About the County Her Honour Judge Davis Court of Victoria fulfiling their duties, staff conduct themselves in a manner that: ... • is ethical; • is fair and impartial; and •

A b o u t t h e C o u n t yC o u r t o f V i c t o r i a

The County Court of Victoria (the Court) represents the intermediate tier of

the court hierarchy.

At the Court, our role is to:

• ensure timely access to justice, while recognising the principle of

judicial independence; and

• provide Victorians with accessible, responsive and innovative justice.

Our Mission

In cooperation with Court administration, our mission is to achieve improve-

ments to the Court’s infrastructure, governance and case management

arrangements. In this way, the Court will continue to be a leader in delivering

high quality, accessible and easy to understand justice services in the jurisdic-

tions assigned to it by the Parliament, at the least cost to the community and

litigants.

Our Object ives

The Court’s three main objectives are to:

• maintain a high level of community confidence in the Court;

• improve access to justice services; and

• dispose of matters in a timely and efficient manner.

Our objectives are supported by the County Court 2005-06 Strategic Plan,

which identifies direct links of outcomes to the strategies to be employed in

order to advance the Court in the broader context of the Victorian justice

system.

The Court ’s Values

The values of the judiciary are at the heart of the Court’s approach to all

aspects of its work, including directions for the future. Taken by each Judge

soon after his or her appointment, the ‘oath of office’ best encapsulates

these values, namely:

As a County Court Judge in the State of Victoria, I will at all times

and in all things do equal justice to all persons and discharge the

duties of my office according to the Law and to the best of my

knowledge and ability without fear, favour or affection.

Non-judicial staff have a dual role of service support to the judiciary in exe-

cuting their duties in support of the Court’s judicial officers, as well as a

compliance role within the Department of Justice (DOJ).

In fulfiling their duties, staff conduct themselves in a manner that:

• is respectful and courteous to each other and all Court users;

• demonstrates responsibility and accountability;

• is ethical;

• is fair and impartial; and

• is professional.

Staff members deliver their commitment to serving the judiciary, DOJ and

other Court users through:

• continuously assisting in the review and implementation of improve-

ment strategies of the Court’s processes;

• maintaining and/or enhancing the currency and relevance of their

skills, particularly information technology and its application in the

workplace; and

• monitoring genuinely recognised performance against these commit-

ments.

About This Annual Report

As the major publication of the County Court of Victoria, this Annual Report

complies with the County Court Act 1958. The Court uses the Annual Report

to inform government, court users, students and other interested parties

about the Court’s activities and achievements.

We distribute copies of the Annual Report to other courts, a wide range of

related justice personnel and agencies, both in hard copy and electronically.

County Court of Victoria 2005–06 Annual Report 11

Her Honour Judge Davis

H i g h l i g h t s a n d Ye a r a t a G l a n c e

Item 2005–06 2004–05 % Change*

Total County Court Cases

Commenced 10,075 10,396 (3.1)

Finalised 10,508 12,776 (17.8)

Pending 9,480 10,154 (6.6)

Overall County Court Clearance Ratio (%) 104.3 123.0 (18.7)

Total Civil Cases

Commenced 4,800 5,298 (9.4)

Finalised 6,016 8,242 (27.0)

Pending 6,180 7,514 (17.8)

Overall Civil Clearance Ratio (%) 125.3 155.0 (29.7)

• Civil Business List Cases

– Commenced 1,159 1,877 (38.3)

– Finalised 1,647 2,725 (39.6)

– Pending 1,357 n/a n/a

– Civil Business List Clearance Ratio (%) 142.1 145.0 (2.9)

• Civil Damages List Cases

– Commenced 1,831 1,928 (5.0)

– Finalised 2,962 4,463 (33.6)


– Civil Damages List Clearance Ratio (%) 161.8 231.0 (69.2)

• Civil WorkCover List Cases

– Commenced 1,596 1,250 27.7

– Finalised 1,217 860 41.5


– Civil WorkCover List Clearance Ratio (%) 76.3 69.0 7.3

• Other Civil Cases

– Commenced 214 243 (11.9)

– Finalised 190 194 (2.1)

– Pending 166 n/a n/a

– Other Civil Clearance Ratio (%) 88.8 80.0 8.8

Total Criminal Cases

Commenced 5,275 5,098 3.5

Finalised 4,492 4,534 (0.9)

Pending 3,300 2,640 25.0

Criminal Clearance Ratio (%) 85.2 89.0 (3.8)

• Criminal Trials and Pleas

– Commenced 2,609 2,537 2.8

– Finalised 2,294 2,219 3.4

– Pending 2,038 1,802 13.1

– Criminal Trials and Pleas Clearance Ratio (%) 87.9 87.0 (0.9)

• Criminal Appeals

– Commenced 2,666 2,561 4.1

– Finalised 2,198 2,315 (5.1)

– Pending 1,262 838 50.6

– Criminal Appeals Clearance Ratio (%) 82.4 90.0 (7.6)

Total Adoption Cases

Applications Considered 123 96 28.1

Adoption Orders Made 119 96 24.0

Applications Pending 4 3 33.3

County Court of Victoria 2005–06 Annual Report22

Our Role

Finalised 10,508 civil and criminal cases.

Met or exceeded our timeliness targets to dis-

pose of cases within 12 months of commence-

ment (page 3).

Judges travelled across Victoria conducting 107

circuit sittings during the reporting year.

Prepared for the introduction of increased juris-

dictions and major justice reforms (page 5, 7).

Our People

Achieved a 68.2% response rate for the

Employee Attitude Survey 2006 (page 24).

The DOJ presented 12 Court staff members with

Partnership Awards (page 25).

Our Faci l i t ies

Made our excellent court facilities accessible

to the community and other courts, including

serving as a venue for cultural and community

exhibitions (page 26).

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

14000

Cases Pending

Cases Finalised

Cases Initiated

2005–062004–052003–042002–032001–02

No.

All County Court Cases—2001–02 to 2005–06

*Clearance ratios are expressed in pp.

M e a s u r e s , S t r a t e g i e s a n d R e s u l t s


Quantity:

Total Cases Disposed, comprising: No. 11,650 10,508 (9.8) 10,600

– Civil 7,000 6,016 (14.1) 6,100

– Criminal 2,350 2,294 (2.4) 2,200

– Appeals 2,300 2,198 (4.4) 2,300

Quality:

Respondents to user survey rating the registry service as good or very good % 85.0 85.0 0.0 85.0

Timeliness:

Civil cases disposed of within 12 months of commencement % 40.0 43.0 3.0* 40.0

Criminal cases (including trials, pleas and appeals) disposed of within

12 months of commencement % 80.0 89.0 9.0* 80.0

Output Targets: Dispensing Just ice

How the Court Measures its Progress

The Court is part of the Dispensing Justice Output Group. This group supports the State’s judiciary in its disposition of criminal and civil matters, maintaining the

administrative operations of the system of courts and statutory tribunals in order to increase community confidence in the justice system and strengthening fair

and efficient dispute resolution, while reducing disadvantage and respecting diversity.

Output groups represent a collection of outputs made up of quantity, quality and timeliness measures. The table below details the output targets and actual

achievements of the Court in 2005–06, as published in Budget Paper No 3 (BP3).

Unit of 2005–06 2005–06 Variance 2006–07Performance Measure Measure Target Actual (%) Target

The Court ’s Strategic Pr ior i t ies

The Court’s objectives are to:

• maintain judicial independence—preserving the independence of the judiciary is of fundamental and enduring importance to our democratic system

of government, so the public can continue to be assured that cases will be considered ‘without fear or favour’;

• achieve a strategic vision for the Court—guiding structural, procedural and administrative reforms of the Court to provide high quality, equal and

consistent justice for the community through accessible, efficient and adequate resources;

• organisational excellence through procedural reform—improving judicial case management by establishing a range of procedural and legislative

reforms and improving the use of information technology methods to manage information more effectively; and

• our people are important—identifying, utilising and recognising staff as significant contributors to the work of the Court, while providing opportunities

to advance staff skill development to accommodate change.

*Refers to Percentage Points

W h a t t h e C o u r t A c h i e v e d i n 2 0 0 5 – 0 6


Supporting Judges in MaintainingJudicial Independence

• Held Judge’s Annual Conference.

• Facilitated participation in JCV professional development courses.

• Provided intensive CLMS training and helpdesk facilities to support Judges and their staff.

• Actively promoted the Court and its achievements within the Portfolio and the wider community

through:

– 2004-05 Annual Report—highlighting judicial participation in community activities and

reference groups;

– Promoting the work of the court in government publications; and

– Chief Judge and CEO engaging DOJ at every opportunity.

Organisational Excellence throughProcedural Reform

• Established the Sexual Offences List.

• Established the Asset Confiscation List.

• Commenced participation in the ICMS Project.

• Reviewed the Six-Cylinder Pilot.

• Reviewed Self Represented Litigants Kit.

• Released discussion paper on Access to Court files and the provision and use of data.

Achieve a Strategic Vision for theCourt

• Confirmed the role of Group Manager, Courts IT and expanded to pilot the role of Group Manager,

Courts Finance Program.

• Published data regarding cases commenced, finalised, pending, clearance rate, timeliness and

backlog on website. Data to be updated annually in line with the publication of this Annual Report.

• Developed and documented change management strategies.

• Demonstrated improvements in the DOJ Employment Survey.

Our People are Important • Published clear and concise guidelines and processes around effective recruitment.

• Launched a clearly documented induction program.

• Published the County Court Study Leave Policy.

• Developed Action Plans to address priorities identified in the DOJ Employment Survey.

• Held planning days for all staff.

Prime Activity Achievement

In 2006, we undertook a comprehensive review of the Court’s progress towards achieving its strategic priorities through the completion of key prime

activities, as stated in the 2005–08 Strategic Plan, at the Judicial Planning day in January 2006 and Management Group Planning Day in February 2006.

Summary details regarding major organisational improvements and achievements identified at the planning days are shown below. More information on

all of these achievements is included in the body of the Annual Report. The County Court Strategic Plan, approved by the Council of Judges, is available

on the Court web site at www.countycourt.vic.gov.au

R e p o r t o f t h e C h i e f J u d g e

During 2005–06, we met the challenges presented by the need to address

new ways to manage cases, especially the increasing workload related not to

the number of cases, but to the type and complexity of cases, to be managed

by the Judges of the Court. We noted particularly, the increased number of

criminal matters going to trial, and the increase in the number of serious

injury applications in the WorkCover List, both of which are placing greater

demands on the Judges who hear them. At the same time, we enhanced the

independence and skills of the Court’s Judges through comprehensive pro-

fessional development activities, addressing issues of stress and overwork

for Judges and ensuring the Judges continued to maintain meaningful

contact with the community they serve.

Addressing Cr iminal L ist ings and Case Load

At the Council of Judges’ Meeting held on 12 April 2006, we addressed

criminal case load management in terms of reduced clearance rate and

output—the annual clearance rate (representing cases completed as a

percentage of cases lodged) in December 2005 was 76.0%, compared with

our target of 100.0%. At this time, it was apparent that we would have

difficulty meeting our target.

We identified several factors contributing to this result:

• increased lodgements;

• significant changes in the case-mix, resulting in an increased number

of trials heard to verdict without a subsequent increase in judges to

hear these cases;

• an increase in the acquittal rate (9.1%)*, representing the third highest

in Australia and ahead of the national average of 7.6%;

• a low withdrawal rate (4.7%* compared with the national average of

12.1%)*;

• instances of delay because cases were not reached;

• availability of court rooms suitable for the conduct of criminal trials.

The delays experienced in hearing cases in the criminal jurisdiction, com-

bined with the significant increase in the number of cases initiated, had con-

tributed to the reduced clearance rate. During 2005–06, this Court received

considerably more cases proceeding to trial due to fewer pleas of guilty in

the Magistrates’ Court. In many cases, defendants committed to this Court

failed to receive a trial date for 12 months or more. Fuelling the influx of

trials was the lack of incentive in the committal stream for considering

sentencing options in exchange for pleas of guilty, driving defendants to

take their chances at trial, where the possibility exists for acquittal, and trials

proceeding to verdict taking far longer than trials ending with a plea of

guilty. To demonstrate this point, in 2001–02, 301 trials proceeded to ver-

dict; by 2004-05 this figure has risen to 407 trials proceeding to verdict.

I had the opportunity to speak about our concerns in the broader context of

the Department of Justice Criminal Justice System Reforms Workshop on

26 May 2006. This meeting, which I attended with senior management staff,

representatives of Victoria Police, Judges and Magistrates from other courts,

the Office of Public Prosecutions and the Victorian Legal Aid Commission,

discussed a broad range of issues relating to the criminal justice system in

this State, including concern about delays in bringing criminal cases to trial.

I addressed the meeting on the issues of delay and the implications of back-

logs, as well as suggesting some tentative solutions that might be achieved by

changing the way we manage cases.

Following the reforms workshop, I convened a meeting of Judges and senior

Court staff on 23 June 2006 to commence a Criminal Listings Project with

the purpose of re-visiting the criminal case management systems used by the

Court with the view to introducing a single model for 2008. The major focus

of the meeting was to scope this project. The committee considered a num-

ber of possible methods of progressing the project, which will continue into

the next reporting year.

The evaluation of the Six-Cylinder Pilot Project introduced in 2003-04 to

address concerns regarding increased adjournments and lower plea rates and

to investigate methods of improving the efficiency of criminal trial management,

was completed in early 2006. The cylinder project was successful in achieving

its target of 21.7% in both years of the review, demonstrating that Judges han-

dling their own lists can increase their productivity by applying closer manage-

ment to cases.

However, from a statistical and listing perspective, the review highlighted the

difficulties in determining the number of cases to be allocated to the cylinder so

that the mix of cases in the general list is not depleted. The cylinder judges

boosted the proportion of cases dealt in the cylinder, by taking additional cases

from the general list. However there was insufficient flexibility within the cylin-

der to bring cases forward in the cylinder. This matter would remain problem-

atic if the court wished to extend the cylinder concept more broadly within the

Court, and points to the need to adapt the pilot methods.

