outstanding cases that have been listed for more number and complexity. than 12 months. The graphs on page 11 show the number of cases heard on circuit and the reduction County Court judges remain committed to the simplification of of pending cases. A substantial proportion of jury directions and reduction in the length of jury charges. The circuit trials involve children or cognitively current practice of charging juries for many hours and in abstruse impaired complainants. This has meant some language generates confusion and error. County Court judges other categories of offending — such as cases worked collaboratively with Justice Weinberg and other involving violence against the person, have members of the Jury Directions Advisory Group on the not had the priority that is warranted. In Simplification of Jury Directions Project. The report was order to address this problem the Court presented to the Attorney-General Robert Clark with a has now allocated several circuits to the number of recommendations for reform. Those involved hearing of non-sex cases and appeals. in the project are to be congratulated. If adopted by the Government, the Weinberg report will be a turning point in Victoria’s criminal justice history.

Judge Taft

10 County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report REPORT OF THE JUDGE IN CHARGE OF THE KOORI COURT Judge Smallwood

During the past year the County Koori Court has progressed well and been very effective. The four year pilot has concluded CRIMINAL WORKLOAD 2008–09 — 2011–12 and the evaluation carried out has reported most positively. 6,000 appeals trials We are now exploring the prospect of getting the County Koori 5,000 pleas Court up and going in the Metropolitan area. Consultation is 4,000 taking place as to how to best achieve this. At this time we are financially very restricted but hopefully that will change and 3,000 other regional areas can be included. 2,000 The data available to date continues to show a dramatic 1,000 reduction in recidivism and non-attendance on community 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 based dispositions. At the time of writing it seems that only a handful of the seventy or so accused have re-offended and only one seriously. Whilst one shouldn’t be over optimistic, that is METHOD OF DISPOSAL — 2011-2012 very encouraging indeed. 100% pleas pleas – sex oences Terrie Stewart, our new Koori Court Coordinator, has settled in well to 80% 76 72 73 her sometimes sensitive task. Many thanks to Josh Smith, our former 60% coordinator, for his great energy and 50 45 40% 44 efforts. We wish him all the best.

20%

circuit melbourne statewide

PENDING CIRCUIT CASES: COMPARISON BETWEEN FEB 2010 — JUNE 2012

600 as at Feb 2010 as at 30 June 2012 535 500

400 344 350 300 322

200

100

crime appeals

Judge Smallwood

County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report 11 REPORT OF THE JUDGE IN CHARGE OF THE SExUAL OFFENCES LIST Judge Mullaly

Sexual offence cases continue to occupy a significant proportion now allow a special hearing to be conducted either before a trial of the work of the County Court. By reason of the ever increasing commences or during the trial. The changes advocated for by the complexity of the law in this area, including sentencing law and Court will give trial judges greater flexibility in the conduct of sexual the often disturbing nature of the subject matter, these cases are offence proceedings involving children and cognitively impaired the most taxing the Court undertakes. complainants. Our approach has been that one size does not fit all and not all cases require the complainant’s evidence to be pre- To improve the management of these cases, a judge sits daily recorded in the absence of the jury. The legislative amendments will in the Sexual Offences List dealing with matters to be heard in enable the Court to consider the needs of complainants in each case Melbourne and the regional courts. What is sought to be achieved to determine the best approach to adopt. by this form of case management is: • That if a sexual offence case can be resolved without the need One aspect of many cases that requires very significant time for a trial that it does and as soon as possible. and labour on the part of listing judges is the management • That complainants are given as much certainty as of confidential communications made by a complainant possible as to when they will be required to give to a counsellor or doctor. evidence. Apart from sexual offences trials, the list judges and the • That all matters in issue in a a trial are identified. Court are required to deal with an ever increasing number • That all practitioners work diligently and co- of applications that arise from the Serious Sex Offenders operatively to assist the Court in the smooth (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009. running of sexual offence cases. Judges who sit in the Sexual Offences List are involved in other The creation of a specialist sexual offences extra curial tasks, such as education and training, both defence unit at Victoria Legal Aid to match for the and practitioners, the Child Witness a similar but longer standing unit at the Service, and on Department of Justice committees Office of Public Prosecutions has added to revising sexual offence laws. the discernable trend that practitioners I publically thank Judges Sexton, Pullen, Taft, Patrick, are to some degree improving in the way Cannon and Maidment for all their considerable these cases are prepared. The Court efforts as listing judges. Likewise the specialist list will continue to demand the highest associates Kate Nassios and Elise Badke have worked standards, in particular, in cases tirelessly. involving children and cognitively impaired witnesses. I welcome the recent legislative changes to the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 governing special hearings which

Judge Mullaly

12 County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report Civil Jurisdiction

Since 2007, the County Court has had unlimited monetary jurisdiction in civil matters which it shares with the Supreme Court. In 2011-12, 5,959 matters were finalised in the civil jurisdiction.

