Page 2329 - Week 06 - Thursday, 10 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
acting judges and additional funding to the DPP, Legal Aid, the courts and Corrective Services to facilitate its operation. The goal of the blitz is to clear the Supreme Court backlog and permit the new docket case management system to be implemented by the court.
The blitz involves bringing forward a pool of civil and criminal matters for a one-off period in 2012. The proposal is designed to trigger earlier resolution of matters without trial by bringing forward the trial date. This will allow the remaining matters to be given earlier trial dates. The first six-week period of the blitz commenced on 10 April this year and will conclude on 18 May. The second six-week period will commence on 25 June this year. At this stage, the blitz is producing pleasing results, with a large percentage of civil cases settling and a number of criminal cases ending with a plea of guilty or being discontinued by the DPP.
The adoption of a docket system will assist judges to ensure that the time and resources of the court are well used. Consultation with other jurisdictions during the review confirms that judicial control of case management is essential to court efficiency. Docket systems have been successfully implemented in the United States and locally in the Federal Magistrates Court, the Federal Court and the Family Court, where they have been proven to improve efficiency.
Another major change announced by the court was an expansion of the existing requirements of exchange of material in criminal matters. The new requirements are designed to ensure that the prosecution has properly considered its position, and that the defence is fully aware of the prosecution case, before the matter is assigned to a docket judge.
The bill contains three main amendments to assist the Supreme Court to implement these proposed changes. Firstly, the bill contains amendments to the Supreme Court Act 1933 to provide that the election for a judge-alone trial must be made before any time limit prescribed under the court procedures rules. This will enable the timing of elections to be better matched to court processes that will exist under the new docket system. Accordingly, the existing requirement for the election to be made before the court allocates a date for the person’s trial will be removed. The amendments maintain that an election must occur prior to the identity of the trial judge being known to the accused or to his or her legal representatives. Under the docket system, this will occur at an earlier point in time.
The amendments give rise to considerations of human rights, specifically the right to a fair trial in section 21 of the Human Rights Act. The amendment does not limit the right to a fair trial, including the right to equal access, the right to legal advice and representation and the right to procedural fairness. The amendment does not affect a person’s ability to have their criminal charges decided by a competent, independent and impartial court or tribunal after a fair and public hearing. The amendment is solely concerned with ensuring that the timing of an election for a judge-alone trial is more appropriately matched to processes that will exist under the court’s proposed new docket system.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video