County Court of Victoria Annual Report

Transcription

1 County Court of Victoria Annual Report

2 This report provides a summary of the County Court s strategic priorities, major projects and achievements for the financial year A full list of the Court s activities for is available on the Court s website at The County Court of Victoria is the intermediate tier of the state s court hierarchy. It is the major trial court in the state of Victoria. Contents Report of the Chief Judge 1 Year at a Glance 2 The County Court of Victoria 4 Jurisdiction of the County Court of Victoria 5 Criminal Jurisdiction 6 Civil Jurisdiction 13 The County Court and the Community 16 The County Court on Circuit 18 Judicial Professional Development 20 Judicial Contributions to Boards, Committees and User Groups 22 Non-Publication Orders 23 Judges of the County Court 24 Supporting the Judges of the County Court 26 Report of the CEO 27 Report of the Principal Registrar 28 Self-Represented Litigants 29 Court Operations 30 Financial Report 31 Court Usage Data 32

3 Report of the Chief Judge The number of cases finalised by the County Court has again increased this financial year. This has been the trend over the last few years. The civil jurisdiction has reported a rise in Serious Injury applications and there has been a significant increase in the number of finalisations due, in large part, to the concerted effort by the Court to manage the ongoing pressure in the Damages and Compensation list. This is an area of the Court s work which has been a cause for concern for a number of years. Over the report year, 431 judgments were delivered in the Court s civil jurisdiction. 302 of these judgments (70%) were in Serious Injury applications, although these initiations constitute only 26% (1,739 out of 6,682) of the total number of proceedings initiated in the civil jurisdiction. Serious Injury adjudications must be obtained before a common law claim for damages can be instituted by litigants who have suffered personal injury in a workplace or as a transport accident. The repeal of section 134AE of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) has meant that judges no longer need to give detailed reasons which are as extensive and complete as the Court would give on a trial of an action. However, the continuing large number of contested Serious Injury applications has required that 15 judges be primarily allocated to this jurisdiction. In the Victorian WorkCover Authority (VWA) was a respondent to 228 serious injury applications in which judgments were delivered. Only 40 (or 18%) of these applications were dismissed. Plaintiffs were successful in the remaining 188 (or 82%) of the applications. For Transport Accident Commission contested applications, 77% of the applications were successful and 23% of the applications were dismissed. These figures, particularly in the case of the VWA, reflect the position that has existed for many years the VWA is a litigant which consistently loses at least 80% of the applications it contests. I continue to hope that in the future greater consideration is given, and a more realistic assessment of the prospects of success conducted, before litigation that is both costly and time consuming is proceeded with. In the criminal jurisdiction, the Court continues to grapple with the impact of sentencing and other reforms which have had the effect of substantially expanding the judicial function over recent years. Now, more than ever, judges are required to monitor, supervise and review an increasing number of consequential orders arising out of, but not limited to, the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009 and the Sentencing Act Whilst recognising that this is a legitimate trend, and an appropriate response by Government, it nevertheless creates resource issues for the Court that to date, have not been resolved. The Court has continued to deliver on a number of successful innovations including the ongoing progress of the 24 Hour Initial Directions Pilot. The pilot was expanded to include matters that proceed as a straight hand-up brief with a plea of not guilty. This helped to streamline and simplify processes in the Directions List. The pilot has already reduced delay by 10 to 12 weeks. I anticipate other benefits to be realised when the pilot is evaluated in the second half of the year. A particularly pleasing development which demonstrates the Court s innovative strength was the design and rollout of imanage. Developed last year, imanage is a sophisticated electronic document management system for criminal files. It has now been successfully introduced at our circuit locations in regional Victoria. imanage is already helping to reduce delay and deliver an improved service to regional locations. We are able to better manage circuit cases and use valuable circuit court time more efficiently. The implementation of imanage into the Melbourne County Court is the next step in this process of innovation and improvement. It will yield significant benefits including substantial time saving for registry and judicial staff by eliminating the physical file. Fundamental to the expansion of imanage to the Melbourne registry is an electronic document lodgement system that provides for third party filing directly into imanage. The Court hopes to secure funding over the next financial year to enable us to build this capacity. Once established at Melbourne, we will expand electronic filing to all our regional courts and unify practice across the State. This exciting project is also the first step in a process which will see us transform into a paperless Court. The Court welcomed increased support from the State Government provided in the 2013 May State Budget. In particular, the Court was pleased to receive funding for the County Koori Court including the expansion of sittings into Melbourne. I would also like to acknowledge funding provided for the stabilisation of the Case List Management System. The modernisation of the system continues to be a priority for the Court. The County Court, in partnership with the other courts and VCAT, advanced its preparation for the impending arrival of the independent administrative entity for all courts and tribunals, Court Services Victoria. This is a truly exciting journey which will ultimately place Victorian courts in the enviable position of being self administered. During the report year the Court welcomed Judge David Brookes, Judge Ian Gray (State Coroner), Judge John Jordan, Judge Peter Couzens (Children s Court President), Judge Christopher Ryan, Judge Paul Cosgrave and Judge Gavan Meredith. The Court farewelled Judge Tim Wood, Judge Barbara Cotterell (now Reserve Judge), Judge Ross Howie, Judge Jennifer Coate, Judge Margaret Rizkalla, Judge Giuseppe Gullaci, Judge Timothy Ginnane and Judge Julian Leckie. I extend my thanks and appreciation to the judges and staff for their professionalism, hard work and total dedication to the Court and its important work. Chief Judge Rozenes County Court of Victoria Annual Report 1

