Lawyers complain about SA courts’ approach to COVID-19 pandemic, saying inconsistent approach is putting health and legal rights at risk

The state’s courts hear hundreds of matters, and deal with thousands of people, every day – but lawyers have lashed out at the justice system’s anti-pandemic measures, saying they’re inconsistent and putting people at risk.

• Trials abandoned, no new juries, as Adelaide’s courts grapple with pandemic
• Are you missing out on your latest subscriber exclusive rewards?

The first day of anti-COVID-19 precautions in the state’s courts have yielded “highly inappropriate and deeply concerning” practices, lawyers say, which are placing the health and rights of victims at risk.

Lawyers working across the Supreme, District and Magistrates Courts on Tuesday have told The Advertiser each jurisdiction appears to be taking an individual and therefore inconsistent approach to managing the pandemic.

One court, they said, demanded counsel hand over their client’s personal details including phone numbers and email addresses before their matters would be heard – but declined to explain why.

Halfway through day one of anti-#COVIDー19 measures in @CourtsinSA and the results are... mixed. Let's run down what #Adelaide's alleged victims, defendants and counsel have experienced, and passed on to @theTiser, so far. [Thread, 1/7]

— Sean Fewster (@SeanFewster) March 17, 2020

Criminal defence lawyer Stacey Carter questioned what power a magistrate had to require such data, given the legal protections surrounding practitioner/client privilege.

“This may be an unprecedented situation but I am not prepared for people’s legal rights to be compromised during it,” Ms Carter said.

“It’s so improper to demand this, especially when a client is adequately represented.”

While no new Supreme nor District Court jury trials commenced on Tuesday, non-jury matters in those jurisdictions as well as in the state’s magistrates courts continued as scheduled.

In the Sir Samuel Way Building, which houses the Supreme and District Courts, staff encouraged social distancing in the public galleries but were uncertain whether they had authority to enforce it.

The Elizabeth Magistrates Court, scheduled to hear 196 matters across its eight court rooms, opted to refuse entry to all non-defendants.

MORE NEWS:

Anzac Day parade among growing list of cancelled SA events

Unprecedent plan to save Aussie jobs

Qantas slashes most international flights

The Port Adelaide Magistrates Court, meanwhile, simply adjourned all 231 case files it was scheduled to hear across six court rooms, and excused defendants and counsel from attending.

The greatest source of concern was courtroom 12 of the Adelaide Magistrates Court, which hosted Tuesday’s committal list – where pleas are entered and evidence is handed between prosecution and defence counsel.

Lawyers speaking to The Advertiser complained that courtroom’s approach to social distancing was “inconsistent”, with signs placed on chairs to space people out but no restriction on who could enter.

Of the 332 case files listed for hearing in Adelaide on Tuesday, 71 were to be held in court 12 – where the demands for defendants’ telephone numbers and email addresses was made.

“I can’t believe we don’t have any proper form guidelines – every court is doing its own thing,” Ms Carter said.

“There is no consistency.”

Another lawyer expressed disgust that the courts had gone ahead on Monday with the traditional ceremonial sitting to welcome new law graduates to practice. The ceremony is strongly attended by not only graduates but their siblings, parents and grandparents.”

“They had 900 people in a single court for the admissions ceremonies, all on top of each other,” another lawyer said.

“It’s just disgraceful.”

The Advertiser has sought comment from the Courts Administration Authority.

The inconsistency has prompted the Law Society to write to the state’s chief magistrate, Judge Mary-Louise Hribal, seeking “urgent clarification” regarding the “deeply concerning” measures in court 12.

In a letter seen by The Advertiser, society chief executive Stephen Hodder says practitioners want to assist the court in dealing with the pandemic, but struggle to do so in the face of poor communication.

“The society considers such practices to be highly inappropriate (and) would appreciate if you could consider and deal with this matter at your earliest convenience,” he says.

“We are further informed by members that there are a number of inconsistencies between the approaches taken by different magistrates courts (and) is writing to you on behalf of members seeking urgent clarification of these matters.”

A spokesperson for the Chief Magistrate, Judge Mary-Louise Hribal, said:

“It is likely that the Magistrates Court will need to contact parties at very short notice to remand or adjourn matters because of COVID-19.

It is important that the Court has on file current details for the defendant and their legal representative.

In criminal matters, the defendant’s address, date of birth and mobile phone number often appear on the information, however the email address may not. The Court is requesting this information to check the accuracy of details already held on file and to obtain information to facilitate contact if necessary.

In the first instance, contact will be made with the lawyer on file, however, where they cannot be contacted, or the solicitor no longer acts, the Court may need to contact the defendant directly.”