REPORT OF THE JUDGE Finalisations in the Damages IN CHARGE OF THE and Compensation List 2011–12 DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION LIST Judge Davis

Over the last financial year, the judges and staff of this List have worked very hard to keep up with a significant caseload. The 1,245 Judicial Settlement Conference (JSC) track was introduced on General Division 1,618 16 January 2012 in order to facilitate early resolution of WorkCover Serious Injury Division serious injury applications and reduce the number of cases proceeding to trial. Timetabling orders in WorkCover serious injury cases were amended in order to reduce the size of court books filed at hearing. Significant changes have also been implemented in the 142 Directions Group to reduce the time it takes to process orders. Other 192 Medical Caseload 128 Division The Damages and Compensation List accounted for 59% Workcover of all civil cases initiated through the County Court, Division from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012. There were 3,720 cases initiated in this list, compared with 3,652 in the previous financial year. The Court finalised 3,424 cases in this list in the financial year to 30 June 2012, compared with 3,247 I continued as the Judge in Charge of the List and as finalisations in the previous financial year. the Judge in Charge of the Applications Division, Almost 50% of the cases finalised (1,618 cases) Defamation Division, General Division and Serious were in the Serious Injury Division. A further Injury Division of the List. Judge Saccardo 36% of the cases finalised (1,245 cases) were continued as the Judge in Charge of the Medical in the General Division. There was a slight Division, and Judge Wischusen continued to decrease in the number of cases finalised manage the WorkCover Division. On 1 September in the General Division compared with the 2011, the Family Property Division, managed by last financial year, when 1,313 cases were Judge Misso, moved from the Commercial List to finalised in this Division. be part of the Damages and Compensation List. Of the 355 judgments written across the civil jurisdiction of the Court, 250 judgments (70%) were in respect of Serious Injury Applications under section 134AB of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 Act (Vic), 38 judgments were written in the General Division, and 10 judgments were written in the Family Property Division.

Judge Davis

County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report 13 Civil Jurisdiction

Alternative Dispute Resolution The JSC track has proven successful. As at 30 June 2012, approximately 30% of the cases conferenced settled at the JSC or The JSC track in WorkCover serious injury applications was within the following 60 days. In over a third of the matters which initiated by myself and Judge Misso with the support of the settled, both the serious injury and common law damages limbs relevant stakeholders in the Serious Injury Division who were of the claim were resolved. An additional 16 cases settled prior represented in the Damages and Compensation List User Group. to the JSC being conducted. One judicial resource and an Alternative Dispute Resolution With the agreement of the relevant stakeholders, it is proposed coordinator were made available through the Department of to hand over the conduct of the settlement conferences to the Justice’s ADR funding. parties in late 2012 and to require settlement conferences to be The aim of the track was to encourage early settlement of cases, held in all WorkCover serious injury applications issued in the including, where possible, resolution of the potential damages Melbourne registry. claim. Early settlement of cases reduces the pool of cases to be heard which, in turn, eventually reduces the time to trial for the Reserve List remaining cases. Although only one judge was able to be devoted to the conferences, almost 60% of cases issued in the Melbourne The reserve list has continued to operate efficiently, with registry were able to be included in the track. the number of ‘not reached’ cases remaining low on average. There was a slight decrease in ‘not reached’ cases with 139 matters JSCs were scheduled within four months of the filing of the for the 2011-12 financial year which is down from 148 in the Originating Motion. The parties were required to file and exchange 2010-11 financial year. a small number of documents critical to their cases, in addition to the material already required to be exchanged as part of the pre- issue processes. Directions Group The Directions Group continued to manage the administrative Judge Misso and I conducted a number of workshops with individual mention and directions hearing systems in the List. The Directions plaintiff firms in order to assist them to prepare appropriately for, Group received over 16,000 pieces of correspondence and produced and negotiate effectively in, the conference process. over 7,000 orders. The Directions Group has taken measures to The JSC track commenced on 16 January 2012. Three conferences reduce the time taken to produce orders on the papers, including were conducted each day by a judge, usually either myself or Judge the introduction of an automatic reply sent in response to emails Misso, or one of four other judges who participated in the track: to the Directions Group which provides up to date information on Judge K. Bourke, Judge Campton, Judge Cohen and Judge O’Neill. listings and other matters.

14 County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report REPORT OF THE JUDGE IN CHARGE OF THE COMMERCIAL LIST Judge Kennedy

Commercial initiations constituted some 39% of all civil The duty judge also considers the correspondence received by the initiations with 2,414 commercial cases finalised in the year. Directions Group. The Directions Group performs a major role in This was notwithstanding the transfer of matters in the family reducing the cost of litigation by enabling the Court and judges to property division from the Commercial List to the Damages and be directly accessed through correspondence, thereby avoiding Compensation List. unnecessary court appearances. The associates of the commercial judges also perform invaluable work, particularly the associates of Four judges continue to be nominated by the Chief Judge each half the List Judges. year to be primarily responsible for the work in the Commercial List. During the report year, the nominated commercial judges Through the combination of aggressive listing, specialist were Judges Anderson, Lewitan, Ginnane, Lacava and myself. management of interlocutory disputes, and referral to private The nominated judges also sat, at times, in the criminal mediation, most commercial cases settled with relatively few jurisdiction, in damages and compensation cases, at circuit needing a final decision of a trial judge. However, the List courts and at VCAT. continues to offer judicial resolution conferences in some cases, including where there is an unrepresented litigant. The year also saw a restructure of the Commercial These were either case conferences conducted in open List. I became the Judge in Charge of the list with court, or settlement conferences conducted in private, Judge Anderson heading up the Banking and with the judge generally joining the parties and their Finance Division. Judge Shelton also retired at lawyers at the bar table to seek to resolve the dispute the end of 2011, with another commercial judge, by a structured discussion led by the judge. Such Judge Ginnane, stepping in as Judge in Charge conferences also provided an opportunity for more of the Building Division. Judge Shelton has extensive management of cases if circumstances been Judge in Charge of the Building Division warranted it. for 17 years and, since the establishment of the Commercial List in 2006, has regularly The commercial judges continued to be assisted sat hearing commercial cases. His tireless by the participation of the legal profession in contribution and wise counsel has been users’ groups for the Commercial List, the very much appreciated by his colleagues. Building Division and the Banking and Finance Division. Assistance was also provided by the Commercial cases continued to be Victorian Bar on a pro-bono basis in managing aggressively listed, with trial judges double the significant number of cases where an or triple booked. Most of the cases were unrepresented person was involved. Work was listed for trial within six months of being also undertaken to develop a protocol with the issued. With the assistance of other judges Bar in assisting unrepresented persons which is in civil, most cases were also reached on the expected to operate as a pilot in the forthcoming listed trial date, with only a small number of financial year. commercial cases marked as ‘not reached’. The Commercial List Duty Judge continued to perform the tasks formerly carried out by the Practice Court Judge after the Practice Court was abolished at the beginning of 2010. The Duty Judge system has ensured that interlocutory disputes, which are an incidence of heavy commercial litigation, are quickly and appropriately determined by a specialist judge with experience in commercial disputes.