4 Year at a Glance The number of cases finalised by the County Court has increased in this financial year from 11,395 in to 11,462 in To read about the criminal jurisdiction of the Court, turn to page 6. For more detail on the civil jurisdiction, see page 13. 6,284 civil cases 5,178 criminal cases 7,000 7,000 6,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 11,462 cases finalised 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 2,998 2,438 2,792 2,386 appeals trials and pleas 1,000 1,000 5,959 6,284 finalised finalised ,436 finalised ,178 finalised TOTAL CIRCUIT CASE ACTIVITY DISPOSALS BY METHOD OF FINALISATION 2,000 1,500 1, ,799 1,937 1,404 1,953 1,881 initiated finalised pending 1,339 2,000 1,500 1, Criminal disposals Discontinuance order Nolle Prosequi Trial acquittal Trial conviction Trial turned plea of guilty Plea of guilty Other Judgment by consent (Rule 59.06) Notice of dismissal Civil disposals Finalised by consent before trial Notice discontinuance Default appearance Finalised by consent at trial Judgment at trial Settled at mediation Other , , County Court of Victoria Annual Report

5 Commenced: Number of cases initiated during the reporting period (including supervision order cases). Finalisation: Number of cases completed during the reporting period. Cases no longer active. Pending: Number of active/ open cases as at the end of the reporting period. Clearance rate: How many cases finalised as a percentage of initiations % change TOTAL COUNTY COURT CASES: Commenced 11,456 12, % Finalised 11,395 11, % Pending 10,083 10, % Overall County Court Clearance Ratio (%) 99.5% 93.9% % disposed within 12 months 67.2% 64.6% TOTAL CIVIL CASES: Commenced 6,350 6, % Finalised 5,959 6, % Pending 7,552 7, % Overall Civil Clearance Ratio (%) 93.8% 94.0% % disposed within 12 months 47.0% 48.0% TOTAL CRIMINAL CASES (INCLUDING APPEALS): Commenced 5,106 5, % Finalised 5,436 5, % Pending 2,531 2, % Overall Criminal Clearance Ratio (%) 106.5% 93.7% % disposed within 12 months 84.2% 85.9% Criminal Trials and Pleas: Commenced 2,216 2, % Finalised 2,438 2, % Pending 1,586 1, % Trials and Pleas Clearance Ratio (%) 110.0% 96.9% % disposed within 12 months 72.0% 76.0% Criminal Appeals: Commenced 2,890 3, % Finalised 2,998 2, % Pending 945 1, % Appeals Clearance Ratio (%) 103.7% 91.1% % disposed within 12 months 94.0% 93.0% TOTAL ADOPTION CASES: Applications Considered % Adoption Orders Made % Applications Pending % COURTROOM USAGE MONTHLY RESERVATIONS V MONTHLY USAGE For the year ending 30 June 2013, courtroom usage (8,904 days) was 370 days more than reserved. The Supreme Court accounted for 57 of these days. More details on page 32. 1,200 1, Usage Reservations Jul 12 Aug 12 Sep 12 Oct 12 Nov 12 Dec 12 Jan 13 Feb 13 Mar 13 Apr 13 May 13 Jun 13 County Court of Victoria Annual Report 3