Anecdotal evidence suggested that the pilot proved to offer value in terms of

allowing Judges greater control of the progress of cases in their lists, the capac-

ity to balance the work in the list and the opportunity to dispose of cases effi-

ciently. Based on the experiences of the project, the court is now in a better

position to use the findings to develop a modified approach to list management

by Judges through the work of the newly established Criminal Listings Project.

County Court of Victoria 2005–06 Annual Report 55*Figures taken from the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004-05

R e p o r t o f t h e C h i e f J u d g e

Sex Offences L ist Commenced

At the Department of Justice Sexual Assault Forum on 29 June 2005, I had

announced the implementation of a pilot Sex Offences Directions List to be

managed by Her Honour Judge Sexton. Commenced on 1 October 2005, the

list will bring a consistency of approach to these cases, an earlier distribution

of materials to parties and ensure a more efficient and compassionate process

by which matters of this nature will progress to trial. We were successful in

receiving funding for a Judge and staff to manage this list in the May Budget.

Planning for Increased Civ i l Jur isdict ion

On 27 January 2006, the Court held a Judicial Planning Day, enabling

open discussion regarding the implications and required planning for the

proposed increased jurisdiction of the Court. Justice Finkelstein of the Federal

Court addressed eight judges and six administrative staff about his experiences

of case management in the Federal Court. Solicitors Vivian Moroney of

McKean & Park Lawyers and Mark Yorston of Coadys contributed practition-

ers’ perspectives on increased jurisdiction. In light of the invaluable informa-

tion gained from the day’s discussions, we agreed the Court would establish a

specialist commercial list, commencing on 1 July 2006. Subsequently, we

undertook preparations for establishing the Commercial List to ensure the

Court is best placed for effectively managing the increase in the Court’s juris-

diction. The effects of the change in jurisdiction will begin to be felt when the

legislation comes into effect on 1 January 2007. The Court’s preparation to

date will stand us in good stead to deal with the challenges.

Part ic ipat ion in Just ice Reforms

Judges of the Court have been active during the reporting year in preparing

responses to submissions on a number of issues, attending meetings with

key groups such as the Sentencing Advisory Committee, the Sexual Assault

Advisory Committee and groups working on reviews of the Bail Act, the

Evidence Act and the Crimes Act. The Court assisted the Victorian

Parliamentary Law Reform Committee with its inquiry into County Court

Appeals and responded to matters raised by the Victorian Law Reform

Commission. While judicial independence prevents the Court from respond-

ing with respect to policy issues, judges are often able, through their broad

experience, to provide useful practical information regarding the implica-

tions of change with respect to the court process.

Court Accommodat ion

The Court is committed to providing excellent court accommodation in

Melbourne and throughout its circuits in regional Victoria.

During 2005–06, the Court:

• assessed the plans for the new Latrobe Valley Court at Morwell,

expected to be completed in September 2006; and

• evaluated the need for the fit-out of the 8th and 9th floors of the County

Court Complex to accommodate our future needs.

Judges Appointed and Farewel led

The Court warmly welcomed the following Judges:

• Judge Jeanette Morrish appointed on 9 August 2005.

• Judge Julian Leckie appointed on 9 August 2005.

• Judge Paul Grant on 26 April 2006, replacing Judge Jennifer Coate as

President of the Children’s Court.

I introduced a new way of welcoming the new Judges this year. The procedure

was simplified by having one ceremony where the new Judge sits on the bench

with eight chosen colleagues and the Chief Judge. In this ceremony, the swear-

ing in takes place in the presence of the assembled members of the legal fra-

ternity. The new approach has received favourable comment, especially for its

warmth in helping the new Judge adjust to the world of the judiciary.

It was with sadness we learned of the passing of Judge Bill Morgan-Payler

on 10 June 2006. It was fitting that the Judges of the Court assembled to pay

tribute to him at a ceremony held on 22 June 2006. On behalf of the Court, I

expressed our sincere sympathy and sorrow to his wife Tina and his sons Joe

and Liam and acknowledged the debt this Court and the Victorian community

owe to Bill for his dedicated service to the law as defence counsel, prosecutor,

and finally as a Judge of this Court. As I said then, “We will miss him”.

Moving Ahead

This year, the Court has been concerned to lay a foundation for moving

ahead. In the next financial year, we will take on major and significant

changes wrought by legislation and the current community climate:

• an increased jurisdiction through the efficiency and consistency offered

by the specialist Commercial List;

• the unique needs of the Sex Offences List combined with the continued

reform of sexual assault laws; and

• the anticipated impact of a number of justice reforms, including revi-

sions to the Sentencing Act and Uniform Evidence Act, and the changes

affecting the work of the Court brought about by these reforms.

I know the Court will face these challenges confidently and capably. The

Court is known for its ‘can do’ attitude, and I thank each and every Judge

and member of the Court’s staff for assisting in laying the foundations for

moving ahead during 2006–07.

Michael Rozenes

Chief Judge


C h i e f E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e r ’sM e s s a g e

The 2005–06 year marked a very successful time for the administration

team of the Court. We completed a large number of significant projects and

laid the foundation for many exciting changes to come. Our 2005–06 busi-

ness plan was an ambitious one. In order to achieve the goals we set for our-

selves, we adopted a project management approach across the Court. This

approach proved to be highly productive, ensuring the inclusion of a range

of perspectives across the Court.

Sex Offences L ist : A Signi f icant Mi lestone

The establishment of the Sex Offences List in October 2005 was a significant

milestone for the Court. During its establishment, we reviewed the way in

which cases involving sex offences proceed through the Court and the way in

which the Registry supported the Judge and her staff. The Court has played a

significant role in the implementation of the Government’s sex offences

reforms, and we successfully secured ongoing funding for the Judge and

judicial support needed to ensure the List continues to operate.

Planning for Increased Civ i l Jur isdict ion

As of January 2007, the Court will have unlimited monetary civil jurisdiction.

In January 2006, members of the Judiciary, Administration and Registry held

a workshop in order to plan for the change. The workshop was a great suc-

cess, and we advanced our efforts to develop a Commercial List in anticipa-

tion that a number of the matters coming to the Court will be complex com-

mercial cases.

Launch of the Court ’s Induct ion Manual

The first few days in a new job are significant in forming how a person views

their employment within an organisation. In November 2005, we launched

the Induction Manual as one of our major achievements in the area of

human resource management. Judges and staff across the Court helped to

develop the manual, and it sets out the tasks to be followed in order to

ensure a comprehensive introduction to the Court. The manual has been

well received by Judges and staff alike.

Circui t Courts

Once again, senior managers joined me on visits to all of the regional loca-

tions on the Court circuit, and the relationship between the County Court and

the regional Law Courts continues to grow. The feedback from these visits

has been instrumental in developing a new Circuit Court Protocol designed

to guide the management of hearings in regional courts.

Court Performance

The Courts performance for 2005-06 is summarised on page 2 to 4.

Compared with BP3 targets, the Court performed as follows:

• Quantity—disposed of 10,508 cases, compared with our target of

11,650 cases.

• Timeliness—disposed of 43.0% of civil cases and 89.0% of criminal

cases within 12 months of commencement, compared with our targets

of 40.0% and 80.0%, respectively.

• Quality—respondents to the user survey rated the registry service as

good or very good in 85.0% of cases.

We will continue to investigate ways to enable the Court to deal with matters

as quickly as possible, while ensuring the highest possible standards of pro-

cedural fairness. To achieve this aim, we began a project to review our crim-

inal listings process, which will include supporting the Judges in determin-

ing the most appropriate approach, taking into account our desire for time-

liness in service delivery, while ensuring the balance of work is appropriate;

developing protocols to support new listings methods.

Staf f Performance

We worked towards ensuring all staff were given the opportunity to develop

a performance and progression plan, including the development of a generic

plan for Associates and Tipstaves, which will be implemented in the next

performance cycle. Refer to page 24 for more information.

Court Serv ices Agreement

The public private partnership with The Liberty Group continued to be man-

aged in a productive and collaborative way. Our courtroom use has been

managed carefully and a range of third parties, including the universities,

Judicial College of Victoria and the Sentencing Advisory Council, have

enjoyed the benefit of the facilities we have to offer. In addition, mediators

and law firms have conducted mediations when courts have been available.

Acknowledgments

It has been an exciting year, and I would like to thank the Chief Judge and all

of the Judges for their support, advice and guidance throughout the year.

Congratulations to my management team for their great leadership, and my

thanks to all of our staff for their hard work and for making the Court such a

great place to work.

Neil Twist

Chief Executive Officer


C o m m u n i t y I n v o l v e m e n t

Community involvement constitutes an important priority for the Court.

Judges and Court staff are committed to the community, both through the

work prescribed by the Court’s role in administering justice and through the

active and varied engagement of the community the Court serves.

Rais ing Awareness

In raising awareness of the Court within the legal community, Judges and

staff attend meetings and conferences, conduct user groups and make

presentations and speeches to inform the community about the operation

of the Court. The Chief Judge and other Judges are frequently invited to

speak at community functions and to attend other formal and informal func-

tion at other courts and tribunals.

During 2005–06, activities included the following examples:

• On 8 November 2005, Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge Ostrowski, Judge

McInerney and Judge Davey attended the Ceremony at the High Court in

Canberra, on the occasion of the appointment of Justice Susan Crennan

to the Bench.

• Chief Judge Rozenes spoke at the Judicial College of Victoria's Launch

of the Victorian Sentencing Manual (VSM) on November 16, 2005 to

introduce the electronic VSM to enable Judges sitting in the criminal

jurisdiction immediate access to current sentencing information.

Refer to page 26 for more information.

• To improve public access to Court information, the Council of Judges

agreed at its meeting in November 2005 to release a discussion paper

‘Access to Court Records’ and posted the document on the Court’s web-

site. The Court will consider feedback from Court users and the general

public in preparing a draft policy regarding access to Court records.

• In September 2005, the Chief Judge and a member of the listings staff

attended a national seminar conducted by the Australian Institute of

Criminology entitled Reasons for Adjournment of Trials in Sydney.

• Court staff members attended the Australian Court Administrators

Group Conference held in Sydney on 24–25 September 2005, along

with 236 participants from courts in Australia, New Zealand and

Singapore.

• Chief Judge Rozenes spoke at the ICMS Smart Courts Launch and

described the system’s features and benefits as well as the Court’s expe-

rience with using the technology in dealing with complex cases and

vulnerable witnesses. Refer to page 27 for more information.

• Judge Strong and CEO Neil Twist participated in a Government panel at

the Justice Environments Conference on 20 April 2006, joining a range

of professionals involved with court development and administration.

User Groups

The Judges of the Court liaise with the legal profession and other court users

by way of user groups. Representatives of user groups include solicitors,

barristers, representatives of various agencies and technical experts who

meet periodically with Judges and staff of the Court. These meetings allow a

free exchange of ideas with the mutual aim of improving service provision,

while educating users about Court requirements. In the reporting year there

were fewer user group meetings than there had been in previous years.

Examples of user groups included:

• Criminal Users Group—Chaired by the Chief Judge, the Criminal Users

Group provides an interface between Judges, members of the profes-

sion, the Criminal Bar Association, Office of Public Prosecutions, Court

Registry personnel and other agencies regarding the Court’s criminal

jurisdiction. The group met on two occasions to discuss issues such as

criminal listings, the Sex Offences List, efficient use of the jury pool,

access to Court records, committals and young offenders.

• Litigation Lawyers Meeting—Chaired by Judge Harbison and comprised

of Judges of the Court, Registry staff and legal practitioners, the group

meets as required to discuss procedural matters with respect to the

civil jurisdiction. The group met on six occasions to provide feedback

to the Court on the operation of the civil jurisdiction.

• Medical Division Meetings—No meetings were held during the

reporting period.

• Building Division Meeting—Judge Shelton did not convene the users

meeting during the reporting year, since there were no issues related to

the running of the list. A revised Building List Practice Note was

circulated in November 2005 .

Establ ish ing New Lists

In the reporting period two new lists were established: the Sex Offences List

headed by Judge Sexton and the S.134AB Serious Injury List headed by Judge

Higgins. In addition, the Court prepared for the establishment of the

Commercial List (Judge Anderson) due to commence on 1 July 2006.

In developing the framework for the commencement of a new list, each

Judge in Charge engages practitioners, related agencies and others to clarify


issues and achieve consensus about list operation. Practice notes are drafted

and circulated to ensure that the list, once established, operates to achieve

the objectives of its establishment.

Links with External Organisat ions

By maintaining links with external organisations, many of the Court’s Judges

offer the benefit of their legal knowledge and expertise by serving on exter-

nal committees for numerous organisations, including:

• Adult Parole Board

• Youth Parole Board

• Council Of Legal Education

• Governing Council of the Judicial Conference of Australia

• Courts Consultative Council

• Criminal Justice Enhancement Program

• Board of the Judicial College of Victoria

• Victoria University Board of Studies

Additionally, Judges of the Court contributed to:

• reviews of the Bail Act, Evidence Act and Crimes Act;

• a survey of the Court’s appeals process conducted in conjunction with

the Victorian Parliamentary Law Reform Committee’s Inquiry into

County Court Appeals; and

• a survey conducted by the Victorian Bar Equity Committee with respect

to providing data regarding appearances of women barristers in Court

matters.

Refer to page 32 for a comprehensive listing of links with external organisa-

tions.

Community Access

The Court hosts interstate and overseas delegations touring the County Court

Complex and offers its courtrooms and associated spaces for appropriate

use by third parties at times when not in use by the Court, including Judges

of the Supreme Court hearing cases in our courtrooms.

Tours of the Court

The Court conducted a total of 17 tours through the Court complex (21 in

2004–05), including a visit by the Chief Justice of the High Court of the

Solomon Islands Sir Albert Palmer on 14 June 2006 and delegations from the:

• Zhejiang Province, People’s Republic of China on 24 October 2005;

• Western Australia District Court on 27 March 2006;

• Justice Environments Group 20 April 2006; and

• Gansu Province High Court and Intermediate Court, People’s Republic

of China on 28 April 2006;

• Senior Ministry of Justice of New Zealand on 2 May 2006;

• Chinese Police on 8 May 2006;

• Asahikawi District Court on 26 May 2006;

• Tianjin First Intermediate Court of Justice on 7 June 2006;

• Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region of China on 8 June 2006;

• High Court of the Solomon Islands on 14 June 2006;

The visits afford the Court the opportunity to discuss issues of mutual

concern, while showcasing the facilities and initiatives of the Court.