Judge Kennedy

County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report 15 Civil Jurisdiction

REPORT OF THE JUDGES IN CHARGE OF THE ADOPTIONS LIST Judge Pullen & Judge Kennedy

In 2011-12, the County Court granted a total of 60 adoptions, Other applications comprising 54 child and six adult adoptions. The majority of Other Applications dealt with by the Adoptions Registrar include these were heard in Melbourne, the remainder in County Court ‘Discharge of Adoption’ and applications for information regarding circuit towns. birth parent/s and background. Approximately 50% of child adoptions involved children from There were seven Discharge Applications in 2011-12. These other countries. These relationships were formally recognised generally result from a relationship breakdown and application and registered by the Court. can be made by the birth parent, adoptive parent or (in most cases) the adoptee. If the application is granted, it dissolves the Adoption Adoption applications Order and requires the Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages to The Adoptions Registrar oversees all applications from the filing reinstate the original Birth Certificate, often changing the name of of an application to its conclusion. the child and reinstating the names of the birth parents. Following filing an application involving a child, the There were also a number of applications for information Adoptions Registrar is required to liaise with the pursuant to section 99 of the Adoption Act 1984 in Department of Human Services (DHS), who provide 2011-12. These applications allow birth parents, counselling and guidance to birth parent/s. DHS then relatives and adoptees to apply to the Court for allocates the child to a suitable family after extensive information regarding a previous adoption. The checks and interviews. When adoption applications ability to obtain this information is important, as it are filed involving children from countries other than provides parties with details previously not available. Australia, extensive enquiries are also made by The adoption legislation now permits same sex DHS and/or Inter-Country Adoption Agencies couples to adopt, and such has occurred. In to obtain as many details as possible about addition, the Assisted Reproductive Treatment the child’s background and birth parent/s to Act 2008 allows for commissioning parents enable the child to obtain information about (those unable to carry their own child) to have the circumstances of their adoption should a child born to a surrogate. These are Substitute they later want this information. Parentage Orders and a number were granted Adoptions are an exciting and rewarding in 2011-12. jurisdiction of the County Court. The child enters a secure and loving environment and the adoptive parents secure a much wanted family. The hearing of adoption applications involves both formal and informal aspects. The former involves a recognition of the adoption, the latter celebrating the finality of the process. Family and friends are able to attend the adoption hearing and to take photographs to record the happy event. Child adoptees can also be given a teddy bear generously donated by Lions Club Victoria, and may also be given a DVD recording of the hearing.

Judge Pullen

16 County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report Non-Publication Orders In 2011-12, judges of the County Court imposed 167 non-publication orders. This number is made up of 13 revoked orders, 82 orders terminated by a specified date or event and 72 unrevoked orders. An order is revoked where a judge has made an order revoking the non-publication order. The number of unrevoked orders includes two types of non-publication orders: • Orders which have been made until further notice; and • Orders which have been made to expire on a specific date or with reference to a specific event, for example, the conclusion of proceedings in this or another court.

Until End further date/ order event Revoked 2011 Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009. s. 142 3 9 0 Serious Sex Offenders Monitoring Act 2005 (VIC) s. 42. 1 2 0 County Court Act 1958 s. 80 35 21 5 Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 s. 75. 1 3 0 2012 Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009 s. 184 4 10 1 County Court Act 1958 s. 80 21 35 7 Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 s. 75 4 2 0 Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 s.133(2)(C) 2 0 0 Confiscation Act 1997 s. 17(3) 1 0 0

There are a number of Acts under which judges can make orders prohibiting publication of information. These include: • The Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) 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 C ircumstances in which 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 sub-section (c) above) or in relation to on-going proceedings (which would fall under sub-section (b) above). There are few orders made in relation to the other sub-sections.

County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report 17 Judges of the County Court of Victoria

At the end of the report year there are 66 judges of the County Court. The composition of the Court has changed much over the years. Twenty years ago, there were no women judges. Today, 40% of our judges are women and we have a much greater diversity of ages, backgrounds and experience.