6 The County Court of Victoria Our Vision To be a leader in court excellence, delivering the highest standard of justice to the community we serve and inspiring public confidence in the rule of law. Our Values Respect: Work cooperatively as a Whole of Court. Treat people well. Integrity: Honest ethical and reasonable behaviour. Fairness: Treat people equally and impartially. Transparency: Open and reasoned decision making. Clear, understandable processes. Timeliness: Responsive and focused on delivering quality service. Professionalism: Competent, capable and proficient. Continuous review and improvement. Our Objectives As part of the implementation of the International Framework for Court Excellence, the County Court adopted the areas of excellence in the Framework as court objectives: To provide fair, effective and efficient court processes. To reinforce public trust and confidence in the court. To continue to improve court performance and quality. Lead a modern and innovative court. Be accessible to our court users. Build our people and resource capabilities. REPORT OF THE CHAIR OF THE INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR COURT EXCELLENCE COMMITTEE Judge Davis In 2010, the County Court adopted the International Framework for Court Excellence (IFCE). The IFCE was developed by the International Consortium for Court Excellence in order to provide a framework of values and a methodology to assist courts to improve the quality of justice and court administration they deliver. Among other areas, the Framework identifies the critical importance of maintaining public trust and confidence. The Framework is also a resource for assessing the performance of a court against seven detailed areas and provides guidance to courts intending to improve their performance in order to achieve excellence. The IFCE guides the Court towards achievement of its goals by offering management styles and standards that are fundamental to the delivery of a court of excellence and the creation of important public value. It utilises recognised organisational improvement methodologies while reflecting the special issues that courts face. The IFCE also incorporates case studies, court performance improvement processes and a range of available tools to measure court performance and development. The IFCE is based on a self-assessment process against the relevant criteria which guides the Court in setting priorities for the future. As part of implementing the IFCE the County Court has committed to periodically collecting data regarding its performance as rated against the Framework s seven areas of excellence. This process is known as organisational self-assessment and provides the Court with information to assist in planning improvement actions and gauging progress over time. The County Court completed its second selfassessment this year. Our scores for the two self-assessments we have undertaken are below. IFCE S Areas of Excellence 2011 Score 2012 Score Possible Score 1: Court Leadership and Management : Court Planning and Policies : Court Proceedings : Court Resources : Public Trust and Confidence : User Satisfaction : Affordable and Accessible Court Services Banding Score ,000 Total Percentage 46% 59% 100% International experience suggests that courts with scores in the range of 40% to 60% have a sound, effective approach in place and are achieving good performance levels. Our scores demonstrate this satisfactory level of performance and also show improvement in six areas of excellence. Through the self-assessment process we have identified areas for improvement and the inclusion of these projects in our Annual Business Plans has resulted in actions to address the gaps. In 2012 the County Court became a member of the International Consortium for Court Excellence which recognised the Court s commitment to achieving court excellence. The Court hopes to secure additional funding over the coming year in order to enable us to complete the important work of embedding the IFCE as the foundation management model for the County Court. 4 County Court of Victoria Annual Report

7 Jurisdiction of the County Court of Victoria Civil Jurisdiction Criminal Jurisdiction Commercial List Damages & Compensation List Adoption and Substitute Parentage Order List General Crime List Sexual Offences List County Koori Court Banking and Finance List Building Cases Division Expedited Cases Division General Division Applications Division Defamation Division General Division Family Property Division Medical Division Serious Injury Division As the principal trial court in Victoria, the Court s jurisdiction is as follows: Criminal Jurisdiction The County Court can hear all indictable offences, except treason, murder 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. Criminal Appeals 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 The County Court hears appeals from the criminal and family divisions of 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 medical negligence, serious injury and defamation. The Court has original jurisdiction in WorkCover matters. Adoption and Substitute Parentage Order List The Court has jurisdiction to make parentage orders and orders relating to adoption and change of name. WorkCover Division County Court of Victoria Annual Report 5

8 Criminal Jurisdiction REPORT OF THE JUDGE IN CHARGE OF THE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION Judge Taft During the County Court of Victoria finalised 361 jury trials which ran to verdict, 1,693 pleas (including 281 trials which resolved as pleas) and 2,792 appeals. That workload is marginally less than the previous year but the statistics mask the increasing length of criminal trials and the growing demand on judges to hear and determine new categories of cases. The state wide proportion of all cases that were finalised as a plea of guilty fell to 71% from the 73% of last year. However, across the state, the proportion of sex cases that resolved as a plea of guilty increased from 45% to 51%. The number of pending trials and pleas on circuit remains unchanged but inroads have been made in reducing the number of pending circuit appeals. Over the past year 76% of cases were finalised within 12 months of initial listing which represents an improvement from the figure of 72% of the previous year. The Court has sought to identify the length of criminal trials and has gathered data of estimates of trial length provided to the Court by prosecution and defence counsel. While these estimates do not necessarily correspond to the actual time that a criminal trial takes to conduct, the data suggests that the proportion of small trials (1-5 days) has halved from 62% of all trials in 2008 to 31% in During the same period, every category of longer trial has significantly increased. These figures do suggest that the increased volume of evidence in criminal trials including forensic evidence, and product from listening devices, telephone intercepts and the internet together with greater legal complexity results in a changing profile of criminal trials. Judges are required to hear longer and more difficult cases than in the past. Unfortunately there is a real risk that the Court will be unable to adequately sustain the volume of its core work jury trials, pleas and appeals without further resources. Judges are required to determine ever larger numbers of applications, reviews and renewals of Supervision Orders under the Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009 together with breaches of Supervision Orders. Compensation applications for injury arising from offending are increasing in number, as are supervisory orders and reviews made pursuant to the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act It is anticipated that additional judicial resources will be needed to hear disputed applications for non-publication orders. If the volume of such work markedly increases, there will be an inevitable rise in the number of unreached trials and pleas and unacceptable delay in hearing cases. In the coming years it is very probable that more prosecutions of historical sex cases will emerge from the Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and Other Organisations and the Commonwealth Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Criminal trials which arise from these inquiries are likely to be legally complex and the age and health of defendants will pose further difficulties. The current resources of this Court are unlikely to match the community demand for speedy disposition of such cases. Judges in this Court have embraced the Jury Directions Act 2013 which is directed to simplifying jury directions in criminal trials and we welcome the prospect of further legislative intervention to assist judges in giving simpler and clearer jury directions. Judge Taft 6 County Court of Victoria Annual Report

