SA court reform law causing 14-month adjournments in criminal cases, could be longer

VICTIMS of the state’s worst crimes will have to wait 14 months — or even up to three years — for their cases to progress through the justice system because of new laws designed to improve court efficiency.

The SA District Court.

• ‘Rapist’ won’t return to court for 14 months due to new laws
• AG, lawyers at loggerheads over plan to clear court logjam
• Proposed reforms ‘unfair on those fighting for innocence’
• Opposition, crossbenchers move block key part of court reform plan
• District Court Judge ‘embarrassed’ by delays in SA justice system

VICTIMS of the state’s worst crimes will have to wait 14 months or more for their cases to progress through the justice system because of new laws designed to improve court efficiency.

And alleged violent offenders, including rapists and murderers, are more likely to be released on bail because SA’s overcapacity prisons cannot house them over such a long period.

Lawyers, victims rights groups and police fear the Criminal Procedures Act (1921) is exacerbating, rather than solving, the courts’ chronic logjam of cases.

They claim the extensive adjournments — which, by law, courts must agree to — are far longer than any delays experienced under the old system.

Deputy Premier and Attorney-General John Rau. Picture: Tom Huntley

They warn it will further stretch SA’s limited resources by increasing the workloads of investigators, put pressure on prisons and retraumatise victims.

Victims’ Rights Commissioner Michael O’Connell said one Adelaide Magistrates Court case had this week been adjourned for 16 months until July 2019.

“Victims can wait too long for their day in court ... both court delay and the reform can have a detrimental impact on victims of crime,” he said.

“It would be counter-productive if those in the criminal justice system ignore crime victims’ rights.

“To do so, might from a victim perspective jeopardise the legitimacy of decision made and reduced confidence in the system as a whole.”

Defence barrister David Edwardson QC said another brand new case, about alleged drug trafficking, had been adjourned for 18 months.

“I have never before heard of a matter being adjourned for 18 months — not following the first appearance, and not at any point in the process,” he said.

“I have never before heard of a matter being adjourned for 18 months”

“Now it has happened, and on the very first week of the new system, which is only going to make things worse than they already were.”

Law Society of SA president Tim Mellor said the laws were “likely to blow court lists out even further” than just 14 months.

“The provisions allow the police to seek extraordinarily long adjournments with very little oversight or monitoring of their progress,” he said.

Victims’ Rights Commissioner Michael O’Connell

“Unless the Government pours (in) more resources ... we could well see court cases lasting 2-3 years become the norm.”

The Act — authored by Attorney-General John Rau SC and announced in 2016 — was designed to clear the District Court’s decades-long backlog of more than 600 trials.

The court has previously said it would take 18 months to clear its caseload.

The Act drew the ire of lawyers, who claimed it was unfair to defendants and had “cherry picked” pieces of interstate legislation instead of increasing funding for prosecutors.

The Act came into effect on Monday — on Tuesday, The Advertiser revealed it had prompted a 14-month adjournment in a rape case.

Although the accused, 32, was arrested at Parkside on Monday and faced court on Tuesday, his next appearance will not be until May 2019.

Under the old system, he would have next appeared in 10 weeks so prosecutors could update the court, his alleged victim and his lawyers on the progress of the case.

Under the new system, SA Police retain control of his case until a “preliminary brief” of the evidence — including forensic reports and witness statements — has been lodged.

Cases do not return to court until prosecutors are satisfied the evidence is sufficient for them to continue, at which time they take it over.

If they refuse to take the case, police must decide whether to pursue the matter as a lesser charge or drop it altogether.

The Advertiser understands the alleged rapist’s case is one of four given long adjournments since Monday.

It is further understood the Police Association of SA is meeting with members this week to discuss the effect the law will have on workloads both at court and for investigators.

On Wednesday, Mr Mellor said the potential consequence of a system meant to “create efficiencies” was trauma for all involved.

“It is of significant concern that victims, witnesses and defendants could face an excruciating wait for a brief to be completed, only for it to be potentially rejected by the DPP and have to go back to police to be completed properly,” he said.

“It is unfair that defendants, witnesses, and especially victims, are left hanging for such inordinate periods of time.”

Mr O’Connell said that, when the DPP handled cases, victims had access to a dedicated Witness Assistance Service that kept them updated and support them in court.

“Under the reform, police will be responsible for proceedings for much longer ... during this time, victims will not have access to the Service,” he said.

“In recent years, the need to reform our criminal justice system has been given an increased sense of urgency, and sometimes the remedies have not advanced victims’ rights.”

Opposition justice spokeswoman Vickie Chapman said Mr Rau had succeeded only in shifting the District Court’s backlog into the Magistrates Court.

“This is exactly the outcome we predicted ... more people facing serious charges will be out on bail for longer as the prisons are full,” she said.

“These are serious cases — not shoplifting — and the answer is for the DPP to prosecute these cases early and the District Court to manage them.”

Mr Rau said those concerns were unfounded.

“Major indictable reform gives the courts discretion to set realistic adjournment time frames and reduce unnecessary court appearances,” he said.

“This will encourage earlier guilty pleas and prevent unnecessary delays in cases that proceed to trial.”

THE OLD SYSTEM

■ Suspect arrested by police, DPP take over the file.

■ Alleged offender remanded, in custody or on bail, for 10 weeks while police gather evidence for DPP’s consideration.

■ Case returns to court for that evidence, called “declarations”, to be provided to defence counsel, and for magistrates and victims to be updated on its progress.

■ Case adjourned to a further declarations date, if evidence is outstanding, or for an alleged offender to answer the charge.

■ Often, multiple further declarations dates are needed.

■ Magistrates have power to expedite cases or require DPP to file written outlines, while defence can seek to have evidence excluded or lagging cases thrown out.

■ Alleged offender returns to court, enters plea and is remanded to the Supreme or District Court for trial or sentencing.

THE NEW SYSTEM

■ Suspect arrested by police, who retain conduct of the file.

■ Police tell court how long it will take to compile a “preliminary brief” of all evidence in the case.

■ Court must give an adjournment of that length and set a timetable to suit.

■ Alleged offender is remanded, on bail or in custody, until that date.

■ Adjourned case remains the responsibility of police until the preliminary brief is complete.

■ DPP can send the preliminary brief file back to police, multiple times, if they do not consider it complete.

■ Case returns to court on the date chosen by police, the DPP takes control and provides further declarations to defence counsel over subsequent hearings.

■ Alleged offender enters plea and is remanded to face the Supreme or District Court for trial or sentencing.

■ If the case is sent to trial, the DPP has a further six weeks to file a “case statement” with the higher court, and defence four weeks to respond.

Follow @SeanFewster