Third Party Use

During 2005–06, examples of third party use of the facility included:

• Australian Institute of Human Resources

• Deakin Law Students Society

• Department of Human Services

• Judicial College CourtCraft program

• Law Institute of Victoria welcome to newly admitted practitioners

• Magistrates’ Court

• Mediations conducted by solicitors on behalf of parties to proceedings

in the County Court

• Monash University Law School Prize Giving Ceremony

• Office of the Chief Examiner

• Public Transport Safety Victoria

• Sentencing Advisory Council

• Sexual Offences Advisory Committee

• Supreme Court

• WorkSafe Victoria


The Court invited Judges, staff and members of the

profession and the communityto its end of year function on

December 15, 2005


C i v i lJ u r i s d i c t i o n

Judges of the civil jurisdiction hear cases involving such matters as personal

injury, building and commercial disputes, defamation and WorkCover claims

at the Melbourne court and at the thirteen regional courts.

Overv iew

Cases in the civil jurisdiction are dealt with by Judge alone or by a Judge and

a jury of six persons. These cases include:

• claims for personal injuries, irrespective of the amount claimed;

• other personal actions, not otherwise excluded by law, where the

amount claimed does not exceed $200,000 (unless the parties consent

in writing to exceeding that limit). If more than $200,000 is awarded,

the plaintiff is entitled to recover the full amount; and

• actions where jurisdiction is specifically conferred on the Court by a

statute, including the:

– Administration and Probate Act 1958

– Adoption Act 1984

– Cluster Titles Act 1974

– Property Law Act 1958

– Settled Land Act 1958

– Strata Titles Act 1967

– Transfer of Land Act 1958

– Trustee Act 1958

In order to more efficiently manage cases, the Court allocates cases to one of

the following Lists:

• Business List (comprising the divisions of Commercial, Building and

Miscellaneous);

• Damages List (comprising the divisions of General, Defamation,

Applications, Medical and Serious Injury); or

• WorkCover List (comprising the divisions of General and Section

134AB).

Our Objectives

The Court aims to manage each case from the time of issue to settlement or

trial in order to:

• encourage early settlement through alternative dispute resolution

(ADR), particularly mediation;

• avoid unnecessary, time consuming and expensive interlocutory activi-

ty;

• have the issues more clearly defined prior to trial; and

• expedite the overall progress of cases and encourage relevant and

appropriate trial hearings.

Overal l Civ i l Case Flow

The following statistics detail the overall Civil case flow at Melbourne and

circuit courts during 2005–06, with comparisons to the previous financial

year. Refer to page 18 for individual circuit court Civil case flow statistics.

Individual list case flow statistics and commentary follow.

Cases Initiated

Cases initiated decreased by 9.4%, totalling 4,800 (5,298 in 2004–05),

comprised as follows:

• 1,159 Business List (1,877 in 2004–05).

• 1,831 Damages List (1,928 in 2004–05).

• 1,596 WorkCover List (1,250 in 2004–05), comprising 447 General

Division (519 in 2004–05) and 1,149 Section 134AB Division (731 in

2004–05).

• 214 Other Civil Cases (243 in 2004–05).

Cases Finalised

Cases finalised decreased by 27.0%, totalling 6,016 (8,242 in 2004–05),


• 1,647 Business List (2,725 in 2004–05).

• 2,962 Damages List (4,463 in 2004–05).

• 1,596 WorkCover List (860 in 2004–05), comprising 543 General

Division (579 in 2004–05) and 674 Section 134AB Division (281 in

2004–05).

• 190 Other Civil Cases (194 in 2004–05).

The average waiting time from appearance to trial for 2005–06 for the

Business and Damages Lists was 10 months. The average waiting time from

appearance to trial for the WorkCover List was six months.

Note: Estimated waiting times are averages only and do not take into

account earlier dates that may be given or proceedings given trial dates

‘on the papers’ without directions.

Cases Pending

Cases pending on 30 June 2006 decreased by 17.8%, totalling 6,180, com-

pared with 7,514 in 2004–05, broken down as follows:

• Active cases not yet allocated a directions hearing totalled 1,252 (1,908

in 2004–05), comprising:

– 427 cases in the Business List (667 in 2004–05);

– 563 cases in the Damages List (1,073 in 2004–05); and

– 147 cases in the WorkCover List, comprising 37 in the General

Division (72 in 2004–05) and 110 in the Section 134AB Division

(96 in 2004–05).

His Honour Judge Howie


• Active cases allocated a directions hearing but not yet heard totalled

1,607 (2,102 in 2004–05), comprising:

– 275 cases in the Business List (393 in 2004–05);

– 894 cases in the Damages List (1,454 in 2004–05);

– 437 cases in the WorkCover List, comprising 43 in the General

Division (64 in 2004–05) and 394 in the Section 134AB Division

(191 in 2004–05); and

– 1 Other process.

• Active cases listed for trial but not yet heard totalled 2,152 (2,648 in

2004–05), comprising:

– 267 cases in the Business List (265 to be heard by Judge alone;

two by Judge and jury), compared with 507 cases (499 to be

heard by Judge alone; eight by Judge and jury) in 2004–05;

– 1,154 cases in the Damages List (818 to be heard by Judge alone;

336 by Judge and jury), compared with 1,656 cases (930 to be

heard by Judge alone; 726 by Judge and jury) in 2004–05;

– 730 cases in the WorkCover List (192 in the General Division; 538

in the Section 134AB Division), compared with 485 cases (191 in

the General Division; 294 in the Section 134AB Division) in

2004–05; and

– 1 Other process.

• Other active cases totalled 1169 (856 in 2004–05).

The decline in pending cases can be attributed to the overall decline experi-

enced in the figures for the Civil jurisdiction generally; in particular, person-

al injury cases. Civil disposed of 631 cases by way of dismissal after at least

15 months due to no notice of appearance being filed by the defendant or no

request for default judgment being filed by the plaintiff. This result repre-

sents an decrease of 58.7%, compared with 1,529 cases disposed of by this

method in the previous financial year.

In 2005–06, the overall Civil clearance ratio was 125.3%, compared with

155.0% in 2004–05, representing a fall of 29.7 percentage points.

How We Manage Cases

The Court applies case management strategies to efficiently expedite cases

from the date of filing through to trial commencement. The Judge in Charge

of the List or Division conducts a directions hearing after the defendant files

an appearance. The Court’s web site contains more information regarding

how the Court manages cases, including details regarding practice notes.

Al locat ion of Judges

During 2005–06, the Court allocated the following Judges to manage the

Lists and Divisions within Civil: On average, 7 Judges sat in Melbourne

during 48 weeks of the reporting year hearing Civil trials; one Judge sat in

the Practice Court, one Judge sat in the Directions Court and five Judges

heard WorkCover cases making a total of 14 Judges.

Thirty-one civil circuits were conducted and Judge Harbison presided over

58 directions hearings by video link to circuit courts (61 in 2004-05).

Direct ions Hear ingsJudges manage the Lists and Divisions as follows:

• Judge Harbison (Commercial and Miscellaneous Divisions of the

Business List; Applications and General Divisions of the Damages List;

and serious injury applications).

• Judge Shelton (Building Division of the Business List).

• Judge Stott (Defamation Division of the Damages List).

• Judge Wodak and Judge Lawson (Medical Division of the Damages List).

• Judge Hicks and Judge Coish (WorkCover List).

• Judge Higgins and Judge Strong (Section 134AB Division of the

WorkCover List).

• Circuit Video Links (Judge Harbison)

Directions hearings held in 2005-06 totalled 7,135 compared with 8,583 in

2004-05 representing a decrease of 16.9% overall. Declines in the number

of directions hearings in the Business List and the Defamation Division of the

Damages List (an overall decrease of 34.4%) were offset by small increases

in the Medical Division of the Damages List (increase of 10.9%), the General

WorkCover List (increase of 1.7%) and a considerable increase in the

Section 134AB Division of the WorkCover List (increase of 107.4%).

These figures do not take into account the number of matters where orders

are made on the papers well in advance of a scheduled directions hearing,

thereby avoiding the cost and inconvenience of a court appearance.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

Cases Pending

Cases Finalised

Cases Initiated

2005–062004–052003–042002–032001–02

No.

Civil Cases Overall—2001–02to 2005–06

The number of directions hearings in the WorkCoverList exceeded the number of directions hearings in theBusiness List, with 32% of the hearings in theDamages List being medical directions hearings.

WorkCover List

Damages ListBusiness List

23.9% 20.1%

56.0%

Directions Hearings byType—2005–06


Order 34A of the Rules of Civil Procedure of the County Court grants the Judge

in Charge of each List control of every proceeding, primarily through the

closely-managed system of directions hearings. At Directions Court, the Judge

instructs the parties regarding the requirements for trial and encourages par-

ties to seek early trial dates. During 2005–06, the number of directions hear-

ings listed in Civil totalled 7,135 (8,583 in 2004–05), comprised by type of

hearing and Judge in Charge as shown in the table on page 11.

Pract ice Court

The Court rotates Judges at monthly intervals through the Practice Court.

Judges who sat in the Practice Court during 2005–06 included Judges

McInerney, Holt, Wood, Robertson, Jenkins, Lewitan, Cohen, Gaynor,

Campton, Millane and Acting Judges FB Lewis, Dove, Dyett, Ross. The

Practice Court operates throughout the year— a Judge hears urgent

applications after hours and during holidays. During 2005–06, the number

of applications listed in the Practice Court in Melbourne totalled 1,866,

compared with 2,858 in 2004–05, representing a decrease of 34.7%. The

decline can be attributed to the shift in work from the Practice Court to the

Confiscation List managed by Judge McInerney.

Indiv idual L ist Case Flow

The following information details the major case activity for individual Lists.

Business List

Established in 1996, the Business List handles commercial matters, includ-

ing debt collection, de facto property settlements and transactions involving

insurance, banking and finance, and a myriad of disputes arising out of

building works.

The following statistics include the combined case activity for all Divisions

within the Business List, followed by the statistics for each Division.

During 2005–06, all Business List cases initiated in Melbourne and circuit

courts decreased by 38.3%, totalling 1,159, compared with 1,877 in

2004–05. Cases finalised totalled 1,647, representing a 39.6% decrease,

compared with 2,725 in 2004–05.

The List achieved an overall clearance ratio of 142.1% in 2005–06,

compared with 145.0% in 2004–05, representing a decrease of 2.9

percentage points.

Commercial Division

Judge Harbison managed the Commercial Division.

During 2005–06, cases initiated in the Commercial Division decreased by

51.6%, totalling 488 cases, compared with 1,009 in 2004–05. Cases

finalised decreased by 45.7%, totalling 839, compared with 1,544 in

2004–05. Types of cases heard in the Division included a range of commer-

cial matters involving finance, insurance and banking.

Miscellaneous Division

Judge Harbison managed the Miscellaneous Division. During 2005–06,

cases initiated in the Miscellaneous Division decreased by 23.2%, totalling

641, compared with 835 in 2004–05. Cases finalised fell by 32.4%, totalling

773, compared with 1,144 in 2004–05. The Division heard cases not clearly

assigned to other divisions including applications for adjustments of prop-

erty interests under Part IX of the Property Law Act 1958 and applications

under Part 4 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958.

Building Division

The Building Division began operations in 1983, specialising in disputes

arising out of building works involving claims from $40,000 to $200,000.

Judge Shelton managed the Division. Disputes typically involve complicating

factors such as multiple parties and complex technical issues.

During 2005–06, cases initiated in the Building Division decreased by 9.1%,

totalling 30, compared with 33 in 2004–05. Cases finalised totalled 35,

compared with 37 cases finalised in 2004–05, representing a 5.4%

decrease. Refer to the pie graph above for cases finalised by outcome.

Damages List

The Damages List has been in operation since 1996. The List deals with mat-

ters involving damages resulting from a wide range of incidents, including

serious injury, medical negligence and claims for libel or slander.

The statistics include the combined case activity for all Divisions within the

Damages List, followed by the statistics for each Division.

During 2005–06, all Damages List cases initiated in Melbourne and circuit

courts fell by 5.0%, totalling 1,831, compared with 1,928 in 2004–05. Cases

finalised fell by 33.6%, totalling 2,962, compared with 4,463 in 2004–05.

The List achieved an overall clearance ratio of 161.8% in 2005–06, com-

pared with 231.0% in 2004–05, representing a 69.2 percentage points

decrease.


Building Division CasesFinalised by Outcome—2005–06

Struck Out by the Court

Stay of Proceedings

Settled at Mediation

Notice of Dismissal Sent

Notice of Discontinuance

Judgment by the Court

Judgment Default Appearance

Dismissed

Consent Order 59.06

11%6%

6%

9%

3%

11%

9%

25%

20%

Business List Cases—2001–2002 to 2005–06

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

2800

3200

3600

4000

Cases Finalised

Cases Initiated

"2005–06 2004–05 2003–04 2002–03 2001–02

No.

General Division

Judge Harbison managed the General Division which handles matters that

are excluded by definition from the other Divisions of the Damages List.

During 2005–06, cases initiated in the General Division decreased by 9.0%,

totalling 1,002, compared with 1,101 in 2004–05. Cases finalised fell by

42.4%, totalling 1,706, compared with 2,960 in 2004–05.

Defamation Division

The Defamation Division of the Damages List handles matters relating to

claims of libel or slander resulting in defamation of character, either verbal

or written. Judge Stott managed this small, specialised Division as the Judge

in Charge. Cases initiated in the Defamation Division totalled 10, represent-

ing a 52.4% decrease, compared with 21 cases initiated in 2004–05. The

Division finalised a total of 21 cases (27 in 2004–05) as shown in the pie

graph opposite, a decrease of 22.2%.

Serious Injury Division

The Serious Injury Division handles matters arising out of applications made

under the Transport Accident Act. During 2005–06, cases initiated in the

Division decreased by 4.7%, totalling 627, compared with 658 in 2004–05.