9 CRIMINAL WORKLOAD 6,000 5,000 4,000 2,205 2,602 3,000 2, , appeals trials pleas 2,998 2, METHOD OF DISPOSAL (% CASES FINALISED AS A PLEA OF GUILTY) 100% 80% 60% 40% pleas (incl. sex offence) pleas sex offences ,000 1,597 1,696 1,738 1,776 1,693 20% Circuit Melbourne Statewide PENDING CIRCUIT CASES: COMPARISON BETWEEN As at 30 Jun 2013 As at 30 Jun As at 30 Jun 2011 As at Feb Crime (trials and pleas) Appeals DISTRIBUTION OF CRIMINAL TRIAL LENGTH (ESTIMATES) days days days days > 20 days County Court of Victoria Annual Report 7

10 REPORT OF THE JUDGE IN CHARGE OF THE CRIMINAL LIST Judge Hannan The County Court conducts two Criminal List courts at 9am every morning. The primary function of the Criminal List courts is to give directions to ensure that trials, pleas and appeals are ready for hearing on the listed date. The General Crime List hears 20 to 25 matters between 9am and 10am, and a smaller number of matters are heard in the Sexual Offences List. The General Crime List is heard prior to normal sitting hours to ensure practitioners can attend without impacting their other work commitments. Persons in custody appear via video link to assist in efficient time management. As of 21 January 2013, all matters (except sexual offences) which are the subject of a committal order in the Magistrates Court with a plea of not guilty are listed in the General Crime List court at 9am the following morning for an Initial Directions Hearing (24 hour Initial Directions Hearing pilot). Counsel who appeared at the committal are required to attend and the Court hears from both prosecution and defence as to possible resolution, or the listing of a trial, including requiring counsel to identify issues upon trial, pre-trial issues, witness numbers and availability, and funding. The Court has found that having committal counsel attend within 24 hours results in clearer identification of issues and better trial estimates. It also decreases the delay which previously existed between committal and initial directions hearing and thus has the effect of decreasing delay to trial date. In addition to the 9am General Crime List, the General Crime List judge presides over the 10.30am Criminal Reserve List. This list consists of all unallocated trials, pleas and appeals. The list judge prioritises the list after hearing from counsel and gives directions in relation to any outstanding matters. In consultation with Criminal Listings, the list judge assists in allocating matters to trial judges as they become available. Where matters resolve, the list judge arraigns the accused and sets a plea date. Directions are given in relation to provision of material for plea hearing in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Practice Note to ensure that plea judges have all relevant material in advance of the plea. This allows judges to deliver ex tempore, or same day, sentences (where appropriate) and thus maximises available hearing time. The General Crime List judge also hears all remand applications arising from execution of County Court warrants and any associated applications for bail. Immediately following the calling of the Reserve List, the General Crime List judge hears applications including those regarding subpoenas, applications to compel Victoria Legal Aid to fund, applications to pre-record evidence and any other pre-trial applications made by the parties. The Sexual Offences List judge hears applications to compel production of confidential communications. Where further time is available, the list judge hears pleas and appeals. The allocation of a judge to the role of list judge facilitates management of matters before the Court and allows parties to list applications and mentions which would otherwise have a significant impact upon the time of busy trial judges. It also gives the profession a clear contact point for the listing of urgent applications, and confidence that the matters will be determined expeditiously. The Judge in Charge of the Criminal List has the additional responsibility of meeting and consulting with listings, registry and external parties and agencies in order to determine listing protocols and practices, which require monitoring and adjustment to accommodate the fluid nature of the Criminal List and maximise the use of judicial time. Judge Hannan 8 County Court of Victoria Annual Report

11 REPORT OF THE JUDGE IN CHARGE OF THE KOORI COURT Judge Smallwood An extract from Judge Smallwood s speech at launch of County Koori Court Melbourne, 24 June 2013: The Koori Court is now a permanent feature of the County Court s criminal jurisdiction. Koori Court works. The Koori Court model has resulted in a dramatic decrease in the amount of reoffending and a dramatic increase in the compliance with orders. Each hearing begins with formal arraignment on the charges. The offences are read out and the accused must plead guilty. Then the Elders start talking in a sentencing conversation. The Elders have no say in the sentence that is ultimately handed down, but they connect with the accused through genetic memory, telling them who they are and giving them an incentive to change. As the Judge in Charge of the Koori Court, I have never seen an accused who has not engaged with the process, even the ones who come in thinking they will get a lighter sentence out of the Koori Court. On many occasions, it is possible to observe an offender with years of drug dependence or alcohol abuse, sitting there, as someone they respect, tells them who they are. That is the starting point. The Elders keep at them. It is very powerful. There is a real sense of personal responsibility driven into the accused. Koori Court is no soft touch. We imprison offenders at about the same rate and for the same length of time. The Koori Court is about reducing reoffending. There is no customary law applied. There are no traditional punishments. What the Elders do is connect. They bring home who the accused is. They create prospects for rehabilitation or a determination to rehabilitate when objectively there are not any. We have had accused with pages and pages of prior convictions for violent offences, who have served jail terms and are institutionalised. The Elders can always get them to say: I don t want to be like this any more. The most powerful thing for a non Koori to watch is the respect the respect engendered by the Elders, given by them to the accused, and in response, is clear. Koori accused have said that this is the first time they can actually remember what is said in court. This is the first time they have been spoken to like a human being, as opposed to the person up the back of the courtroom who gets sent to jail. What the Koori Court is doing is turning Koori experience of the justice system around. After the sentencing conversation, the Judge goes back up on the bench, fully robed, and delivers the sentence. This brings home to the community as well as the accused that the sentence has nothing to do with the Elders. The Koori Court is the only sentencing court in Australia for Aboriginal accused in a higher jurisdiction. The majority of offending relates to violence, often involving alcohol and involving extended family members. The Koori Court does not deal with family violence, sexual offences or intervention order breaches. Judge Smallwood County Court of Victoria Annual Report 9

