Magistrates Court
Annual Report
2014 - 2015
Table of Contents
AIM OF THE COURT ............................................................................................................................ 5
OVERVIEW OF THE COURT ................................................................................................................. 7
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 8
COURT LOCATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 9
MAGISTRATES .................................................................................................................................... 9
COURT STAFF ................................................................................................................................... 11
BENCH JUSTICES ............................................................................................................................... 11
THE COURT’S NATIONAL INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 11
CASELOAD ........................................................................................................................................ 13
PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS ............................................................................................................ 13
SPECIALIST YOUTH JUSTICE COURT PILOT ........................................................................................ 18
COURT USER GROUPS ...................................................................................................................... 19
CRIMINAL & GENERAL DIVISION LEGISLATION ................................................................................. 21
IT & TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS ........................................................................................................... 22
LEGAL EDUCATION INITIATIVES ........................................................................................................ 22
DISABILITY ACCESS TO SERVICES ...................................................................................................... 24
COURT SUPPORT SERVICES .............................................................................................................. 25
CORONIAL DIVISION ........................................................................................................................ 28
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL ................................................................................................... 31
COURT STATISTICS ........................................................................................................................... 38
COURT FINANCES ............................................................................................................................. 53
MAGISTRATES CHAMBERS
GPO Box 354
Hobart
Tasmania
7000
The Honourable Vanessa Goodwin MLC
Attorney-General
Parliament House
HOBART TAS 7000
Dear Attorney-General
MAGISTRATES COURT ANNUAL REPORT 2014-2015
I take pleasure in enclosing a volume that contains my Annual Report with regard to
the Magistrates Court as required by the:
Magistrates Court Act 1987, section 17C; and
Coroners Act 1995 section 69.
Yours sincerely
Michael Hill
CHIEF MAGISTRATE
13 October 2015
Page 3
Aim of the Court
Page 4
Aim of the Court
The aim of the Magistrates Court is for a fair, just and safe Tasmania. We serve the
community by providing access to an accountable, independent and impartial system
of justice administered according to law.
Purpose
The purpose of the Magistrates Court of Tasmania is to provide an open, transparent
and accessible system of justice, to apply the Rule of Law, and to protect and respect
individuals’ rights.
Values

We value judicial independence and we act independently from Government in
the exercise of our judicial functions.

Our staff behave with integrity and respect, are accountable, cooperative, act
without bias and in accordance with the State Service Code of Conduct.
For more detailed information relating to the Court’s strategic plan and its day-to-day
operations (services, locations, decisions, court lists) readers should access the
Court’s website at www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au
Page 5
Overview of the Court
Page 6
Overview of the Court
The Magistrates Court of Tasmania is a statutory body created as a Court of record
by the Magistrates Court Act 1987 section 3A that comprises the Chief Magistrate,
the Deputy Chief Magistrate and the Magistrates.
Magistrates have jurisdiction to hear and determine a broad range of legal matters.
Magistrates sitting in Courts of Petty Sessions hear and determine simple offences,
crimes triable summarily under State and Commonwealth legislation, breaches of
duty, applications under various State and Commonwealth statutes, and exercise a
wide range of appellate and review functions. Magistrates also hear simple and
indictable offences in the Youth Justice Division as well as exercising child protection
responsibilities.
Magistrates in the Civil Division hear and determine civil matters to a value of
$50,000 or an unlimited amount with the consent of the parties. Matters up to a
value of $5,000 are dealt with as Minor Civil Claims and undergo simplified
procedures prior to, and at hearing.
Statutory provision is also made for the Court to sit in the following Divisions:

Civil Division

Coronial Division

Youth Justice Division

Children’s Division

Administrative Appeals Division

Mining Division
Magistrates also sit as Coroners to conduct Inquests into sudden deaths, fires and
explosions.
Magistrates also sit as chairpersons of various statutory tribunals, including the AntiDiscrimination Tribunal, the Motor Accidents Compensation Tribunal, and the Mining
Tribunal.
Page 7
Acknowledgments
The Court acknowledges the constructive working relationship that the Court enjoyed
with the Attorney-General of Tasmania, the Honourable Vanessa Goodwin MLC,
during the reporting period.
Further, I express my appreciation to the Secretary of the Department of Justice, Mr
Simon Overland, for his assistance and support. I extend that same acknowledgment
and appreciation to all officers of the central office of the Department of Justice.
In addition, I express my appreciation to the Court volunteers for the support services
they provide to litigants, witnesses and others involved in proceedings before the
Court. The Tasmanian community is indebted to them for their service which is
valuable and selfless.
Magistrate Michael Daly is Deputy Chief Magistrate. I express my appreciation to
him for his support throughout the reporting period. I also express my appreciation to
all Magistrates, the Administrator of Courts, Wayne Johnson, and all Court staff, for
their dedication and professionalism throughout the reporting period and during my
time as a Magistrate and Chief Magistrate.
Page 8
Court Locations
During the reporting year, Magistrates constituted courts of petty sessions under the
Justices Act 1959, and sat in the various Divisions of the Magistrates Court at the
following locations around the State:

daily court sittings at Hobart, Launceston, Devonport, and Burnie;

circuit court sittings at Queenstown, Smithton, Currie, Whitemark, Scottsdale, St
Helens, and Huonville.
Magistrates
In July and August of this year long serving Magistrate Don Jones retired. I take this
opportunity to thank him for his service to the Court and in particular to the
community of the North West Coast.
Another long serving Magistrate, my brother Magistrate Tim Hill, retired in August
after in excess of 20 years service in the Devonport and Launceston Courts, and it is
with great personal sadness that I acknowledge his passing in March 2015. Tim was
a most popular and well regarded Magistrate who gave splendid service to the
community over an extended period of time. I express my condolences to his wife
Sue, children Rob and Georgina, and grandson Archie.
This year also saw the appointment of two new Magistrates. Magistrate Andrew
McKee was appointed to Devonport, and Magistrate Sharon Cure was appointed to
Launceston after previously serving as a Magistrate in Victoria. I take this
opportunity to formally welcome both to the Tasmanian Magistrates Court.
In recent times the Court has come under intense budgetary pressures and while I
acknowledge that the Court cannot be insulated against these, I must say the
resources are at the present time in my view inappropriately stretched. Magistrates
need an appropriate level of administrative support to properly deliver justice to the
Tasmanian community and decisions need to be made with that objective in mind. In
my view the quality of justice cannot be measured by a budget bottom line only. I
trust that those in the highest levels of government making these decisions may bear
these comments in mind.
It was also with a note of sadness that earlier this year I advised Her Excellency, the
Governor, that I would be retiring on 21 October 2015. I was appointed as Magistrate
Page 9
Special Commissioner for the Small Claims Court on 16 July 1985, moved to the
Criminal Bench on 1 January 1988, and was appointed Chief Magistrate on 3 August
2009. I have been very fortunate to serve the Tasmanian community over that time
and have very much enjoyed the roles. I take this opportunity to thank my colleagues,
court staff, legal practitioners, prosecutors and others who have appeared before me
and have supported me in my role. Whilst Magistrates are a very visible and key part
of the judicial process it takes many people performing a range of important roles to
ensure that our judicial system operates fairly and in accordance with the rule of law.
During the current reporting period, ending 30 June 2015, the Magistrates Court was
constituted by the following Magistrates:
Hobart:
Chief Magistrate M R Hill
Magistrate S F Mollard
Magistrate O M McTaggart
Magistrate C P Webster
Magistrate G A Hay
Deputy Chief Magistrate M F Daly
Magistrate C J Rheinberger
Magistrate S J Cooper
Launceston:
Magistrate T J Hill (retired)
Magistrate R J Marron
Magistrate S J Brown
Magistrate S E Cure
Devonport:
Magistrate M B Bartlett
Magistrate M J Brett
Magistrate A R McKee
Page 10
Burnie:
Magistrate D J Jones (retired)
Temporary Magistrates:
Magistrate S R Carey
Magistrate R E Chandler
Court Staff
At the end of the reporting period (30 June 2015), the Magistrates Court had an
establishment (excluding Magistrates) of 58.7 full time equivalent staff distributed
across the four permanent court registries in the State (Hobart, Launceston,
Devonport and Burnie). As at 30 June 2014 actual establishment numbers were at
54.26 full time equivalent staff.
Bench Justices
The Court once again expresses its gratitude for the voluntary contributions of the
Bench Justices who deliver justice to the community by adjudicating in certain traffic
plea courts, preliminary proceedings on indictable offences, and after-hours courts
dealing with urgent applications for bail and family violence orders. The Bench
Justices’ contribution to the criminal justice system in this State is commendable and
invaluable.
The Court’s National Involvement
The Court continues its involvement in national and international forums for the
discussion of justice and court administration in a variety of jurisdictions exercised by
the Court. During the reporting year the Court was represented at the following
meetings and conferences:

Judicial Council of Australia Colloquium, 10-12 October 2014

Council of Chief Magistrates Meeting, 22 October 2014

National Judicial Council of Australia Leadership Program, 23-25 October
2014

Asia Pacific Coroners Society Annual Conference, 11-14 November 2014
Page 11

Judicial College of Australia Governing Council meeting, 28 November 2014

National Judicial College Council Meetings, 7 February and 23 May 2015

Cultural Diversity and the Law Conference, 13-15 March 2015

Council of Chief Magistrates Meeting, 18-19 March 2015
Tasmanian Magistrates Conference
The Magistrates professional development program continued with a conference held
in Hobart on 16-17 October 2014 and a one day conference held in Campbell Town
on 24 April 2015.
A range of presentations were delivered by guest presenters and Magistrates. These
combined efforts resulted in most interesting programs at both conferences. Topics
included housing options in Tasmania, sentencing, new advances in forensic
science, the court and forensic disability services, criminal case management,
coronial update, youth justice and mental health lists. I express my gratitude to those
whose presentations have significantly contributed to the ongoing development of the
expertise of the Tasmanian Magistracy.
Page 12
Caseload
The Court continues to dispose of its workload in the majority of the traditional areas
within acceptable timeframes.
An overview of the Court’s statistical performance during the 2014-15 reporting year
shows:

Case Lodgements:
o
criminal (adult)
20,729
o
criminal (youth)
1,464
o
civil (minor civil, civil, residential tenancy)
4,509
o
miscellaneous applications
1,927
o
restraint order applications
1,223
o
family violence order applications
909
o
coronial cases
542
o
child protection applications
659
o
administrative appeals
34
o
Anti-Discrimination Tribunal
40
o
Motor Accidents Compensation Tribunal
24
TOTAL

32,060
Fines, Costs, Fees and Levies imposed:
3,312,061
o
Fines
o
Criminal court fees
o
Court fees (civil claims, applications etc.)
o
Victims of Crime Compensation levies
o
Appeals Costs Fund levies
710,504
648,524
263,240
28,510
TOTAL
Page 13
$4,962,839
Problem-solving Courts
During the reporting year the Court continued its activities in the areas of problemsolving justice. This approach to justice requires courts to acknowledge that rather
than simply processing cases, the court system should be concerned with taking
approaches in an attempt to address the problems that lead to a person’s
appearance in court, and work to change offender behaviour and improve public
safety where appropriate.

Currently the Court takes this approach in the following:

Court Mandated Drug Diversion (CMD) program;

Diversion List (DL);

Family Violence Lists;

Youth Justice Special List.
The Court continued to work to improve collaboration between participants in these
problem-solving justice approaches over the course of 2014-2015, building on what
has been achieved in previous years.
Page 14
Court Mandated Drug Diversion Program
The Court Mandated Drug Diversion Program (CMD) was introduced in 2007 to
divert people, whose offending behaviour is linked to illicit drug use, into drug
treatment interventions.
The CMD program has capacity for approximately 80 defendants statewide. Referral
to the program under a Drug Treatment Order can involve a range of treatment
options depending on what is most suitable for an offender’s needs, but may include
some or all of the following:

Individual counselling;

Group counselling;

Random illicit drug testing;

Residential rehabilitation;

Case management;

Detoxification (via the State Alcohol and Drug Service).
In the 2011 the Court adjusted the manner in which it dealt with CMD clients by
instituting listing practices whereby on average seven Magistrates across the State
hear and determine CMD matters. This adjustment has allowed the Court to develop
greater expertise in illicit drug cases and improve its internal communication with
respect to CMD clients.
The program was found to be largely successful in achieving the following short-term
outcomes:

Relapse prevention or delay

Offenders addressed criminogenic drug treatment needs

Services worked together effectively

Services achieved best practice

Courts have had more options to respond appropriately to drug
using offenders (Evaluation Report, November 2008)
To facilitate the continued success of CMD, the Court has:

modified its listing arrangements to provide offenders with greater
access to program staff and legal representation;

modified its information management systems to better reflect case
processes;

organised professional development for judicial officers in the area
of therapeutic jurisprudence and problem-solving justice;
Page 15