JUDGES OF THE COUNTY COURT JUDGES OF THE COUNTY COURT Date appointed Date appointed His Honour Chief Judge 25 November 2002 His Honour Judge Peter Michael Edward 15 April 2008 Wischusen His Honour Judge Michael Gerard McInerney 21 June 1994 His Honour Judge Paul Gregory Lacava 27 May 2008 Her Honour Judge Margaret Ann Rizkalla 11 July 1994 His Honour Judge Frank Robert Gucciardo 27 May 2008 His Honour Judge Francis Julian Shelton 5 September 1994 Her Honour Judge Christine Anne Thornton 14 July 2008 Her Honour Judge Marilyn Blanche Harbison 5 February 1996 His Honour Judge Philip Mark Taft 29 September 2008 Her Honour Judge Carolyn Dianne Douglas 7 October 1997 His Honour Judge Frank Saccardo 2 February 2009 His Honour Judge Tim Deneys Wood, R.F.D. 2 December 1997 His Honour Judge Mark Andrew Gamble 3 February 2009 His Honour Judge Graham Richard Anderson 17 March 1998 His Honour Judge Howard Mason 3 February 2009 His Honour Judge Lansell David Pilgrim 7 April 1999 His Honour Judge Gerard Paul Mullaly 7 April 2009 Her Honour Judge Pamela Dawn Jenkins 21 April 1999 His Honour Judge Timothy James Ginnane 5 August 2009 Her Honour Judge Jennifer Ann Coate 22 June 2000 Her Honour Judge Kathryn Elizabeth Kings 4 November 2009 His Honour Judge John Richard Bowman 20 February 2001 His Honour Judge James Damian Montgomery 17 November 2009 Her Honour Judge Rachelle Ann Lewitan, A.M. 16 May 2001 His Honour Judge James Lloyd Parrish 17 November 2009 Her Honour Judge Julie Ann Nicholson 3 July 2001 His Honour Judge Michael Harry Tinney 16 March 2010 His Honour Judge Graeme Geoffrey Hicks 20 August 2001 Her Honour Judge Gabriele Therese Cannon 30 March 2010 His Honour Judge John Arthur Smallwood 20 August 2001 His Honour Judge Mark Edward Dean 28 September 2010 Her Honour Judge Susan Michele Cohen 20 August 2001 His Honour Judge John Francis Carmody 7 June 2011 Her Honour Judge Meryl Elizabeth Sexton 20 August 2001 His Honour Judge Richard John Haylock 21 June 2011 Her Honour Judge Frances Elizabeth Hogan 2 October 2001 Maidment Her Honour Judge Irene Elizabeth Lawson 26 March 2002 His Honour Judge Richard Hunter Smith 22 July 2011 His Honour Judge Giuseppe Gullaci 4 June 2002 Her Honour Judge Barbara Ann Cotterell 7 February 2012 His Honour Judge Michael Patrick Bourke 10 September 2002 His Honour Judge Michael Francis Macnamara 7 February 2012 Her Honour Judge Elizabeth Mary Gaynor 10 September 2002 His Honour Judge William Evan Stuart 28 February 2012 His Honour Judge Phillip James Coish 10 September 2002 ACTING JUDGES OF THE COUNTY COURT His Honour Judge Kenneth Ross Howie 22 October 2002 His Honour Judge Francis Julian Shelton Her Honour Judge Jane Anne Campton 22 October 2002 (acting from 19 December 2011) His Honour Judge Roy Francis Punshon 8 April 2003 His Honour Judge Lansell David Pilgrim Her Honour Judge Wendy Anne Wilmoth 8 April 2003 (acting from 22 February 2012) His Honour Judge Geoffrey Thomas Chettle 2 December 2003 Her Honour Judge Barbara Ann Cotterell (acting until 7 February 2012) Her Honour Judge Frances Millane 2 December 2003 REGISTRAR Her Honour Judge Sandra Sabrina Davis 26 October 2004 Date appointed Her Honour Judge Felicity Pia Hampel 9 February 2005 Ms Katie O’Keeffe 1 December 2008 Her Honour Judge Jeanette Gita Morrish 9 August 2005 APPOINTMENTS His Honour Judge Julian Peter Leckie 9 August 2005 Date His Honour Judge Paul Douglas Grant 26 April 2006 His Honour Judge Richard Hunter Smith 22 July 2011 His Honour Judge David Anthony Parsons 22 August 2006 Her Honour Judge Barbara Ann Cotterell 7 February 2012 Her Honour Judge Susan Elizabeth Pullen 22 August 2006 (formerly Acting Judge) His Honour Judge Anthony John Howard 3 October 2006 His Honour Judge Michael Francis 7 February 2012 Her Honour Judge Lisa Anne Hannan 3 October 2006 Macnamara His Honour Judge Michael Damian Murphy 24 October 2006 His Honour Judge William Evan Stuart 28 February 2012 Her Honour Judge Maree Evelyn Kennedy 1 May 2007 RETIREMENTS His Honour Judge Christopher Miles O’Neill 24 July 2007 Date His Honour Judge Duncan Leslie Allen 21 August 2007 His Honour Judge Francis Julian Shelton 16 December 2011 His Honour Judge Philip Gerard Misso 11 December 2007 His Honour Judge Lansell David Pilgrim 21 February 2012 Her Honour Judge Katherine Louise Bourke 11 December 2007 Her Honour Judge Jane Marie Josephine 15 April 2008 Patrick

18 County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report Judicial Professional Development

In 2011-12, as part of their on-going commitment to judicial excellence, the judges of the County Court participated in a number of professional development activities throughout the year. These include the Annual County Court Judicial Conference, a variety of seminars and workshops run by the Judicial College of Victoria, and a number of conferences.

REPORT OF THE CHAIR OF THE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Judge Gucciardo