12 The Koori Court has heard and finalised 24 cases this year, and this will increase next financial year with the expansion to Melbourne. State Government funding was obtained to extend regular sittings in Melbourne from July In preparation, 12 judges and a number of Elders and Respected Persons have undergone training for the Koori Court s expansion to Melbourne. Koori Court Melbourne was launched by Chief Judge Rozenes, Attorney-General Robert Clark MP, Elders and Respected Persons in June. View the launch at county/kooriecourt/# The Koori Court could not succeed without the support and commitment of all the Elders and Respected Persons, and the Co-ordinator, Terrie Stewart. The Court congratulates Terrie for winning this year s Regional Koori Justice Award (in the Adult/ Elder category) for her work in improving justice outcomes for Koori people in the County Koori Court and Magistrates Koori Court and building positive relationships between the Koori community and the judiciary. Angela Clarke (Respected Person), Chief Judge Rozenes, Aunty Joan Vickery (Elder), Judge Smallwood, Andrew Jackomos and Attorney-General Robert Clark. Judge Smallwood 90% of the time, we know the blackfella which is good because it means [they] can t tell us lies. But when we know the accused, well then we get a grasp of the family history. In this way, we are able to draw a complete picture of the man, and tell that to the sentencing Judge. Uncle Lloyd Hood, Koori Court Elder Back row: Judges Cannon, Lawson, Parsons, Montgomery, O Neill and Mullaly. Front row: Judge Smallwood, Chief Judge Rozenes and Attorney-General Robert Clark. 10 County Court of Victoria Annual Report

13 Knowing themselves doesn t take away from what they have done but I want them to understand who they are and I tell them, you re my relative, you re blood. So what you do, reflects on me as well. It s hard enough to be a blackfella without you going out there, carrying on and doing the wrong thing. Uncle Lloyd Hood, Koori Court Elder County Court of Victoria Annual Report 11

14 REPORT OF THE JUDGE IN CHARGE OF THE SEXUAL OFFENCES LIST Judge Cannon During the period , sexual offences continued to feature as a major proportion (19%) of the Court s criminal caseload, although there was a slight drop in the number of these types of cases compared with Sexual offence cases also continue to represent a major proportion (41%) of our criminal trials. The law in relation to sexual offences is complex and the jury directions can be confusing and lengthy. Therefore, the recent introduction of the Jury Directions Act 2013 has been most welcome. This piece of legislation promises to reduce the number and type of directions given in many trials and to reduce the time taken to summarise evidence and counsel s addresses. Earlier this year, the County Court practice note was amended to maximise the efficient management of sexual offence trials. In almost all cases where a matter is to proceed as a trial, a standard timetable is set at the initial directions hearing which is expected to be complied with. In general, the level of compliance has been fairly good. User group meetings are conducted periodically with members of the legal profession to ensure that the concerns of list judges or initiatives which are to be undertaken by the Court are communicated to representatives for bodies such as the Office of Public Prosecutions, Victoria Legal Aid, the Victorian Bar, the Law Institute of Victoria and the Child Witness Service. These representatives may also express their concerns or raise queries about the Sexual Offences List. The meetings are invaluable, as they provide a means whereby the Court can obtain feedback which is used to assess, and, if necessary, to improve its processes. They are also an effective means for concerns or initiatives of those running the Sexual Offences List to be conveyed to many of those who work in the area. As Judge Mullaly reported last year, applications concerning confidential communications between a complainant and their counsellor can be extremely time consuming for the list judges. There has been a tendency by some legal practitioners to leave such applications until the last moment which can threaten to derail a trial or place all concerned under undue pressure. In a bid to avoid this situation, a standard timetable has been introduced which requires any notification for leave to issue a subpoena to be filed with the Court at least eight weeks before the trial date. This requirement has been incorporated into the Criminal Procedure Practice Note. In addition to conducting the Sexual Offences List, the judges involved also take part in various law reform committees and speak at seminars on topics relevant to sexual offences. Having officially taken over the role of Judge in Charge of the Sexual Offences List at the beginning of 2013, I knew that I had large shoes to fill, due to the tremendous work which had been done by my predecessors, Judges Sexton, Pullen and Mullaly. Thanks to them, and many others involved in the List, the transition has been quite smooth. I thank Judges Sexton, Pullen, Taft, Patrick, Lacava and Mullaly for their assiduous efforts in conducting the Sexual Offences List. This involves directions hearings and mentions at 9am every week day, followed by a range of matters such as plea hearings, subpoena arguments, bail hearings and applications for supervision orders and review. I also thank Judge Hannan for her assistance and support in my new role, as well as the list associates, Kate Nassios and Natalie Perrera, former list associate, Elise Badke, my associate, Bronwyn Hammond, my tipstaff, Greg Pusch, and all those from Registry for all that they do to ensure that the list runs so well, day after day. Judge Cannon 12 County Court of Victoria Annual Report