Cases finalised rose by 34.3%, totalling 673, compared with 501 in

2004–05. Judge Harbison managed this division in 2005-6.

Applications Division

Cases heard in the Applications Division included matters arising from appli-

cations brought under Limitation of Actions Act 1958. During 2005–06,

cases initiated in the Applications Division totalled 80 (69 in 2004–05) and

cases finalised totalled 80 (95 in 2004–05). Judge Harbison managed this

division in 2005-6.

Medical Division

A specialised Division of the Damages List, the Medical Division began oper-

ations on 1 January 1998. Since its inception, Judge Wodak has been the

Judge in Charge. In 2006, Judge Lawson managed the list when Judge Wodak

was unavailable. The division handles matters relating to allegations of med-

ical negligence against a very broad range of individuals and institutions that

deliver health services.

During 2005–06, cases initiated in the Division increased by 41.8%, totalling

112, compared with 79 in 2004–05. The Division finalised 482 cases (880

in 2004–05) using careful case management to achieve resolution by a

number of means, as shown in the graph opposite. Of the 482 proceedings

finalised, only 26 (5.4%) went to judgment, compared with 35

proceedings (3.9%) in 2004–05.

WorkCover List

The Melbourne WorkCover List comprises the WorkCover (General)

Division and the WorkCover (Section 134AB) Division. During 2005–06, all

WorkCover List cases initiated in Melbourne and circuit courts rose by

27.7%, totalling 1,596, compared with 1,250 in 2004–05. Cases finalised

rose by 41.5%, totalling 1,217, compared with 860 in 2004–05.

The WorkCover List achieved a clearance ratio of 76.3%, representing an

increase of 7.3 percentage points, compared with 69.0% in 2004–05.

WorkCover (General) Division

The WorkCover (General) Division manages proceedings under the

Accident Compensation Act 1985 (except proceedings under section 135A

or applications under section 134AB) and the Workers Compensation Act

1958. Judge Hicks and Judge Coish shared the role of Judge in Charge of the

WorkCover List during the reporting period.

During 2005–06, cases initiated in the Division totalled 447, compared with

519 in 2004–05, representing a 13.9% decrease. Cases finalised fell by

6.2%, totalling 543, compared with 579 in 2004–05. Cases pending totalled

449 on 30 June 2006, compared with 327 on 30 June 2005, representing a

37.3% increase.


Damages List Cases—2001–2002 to 2005–06

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Cases Finalised

Cases Initiated

2005–062004–052003–042002–032001–02

No.

Defamation Division Casesby Method Finalised—2004–05

Struck Out by the Court

Struck Out by Registrar

Settled after Mediation



Judgment by Court

Final Order Made

Dismissed

Consent Order 59.06

10%5%

14%14%

5%10%

5%

14%

23%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

New Cases due to Change in Legislation

Cases Initiated

05–06

04–05

03–04

02–03

01–02

00–01

99–00

98–99

97–98

No.

Medical Division CasesFinalised by Outcome—2004–05

Actions Filed and Transferredto the Medical Division—1997–98 to 2005–06

0

50

100

150

200

Transferred to the Supreme Court (Part 3)

Struck OutSettled at Mediation



Judgment by the Court

Judgment Default Appearance

Final Order Made

DismissedConsent Order 59.06

No.


WorkCover (Section 134AB) Division

In 2005 Judge Higgins managed cases in the WorkCover (Section 134AB)

Division; in 2006 Judge Strong managed the Division. The Division deals

with all Melbourne applications under section 134AB of the Accident

Compensation Act dealing with matters relating to serious injury.

During 2005–06, a total of 1,149 Originating Motions were filed with the

Melbourne Registry, compared with 731 in 2004–05, representing a 57.2%

increase. The Division finalised 674 cases, rising by 139.9%, compared with

281 in 2004–05. At June 30, 2006 the number of pending cases totalled

1,187.

Adopt ions

The Court appointed 16 Judges to administer its adoption jurisdiction under

the provisions of the Adoption Act 1985.

During 2005–06, the Court considered 123 adoption applications (96 in

2004–05) and made 119 adoption orders (96 in 2004–05), including 92

orders made in Melbourne (79 in 2004–05) and 27 orders made in country

locations (17 in 2004–05). As at 30 June 2006, four adoption applications

were pending, compared with three as at 30 June 2005.

Of the 92 adoption orders made in Melbourne, 34 orders involved local

adoptions (25 in 2004–05) and 58 orders involved adoptions of children

originating from other countries (54 in 2004–05).

Case Transfer

The Courts (Case Transfer) Act 1991 empowers the courts to transfer cases

between the courts to ensure that cases are heard in the appropriate juris-

diction. Judge Harbison is the designated judicial officer for case transfers.

Transfers from the Court

During 2005–06, 62 cases were transferred from this Court to the Supreme

Court and the Magistrates’ Court, representing a decrease of 50.8%, com-

pared with 126 cases in 2004–05. The Court received 11 applications (27 in

2004–05) where it made no order for transfer.

The proportion of cases transferred from this Court to the Magistrates’ Court

as a proportion of all transferred cases was 38.7% in 2005–06, representing

a decrease of 17.6 percentage points, compared with 56.3% in 2004–05.

Transfers to the CourtDuring 2005–06, 139 cases were transferred to this Court from the HighCourt, Supreme Court, Magistrates’ Court and Victorian Civil andAdministrative Tribunal (VCAT), representing a 4.8% decrease, comparedwith 146 cases in 2004–05. As at 30 June 2006, 117 cases had been regis-tered as transferred from the Magistrates’ Court to this Court, compared with134 in 2004–05.

The proportion of cases transferred to this Court from the Magistrates’ Courtas a proportion of all transferred cases was 84.2% in 2005–06, representinga decrease of 7.8 percentage points, compared with 92.0% in 2004–05.


Age of Adopted Children(Melbourne Only)—2005–06

Age 18 plus

16–17 Years

11–15 Years

6–10 Years

0–5 Years

70.6%

8.7%

10.9%

1.1%

8.7%

Transfers from and to theCounty Court—2002–06

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Transfers to the Court

Transfers from the Court

2005–062004–052003–042002–03

No.

Court Type of Transfer No. of Cases Total

Supreme Part 3 – Designated Judicial Officer (Judge) 34

Part 5 – Administrative Transfer (Registrar) 4 38

Magistrates’ Part 6 – Judge in Court 6

Part 3 – Designated Judicial Officer (Judge) 12


Total 62

Court Type of Transfer No. of Cases Total

High Cross-vesting legislation 2 2

Supreme Part 6 – Judge in Court 3

Part 3 – Designated Judicial Officer (Master) 2

Part 5 – Administrative Transfer (Prothonotary) 13 18

Magistrates’ Part 3 – Designated Judicial Officer (Magistrate) 115


VCAT S.77 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative

Tribunal Act 1988 2 2

Total 139

Transfers from the County Court—2005–06

Transfers to the County Court—2005–06

WorkCover List Case Profile—2001–202 to 2005–06

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Cases Finalised

Cases Initiated

2005–06 2004–05 2003–04 2002–03 2001–02

No.

Adoptions Finalised byOutcome— 2005–06

Overseas Adoption Orders (Melbourne only)

Adoption Orders Made in Country Centres

Local Adoption Orders (Melbourne only)

22.7%

48.7%

28.6%

C r i m i n a lJ u r i s d i c t i o n

Overv iew

Judges of the criminal jurisdiction (Criminal) hear cases involving all

indictable offences except treason, murder and certain other murder-related

offences (refer to section 36A of the County Court Act 1958).

Subject to the power of the Supreme Court to order transfer of a matter from

the Supreme Court to the County Court, the Director of Public Prosecutions

has the initial decision whether to present a person for trial in the County or

Supreme Court (refer to section 353 of the Crimes Act 1958).

In practice, the majority of indictable offences are heard in the County Court.

Our Objectives

We aim to ensure that:

• all the issues surrounding a case are clarified prior to trial;

• the jury is cognisant of the issues when hearing and considering the

evidence given in the trial; and

• the pre-trial Judge is able to effectively control the conduct of both the

Crown and the defence, thus excluding irrelevant advocacy in the

trial process.

Allocation of Judges

On a daily basis, on average, 12 Judges sat in Melbourne hearing trials,

seven Judges heard pleas and two Judges heard appeals. Two Judges

conducted pre-trial hearings.

Overal l Cr iminal Case Flow

The following statistics detail the overall Criminal case flow at Melbourne

and circuit courts during 2005–06, with comparisons to the previous finan-

cial year. Refer to page 18 for individual circuit court criminal case flow sta-

tistics. Individual Criminal case flow statistics and commentary follow.

Cases Initiated

Cases initiated rose by 3.5%, totalling 5,275 (5,098 in 2004–05), comprised:

• 2,609 Trials and Pleas (2,537 in 2004–05).

• 2,666 Appeals (2,561 in 2004–05).

Cases Finalised

Cases finalised fell 0.9%, totalling 4,492 (4,534 in 2004–05), comprised as

follows:


• 2,198 Appeals (2,315 in 2004–05).

Cases Pending

Cases awaiting hearing rose by 25.0%, totalling 3,300 (2,640 in 2004–05),



• 1,262 Appeals (838 in 2004–05).

The overall criminal clearance ratio was 85.2% in 2005–06, compared with

89.0% in 2004–05, representing a 3.8 percentage points decrease.

How We Manage Cases

Judges manage cases under the Crimes (Criminal Trials) Act 1999 [Crimes

(CT) Act]. The purpose of this Act is to increase the capacity for judicial

management of criminal trials in order to more efficiently manage the

process of criminal hearings. The Crimes (CT) Act provides for:

• full and complete disclosure by the prosecution;

• a required summary of the Crown opening given by the prosecution to

the defence before trial so that the defence knows how the Crown pro-

poses to present its case;

• a required response to that opening given by the defence before

pre-trial and to state what matters are in issue in the trial; and

• a mechanism by which the Crown may serve a notice of pre-trial admis-

sions on the defence requiring the defence to respond to that notice.

The Crimes (CT) Act emphasises pre-trial court control of criminal proceed-

ings. One or more Judges, whose rulings will be operative on trial, adminis-

ter pre-trial procedures.

During 2005–06, in addition to the two Judges who conducted pre-trial

hearings in Melbourne, judges in the Cylinders and the Sex Offences List also

conducted pre-trial hearings. In addition, three Judges regularly visited

country locations to conduct pre-trial hearings in order to expedite matters

at country locations.

In Melbourne, Criminal Judges conducted 1,644 case conferences (1,374 in

2004–05), 1,132 directions hearings (1,054 in 2004–05) and 767 video

links to prisons (552 in 2004–05), comprising 273 links to prisons located

in regional Victoria and 494 to metropolitan prisons, 45 interstate links (32

in 2004–05) and 25 overseas links (16 in 2004–05).

Managing Long Trials

The Court considers any trial that runs five weeks or longer to be a ‘long

trial’. The Listing Judges refer these trials to Judge Strong and they are listed

before him for mention. Judge Strong handled all pre-trial issues and allo-


His Honour Judge Davey

C r i m i n a lJ u r i s d i c t i o n

cated a hearing date independently of the normal Court hearing dates

provided by the Registry, with a view to avoiding any long delays and encour-

aging parties to prepare their cases. Judge Strong then identified a Judge

who would be available for the period the trial was scheduled to run and

allocated a Judge to manage and hear the trial.

Listing of Trials

The Court aims to manage the listing of trials and pleas to ensure court-

rooms and Judges are utilised effectively and efficiently. Judges of the Court

and listings and administrative staff are mindful of the complexity of listing,

given that a large number of variables can affect the process, often at short

notice.

Of paramount importance is the timely and efficient administration of the list

to:

• minimise the number of cases not being reached in the reserve list;

• achieve more certainty for the parties about their case commencing on

the initial date of listing; and

• provide a list expediting the hearing of cases as effectively as possible,

given the resources of the Court.

The Court continued to monitor the listings system to achieve timely and

affordable justice for the community. Our priorities included minimising the

number of cases not reached in the reserve list, achieving more trial date

certainty and expediting the hearing of cases as efficiently as the resources of

the Court allowed.

Pilot Sex Offences List Introduced

On 1 October 2005, the Court introduced the pilot Sex Offences List, in line

with the recommendations of the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s report

into sexual offences. The List benefited from a dedicated Criminal Judge who

oversaw all directions and pre-trial issues. Managed by Judge Sexton, the list

applied a consistent approach toward matters involving sexual offences, ear-

lier distribution of materials under subpoena, and a smoother and more effi-

cient process overall to progress matters of this nature to trial. The Court

was successful in obtaining funding through an ERC bid announced in the

May Budget, to provide a Judge and staff to operate the list.

Cases involving persons committed or directly presented for trial accused of

sexual offences are listed within 28 days of committal for a first directions

hearing before the Sexual Offences Listing Judge. The Listing Judge will con-

firm the trial date if the matter is likely to proceed to trial or fix a plea date if

the matter has resolved to a plea of guilty. The Listing Judge fixes a final

directions hearing no more than 14 days before the trial date. The com-

plainant is not required to attend court prior to jury empanelment unless

otherwise directed by the Listing Judge or Trial Judge.

Six Cylinder Evaluation

The Six Cylinder Project commenced in 2003-04 involved six Judges who over-

saw the scheduling and the intensive management of hearings. During 2004-

05, the Cylinder Judges dealt with 533 cases (568 in 2004-05) out of a total of

1,843 criminal disposals at Melbourne (1,870 in 2004-05), or 28.9% of all

criminal matters in the Court (30.4% in 2004-05), compared with the target of

21.7% (21.7% in 2004-05). In addition to the cases allotted within the cylin-

ders (324) some 209 cases from the general list were heard by the cylinder

judges.

The court conducted a formal evaluation of the 24-month pilot project to

assess the success of the pilot in terms of its efficiency in the disposition of

cases by the Cylinder Judges and the impact this method has had on the Court's

general criminal list. The Court analysed data extracted from CLMS, monthly

allocation rosters, daily court lists and the pilot lists published on the Court's

website. During and since the review, the cylinders have continued to operate

within the Court.

