Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Court in the ACT: whose problem?

By Kerces - 23 September 2005 9

A report by the ACT Auditor General slamming the Territory’s courts for inefficiency and slowness was released last Thursday.

Among other things, the report found the ACT Magistrates Court was the slowest in the country, with only 16.8 per cent of cases being finalised in under six weeks and 25 per cent of cases running for more than six months; the Supreme Court only sat for about one-third of the planned number of trial days last year; the ACT Children’s Court was the most expensive to run in the country and that poor human resource management existed in the courts with a lack of senior court officers and a high number of staff in acting or temporary positions.

On the same day, a magistrate said it was the police’s fault it had taken four years for a man to be sentenced on charges of burglary.

Following the release of this report, accusations flew left, right and centre yesterday, with both the government and the judiciary saying the problems are the other’s fault.

The ACT Attorney General (who also happens to be our esteemed leader Jon Stanhope) said it’s the responsibilty of the chief magistrate and chief justice to ensure the courts run efficiently — both timewise and financially (they’ve been over budget by about $2 million the past four years). He also complained about the magistrates only sitting in court for an average of two hours a day, as found by the report. (Anyone know how many days our MLAs sit for a year? This year there’s 48 sitting days plus two weeks of estimates hearings scheduled).

Supreme Court Chief Justice Terry Higgins responded with accusations of the government underfunding the court system and under-resourcing the police (read more about budget cuts to the courts here).

Mr Stanhope said that because of the doctrine of separation of powers, he and the government cannot be held responsible for bad administration of the courts (how convenient) and could not tell the chief justice and chief magistrate how to run their courts.

However Chief Justice Higgins pointed out that the administration of the courts is actually run through the government department of Justice and Community Safety.

In the end it seems the only thing from the Auditor General’s report they can agree on is that the Attorney General, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Chief Magistrate should have regular meetings to oversee the system’s reform. Mr Stanhope said they would be meeting every three months from now on.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
9 Responses to
Court in the ACT: whose problem?
Thumper 11:50 am 27 Sep 05

I would have thought, but I may be wrong, that the ultimate responsibility for the ACT courts lies with the current AG, which is Jon Stanhope.

Am I wrong in this case, because if I am then who the hell does have the responsibility?

Evictor 10:08 am 27 Sep 05

Bang on Johnboy. If you consistently come out over budget then maybe some attention needs to be paid to the base funding provided by Treasury.

Justice and Courts aren’t a trendy area of the budget which people are going to bang on like they do for education and health. Or saving the land rights of gay timorese whales. As a result they will never receive adequate funding.

johnboy 10:49 am 24 Sep 05

Bill Stefaniak has put out a media release on the subject.

I can’t say I’m a great fan of “overlisting” as it would seem to mean a great number of people (lawyers, police, victims, witnesses) would be standing around on the off chance their case came up.

johnboy 10:44 am 24 Sep 05

One would think that if, year on year, the courts are coming out over-budget then one would conclude they are being under-budgeted.

If Police being under-resourced is contributing to the delays then i’d say that’s part of a consistent pattern of neglect from this government, which never seems to running out of money for modish fripperies and indulgences of its own ego.

Ari 4:28 pm 23 Sep 05

Go easy on the courts, guys, it takes a long time to think up new justifications to let serious criminals go free.

loadedog 3:08 pm 23 Sep 05

My too sense? It’s easy to assess this one criteria of a court’s performance, harder to assess whether courts are providing the service they are supposed to provide, ie. Justice.

Focussing attention just on the timeliness of decisions is like awarding the gold medal to the diver who gets into the water quickest. That being said, it’s important that cases be tried without any unnecessary delays.

Kerces 2:56 pm 23 Sep 05

crap thanks smackbang

there goes my career destiny as a subeditor…

Smackbang 2:22 pm 23 Sep 05

WHOSE problem. Or did you mean “who is problem?”

Thumper 1:22 pm 23 Sep 05

Damn, beat me to it K.

And I even summarised it this time!

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site