15 Civil Jurisdiction Since 2007, the County Court has had an unlimited monetary jurisdiction in civil matters, which it shares with the Supreme Court. In , 6,284 matters were finalised in the civil jurisdiction. REPORT OF THE JUDGE IN CHARGE OF THE DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION LIST Judge Misso I was appointed as the Judge in Charge of the List in November 2012 as the successor to Judge Davis, whose work over the preceding six years has been responsible for shaping the List and its success. The Judicial Settlement Conference track (which Judge Davis designed, implemented and conducted) was partially successful in facilitating the early resolution of WorkCover Serious Injury applications and reducing the number of cases proceeding to trial. The introduction of the track brought into the thinking of the parties the necessity to find an appropriate solution to resolving WorkCover Serious Injury applications in a List which was large and which was at risk of producing unacceptable delay from the date on which the initiating process was filed to the date of trial. The judicial settlement conferences are no longer presided over by judges. The parties are now responsible for maintaining the track as an essential part of the Court s interest in requiring appropriate dispute resolution. The successful use of amended timetabling orders has resulted in the reduction in the size of court books filed at the hearing of WorkCover Serious Injury applications. The significant changes previously implemented in the Directions Group have continued to reduce the time taken to process orders. A review of the management of the List has resulted in a reduction of the volume of correspondence received by the Directions Group from parties seeking orders on the papers and referral of proceedings to directions hearings. During the financial year, 3,805 cases were initiated and 3,545 cases were finalised in the List, which was an increase on the previous financial year with 3,710 cases initiated and 3,424 cases finalised. In , the List accounted for 57% of all civil cases initiated in the Court. Of the cases finalised, approximately 45% (1,587) were in the Serious Injury Division and 41% (1,441) were in the General Division. There was an increase in the number of cases finalised in the General Division compared with the previous financial year, with 1,245 cases finalised. Of the 563 judgments written across the civil jurisdiction of the Court state-wide, 61% (345) were written in the Serious Injury Division, 9% (49) in the General Division and 2% (12) in the Family Property Division. My responsibilities as the Judge in Charge of the List include the Applications Division, the Defamation Division, the General Division, the Serious Injury Division and the Family Property Division. Finalisations in the Damages and Compensation List WorkCover Division Judge Saccardo continues as the Judge in Charge of the Medical Division, and Judge Wischusen continues as the Judge in Charge of the WorkCover Division. Alternative Dispute Resolution Judicial settlement conferences have become a necessary part of case management in each of the Divisions of the List. At present, the Family Property Division continues to conduct judicial settlement conferences at the request of the parties which has produced a high settlement rate at a time in the proceeding when the costs of the litigation are relatively modest. Judicial settlement conferences are conducted from time to time in the other Divisions. Reserve List The Reserve List has continued to operate efficiently, with every effort being made to avoid cases not being reached. The number of not reached cases in the financial year was 146 compared to 139 in the previous financial year. Directions Group The Directions Group continues to manage the administrative mention process in the directions hearing system in the List. The Directions Group continues to receive a large volume of correspondence. In the previous financial year it was approximately 16,000 pieces of individual correspondence. It produced approximately 7,000 orders. The Directions Group has taken measures to reduce the time taken to produce orders on the papers, including the generation of template orders in Serious Injury cases where upon the filing of an appearance, orders are immediately generated without the necessity for the parties to prepare orders and submit them. Other measures are presently being debated to determine how greater efficiency might be achieved, given the volume of litigation and the necessity to produce such a large volume of orders. Judge Misso 1,441 General Division 210 Other 1,587 Serious Injury Division 224 Medical Division County Court of Victoria Annual Report 13

16 REPORT OF THE JUDGE IN CHARGE OF THE COMMERCIAL LIST Judge Kennedy The Commercial List grew again in the year with initiations rising to 2,718 representing an increase of 10%. Commercial initiations constitute some 40% of all civil initiations with 2,592 commercial cases finalised in the year. Four judges continued to be nominated by the Chief Judge bi-annually to be primarily responsible for the work in the Commercial List. During the report year, the nominated commercial judges included Judges Anderson, Lewitan, Lacava, as well as Kennedy. The year also saw the appointment of a new commercial judge, Judge Cosgrave. This followed on from the departure of Judge Ginnane on his appointment to the Supreme Court. His contribution to the Commercial List for some four years is appreciated by his colleagues. On his departure, Judge Anderson stepped in as Judge in Charge of the Building Division. Commercial cases were aggressively listed, with trial judges double or triple booked. Most of the cases were listed for trial within six months of being issued. 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 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. Such disputes often involve complex issues and include applications to remove caveats; for freezing orders; and for summary judgment. The associates of the commercial judges perform invaluable work, particularly the associates of the list judges. The List, particularly the Duty Judge, also continued to be supported by the Directions Group. The Directions Group performs a major role in reducing the cost of litigation by enabling the Court and judges to be directly accessed through correspondence, thus avoiding unnecessary court appearances. A significant number of unrepresented litigants appeared in commercial matters, both at interlocutory hearings and trials. The List was assisted in this context by the appointment of a Self-Represented Litigant Coordinator, Courtney Ryrie. Work was also undertaken to generate an Unrepresented Litigants Protocol with the Bar which was of great assistance in managing self represented persons in the Commercial List. The Commercial Judges appreciate the ongoing participation of the profession in its effective operation. To this end, regular users group meetings in the Banking and Finance, Building Cases and Expedited Divisions were held. Such consultation led to a wholesale revision of the Commercial List Practice Notes during the report year. In April 2013, Judge Kennedy and Judge Cosgrave also addressed the Commercial Bar on the operation of the list. Judge Kennedy 14 County Court of Victoria Annual Report