The cylinder project was successful in achieving its target of 21.7% in both

years of the review, demonstrating that Judges handling their own lists can

achieve greater productivity by applying closer management to cases.

However, from a statistical and listing perspective, the review highlighted the

difficulties in determining the number of cases to be allocated to the cylinder

so that the mix of cases in the general list is not depleted. That cylinder judges

had the capacity to take cases from the general list and so boost the proportion

of cases dealt with by the cylinder, was positive in terms of output. However

there was insufficient flexibility within the cylinder to bring cases forward in

the cylinder list to cover late pleas and adjournments. This matter remains

problematic in the integration of the cylinder list with the general list from a

listing perspective.

Anecdotal evidence suggested that the pilot proved to offer value in terms of

allowing Judges greater control of the progress of cases in their lists, the

capacity to balance the work in the list and the opportunity to dispose of cases

efficiently. Based on the experiences of the project, the court is now in a better

position to use the findings to consider taking a modified approach to list man-

agement by Judges. On June 23, 2006, the Chief Judge convened a meeting of

Judges and Court staff to commence a project to revisit the criminal case

management systems used by the Court, with a view to implementing a single

model in 2008.


His Honour Judge Gullaci

Indiv idual Cr iminal Case Flow

Trials and Pleas

During 2005–06, the case flow for Criminal trials and pleas was as follows:

• Cases commenced totalled 2,609, compared with 2,537 cases in

2004–05, representing a 2.8% increase.

• Cases finalised increased by 3.4%, totalling 2,294 cases, compared with

2,219 cases in 2004–05.

• At the end of the June sittings in 2006, 2,038 persons were awaiting

trial, compared with 1,802 persons at the end of the June 2005

sittings—a 13.1% rise.

The trials and pleas clearance ratio was 87.9% in 2005–06, compared with

87.0% in 2004–05, representing a 0.9 percentage points increase. While the

number of cases initiated, finalised and pending had increased during the

financial year, the clearance ratio had remained similar to corresponding

periods, indicating an increased workload for Judges in the reporting year.

Appeals

The Court hears appeals from the Magistrates’ Court under section 83 of the

Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 or from the Children’s Court with respect to

criminal and family division matters. However, in cases where a custodial

sentence is substituted for a non-custodial sentence, an individual can

appeal against the sentence to the Court of Appeal.

On average, two to three Judges were allocated to hear Appeals in

Melbourne. At the circuit courts the sitting Judge dealt with the appeal list on

the advice of the Circuit Registrar, as part of the regular criminal circuit

including a combination of trial, pleas and appeals.

During 2005–06, the case flow for Criminal appeals was as follows:

• Cases commenced rose by 4.1%, totalling 2,666 (2,561 in 2004–05).

• Cases finalised fell by 5.1%, totalling 2,198 (2,315 in 2004–05).

• Cases pending rose by 50.6%, totalling 1,262 (838 in 2004–05).

The appeals clearance ratio was 82.4% in 2005–06, compared with 90.0%

in 2004–05, representing a 7.6 percentage points decrease. This decrease

reflects the increase in initiations, and the decrease in finalisations.

In the past three reporting periods, the Court has experienced a decline in

the clearance ratio for appeals from 101% in 2002–03 to 82.4% in the year

in review.

Reasons for this trend include:

• an increased number of applications for adjournment, delaying the

completion of the hearing;

• increase in the number of appeal hearings running for more than one

day; and

• an increase in the number of abandonments.

These factors must be considered in the context of managing the needs of

the criminal and appeal lists.

Usually, appeals involving an appellant in custody are listed within two weeks

of the notice of appeal being lodged and non-custody appeals are listed with-

in six weeks.

Types of appeals comprised:

• 1,966 (73.7%) appeals made against sentence only (1,775 or 69.3% in

2004–05);

• 511 (19.2%) appeals against sentence and conviction (578 or 22.6%

in 2004–05); and

• 189 (7.1%) appeals against the order made (208 or 8.1% in

2004–05).


0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Cases Pending

Cases Finalised

Cases Initiated

2005–062004–052003–042002–032001–02

No.

Trials and Pleas CaseProfile—2001–02 to 2005–06

Appeals Case Profile—2001–02 to 2005–06

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

Cases Pending

Cases Finalised

Cases Initiated

2005–062004–052003–042002–032001–02

No.

Criminal Cases Overall—2001–02 to 2005–06

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Cases Pending

Cases Finalised

Cases Initiated

2005–06 2004–05 2003–04 2002–03 2001–02

No.

C i r c u i t S i t t i n g s

Judges hear both criminal and civil cases in country locations throughout

Victoria. Deputy Registrars from circuit courts play an important role in list-

ing cases and liaising with Judges and their staff and the Registry before,

during and after circuit visits by Judges. All criminal and civil cases are

included in the Case and List Management System operating state wide.

The Court held circuit sittings at 13 locations throughout Victoria. During

2005–06, the case activity for all civil and criminal cases on circuit com-

prised:

• 2,131 cases initiated (1,206 in 2004–05);

• 2,083 cases finalised (1,416 in 2004–05); and

• 1,819 cases pending on 30 June 2006 (932 cases on 30 June 2005).

Circui t Meet ings

As part of the Court’s continuing commitment, Court staff regularly meet with

circuit registrars to discuss matters relating to the operation of the Court in

circuit locations. The meetings provide Circuit Registrars with the opportuni-

ty to discuss administrative matters specific to their venue, and allow Court

staff to gain an understanding of local issues.

The practice established in 2004–05 involving the CEO, Registrar and IT

manager visiting all regional courts continued during 2005–06. At Morwell,

Court staff observed the progress of the new Latrobe Valley Court complex,

which is expected to be completed in September 2006. IT Manager Hans

Wolf advised staff at other regional courts of the status of a number of key IT

projects, including the CLMS orders Module. During the period, the Court

improved computer facilities and resolved issues relating to line speed,

enabling a more effective IT operation for Judges and Associates on circuit.

In addition, the CEO and Registrar reviewed the resources available for

Judges, Associates and Tipstaves at circuit locations. As a result, these meet-

ings enabled a positive and beneficial interchange of ideas and discussions

regarding the formation of circuit protocols.

Circui t Registrars’ Conference

In November 2005, Court staff attended the Circuit Registrars’ Conference in

Warrenmang, Central Victoria. The conference included workshops on train-

ing needs for new managers involving the Certificate IV in Government

(Court Services), directions for the Department of Justice in 2006, how the

Sex Offences List might work on circuit, Criminal listings and the Judges’

roster for 2006.


0

100

200

300

400

500

PendingFinalisedInitiated

Wod

onga

War

rnam

bool

Wan

gara

tta

Shep

part

on

Sale

Mor

wel

l

Mild

ura

Hor

sham

Ham

ilton

Gee

long

Ben

digo

Bal

lara

t

Bai

rnsd

ale

No.

Overview of Circuit Case Activity—2005–06

Civil Case Activity by Location—2004–05 to 2005–06

Initiated Finalised PendingLocation 05–06 04–05 05–06 04–05 05–06 04–05Bairnsdale 0 2 1 1 7 n/aBallarat 99 87 119 153 122 72Bendigo 62 86 110 110 83 55Geelong 158 145 209 169 186 60Hamilton 7 23 32 56 12 22Horsham 1 8 1 3 1 0Mildura 38 54 51 48 23 35Morwell 105 68 107 133 121 69Sale 3 8 0 1 14 n/aShepparton 27 23 33 23 62 13Wangaratta 84 76 73 59 99 39Warrnambool 157 125 176 146 197 143Wodonga 61 39 56 57 89 54Total 802 744 968 959 1,016 562

Criminal Case Activity by Location—2004–05 to 2005–06*

Initiated Finalised PendingLocation 05–06 04–05 05–06 04–05 05–06 04–05Bairnsdale 40 22 47 15 23 19Ballarat 196 68 167 62 111 50Bendigo 163 70 144 80 115 59Geelong 265 70 255 96 98 55Hamilton 11 8 16 3 10 7Horsham 66 10 74 16 20 7Mildura 77 32 65 32 51 26Morwell 186 68 117 74 131 52Sale 29 4 18 5 13 1Shepparton 118 53 116 36 85 50Wangaratta 57 27 32 14 55 23Warrnambool 74 14 42 12 50 9Wodonga 47 16 22 12 41 12Total 1,329 462 1,115 457 803 370

CEO Neil Twist and GordonMcHallam of the Morwell Court view

plans for the new Latrobe ValleyCourt at Morwell, expected to be

completed in September 2006

*In 2005-06 Crime Case Activity includes appeals, whereas in previous reporting years thisinformation was not available.

G o v e r n a n c e

Const i tut ion of the County Court

Under section 4 of the County Court Act 1958, the County Court is constituted

by the Chief Judge and a variable number of other Judges and the Registrar of

the Court. Administration of the Court is the responsibility of the Council of

Judges, which consists of all the Judges of the Court including Acting Judges

appointed after the commencement of Section 7 of the Courts Legislation

(Judicial Appointments and Other Amendments) Act 2005.

The Court ’s Jur isdict ion

The Court is the intermediate tier of the court hierarchy and the major trial

court in Victoria. The Court’s jurisdiction covers:

• Criminal—The Court can hear all indictable offences (except treason,

murder and related offences). Criminal cases heard in the Court

include:

– serious theft, armed robbery and like offences;

– drug trafficking and associated offences;

– sexual offences such as rape;

– fraud and other dishonesty offences;

– serious assault;

– Commonwealth offences, including income and sales tax offences;

and

– Customs offences and illicit drug importation offences.

Criminal trials are heard by a Judge and jury of 12 persons.

• Civil—The Court has an unlimited jurisdiction in personal injury mat-

ters. In non-personal injury civil matters, the Court has a jurisdiction

up to $200,000. Judgment may be entered for any sum in excess of

$200,000, which is proved at trial. Where the parties consent, the Court

may have jurisdiction in excess of $200,000 in non-personal injury

cases. The Court has original jurisdiction in WorkCover matters, with

the Magistrates’ Court having a limited concurrent jurisdiction in that

area.

Civil trials may be heard by a Judge alone, or a Judge and jury of six.

• Criminal Appeals—The Court can hear appeals from the criminal

jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court and the criminal and the family

divisions of the Children’s Court. Appeals are heard by Judge alone.

• Adoptions and Change of Name—The Court has jurisdiction to make

orders relating to adoption and change of name. Although under the

Adoption Act 1984 the Court shares jurisdiction with the Supreme Court,

all applications under the Adoption Act are heard in the County Court.

• Circuit—Most cases are heard in Melbourne, however Judges hear

both criminal and civil cases in the following country locations:

– Bairnsdale

– Ballarat

– Bendigo

– Geelong

– Hamilton

– Horsham

– Mildura

– Morwell

– Sale

– Shepparton

– Wangaratta

– Warrnambool

– Wodonga

About 20% of the Court’s Judges sit on circuit at any one time throughout the

year.

Counci l of Judges

According to Section 87(1) of the County Court Act 1958 a Council of the

Judges of the Court, after notice has been given to all the Judges, must meet

for the following purposes once at least in each year on such day or days as

are fixed by the Chief Judge:

• Consider the operation of this Act and the Rules;

• Consider the working of the several offices and the arrangements

relating to the duties of the officers of the Court;

• Inquire into and examine any defects that appear to exist in the system

of procedure or the administration of the law in the Court or in any

other court from which appeal lies to the Court.

The Council of Judges met on four occasions during the reporting

period to consider:

• changes to the County Court rules;

• the release of the ‘Access to Court Records’ discussion paper;

• the commencement of the Commercial List on 1 July 2006;

• Judges’ Roster for 2007;

• the six cylinder program review and implications for the Court;

• Circuit Expenses;


Her Honour Judge Wilmoth

G o v e r n a n c e

• Parliamentary Law Reform Committee:

Enquiry into County Court Appeals;

• Future of Judicial Education;

• Suspended Sentences; and

• Review of Judicial Conditions of Employment.

Execut ive Committee of Judges

The Council of Judges, through its Executive Committee of Judges,

carries out much of the day-to-day administration of the Court.

The Executive Committee supports the Council of Judges and the Chief Judge

in the judicial administration of the Court. In addition, it provides a means

by which the Judges of the Court can be kept informed of the administrative

matters being addressed.

During 2005–06, a committee of 13 members met on 19 occasions to

discuss matters important to the general operation of the Court, including

requests for information or to undertake research, administrative matters and

new initiatives. The Chief Judge reports on matters dealt with since the previous

meeting. The minutes of the meeting are circulated to all Judges.

Key activities included:

• a procedure for swearing in new Judges, first used in August 2005 upon

the appointments of Judges Morrish and Leckie;

• security for Judges;

• access to Court records;

• performance management for Associates and Tipstaves;

• circuit protocols;

• staff study leave policy; and

• law reform matters.

Rules Committee

Members of the Rules Committee meet as required to review and draft

revisions to the County Court Rules, which must be approved by the Council

of Judges.

During 2005–06, committee members amended the County Court Rules, as

follows:

• County Court (Chapter I Amendment No 16) Rules 2005, relating

to infant compromises was adopted by the Judges at the meeting of the

Council of Judges on 15 September 2005 and came into effect on

1 October 2006. The amendment revises the forms of orders for

approval of the compromise of claims made by and on behalf of a

person under a disability.

• County Court (Chapter I Amendment No. 17) Rules 2005, involving

miscellaneous amendments made with respect to subpoenas before the

registrar, judgment debt instalment orders, Rule 71.06 with respect to

garnishee summons and amendments to forms, was adopted by the

Judges at the meeting of the Council of Judges on 15 December 2005

and came into effect on 1 January 2006.

• County Court (Chapter I Amendment No. 18) Rules 2005 was adopt-

ed by Judges at the Council of Judges meeting on 15 December 2005

and came into effect on 1 January 2006 to substitute an increased scale

of costs to the Principal Rules under the County Court Act 1958.

Court Fees

The Court charges fees for various services in the civil jurisdiction, including:

• filing originating process;

• setting down for trial;

• hearing at trial by a Judge or Judge with jury; and

• entering judgments or orders.

Government consolidated revenue absorbs the proceeds of these fees.