Judges of the County Court are committed to ongoing professional The work of the Professional Development Committee is also development to improve performance of their judicial duties and beginning to expand its horizons in new and significant directions: this year has been marked by some outstanding examples of that • A new approach in judicial education is being experimented commitment. which is most effective when it is linked practically to adult Judges have attended many programs organised by the Judicial education models. Judges have been encouraged to be the College of Victoria, the National Judicial College and the Judicial educators in effect, sharing experientially their store of Conference of Australia. knowledge and experience. • The past model of ‘knowledge acquisition’ about law is moving The seminars provide judges with opportunities to update and towards peer education, which is interactive and experiential develop, not only their practical skills, but give as well as reflective. This challenge was taken up in the Annual them space for discussion and reflection Conference as well as in a number of seminars which were on the many current challenges in the presented at Court, such as those concerned with the new practice of the law. community corrections orders, section 85B (Sentencing Act The Annual County Court Judicial 1991) compensation orders, jury directions about awareness Conference, held over three days and belief after the High Court Judgement in The Queen v in April, focused on the aspect Getachew [2012] HCA 10 (28 March 2012). of efficient and effective • Judge led workshops and seminars have focused on the sharing communication with juries . of learning , experiences and practical solutions to everyday Weinberg JA addressed the issues, spanning new challenges including media relations urgent need for reform in jury and publishing, anonimising judgments or a rational directions and Professor approach to defence openings. Ogloff contributed his • Judicial education has an increasing role in enabling experience and research to judicial officers to explore more personal aspects of the life the issue of ‘Enhancing Jury of judges. The Annual Conference dealt with cumulative Comprehension’. stress and vicarious trauma, and a mindfulness practice course was organised for judges of the Court. Other topics included Developments in These type of seminars offer new insights into the role of Sentencing, Interlocutory health, fatigue, and unconscious influences in the decision Appeal Practice, making process and will form a strong component of the Commercial Litigation and professional development brief in the future. Serious Injury Updates. Judges have continued in 2012 to offer their experience These seminars focus on the and advice by participation in a wide range of professional craft of judging. They focus development opportunities for lawyers and barristers on skills and endeavour to organised by the Victorian Bar and its associations, the incorporate a social context. various law schools of universities, Victoria Legal Aid and the Office of Public Prosecutions. The Court continues to foster excellence in advocacy and practice by this involvement.

Judge Gucciardo

County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report 19 Judicial Contributions to Boards, Committees and User Groups

EXTERNAL Boards Judges Adult Parole Board Judge Douglas, Judge Rizkalla, Judge Shelton Forensic Leave Panel Judge Davis, Judge Gaynor, Judge Howard, Judge Pullen, Judge Saccardo 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 & Youth Residential Board Judge M Bourke (Chair), Judge Howie Councils, Committees And Reference Groups Aboriginal Justice Forum Judge Grant Bail Reform Steering Committee Judge Morrish Child Witness Service Advisory Committee Judge Sexton, Judge Mullaly Child Witness Workshop 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 Courts Executive Service Steering Committee Chief Judge Rozenes Criminal Appeals Reference Group Judge Hampel (Representative) and Judge Taft (Alternate) Criminal Justice System Steering Committee Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Taft, Judge Hannan Criminal Law Review – Sexual Offences Advisory Group Judge Sexton, Judge Mullaly Editorial Committee of the Judicial College of Victoria’s Judge Rizkalla, Judge Douglas, Judge Pullen, Judge Morrish, Judge Mullaly, Criminal Charge Book Judge Lacava, Judge Gamble Improving Judicial Communication with Jurors Project Judge Cannon, Judge Gaynor Management Committee Integrated Courts Management System Judicial Committee Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Coate Judicial Assistance Committee Judge Campton Judicial Conduct Working Group Judge McInerney Judicial Conference of Australia, Governing Council Judge McInerney (Representative), Judge Lewitan (Alternate) Judicial Officers’ Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Committee Judge Davis, Judge Parsons Jury Directions Advisory Group Judge McInerney, Judge Sexton, Judge Gamble, Judge Tinney Koori Court Reference Group Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Smallwood, Judge Gaynor, Judge Grant, Judge Lawson, Judge Parsons Law Council of Australia Indigenous Affairs Committee Judge Parsons Sentencing Reform Committee Judge Dean (Chair) Sexual Assault Advisory Committee Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Pullen, Judge Sexton, Judge Mullaly, Judge Grant Victoria Legal Aid Communities Consultative Committee Judge Gaynor Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine Judge Coate, Judge Sexton INTERNAL Councils, Committees And Reference Groups Judges Adoptions Committee Judge Pullen (Chair), Judge Kennedy Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Misso, Judge Anderson, Judge Davis Appeal Costs Act Committee Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Punshon Council of Judges All County Court Judges Council of Judges Executive Committee Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Bowman, Judge Davis, Judge Douglas, Judge Gaynor, Judge Gucciardo, Judge Hampel, Judge Lacava, Judge McInerney, Judge Mullaly, Judge O’Neill, Judge Rizkalla, Judge Taft, Judge Kennedy County Court Managers Group Chief Judge Rozenes County Court Security Meeting Judge Montgomery Emergency Management Planning and Recovery Committee Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Bowman Integrated Courts Management System Management Group Judge Jenkins (Chair), Judge Cohen, Judge Ginnane International Framework for Court Excellence Committee Judge Davis (Chair) IT Committee Judge Jenkins Judicial Management Group Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Bowman, Judge Davis, Judge Taft, Judge Kennedy Judicial Remuneration Tribunal Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Wood, Judge McInerney Law Reform Committee Judge Hampel (Chair), 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 Shelton (concluded in September 2011) Mental Health Practitioner Steering Committee Judge Gaynor Occupational Health and Safety Committee Judge McInerney (Chair), Judge Wischusen Professional Development Committee Judge Gucciardo (Chair), Judge Wilmoth, Judge Anderson, Judge Cohen, Judge Hampel, Judge Ginnane, Judge Mullaly, Judge Kings, Judge Cannon, Judge Gamble Rules Committee Judge Misso (Chair), Judge Cohen, Judge Murphy Scale of Costs Review Committee Judge O’Neill (Chair), Judge Anderson, Judge Saccardo, Judge Cohen, Judge Shelton (concluded in September 2011) Social Club Committee Judge Cannon (Chair) Judge Misso, Judge O’Neill Wellness Committee Judge Campton (Chair), Judge Nicholson Court User Groups Banking and Finance User Group Judge Anderson (Chair) (from December 2011) Building List User Group Judge Shelton (Chair) (concluded in September 2011) Commercial List User Group Judge Kennedy (Chair) Criminal Users Group Chief Judge Rozenes (Chair), Judge Hannan, Judge Mullaly, Judge Rizkalla, Judge Sexton, Judge Pullen, Judge Punshon, Judge Taft, Judge Morrish, Judge Parsons, Judge M Bourke Family Property Division Judge Misso (Chair) Medical List User Group Meeting Judge Lawson (Chair), Judge Saccardo Damages and Compensation User Group Judge Davis (Chair), Judge Misso Sex Offences List User Group Judge Mullaly

