Adelaide court reforms: Former Judge Brian Martin’s review urges changes to stop case delays
A major review of how major indictable offences are managed in the justice system has found new reforms are working, but recommends several key changes to ensure cases are fast-tracked.
Law and Order
Don't miss out on the headlines from Law and Order. Followed categories will be added to My News.
A top-level review of SA’s major indictable offences reform process has recommended key changes to stem lengthy delays in some cases moving through the system.
Former Supreme Court Justice Brian Martin has recommended introducing prescribed time limits for police to supply a preliminary brief of evidence and complying with disclosure requirements.
Mr Martin has also recommended that child sexual assault cases are given priority, that Director of Public Prosecutions officers take over all cases from police from the second court appearance and that following a guilty plea the matter is immediately referred to a higher court for sentencing.
His changes, if adopted, would also see mandatory conferences with an appointed “judicial
registrar’’ introduced to ensure the prompt progress of cases.
While the recommendations preserve the existing framework in which cases flow from arrest to finalisation, they expedite their progress of cases by prescribing strict time frames to ensure cases do not languish for extended periods of time in the magistrates court jurisdiction.
Over the past year there has been intense criticism from both the legal profession and some magistrates over the major indictable reform measures — with some cases delayed for more than a year because of lengthy adjournments requested by police to allow them to complete a preliminary brief.
In his report Mr Martin states that while it is too early to draw any “firm conclusions’’ about the effectiveness of the reforms the “emerging trends are positive and consistent with the fundamental aims of the reforms.’’
“The initial reduction in the flow of cases from the Magistrates Court to the superior courts was an inevitable consequence of the changes brought about by the major indictables reforms,’’ he states.
“That reduction in flow does not, however, indicate that the system is fundamentally flawed.
“The adjudication process at the outset is now removing from the major indictable stream significantly more matters prior to the first appearance than occurred under the old system.’’
Mr Martin states the number of appearances in the magistrates court for each case appears to have decreased and the time taken to finalise such matters also “appears to have decreased under the reforms’’ and he rejected suggestions there would be a flood of cases currently working their way through the magistrates court jurisdiction inundating higher courts because of the reforms.
Senior barristers and criminal lawyers on Monday night welcomed the recommendations — particularly the eight-week time frame for delivery of preliminary briefs and disclosure provisions — stating they were a “a step in the right direction’’ to improve case flows.
Attorney-General Vickie Chapman, who commissioned the Martin report in September last year, said she would be “giving careful consideration’’ to Mr Martin’s recommendations.
“While Mr Martin acknowledged that it was too early to draw any conclusions about the overall effectiveness of the scheme, he did note there were positive signs regarding its impact on the operations of the Magistrates Court,” she said.
“His review has, however, highlighted some issues with the operation of the scheme and
recommended changes aimed at improving the way matters are dealt with.”
Ms Chapman said it was important to note that Mr Martin found there was “no tsunami” of cases building in the Magistrates Court that would flow to the higher courts, but that did not mean “we can’t look to see where deficiencies exist and seek to improve the system.’’
In his review Mr Martin examined the progress of 1,268 cases lodged in the Magistrates Court jurisdiction from March 5 2018 to March 4 this year - comparing the data to 1,270 cases lodged between October 3 2017 and March 4 2018 prior to the introduction of the reforms.
Significantly, he found an increase in the number of cases either dismissed or withdrawn - 810 (63.9 per cent) since the reforms were introduced. Of those, 73 were dismissed because either police or the DPP had not made a charge determination.
The figure of 810 compared with the 647 (50.6 per cent) cases either withdrawn or dismissed in the period prior to introduction of the reforms.
Law Society president Amy Nikolovski welcomed the recommendations, stating they would “vastly improve case flow’’ in the criminal jurisdiction, provided the DPP is properly funded.
“One of the most unfortunate consequences of the 2018 major indictable reforms has been the
lengthy time frames being requested by police to prepare a preliminary brief, with little oversight by the DPP, and subsequently the courts as a result of the removal of statutory time frames,’’ she said.
“These recommendations correct this by prescribing a realistic time frame by which a preliminary brief of evidence should be ready, while giving courts flexibility and discretion to extend time limits if the particular circumstances justify it.
“It is pleasing the report recommends provisions to ensure early disclosure of material to all parties at every stage of the process. Currently, defendants are often not receiving relevant
information from prosecuting authorities in a timely manner, which is impacting the ability of
defendants to enter a plea at an earlier stage.’’