However, arrangements made under section 29 of the Financial

Management Act 1994 allow the Court to retain a portion of the moneys

collected as fees.

Refer to the financial summary on page 30 for more information.

Judic ia l Remunerat ion

The Judicial Remuneration Tribunal (JRT), established by the Judicial

Remuneration Tribunal Act 1995, determines the salary and other entitle-

ments of a Judge. The JRT recommendation with respect to Judges’ salaries

was implemented during the financial year.


His Honour Judge Chettle

T h e C o u n t yC o u r t R e g i s t r y

The Court’s Registry serves the needs of the judiciary and Court users by

playing an important role in the administration of the Court through the divi-

sions of Client Services and Listings. The Registrar reports to the Chief Judge

and the Chief Executive Officer and oversees registry activities in Melbourne

and on circuit at 13 major regional locations.

The Chief Judge and the Registrar meet with Deputy Registrars from the

circuit courts at a bimonthly Circuit Registrars Working Party Meeting to

discuss circuit listing issues and case management at circuit courts.

Ear ly Inspect ion of Subpoenaed Documents

The Subpoena for Production to the Registrar Rule enables certain docu-

ments to be produced to the Registrar prior to the trial of a civil proceeding.

Legal practitioners may inspect subpoenaed material in the Court Registry,

subject to an objection process and certain conditions.

Individual subpoenas for production to the Registrar issued during 2005–06

totalled 12,549, compared with 12,576 in 2004–05, representing a 0.2%

decrease. As at 30 June 2006, the Registry had received approximately

11,000 packages of material under subpoena (8,841 in 2004–05).

The highest number of subpoenas issued was 1,256 in August 2005 and the

lowest number issued was 803 in December 2005. A total of 5,301 appoint-

ments to inspect subpoenaed documents were conducted in the Melbourne

Registry in 2005-06.

The number of objections hearings listed totalled 155 in Melbourne

(212 in 2004-05) and 134 on circuit (74 in 2004-05).

Extended Subpoena Inspect ion T imes

To meet rising demands and allow greater client access, the Registry

extended Order 42.10 subpoena document inspection times. The new

service from 8am to 6pm was trialled between May and June 2006, and the

Registry decided to continue the extended appointment hours. As at June 30,

2006, reports indicate the extended inspection times have been favourably

received by practitioners.

eFi l ing Use

The e-Filing service continued to increase during 2005–06. As at 30 June

2006, 69 solicitors’ firms had signed up to use eFiling, compared with 41 as

at 30 June 2005. The percentage of civil documents electronically filed was

15.4% at Melbourne, 20.8% in country locations and 16.4% overall. This

result compares with 7.4% at Melbourne, 14.4% in country locations and

8.5% overall in 2004–05. These increases reflect the ongoing commitment

of Registry staff and CITEC Confirm to promote e-Filing. The Court leads

other similar courts across Australia in e-Filing.

The Registry continued to promote eFiling during 2005–06, both in country

locations and in Melbourne. Solicitors’ firms are encouraged to implement

case management software, integrating their ‘in-house’ systems with the

Court’s e-Filing system.

Support ing the Establ ishment of New Lists

Following the announcement by the Chief Judge in June 2005 that the Court

would establish a Sex Offences List, registry staff have played an important

role in supporting the set up of the List by identifying cases that should be

included in the list, developing protocols for managing selected files and

liaising with Judge Sexton and her staff.

The Registry prepared for the commencement on 1 July 2006 of the

Commercial List. Staff assisted Judge Anderson and his staff in identifying

cases, determining registry protocols and procedures to be followed once

the List was implemented.

Ret i rement of Deputy Registrar Terry

Kearney

Deputy Registrar Terry Kearney retired from the Court on 25 November 2005

after more than 13 years of service. Always a welcoming resource for Judges

and Court staff, the Court is grateful for the significant role Terry has played in

performing his work courteously, efficiently and with great knowledge and

skill. The Court expressed a debt of gratitude for his sterling service.


Refer to chart right.Note: In the 2004–05 Annual Report, the number of subpoenas issued wasunder-reported due to an error in the way in which information was extracted.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

Objections Lodged

Registry Inspections

Subpoenas Issued

2005–062004–052003–042002–03

No.

Early Inspection ofSubpoenaed Documents—2002–03 to 2005–06

0

20

40

60

80

100

OtherElectronically Lodged

CircuitMelbourne

%

Percentage of CivilDocuments ElectronicallyFiled—2005–06

Retired Deputy Registrar TerryKearney (see below)

J u d i c i a l T r a i n i n g ,S u p p o r t a n dS e r v i c e s

Judges attend a variety of programs to keep appraised of national and inter-

national standards of professional development. The Professional Committee

oversees the professional development of the Court’s Judges. During

2005–06, the committee comprised nine members and a representative

from the Judicial College of Victoria, with Judge Wodak as Chairperson.

Members are responsible for arranging judicial attendance at a variety of

programs offered by the Judicial College of Victoria and at external confer-

ences and seminars. Judges of the Court undertake professional develop-

ment at a national and international standard.

Professional development for the Judges of the Court is achieved through a

number of methods including:

• the annual County Court Judges’ Seminar held over three days in

March–April;

• participation in cross-jurisdictional courses and seminars organised by

the Judicial College of Victoria;

• attendance at external professional development conferences and semi-

nars; and

• participation in educational committees.

Annual Seminar

In April 2006, Judges attended the County Court Judges’ Annual Seminar,

comprising sessions designed to distribute timely and important information

regarding judicial responsibility. Some of the subjects included mental

health and young persons, victims of crime, practical ways to make judicial

life less stressful and the future of judicial education. Judges benefited from

the opportunity to interact with each other and to engage with a number of

external speakers, including Professor Patrick McGorry, Norrie Ross,

Charlene Micallef and Bernie Geary. Staff from the Judicial College of

Victoria (JCV) attended a number of the sessions.

Judic ia l Col lege of V ictor ia

Through a variety of programs, publications and other educational activities,

the Judicial College of Victoria (JCV) supports Victorian judicial officers.

Chief Judge Rozenes supports the activities of the college and, along with the

head of each court jurisdiction in Victoria, serves as a member of the

Judicial College Board. In addition, the following Judges support the work of

the college:

• Judge Wodak—member of the Syllabus Advisory Committee.

• Judge Wodak and Chief Judge Rozenes—members of the Online

Judicial Working Party.

• Judge Wodak—member of the JOIN Management Group.

• Judge Douglas—member of the Victorian Sentencing Manual Editorial

Committee.

• Judges Duggan, Curtain, Sexton and Punshon—Victorian Criminal

Charge Book.

During 2005–06, 11 Judges assisted as presenters, steering committee

members and chairpersons and 59 Judges participated in 12 programs

conducted by the JCV, including Occupational Health and Safety,

Judgment Writing, Home Detention, Drugs and Driving, Adult and

Juvenile Sex Offender Programs, Communication in the Courtroom and

Challenging Our World View: Judging in a Diverse Society.

The JCV continued to organise visits to correctional and forensic facilities.

During 2005–06, 15 Judges visited locations such as the Thomas Embling

Hospital, Forensic Science Centre and metropolitan prisons.

In conjunction with the JCV, the Judicial Officers Information Network

(JOIN) provides a comprehensive electronic resource. Staff of the JCV

conducted introductory sessions for Court Judges, and the Senior Legal

Researcher provided on-the-spot assistance in using the database.

Court Craft Program

On 24 May 2006, the JCV conducted an intensive one-day Communication

in the Courtroom interactive workshop. The workshop is designed to assist

a judicial officer in:

• communicating in a language all parties can understand;

• asking easily understood, clear, concise and relevant questions;

• using appropriate body language, posture, gestures, facial expressions

and eye contact;

• understanding all of the participants;

• handling difficult dynamics in the courtroom;

• conducting oneself in a manner that establishes and maintains the inde-

pendence and authority of the Court; and

• giving oral decisions clearly understood by the parties.

External Conferences and Seminars

Judges represented the Court at a number of local, national and internation-

al conferences and seminars during the reporting year, as follows.

23rd Annual AIJA Conference

In September 2005, Chief Judge Rozenes, Judge McInerney, Judge Wodak,

Neil Twist and Hans Wolf attended the Australian Institute of Judicial

Administration (AIJA) Conference in Wellington, New Zealand with the

theme Technology, Communication and Innovation. Workshops enabled

participants to consider issues arising from the use of technology in courts

and tribunals; in particular, the delivery of electronic services, communica-

tion with the media and the public, privacy and access to data, transforma-

tion of business processes, and computer-stimulated evidence in the court-

room. The guest speaker was Justice Frances Kiteley from the Superior Court

of Justice of Ontario who chairs the Canadian Judicial Council’s Security

Sub-Committee, Judges’ Technology Advisory Committee.


His Honour Judge Wodak

Judicial Conference of Australia Colloquium

Chief Judge Rozenes and Judge Curtain represented the Court at the Judicial

Conference of Australia Colloquium in Queensland on 2-4 September 2005.

The keynote address was delivered by Sir Gerard Brennan, former Chief

Justice of the High Court, who spoke on The Rule of Common Law in a

Civilised Society. Other speakers spoke on human rights, complaints against

judges, judicial specialisation and judicial exchanges throughout Australia.

National Judicial Orientation Program

Recently appointed Judges were afforded the opportunity to attend the

National Judicial Orientation Programs conducted by the National Judicial

College of Australia in Sydney in October 2005 and Melbourne in May 2006.

The late Judge Morgan-Payler and Judges Davis, Hampel, Morrish and

Leckie attended in 2005-06. Judge Wodak presented sessions on judgment

writing and technology during the programs.

Expert Evidence Workshop

In November 2005, Judge Wodak and Judge Harbison attended the Expert

Evidence Workshop, covering current practices of courts and tribunals in

receiving expert evidence. The workshop aimed to make the practice less

adversarial, limiting the time spent in the examination of expert witnesses

and generally improving the quality of expert evidence received.

Justice Environment Conference April 2006

Judge Strong represented the Court at the Justice Environment Conference

held in Melbourne in April 2006 and provided the opportunity for interna-

tional delegates to view the facilities of the Court, as well as engage in discus-

sion regarding courtroom facilities world wide.

International Women Judges Conference

In May 2006, Judges Curtain, Jenkins, Cohen, Lawson, Wilmoth, Davis and

Millane attended the International Women Judges Conference in Sydney, with

several other Court Judges attending for part of the conference. Addressing

350 women Judges, representing 43 countries, women Judges shared their

experiences in working in highly unstable political environments, and in

dealing with humanitarian issues as members of war crimes tribunals and

circumstances where there were extreme threats to their judicial integrity

and independence.

Part ic ipat ion in Educat ional Committees

Judges participated in numerous educational committees, including:

• Australian Institute of Judicial Administration Education Committee;

• Criminal Charge Book Editorial Committee JCV;

• Syllabus Advisory Committee JCV;

• Challenging Our World View: Judging in a Diverse Society JCV;

• Communication in the Courtroom JCV;

• Corroboration Seminar Steering Committee JCV;

• Court Craft Project Steering Committee JCV;

• JOIN Management Group JCV;

• Judgment Writing Workshop Steering Committee JCV;

• National Judicial Orientation Program Steering Committee;

• Proportionate Liability Workshop Steering Committee JCV;

• Victorian Sentencing Manual Editorial Committee JCV; and

• Workshop Steering Committee JCV.

Judic ia l Support and Serv ices

The Court’s associates, tipstaves, court researchers, secretaries and library

staff members provide administrative support to the Court’s Judges. In addi-

tion, other services support the Judges, such as the Victorian Government

Reporting Service (VGRS), Juries Commissioner’s Office, Court Network and

the Courts’ Information Officer. As at 30 June 2006, the number of judicial

support staff totalled 134 (133 in 2004–05). In addition, two library staff

assisted Judges of the Court as required.

Associates and Tipstaves continue to provide daily ongoing support to the

Judges of the Court. Each Judge has an associate and tipstaff who assist the

Judge in court and in dealing with a range of responsibilities in chambers.

The Court Research Unit supports Judges by providing a timely, efficient and

accurate legal research service. The Senior Researcher manages the Court

Research Training Program, providing legal research training sessions to

Judges and Associates. During 2005–06, the Senior Researcher assisted the

Judicial College by providing training for Judges in the use of JOIN, the key

research tool developed especially for Victorian courts. (see page 22).

A dedicated secretarial support team totalling five staff worked to support

the Judges of the Court in drafting charge documents, rulings, sentences,

judgments, correspondence and other documents, as required. This work

requires a high degree of accuracy and efficiency on the part of secretarial

staff.

The Court Library and Information Service continued to provide resource

support and reference assistance to Court Judges and administrative staff

using information stored electronically, in the main library and in the

libraries housed adjacent to chambers. In addition, the service assisted the

legal profession, law librarians and the public with information requests.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Male Female

Other Tipstaves Associates Judges

%

Judges and Judicial SupportStaff by Gender—2005–06

Judges and judicial support staff asat 30 June 2006

T h e C o u r t ’sP e o p l e

The Court’s people make up judicial support, administration and registry

staff who carry out key operational functions of the Court. Registrar Ann

Matheson heads the Court Registry and CEO Neil Twist manages the adminis-

tration of the Court. Administration staff provide services to the Court with

respect to business planning, finance, IT and information services.

As at 30 June 2006, the full-time staff equivalent figure was 183.3, including

judicial support, administration and registry staff (186.84 as at 30 June

2005). The table and graph on page 25 show a breakdown of grade levels

and gender under the VPS structure.

Employment Agreement

Staff terms and conditions of employment are in accordance with the

Victorian Public Service (VPS) Agreement 2006. The Agreement sets out the

VPS Career Classification Structure, identifying progression points that form

the basis of the Performance and Progression Plan System. During 2005–06,

plans were developed for associates and tipstaves to assist Judges in moni-

toring performance and progression for their staff. The plans will be imple-

mented in the next reporting year.

Wages and Superannuat ion

Non-judicial employee wages totalled $9.79 million, compared with $9.96

million in 2004–05. The VPS Agreement provided staff members with a 3.0%

salary increase effective on 1 October 2005 (3.0% in 2004–05).