20 County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report Supporting the Judges of the Court

Supporting the judges to access and navigate research services in an ever changing environment. Judge Lisa Hannan and Information Services Manager, Ian Edwards

County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report 21 Report of the CEO

This year marks a decade since the opening of our County Court building and the facility continues to lead the way in courthouse design and innovation. Our public private partnership with the Liberty Group — the owners and managers of the building — strengthens from year to year.

In these past 10 years the Court has seen and experienced many changes, including significant legislative change resulting in CEO District and County Court conference. increased demand and complexity of cases and an increasing number of longer criminal trials. The Court has made great progress on several initiatives aimed at improving the delivery of justice and our efforts continue to contribute to public confidence in the court system. Highlights A significant achievement for the Court this year is becoming a member of the International Consortium for Court Excellence. We are extremely proud to be a leader in the approach to implementing the International Framework for Court Excellence (IFCE). Our approach fully integrates the IFCE into our Annual Business Plans - with the completion of projects specifically aimed at addressing Challenges the areas of improvement identified through the IFCE assessment In this difficult fiscal climate there are considerable pressures process. Also, the IFCE has brought together all areas of the Court on court budgets. The County Court prides itself on its ability in working towards our common goals. to manage a lean budget, make required savings and still deliver In our journey to excellence in the delivery of customer timely, quality justice services across Victoria. However, this services, it is important to consider the needs and will test us over the next few years. perceptions of court users. A key court initiative Another significant challenge for the Court right now is ensuring this year to better understand the needs of our that our unstable and unsupported legacy electronic case court users has been the development and management system (CLMS) continues to function until such distribution of our first whole of court User time that we are able to either upgrade or replace it. A modern and Satisfaction Survey. The results are currently sustainable electronic case management system would assist being compiled and will be posted on the the court to reduce delays, improve efficiencies and provide court’s website when complete. strong data and management reports to better understand our Other highlights this year have included: workload and guide our future planning. • Reduction in court delays in crime (in both Melbourne and regional Supporting the Judges of the Court circuits). Our 212 court staff contribute significantly to support • Development of a new vision our 66 judges to deliver the highest standards of justice statement and court values. to the community. I am very proud of their hard work, • New Customer Charter and Guide extraordinary commitment, flexibility and integrity. for Self-Represented litigants. I would like to sincerely thank every member of our team • Modernising our Registry area. from registry, associates, tipstaves, administration, library, researchers, secretaries and other judicial support staff. • Independent evaluation of I would also like to thank the Magistrates’ Court registrars the County Koori Court pilot in regional courts who we rely on to ensure our effective recommending an expanded circuit operations. program. • Cancellation of several hard From time to time the executive model of court governance copy library subscriptions and presents challenges for court administrators and the an increasing move to on-line judiciary. However, due to the leadership and collaborative access by judges. approach of Chief Judge Rozenes and the cooperation that • Completion of the ‘Optimising Criminal exists between judges, staff and court managers, we always Listings’ Project. turn challenges into opportunities and work closely together to achieve good outcomes for the whole Court. I would like to express • Review of the Judicial Staff Structure. my gratitude to the Chief Judge and the judges for their support • Inaugural Staff Service Awards. throughout the year. • Hosting the Australian District Court Court Administrators’ Business Meeting. I look forward to the year ahead as we move towards the proposed establishment of an independent Courts Executive Service which will provide more coordinated and responsive administrative support and services to the judiciary and court users. Evi Kadar Chief Executive Officer

22 County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report Report of the Principal Registrar

The registry continued to provide high quality service to court users, the judiciary and their staff throughout the report period. The following initiatives were implemented during the year under the leadership of the Registry Management Team.