17 REPORT OF THE JUDGES IN CHARGE OF THE ADOPTION AND SUBSTITUTE PARENTAGE ORDER LIST Judge Pullen & Judge Hampel The Adoption List was renamed in the Adoption and Substitute Parentage Order List, to reflect the court s increased jurisdiction to make parentage orders. For two years, Judge Kennedy has shared responsibility for the Adoptions List. She has now relinquished that role, and we wish to record our thanks to her for her dedicated service. Judge Hampel has taken her place, and has assumed responsibility for the Substitute Parentage Orders and other parentage applications. The Adoption Registrar is Jason Kaye, who has recently taken over from Lia Barberio. We thank Lia for her commitment to the List and welcome Jason into the role. Adoptions In the County Court granted a total of 52 adoptions. These relationships were formally recognised and registered by the Court. The majority of these were heard in Melbourne, the remainder in County Court circuit towns. The adoption hearings involve formal and informal aspects. There is recognition of the adoption and finality of the process, and the informal aspect allows family and friends to be present at the adoption hearing and to take photographs to record the happy event. There is also a recording of the hearing for the parties to keep. Once again, we thank the Lions Club Victoria who donated teddy bears, always a favourite, to be given to the child adoptees. Other Adoption Act Applications Other applications dealt with by the Adoptions Registrar include Discharge of Adoptions and Applications for Information regarding birth parent(s) and background. There were four Discharge Applications in When these are granted, it dissolves the Adoption Order and the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages reinstates the original Birth Certificate, often changing the name of the child and reinstating the names of the birth parents. The Court also has the power to deal with applications pursuant to section 99 of the Adoption Act Such applications allow birth parents, relatives and adoptees to apply to the Court for information regarding a previous adoption. Other Parentage Orders The Court is authorised to make substitute parentage orders in respect of children born as a result of an approved surrogacy arrangement under the Assisted Reproductive Treatment Act The Act permits altruistic (non commercial) surrogacy arrangements, and authorises the Court to recognise the commissioning parents as the legal parents of a child born to a surrogate mother. In addition, following amendments to the Status of Children Act 1974, female partners of women who used donor sperm to conceive a child are entitled to the same legal recognition as a parent as male partners of women whose children were donor conceived. The amendments have retrospective operation, and authorise the Court to make parentage orders recognising the birth mother s partner as a parent of children born before the Act was amended. In , five substitute parentage orders and two parentage orders were made under the Status of Children Act The legal recognition of parentage for these families is an important step in their quest to found a family, and the hearings, like the adoption hearings, are as much a celebration as a formal pronouncement of the orders. They too are often attended by extended family and friends; and teddy bears, photos and, at times, tears are all part of the day. Judge Pullen County Court of Victoria Annual Report 15