Staff members are eligible for superannuation benefits provided through two

main funds—VicSuper Pty Ltd and Government Superannuation Office. The

DOJ is obliged to make contributions amounting to 9.0% of salary to the

superannuation fund of choice, providing it complies with Superannuation

Guarantee legislation.

Equal Employment Opportuni ty

The Court is an equal employment opportunity employer. Through our

recruitment process, we are committed to selecting the best applicants, con-

sistent with merit and equity principles. During 2005–06, we updated staff

on current issues and developments with regard to manual handling, bully-

ing, sexual harassment and discrimination issues within the workplace by

conducting seminars, workshops and circulating relevant literature. A copy

of the Court’s Workplace Bullying And Occupational Violence Policy is avail-

able to all staff on the Bulletin Board.

Occupat ional Heal th and Safety

The Court aims to provide and maintain a safe working environment ensur-

ing the health and wellbeing of Judges, Court employees and visitors. The

Occupational Health and Safety Committee comprises representatives from

Court staff groups, service partners and co-tenants of its privately owned

building at 250 William Street. Issues discussed at the meetings included the

consideration of evacuation procedures, especially for juries and persons

with disabilities. The Court regularly reviews and tests emergency evacuation

procedures and building security. During 2005–06, five WorkCover claims

were lodged, with one claim resulting in six lost working days. This result

compares with 117.5 lost working days resulting from only one of the two

claims lodged in 2004–05.

Annual Staf f Survey

The Department of Justice Employee Attitude Survey 2006 was conducted to

gain an indication of staff satisfaction within the workplace.

Court staff completed and returned 131 surveys out of a total of 192 surveys

distributed, representing a response rate of 68.2% (71.0% in 2004–05),

compared with the DOJ response rate of 70.2%.

Highest Scoring Statements

The survey results identified the following highest scoring statements:

• I clearly understand my job responsibilities.

• We have a focus on delivering on commitments in my work team.

• I would describe the Court as a good place to work.

• I am currently motivated to do my best in my role.

• The Court has a strong emphasis on the importance of delivering good

customer/client service.

Opportunities for Improvement

The survey results identified the following opportunities for improvement:

• consultation before major change takes place.

• dealing with poor performance and conflict.

• providing regular feedback about performance.

We have already addressed several of these issues through:

• formulating a circuit expenses draft policy.

• developing performance plans for Associates and Tipstaves.

• providing communications training.

Inf luencing a Posi t ive Workplace Cl imate

In February 2006, CEO Neil Twist attended the Department of Justice

‘Influencing Positive Workplace Climate’ workshop designed to create a positive

and safe workplace climate. The workshop identified significant drivers of

workplace morale, counterproductive behaviours and characteristics of a good

leadership/management style. At the Management Planning Meeting on 24

February 2006, Neil Twist briefed managers on the key elements of the work-

shop and encouraged them to incorporate these drivers into working with staff.


Karol Hill, Group Manager, Courts Finance Program

Study Leave Pol icy

The Court developed a study leave policy to provide guidance when staff

members apply for leave in order to study. The policy aims to ensure deci-

sions around study leave are fair to employees and the Court, and study leave

does not disrupt the day-to-day functioning of the Court. The policy has been

drafted in accordance with clause 57 of the Victorian Public Service

Agreement 2006 and was approved on 24 May 2006. A copy of the Study

Leave Policy has been placed on the Court’s Bulletin Board.

Staf f Learning and Development

We continued to engage our staff in updating the skills necessary for under-

taking the work of the Court, while we encouraged individuals to undergo

training courses to enhance their skills for dealing with their roles.

Registry staff, Associates and Tipstaves held their annual planning and semi-

nar days in April 2006. The registry planning day sessions focused on

healthy lifestyles, work/life balance and stress management.

Communications workshops run by LaTrobe University for both Registry staff

and Associates focused on improving relationships within the Court. Court

Administration staff addressed Associates regarding performance plans and

staff from Australian National Child Offences Register provided valuable dis-

cussions regarding the registering of sexual offenders. During 2005–06, a

Tipstaff (Training) position was created to oversee a competency-based

training skill program and provide leadership to the earlier established tip-

staff mentoring team. Additionally, instruction was provided for Tipstaves

undertaking more specialised work (such as working in a pre-trial court)

and developing IT skills.

Four Associates participated in the CLMS pilot orders preparations providing

valuable feedback to the CLMS team, prior to the anticipated rollout of the

criminal orders module training on 3 July 2006.

The Training and Development Officer conducted refresher courses in several

IT skill areas. These courses were well attended and gave staff opportunities to

improve their skills through a series of short, small group sessions.

Refresher training was offered to Associates to provide prerequisite skills to

undertake the CLMS criminal orders training.

During 2005–06, 15 staff attended 12 DOJ training courses, constituting 15

days of training. In addition, 28 staff attended the one-day training course

Managing Potentially Violent Clients organised by Courts Security Manager

Brian Dobson.

The Court continued to be active in its involvement with Victoria University in

the Certificate IV Traineeship in Government (Court Services). Senior

staff of this Court assisted in overseeing the course through the Board of

Studies, while on-the-job assessments were conducted by Court staff who

were qualified as workplace assessors.

The Court again participated in the DOJ Youth Employment Scheme (YES),

giving young people work experience and opportunities through a 12-month

traineeship within the DOJ. The Court engaged two trainees during 2005–06

(three in 2004–05), both of whom were employed in the Registry.

Partnership Awards

The Department of Justice recognises significant staff achievement through

the Partnership Award Program. During 2005–06, 12 staff members

received Partnership Awards (seven in 2004–05), as follows:

• Organisation of the District and County Court Judges of Australia 18th

Biennial Conference (Daniel Bonetto, Graham Christensen, Ian

Edwards, Janeane Edwards, Dallas Henderson, Jagdeep Jassar, Steve

Malaiman, Bettina Miller, Greg Thompson and Judge Strong)

• Managing and coordinating the Court element of the transition of

telephony services to the VOTS platform (Janeane Edwards and Steve

Malaiman).


Court Employees by Gender and VPS Grade(Ful l -T ime Staf f Equivalent ) as at 30 June 2006

2005–06 2004–05

VPS Grade: Women Men Total Women Men Total

Executives - 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 1.0

VPS Grade 6 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 5.0

VPS Grade 5 5.0 3.0 8.0 3.0 5.0 8.0

VPS Grade 4 5.0 4.0 9.0 2.8 4.0 7.0

VPS Grade 3 14.4 8.0 22.4 18.44 3.0 23.0

VPS Grade 2 48.9 89.0 137.9 53.6 88.0 143.0

VPS Grade 1 - 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Total 75.3 108.0 183.3 80.84 106 186.84

Female Male

41%59%

Court Employees byGender—2005–06

S e r v i c e D e l i v e r ya n d S h a r i n g O u rF a c i l i t i e s

The Court aims to deliver efficient and reliable services and effectively main-

tain a high level of community confidence by improving access to justice

services and providing timely disposition of matters. Additionally, we share

the public areas of the Court building with the community, serving as a

forum for public debate and a meeting place for numerous visitors.

Serv ice Del ivery

Court staff members liaise with agencies providing services to support the

Judges in successfully carrying out the Court’s work. The following services

assist members of the legal profession and other Court users by providing

easy access to the Court:

• eFiling—The service enables Court users across Victoria to electroni-

cally lodge documents relating to civil cases, rather than having to

attend the Court Registry counter in person.

• Court List Plasma Screens—Conveniently located on the Ground Floor,

Level One and Level Two of the complex, the screens serve as promi-

nent, state-of-the-art public information displays assisting Court users

in locating daily court listing information.

• Court Connect—Accessible via the Court’s web site at www.county-

court.vic.gov.au, the service enables the public and Court users to

search for information on specific civil and criminal cases and/or

conduct name searches of parties in a court proceeding.

• Video Technology—Video technology offers Court users in country

Victoria convenient access to the Court in Melbourne. All preliminary

hearings involving accused persons in custody are heard by video link

to the relevant custody centre, rather than requiring the accused per-

son to attend court. Judges conduct directions hearings regularly

by video link to 13 circuit locations across Victoria. During 2005–06,

Judge Harbison conducted 58 directions hearings by video link (61 in

2004–05), involving 457 cases (690 cases in 2004–05).

• Courts’ Information Officer—The Courts’ Information Officer forms an

important link between the Court and the media, enabling more accu-

rate and reliable reporting of court proceedings. In addition, the

Information Officer reduces the risk of non-compliance with suppres-

sion orders, by alerting the media when suppression orders are made

by the Court.

Shar ing Our Excel lent Faci l i t ies

Members of the community and relevant organisations frequently access our

excellent Court facilities. During 2005–06, the Court hosted a variety of

functions and cultural and community events as follows.

Monash Law School Prize Ceremony

On 1 March 2006, the Court hosted the Monash University Law School Prize

Ceremony, attended by representatives of the legal community, parents and

the top achieving students of the school. Chief Judge Rozenes opened the

ceremony and presented prizes in three courses—Law in Society, Conflict of

Laws and Law and Social Theory.

Greeting New Members of the Profession

His Honour Chief Judge Rozenes welcomed some 50 new members of the

Bar Readers Course on 6 March 2006, as well as addressing the Law

Institute function held in Waldron Hall to welcome newly-admitted practi-

tioners on May 26, 2006.

ICMS IT Conference

On 1 August 2005, ICMS hosted an IT Conference held at the Court. John

Suffolk, National Criminal Justice IT Advisor to the three Ministers of the

United Kingdom Justice Portfolio, attended to learn about Australia’s experi-

ence of delivering ‘joined-up’ services. IT managers and executive directors

from each State spoke at the conference. Hans Wolf, the Court’s IT Manager,

spoke on behalf of the Court.

JCV Victorian Sentencing Manual Launch

The Judicial College of Victoria (JCV) elected to hold the launch of the

online Victorian Sentencing Manual (VSM) in Court Room 3.5 on

16 November 2005. Chief Judge Rozenes and President of the Court of

Appeal the Honourable Justice Maxwell addressed some 60 invited guests

and media representatives. The revised manual is an electronic resource

linked to the Judicial College’s judicial intranet (JOIN, see also page 22).

Australian Law Librarian’s Group (Vic) Division Inc

In March 2006, the Court hosted a function for the Australian Law

Librarian’s Group (Vic) Division Inc. The evening provided an opportunity

for 65 attendees from law firms, government departments, universities and

other specialist libraries to tour the Court’s library, conference room facili-

ties and to observe areas of the Court that are generally restricted.

OH&S Seminar

The Court held a seminar on Occupational Health and Safety for Managers

on 1 December 2005. A total of 35 Managers from Courts, Corrections and

other areas of the Department of Justice attended the seminar to discuss

recent changes to legislation, as well as training and the future rollout of

other programs by the OH&S Unit.


Barristers attend the welcome and swearing in of

His Honour Judge Leckie on August 16, 2005

C o u r t Te c h n o l o g y


Preparing technology for theMonash Law School PrizeCeremony in Waldron Hall

The Court Technology Committee oversees the Court’s information technology

(IT) infrastructure and applications. The committee comprised 15 members

representing all areas of the Court. Committee members met monthly to pro-

vide advice regarding the implementation and maintenance of up-to-date tech-

nological services to the Court. Additionally, members liaise with various serv-

ice providers and both internal and external users. Judge Jenkins took over the

role as Chair of the Committee in February 2006, replacing Judge McInerney.

eFi l ing User Group

In conjunction with CITEC Confirm the Court’s eFiling provider, the Court

held its first eFiling User Group meeting for legal practitioners, comprising a

representative from the Magistrates’ Court and a number of staff members

from this Court. Users were updated on the latest changes and future

developments of the Court, including the Integrated Courts Management

System (ICMS).

The electronic filing and processing of court documents relating to civil

cases via the eFiling service continued to grow since its introduction in

August 2003. The number of documents electronically lodged has grown

from more than 2,400 at the end of the 2004–05 (or 8.5% of all documents

filed) to more than 8,400 (or 16.4% of all documents filed) as at the end of

June 2006. Support for this service has been particularly strong in regional

areas, where currently 20.8% of all documents filed are eFiled.

ICMS Smart Courts Launch

On 23 May 2006, the Attorney-General officially launched the ICMS Smart

Courts initiative at the Ballarat Court House. The Ballarat Court is the first of

16 courts across regional and metropolitan Victoria to receive upgraded

videoconference facilities. The new technology will enable courts to present

and receive evidence electronically, and to support children and other vul-

nerable witnesses in giving evidence. The new facilities were demonstrated

with a live cross to His Honour Chief Judge Rozenes in Melbourne, who

spoke of the Court’s experience, as well as the features and benefits of using

the technology when dealing with complex cases and vulnerable witnesses.

Website Data

The Court published a one-page statistical summary covering 2001–02 to

2004–05 on its website. The summary builds on existing data provided by

the Court in its Annual Report to provide a comprehensive overview of the

activities of the Court. Included in the documentation are the number of

cases commenced, finalised (including method of finalisation for crime and

appeals) and pending, clearance rates, timeliness and backlog.

This document will be updated annually in conjunction with the preparation

of the Court’s Annual Report.

CLMS Cr iminal Orders Module

The Case and List Management System (CLMS) comprises four major com-

ponents. Three of the modules have been implemented and are currently

being used on an operational basis. The fourth component is the Orders

Module, which will be used by Judges’ Associates to enter details relating to

orders of the Court.

Criminal Orders

The Court has been conducting a pilot of its criminal orders with four Judges

since October 2005.

The Criminal Orders Module will offer the following benefits to the Court:

• Up-to-date and comprehensive sentencing data and trends will be avail-

able to the Court for use in public policy analysis.

• Orders will be captured in a comprehensive, systematic and timely

basis with little or no delay to other parties who require this critical

information, such as Corrections Victoria, the Office of Public

Prosecutions Solicitors.

• Standard wording will be automatically produced on forms but will

include the option for ‘free text’ where necessary.

• Automatic printing of order documentation.

• Reduced data entry for Court staff through links to other systems within

the criminal justice system.

• Links with prison and police systems will allow the direct transfer of

Judge’s remarks relating to duty of care issues of an offender.