Service delivery providing important information about processing timeframes, amendments to practices and procedure, as well as information Refurbishment of the registry public area and public regarding available trial dates. access computers Improvements to scheduling and allocation of cases Registry staff, together with our facility partners, undertook a Registry staff have worked closely with the Chief Judge and refurbishment of the registry public area which has provided a criminal listing judges to implement a number of initiatives modern and bright new look customer service area. Comfortable to better support the scheduling and allocation of cases in the furniture, an improved and more user friendly space for viewing criminal jurisdiction. Initiatives introduced include better and searching files and new public access computers greet people management of the criminal reserve list, better reporting to the area. The computers provide access to the Court’s website promoting transparency, a focus upon cases over two years old and as well as other relevant websites. Users may also download and implementation of mentions for intervention orders and Children’s complete court forms. Court appeals to ensure parties are ready to proceed with their Information guides for court users case. The registry staff have also provided ongoing support to the effective management of people smuggling cases. As part of our ongoing commitment to provide high quality services to all court users, the Court published a ‘Guide for Self-Represented Litigants in the Civil Jurisdiction’. The guide Our People- Staff Development was developed to help litigants representing themselves in civil and Wellbeing proceedings, providing a general introduction to the Court registry, along with useful information about processes Workforce Planning and procedures and helpful resources. A skills audit of registry staff undertaken in early 2011 provided A range of brochures to assist court users in the an excellent snapshot of capacities within the registry, including criminal and appeals jurisdiction have been skills gaps, and identified areas in need of attention relating published. The information sheets include to succession planning and potential issues with day-to- information about intervention order appeals, day functions. In response, registry managers implemented appeals from the Magistrates’ Court, fines, workforce plans for their respective areas from costs and frequently asked questions. September 2011 to March 2012 to address critical areas. The results of the audit have also been applied Updated Customer Service Charter to address opportunities for rotation across and An updated Customer Charter has been within registry teams. published which includes the values adopted Some of the projects we will implement in from the International Framework for 2012-13 include: further tailoring our services for Court Excellence. It outlines the service that self represented litigants; conducting a business court users can expect from the registry, in process review of our civil registry practice; particular our service commitments. developing a formal rotation policy for registry staff; and developing further information guides for court Changes to telephone contacts users and practitioners. Registry telephones were upgraded this year which has enabled a more efficient management of Circuits calls received and has facilitated the development of a single point of entry to our main service The registry continued to support circuit operations areas. The objective being to ensure that calls during the year with the circuit court liaison officer are directed to the most appropriate area so that working closely with Melbourne and regional staff prompt and efficient service can be provided. to achieve optimal service in regional Victoria and a continued focus upon reducing delays, particularly in Improvements to the Administrative the criminal jurisdiction. Some of the results achieved Mention process included an overall reduction of cases more than two years old (post committal) by 37.5% and a reduction of 35% of cases Processing some 16,000 pieces of correspondence between one and two years (post committal). Shepparton over a 12 month period, the Directions Group often and Latrobe Valley courts have reduced backlogs by 53% experience delays in producing orders and the team and 36% respectively. this year reviewed their processes. Using available technology, the initiatives implemented have included an automatic email reply to court users,

Katie O’Keeffe Principal Registrar

County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report 23 Court Operations

When Judges and staff come to work each day, they smile and say to themselves ‘I am working in the best courthouse in Australia, bar none’. Chief Judge Michael Rozenes on the occasion of the celebrations of the 10 year anniversary of the County Court Facility, June 2012

Celebrating ten years in the County Court Facility In his speech marking the 10 year anniversary of the County Court facility in June this year, the Chief Judge paid tribute to the positive and continuing cooperation in our very successful private public partnership between the building owners and the Court. The Court’s gratitude for the sustained stakeholder support was exemplified in the presentation by County Court Facility Manager, Steve Malaiman to the General Manager of The Liberty Group, of a magnificent glass sculpture and stand engraved with the words: To our facility partners at TLG, Honeywell, Interform, G4S and Integrity Cleaning Services, who daily make us proud of the place where we work Peter Anderson and Yolanda Adams from From the Judges, Management and Staff TLG display the glass sculpture presented of the County Court on our tenth Anniversary. to mark the 10 year anniversary. Stakeholder collaboration: Partnership in progress The day to day functioning of the Court is contingent on the efficient operation of a wide range of services which are designed to ensure that the primary function of the Court (hearing cases) proceeds as smoothly as possible. Whilst the facility in itself is conducive to carrying out the work of the Court, daily operating processes are designed to complement the building’s unique facilities. The day to day operating processes involve court staff working collaboratively with service partners and other stakeholders in areas as diverse as security management, heating, cooling and lighting, emergency and business continuity management, supporting court users, providing a safe working environment, health and well-being, encouraging resource sustainability and responding proactively and reactively to the particular needs of judges and staff.

Our modern and bright new look customer services area.

Bob Cuskelly, Steve Malaiman and David Jorgensen demonstrate the new collapsible trolley and crates introduced this year. Tipstaves are encouraged to apply safe handling procedures in using the equipment on circuit.

24 County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report Operational achievements In 2011-12 the Court has: • supported The Liberty Group’s year 9 and 10 refurbishment program, including recarpeting, painting, replacement of furniture, resurfacing timberwork and the car park. Sample court room chairs were trialled by judges and staff and endorsed by the OHS Committee. • responded to security issues from time to time during the year as well as preparing and disseminating information in support of security for Judges. • delivered manual handling training, provided training in mail handling, ergonomic assessment and emergency management. The facility and finance managers collaborated with tipstaves to upgrade the trolleys and crates used by tipstaves to carry goods on circuit. • implemented an OHS action plan aligned with government approaches to supporting safety and well-being at the Court. The Environment Committee members held working bees to make plan includes a focus on reporting incidents and near misses and on notepads produced from discarded paper and other discarded staff health and well-being. materials. The notepads are available as an alternative to • liaised with Court Network and acknowledged their valuable using new materials. support in assisting court users. • raised awareness of the Court’s emergency management and business continuity plans through the conduct of case scenarios and debriefings following emergency events. • encouraged staff to participate in health and well-being initiatives including Worksafe week, ride to work day and the Global Corporate Challenge. • encouraged and monitored the Court’s participation in community events, including business clean up day, cultural diversity week, casual clothes days supporting the Christmas Wishing Tree appeal, World Environment Day, Earth Hour, privacy awareness week and national volunteers week. • conducted regular meetings of the Environment Committee whose primary focus this year has been to support sustainability within the facility. This included monitoring use of resources, undertaking waste, lighting and paper use audits and responding to the results. In these endeavours we have been strongly supported by our service partners, especially TLG, Honeywell and Integrity Cleaning, as well OHS representatives Lia Barberio, Carole Geddes as the Department of Justice Environment team. and Steve Malaiman discuss the suitability of a sample chair for use by judicial staff in court.

A project working group discusses the layout of information about the facility prepared for disabled and mobility impaired court users.