18 The County Court and the Community The County Court is an important part of the Victorian community. The Court adheres to the principle of open and transparent justice and invites members of the community to observe proceedings in action. It is important that members of the community understand what judges do and have confidence in their sentences and judgments. The Court hosts visiting delegations, school groups and individual members of the public. It also holds special events including the Courts Open Day. REPORT OF THE CHAIR OF THE MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE Judge Howard The Media and Communications Committee acts as a go-between for the community, the media, court staff and users. Over the report period, the Committee comprised the Chief Judge; myself as chair; and Judges McInerney, Gucciardo, Mason, O Neill, and Saccardo. Judges Coate and Gaynor retired from the Committee and were replaced by Judges Wilmoth and Kings. The Strategic Adviser to the Chief Judge, Carly Lloyd, and the Court s Operations Manager, Ian Edwards, support the work of the Committee. During the year, Communications Manager, Anna Bolger, resigned and was replaced by Strategic Communications Manager, Kerry O Shea. Relations with the Media Following the successful launch of the Guidelines for the Media in May 2012, the Committee has established a very positive on-going working relationship with the media and court reporters. The Court invites the media to make suggestions to improve the operation of the Guidelines, which aim to facilitate the activities of the media and assist with educating the community about the important work of the Court. Kerry O Shea maintains daily contact with media representatives, facilitates the filming of proceedings as well as provides sentences and judgments where available. Social Media The Court notes the increasing use of social media as a tool to broadcast information about Court activities. The number of followers of the Court s Twitter account (@CCVMedia) increases steadily and will be a focus over the coming year. Social media platforms can present a challenge to the integrity of jury trials and this issue will be closely monitored by the Court and the Committee over the next year. Website The Court is undertaking a redesign of its website to make it more user-friendly and accessible. A number of technical issues have been identified and will be addressed. The new website will allow greater visibility of new content, better promotion of news and alerts and automatic content archiving. It will also integrate the Court s Twitter feed throughout the site. Notable sentences and judgments will be posted, which will better enable the community to assess for itself the whole of a sentence or judgment which may be the subject of public comment or discussion. Judges are working to anonymise published sentences and judgments to protect the identity of victims and to avoid identity theft. Non-Publication Orders The Court is reviewing its database of non-publication orders and undertaking an audit to determine those which are no longer required or relevant. The Court has also made submissions to Government as to law reform in this area. Court in the Community The Court hosted a number of public and legal profession events over the year, including the Opening of the Legal Year function, organised by the International Commission of Jurists. Once again, tours of the Court and presentations from judges were a highlight of Law Week in May. Events included tours of the jury facilities, the artworks, the public areas and behind the scenes in the court rooms. Court Network held a session explaining how it supported those who come to Court. The Judge in Charge of the Koori Court, Judge Smallwood, also explained how the Court works with Koori offenders. This was in advance of the Koori Court s official opening in Melbourne. The Chief Judge, Michael Rozenes, was joined by judicial colleagues in hosting the ever popular barbecue on the forecourt. Gold coin donations supported Berry Street, an organisation providing welfare and support to children and their families. Judge Howard 16 County Court of Victoria Annual Report

19 Schools Visit Program and Other Visitors to the County Court The schools program has continued to evoke enthusiastic support from the Year 11 and 12 VCE students who visit the Court. During the year, 4,500 students, 240 teachers and 25 judges took part in the program. This program involved each group of students participating in an informal question and answer session with a judge on topics as diverse as: Curriculum questions arising from the Year 11 and 12 Legal Studies course; Discussions as to criminal sentencing issues or the pressure associated with the role of a judge. Following this session, the students were allocated to a court to observe the process of a trial or a criminal plea. The program is now in its third year. There is a growing tendency of the students to confront judges with sometimes challenging questions, which allow the students and teachers to gain insight into the life and work of a judge. Equally the ability of judges to discuss, with large numbers of young adults, issues such as the pitfalls associated with recreational drug use or irresponsible behaviour whilst in charge of motor vehicles, provides the Court with a unique opportunity to influence tendency towards such behaviour in a positive way. The program is co-ordinated by Judge Saccardo and his staff. Judge Saccardo and Judge Parrish also attended a number of school campuses during the year to address Year 12 Legal Studies students. The court also hosted a number of other visitors and delegations, including a group of Chinese lawyers hosted by the Law Institute of Victoria and Masters in Journalism students from Melbourne University. Court s Open Day BBQ: Chief Judge Rozenes with Chief Magistrate Lauritsen. Opening of the Legal Year in Waldron Hall. (Image courtesy of ICJ Victoria) Law Institute of Victoria President, Reynah Tang (right of Chief Judge Rozenes) brought a delegation of Chinese Lawyers to the Court. Melbourne University s Masters in Journalism students meet Judge Howard. County Court of Victoria Annual Report 17

20 The County Court on Circuit Judges of the County Court, together with Court staff, are committed to delivering fair and accessible justice to the community it serves. This includes making justice accessible in regional Victoria. CIRCUIT CASE ACTIVITY BY LOCATION , Bairnsdale Ballarat Bendigo Geelong Initiated Horsham Latrobe Valley Finalised Mildura Sale Pending TOTAL CIRCUIT CASE ACTIVITY 2,000 Shepparton Wangaratta Warrnambool Wodonga 600 No. criminal cases trials No. sexual offence trials In addition to the main court house located in Melbourne s central business district, Judges of the Court hear cases at 12 courts situated in the major regional centres grouped as follows: Latrobe Valley/Gippsland region managed by Judge Smallwood Morwell, Sale and Bairnsdale. North Central region managed by Judge Wilmoth Bendigo, Shepparton, Wangaratta, Wodonga. Northwest region managed by Judge MP Bourke Mildura. Southwest region managed by Judge Mullaly Ballarat, Geelong, Horsham, Warrnambool. The County Koori Court in the Latrobe Valley/Gippsland region is managed by Judge Smallwood. Civil Cases Overall the number of outstanding civil cases in circuit courts has reduced from 732 cases to 723 (a decrease of 9 cases or 1.23%). There has been some success in reducing the number of civil cases between one and two years since initiation, with a reduction from 179 cases to 151 cases (a reduction of 28 cases or 15.64%). However, there has been a very slight increase in the number of civil cases over two years old, from 87 cases to 91 cases (an increase of 4 cases or 4.60%). 1,500 1, Initiated Finalised Pending Judge Wilmoth 18 County Court of Victoria Annual Report