• Electronic transmission of Court results to relevant authorised parties

within the criminal justice system, including warrant and criminal

record information to police and Corrections Victoria.

The Court will commence its CLMS Criminal Orders Module roll-out on 3

July 2006, training Associates of Judges sitting in the criminal jurisdiction in

the new orders module. Currently, 41 criminal order types are available for

use by Judges and Associates in the CLMS Criminal Orders Module. The

Court anticipates it will identify a number of additional order types in early

2006–07.

Civil Interim Orders

The Court conducted a pilot of the Civil Interim Orders with one Judge since

December 2005. The pilot will be extended to other List Judges in the Civil

Jurisdiction in the second half of 2006.

T h e C o u n t yC o u r t C o m p l e x

The County Court Complex, located at 250 William Street, opened to the

public on 27 May 2002. The Court relies upon the close liaison it enjoys with

its service partners for the day-to-day operation of the Court’s services. A mas-

sive and highly integrated complex, the Court Complex houses many services

that benefit the Court and the community.

Faci l i ty Management

In Managing the County Court Complex, the court maintains a working

relationship with The Liberty Group (TLG) and its service partners, AIMS,

Interform and Honeywell which is the subject to the Court Services

Agreement (CSA). The CSA provides for TLG to prepare and deliver an

annual report to the Contract Administrator and Secretary Department of

Justice on the activities and performance of TLG and its operators.

In addition to specified contractual reviews, including an Insurance Review

and Court Services Standards and Operating Manual Review, the Annual

Services Review provides an analysis of other key contractual and opera-

tional aspects of the complex for the financial year.

Courtroom Use

The graphs and table on this page detail courtroom use during 2005–06.

From left, the first graph shows a comparison of the number of courtroom

days reserved and the number of courtroom days used, resulting in a cumu-

lative variation of 242 courtroom days used (33 in 2004–05). The Court

continued to perform well in courtroom days used, compared with estimates

of courtroom use.

While the number of courtroom days used was considerably more than in

previous years, the increase can be attributed to a larger number of Acting

Judges sitting during the reporting year and the greater use of courtroom

facilities by the Supreme Court for conducting trials.

Cumulative Monthly Court Use shows the cumulative number of courtroom

days used and reserved per month during 2005–06. The table compiles all

statistics regarding courtroom use during the financial year.


Four-Year Comparison ofCourtroom Use—2002–03 to2005–06

0

750

1500

2250

3000

3750

4500

5250

6000

6750

7500

8250

9000

Monthly ReservedMonthly Use

Jun 06

May 06

Apr 06

Mar 06

Feb 06

Jan 06

Dec 05

Nov 05

Oct 05

Sep 05

Aug 05

Jul 05

No.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Court Days UsedReserved Courtrooms

2005–062004–052003–042002–03

No.

Cumulative Monthly CourtUse—2005–06

Courtroom Use in 2005–06

Reserved Courtrooms Court Room Days UsedMonthly Cumulative Monthly Cumulative

Jul 05 649 649 634 634

Aug 05 840 1,489 812 1,446

Sep 05 689 2,178 710 2,156

Oct 05 731 2,909 796 2,952

Nov 05 809 3,718 840 3,792

Dec 05 486 4,204 518 4,310

Jan 06 387 4,591 378 4,688

Feb 06 810 5,401 817 5,505

Mar 06 882 6,283 942 6,447

Apr 06 475 6,758 503 6,950

May 06 892 7,650 923 7,873

Jun 06 686 8,336 705 8,578

Total 8,336 8,336 8,578 8,578

Appendices


O p e r a t i n g S t a t e m e n t a n dF i n a n c i a l C o m m e n t a r y

Special Appropriations

The salaries and on costs for Judges were impacted by the appointment of

two additional Judges in August 2005 and one Judge in April 2006. The

Judicial Remuneration Tribunal (JRT) recommendation for a salary increase

for Judges was implemented.

Output Appropriations

The impact of the Victorian Public Service Agreement 2004 provided for a

general salary increase. Efficiencies in operating expenditure were offset by

salary and associated expenses of judicial staff supporting sitting Acting

Judges.

For 2005–06, a change in departmental accounting policy determined that

the Government Finance Charge, which had been allocated to individual

entities within the DOJ, would be accounted for at a departmental level. The

impact of this approach resulted in a reduction in actual expenditure of

$400,466 over the previous financial year.

Annual Appropriations

Capital Purchases include a cost component for Finance Lease Repayments

(Motor Vehicles). For 2005–06, the cost was $171,376, compared with

$39,225 for the previous financial year.


2005–06 2004–05

$ $

Collection of Fines and Fees

Court Fines 329,781 442,842

Court Fees 5,121,625 5,816,044

Total Revenue 5,451,406 6,258,886

Operational Expenditure

Judicial Salaries and On-costs 17,073,090 14,947,901

Output Expenditure, comprising:

• Staff Salaries and On-costs 9,788,401 9,962,788

• Operating Costs 2,988,881 3,178,418

Capital Purchases* 187,434 86,495

Total Operational Expenditure 30,037,806 28,175,602

*Includes Finance Lease Repayments (Motor Vehicles) 171,376 39,225

Collection of Fines and Fees(Consolidated Funds)—2004–05 to 2005–06

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

Court FeesCourt Fines

2005–062004–05

$000

Operational Expenditure—2004–05 to 2005–06

0

Capital PurchasesOperating Costs

Staff Salaries and On-costsJudicial Salaries and On-costs

2005–062004–05

Operat ing Statement for the Year Ended 30 June 2006

Financia l Commentary

The Operating Statement and Financial Commentary summarises the revenue (in the form of fines and fees collected) and operational expenditure of the Court for

the year ended 30 June 2006, including comparisons with 2004–05. Victorian Government Departments are required to produce their annual reports in accordance

with Standing Direction 4, Financial Management Reporting of the Financial Management Act 1994. Information from entities of the Department of Justice, such as

the Court, is consolidated into the Department of Justice Annual Report.

J u d g e s o f T h e C o u r ta s a t 3 0 J u n e 2 0 0 6


His Honour Chief Judge Michael Rozenes 25 November 2002

His Honour Judge John King Nixon 3 March 1981

His Honour Judge Leonard Sergiusz Ostrowski 20 September 1983

His Honour Judge James Thomas Duggan 12 December 1984

His Honour Judge Leo Richard Hart 19 March 1985

His Honour Judge John Rupert Hanlon 12 May 1986

His Honour Judge Michael Desmond Higgins 3 June 1988

His Honour Judge Michael John Strong 6 September 1988

His Honour Judge Barton Harold Stott 12 December 1989

His Honour Judge John Henry Barnett 30 January 1990

Her Honour Judge Elizabeth Helen Curtain 10 November 1993

His Honour Judge Roland Gwyllam Williams 10 February 1994

His Honour Judge Frederick George Davey 6 April 1994

His Honour Judge Edward Charles Stuart Campbell 7 June 1994

His Honour Judge David Ernest Morrow, RFD 7 June 1994

His Honour Judge Michael Gerard McInerney 21 June 1994

Her Honour Judge Margaret Ann Rizkalla 11 July 1994

His Honour Judge Thomas Gideon Wodak 16 August 1994

His Honour Judge Francis Julian Shelton 5 September 1994

His Honour Judge William Rex White 28 February 1995

His Honour Judge Anthony Philip Duckett, OBE 22 March 1995

Her Honour Judge Marilyn Blanche Harbison 5 February 1996

His Honour Judge Sheamus Peter Gebhardt 14 May 1996

Her Honour Judge Janette Margaret Pannam 7 October 1997

His Honour Judge Timothy Mark Holt 7 October 1997

Her Honour Judge Carolyn Dianne Douglas 7 October 1997

His Honour Judge Tim Deneys Wood 2 December 1997

His Honour Judge Ian Campbell Robertson 19 January 1998

His Honour Judge Graham Richard Anderson 17 March 1998

His Honour Judge Lansell David Pilgrim 7 April 1999

Her Honour Judge Pamela Dawn Jenkins 21 April 1999

Her Honour Judge Jennifer Ann Coate 22 June 2000

His Honour Judge John Richard Bowman 20 February 2001

Her Honour Judge Rachelle Ann Lewitan, AM 16 May 2001

Her Honour Judge Julie Ann Nicholson 3 July 2001

His Honour Judge Graeme Geoffrey Hicks 20 August 2001

His Honour Judge John Arthur Smallwood 20 August 2001

Her Honour Judge Susan Michele Cohen 20 August 2001

Her Honour Judge Meryl Elizabeth Sexton 20 August 2001

Her Honour Judge Frances Elizabeth Hogan 2 October 2001

Her Honour Judge Irene Elizabeth Lawson 26 March 2002

His Honour Judge Giuseppe Gullaci 4 June 2002

His Honour Judge Michael Patrick Bourke 10 September 2002

Her Honour Judge Elizabeth Mary Gaynor 10 September 2002

His Honour Judge Phillip James Coish 10 September 2002

His Honour Judge Kenneth Ross Howie 22 October 2002

Her Honour Judge Jane Anne Campton 22 October 2002

His Honour Judge Roy Francis Punshon 8 April 2003

Her Honour Judge Wendy Anne Wilmoth 8 April 2003

His Honour Judge Geoffrey Thomas Chettle 2 December 2003

Her Honour Judge Frances Millane 2 December 2003

Her Honour Judge Sandra Sabrina Davis 26 October 2004

Her Honour Judge Felicity Pia Hampel 9 February 2005

Her Honour Judge Jeanette Gita Morrish 9 August 2005

His Honour Judge Julian Peter Leckie 9 August 2005

His Honour Judge Paul Douglas Grant 26 April 2006

His Honour Judge Francis Bannatyne Lewis 30 March 2001

His Honour Judge Chester Stewart Keon-Cohen 3 August 2001

His Honour Judge John Anthony Dee 31 August 2001

His Honour Judge Graeme Reuben Glover Crossley 31 July 2003

His Honour Judge William Michael Raymond Kelly 29 November 2005

His Honour Judge Barry Robert Dove 22 January 2003

His Honour Judge Gordon David Lewis, AM 31 May 2004

His Honour Judge Francis Gilbert Dyett 1 May 2005

His Honour Judge Leslie Charles Ross 4 May 2005

Ms Ann Matheson 24 May 2004

Her Honour Judge J G Morrish appointed as a Judge 9 August 2005

His Honour Judge J P Leckie appointed as a Judge 9 August 2005

His Honour Judge W M R Kelly appointed as an Acting Judge 29 November 2005

His Honour Judge F Walsh retired as a Reserve Judge 16 December 2005

His Honour Judge P D Grant appointed as a Judge 26 April 2006

His Honour Judge W H Morgan-Payler passed away 10 June 2006

Name Date of AppointmentName Date of Appointment

Acting/Reserve Judges Date of Election

Acting/Reserve Judges Date of Appointment

Registrar Date of Appointment

Appointments, Deaths and Retirements of Judges Date

C o u r t L i n k s w i t h E x t e r n a lO r g a n i s a t i o n s a s a t3 0 J u n e 2 0 0 6


Judge Douglas

Judge Rizkalla

Judge Ostrowski

Chief Judge Rozenes

Judge Wodak

Judge Shelton (Chair)

Judge Strong

Judge Wood

Chief Judge Rozenes

Chief Judge Rozenes

Judge Wilmoth

Chief Judge Rozenes

Chief Judge

Judge Wodak

Judge Wodak

Judge Smallwood

Chief Judge (Chair)

Judge Nixon

Judge Strong

Judge Barnett

Judge Davey

Judge Wood

Judge Smallwood

Judge Sexton

Judge Gullaci

Judge Bourke

Judge Wilmoth

Judge Gullaci

Judge Gaynor

Chief Judge

Judge Wodak

Judge Curtain

Adult Parole Board

Arbitrator under the Sale of

Land Act 1962

Australian Institute of Judicial

Administration (AIJA) Council

Australian Institute of Judicial

Administration (AIJA) Education

Committee

Building List User Group

Circuit Court Redevelopment

Committee

Costs Coordination Committee

Council of Legal Education

Courts Consultative Council

Courts Library Committee

Criminal Justice Enhancement

Program (CJEP)

Criminal Law—Justice Statement

Review Panel

Criminal Users Group

Forensic Leave Panel

Judicial College of Victoria Board

Judicial College of Victoria Syllabus

Advisory Committee

Judicial Conference of Australia

Governing Council

Judge Higgins (Chair)

Judge Williams

Judge Robertson

Judge Harbison (Chair)

Chief Judge Rozenes

Judge Wodak

Judge Shelton

Judge Wodak (Chair)

Chief Judge Rozenes

Judge Wodak

Judge Nixon (Chair)

Judge Curtain

Judge Williams

Judge Nicholson

Judge Hicks

Chief Judge Rozenes

Judge Sexton

Judge Robertson

Judge Anderson

Judge Jenkins (Chair)

Chief Judge Rozenes

Judge Wodak

Judge Bowman (Vice-President)

Judge Davis (Vice-President)

Reserve Judge Dove

Judge Duggan

Judge Curtain

Judge Sexton

Judge Punshon

Judge Coate

Judge Hampel (part-time)

Judge Anderson

Judge Smallwood

Judge Punshon

Judge Hampel

Judge Douglas

Judge Strong

Judge Barnett

Judge Curtain

Judicial Remuneration Tribunal

Legal Aid Consultative Committee

Litigation Lawyers Meeting

Medical List User Group Meeting

National Judicial Orientation Program

Steering Committee

Racing Appeals Tribunal

Sexual Assault Advisory Committee

Supreme Court Litigation Committee

Technology Committee

Victorian Civil and Administrative

Tribunal

Victorian Criminal Charge Book

Editorial Committee

Victorian Law Reform Commission

Victorian Law Reform Commission

Review of Uniform Evidence Act

Victorian Sentencing Manual—

Editorial Committee

Victorian Trial Manual—Editorial

Committee

Youth Parole Board

Organisation/Committee Court Judge

Listed below are examples of the involvement of Judges of the Court as members of external committees, tribunals and working parties. In addition to actual

engagement with these organisations, Judges meet internally to provide responses to requests from these and other outside organisations, write submissions and

provide advice on a range of justice matters.

Organisation/Committee Court Judge