County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report 25 Financial Report

The Operating Statement and Financial Governance sets out the O pERATING Statement revenue (in the form of fines and fees collected) and operational for year ended 30 June 2012 expenditure of the Court for the year ended 30 June 2012, including comparisons with the previous year. 2011-12 2010-11 $ $ 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 420,484 1,217,602 (to Consolidated Revenue) Information from entities of the Department of Justice, such as the Court, are consolidated into the Department of Justice Court Fees 6,780,236 6,782,378 Annual Report. (to Consolidated Revenue) Court Photocopy Fees 1,256,988 1,229,289

Special Appropriations Total Revenue 8,457,708 9,229,269 An additional Judge was appointed in 2011-12 through BERC funding ‘Managing Court Demand’. Expenditure The Judicial Remuneration Tribunal (JRT) recommendation Special Appropriation for a salary increase for Judges was implemented. Judicial Salaries & Allowances 26,969,995 24,045,029

Annual Appropriations Annual Appropriation Additional support staff were also appointed through the Staff Salaries and On-Costs 13,846,726 13,235,462 ‘Managing Court Demand’ funding. Operating Costs: Amortisation and Depreciation Bank Fees & Charges 2,767 3,649 Amortisation includes a cost component for Finance Lease Contractors Consultants etc 214,041 480,258 Repayments, Motor Vehicles. For the financial year 2011-2012, Information Technology Expenses 138,088 108,621 the cost was $629,835 compared with $622,364 for the previous Jury Witness & Award Payments 277 - financial year. Other Operating Expenses 72,249 83,360 Postage & Communication 285,653 280,265 Printing & Stationery 1,208,699 1,187,090 Rent & Property Services 68,982 71,605 Repairs & Maintenance 32,633 20,501 Training & Profess Development 32,666 73,801 Travel & Personal Expenses 1,415,169 1,590,159 Amortization & Depreciation 634,217 642,178 Appropriation 17,952,167 17,776,950

26 County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report The Year Ahead

Looking forward to the year ahead, the County Court will focus our initiatives around our vision ‘to be a leader in court excellence and deliver the highest standards of justice to the community and inspire public confidence in the rule of law’.

Operating Statement The Court will embark on several significant projects aimed at enhancing the Court’s capacity to for year ended 30 June 2012 provide improved justice services to court users and the community. These projects will underscore the Court’s commitment to becoming an excellent court. 2011-12 2010-11 $ $ The Court’s strategic priorities and major initiatives for the coming year include:

Collection of Fines and Fees Provide fair, effective and efficient court processes Court Fines 420,484 1,217,602 Review the civil jurisdiction resources, rostering, listings and Registry processes (to Consolidated Revenue) Implement an electronic Document Manage System Court Fees 6,780,236 6,782,378 (to Consolidated Revenue) Review opportunities to streamline court processes Court Photocopy Fees 1,256,988 1,229,289 Reinforce public trust and confidence in the Court Total Revenue 8,457,708 9,229,269 Improved communication to the community about the Court’s achievements

Expenditure Continue to improve court performance and quality Special Appropriation Continue identifying opportunities for improvement by undertaking a second IFCE self-assessment Judicial Salaries & Allowances 26,969,995 24,045,029 Develop indicators that measure the Court’s success

Annual Appropriation Lead a modern and innovative Court Staff Salaries and On-Costs 13,846,726 13,235,462 Influence and shape the Courts’ Executive Service

Operating Costs: Be accessible to our court users Bank Fees & Charges 2,767 3,649 Identify and implement areas for improvement from the Court User Satisfaction Survey feedback Contractors Consultants etc 214,041 480,258 Build our people and resource capabilities Information Technology Expenses 138,088 108,621 Develop a Recruitment and Retention Strategy to attract and keep talented people Jury Witness & Award Payments 277 - Complete the Court Activity Model Project to better understand the workload of the Court Other Operating Expenses 72,249 83,360 Secure a sustainable and modern electronic Case Management System Postage & Communication 285,653 280,265 Review alternate judicial staff models to maximise support for judges Printing & Stationery 1,208,699 1,187,090 The County Court’s Strategic Plan 2012-15 is available on the Court’s website (countycourt.vic.gov.au) Rent & Property Services 68,982 71,605 Repairs & Maintenance 32,633 20,501 Training & Profess Development 32,666 73,801 Travel & Personal Expenses 1,415,169 1,590,159 Amortization & Depreciation 634,217 642,178 Appropriation 17,952,167 17,776,950

County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report 27 Court Usage Data

Court Reservation and Court Usage For the year ending 30 June 2012, court room usage (9,025 days) was 1,006 more days than reserved. The Supreme Court accounted for 232 of these days.

2011-12 Court Reservation and Court Usage

2011-12 Yearly Reservation 2011-12 Year To Date Usage

Reserved Courtrooms Court Days Cumulative Monthly Cumulative Monthly Used Court Days Variation Monthly Cumulative Used Variation Usage Cumulative % July 508 508 607 607 99 99 119.49% August 828 1,336 903 1,510 75 174 113.02% September 747 2,083 825 2,335 78 252 112.10% October 767 2,850 813 3,148 46 298 110.46% November 851 3,701 883 4,031 32 330 108.92% December 476 4,177 512 4,543 36 366 108.76% January 284 4,461 320 4,863 36 402 109.01% February 841 5,302 936 5,799 95 497 109.37% March 835 6,137 928 6,727 93 590 109.61% April 433 6,570 602 7,329 169 759 111.55% May 847 7,417 948 8,277 101 860 111.59% June 602 8,019 748 9,025 146 1,006 112.55% Totals 8,019 9,025

Third Party Bookings For the year ending 30 June 2012, third party bookings totalled 183 days. The Children’s Court accounted for one of those days.

28 County Court of Victoria 2011–2012 Annual Report

County Court 250 William Street Melbourne Victoria 3000 Telephone: 03 8636 6510 countycourt.vic.gov.au