provided regular feedback to the Department of Justice on the
strengths and weaknesses of the program, including the integration
and quality of drug treatment services.
CMD has been successful in diverting a large group of offenders away from prison
into community-based treatment and has had some positive impacts on delaying
relapse or a return to crime.
Diversion List
Another key offender diversion program operated in the Court is the Diversion List
(DL). The pilot program commenced in May 2007 in the Hobart Magistrates Court
and has now become a permanent feature of Court operations. During the reporting
period the DL list was expanded to the Burnie and Devonport Courts. Presently, the
List sits three times a month in Hobart and once a month in Launceston, Burnie and
Devonport, and is presided over by specialist Magistrates (who also preside over
general lists).
During the reporting period the Hobart Diversion List was further expanded to include
persons with acquired brain injuries or cognitive disabilities who commit summary
offences.
The DL is a ‘problem solving court’ program that diverts eligible defendants to mental
health disability and other welfare services to address the underlying issues of their
criminal behaviour. Using provisions within the Bail Act 1994 and the Sentencing Act
1997, the MHDL seeks to provide an alternative to traditional criminal sanctions
where the mental illness is causative of the offending behaviour. Persons charged
with either a summary offence or a minor indictable offence triable summarily are
eligible to enter the List, while persons charged with sexual offences and family
violence offences are ineligible.
Family Violence Lists
Upon the commencement of the Family Violence Act 2004, the Court began listing
separate court sessions for family violence matters in order to improve its response
to these matters and co-ordination with relevant support agencies. These designated
family violence court lists are supported by specialist police prosecutors.
The Program was re-launched in April 2011 to incorporate new individual and groupbased interventions. The Court looks forward to working with Police Prosecutions
and Community Corrections over the course of the coming year.
Page 16
Contest Mention System
A detailed evaluation of the contest mention system was completed in November
2012.
The evaluation report presented information relating to the effectiveness of the
system as a pre-trial hearing for summary offences or indictable offences triable
summarily which aims to facilitate early guilty pleas and narrow the issues in dispute.
The contest mention mechanism puts in place a process which enables a defendant,
if they are going to plead guilty to an offence heard in the Magistrates Court, to do so
at the earliest possible stage of the pre-trial proceedings.
The report identified areas where improvement, reform or further evaluation of the
scheme would be appropriate.
Among the recommendations contained in the report were:
1. Tasmania’s contest mention hearing scheme should continue to operate as a
statewide scheme that ensures equality of access to the process for all
Tasmanians regardless of where they are located.
2. Legislation should be developed – perhaps via the Magistrates Court
(Criminal & General Division) Bill - to provide explicit statutory authority for the
Magistrates Court in summary cases to conduct contest mention hearings
and for Magistrates to indicate the sentence likely to be imposed on a guilty
plea entered at the contest mention stage of the proceedings, and for the
Chief Magistrate to give any directions and make any rules required for this
purpose.
3. The Magistrates Court establish a Contest Mention Working Group, chaired
by a Magistrate and including other Magistrates, and relevant internal and
external stakeholders.
4. Legislative provision should be made for costs orders against either defence
counsel or prosecution agencies, if they fail without reasonable excuse to
comply with procedural obligations.
5. A specific data collection strategy should be established with other relevant
court-based participants in contest mention hearings, such as Tasmania
Police and the Legal Aid Commission, to enable a further evaluation of the
“net benefits” of contest mention hearings by the end of 2015.
Page 17
A copy of the full evaluation report is available on the Magistrates Court website at:
www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/
Specialist Youth Justice Court Pilot
In January 2011 the Magistrates Court in Hobart embarked upon a pilot project to
trial a new approach to dealing with Youth Justice matters that come before it which
has resulted in a Specialised Youth Justice Court Pilot.
In 2013 the Court completed and published an analysis and evaluation of the
Specialised Youth Justice Court to assess whether the aims of the project have been
achieved. A copy of the evaluation including findings and recommendations is
available on the Courts’ website at www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au. The Report is
an invaluable resource and will be useful in guiding continual improvements to better
achieve the original aims of the project.
The Court process involves a single Magistrate hearing all youth justice cases; and
the development of a “specialist list” involving a therapeutic, bail-based approach to
cases involving abuse of alcohol and drugs, mental health problems, or any other
particular problem or combination of problems where the Court might appropriately
intervene. Complex matters are transferred into a “specialist list” in order to receive
more intensive supervision by the Court and appropriate case management by the
relevant agencies.
The purpose of the list is to have one Magistrate dealing with all youth justice matters
to allow for consistency of approach and hopefully more time to address issues that
are relevant to many young offenders such as alcohol and drug use, homelessness,
illiteracy, education problems and many others.
The aims of the pilot were to achieve:
1. Improvement of timeliness to finalisation of cases
2. Encouragement of more consistency in the Court’s decision
3. Development and application of specialist expertise in youth justice matters
4. Better coordination of youth justice services to the Court
5. Increased collaborative approaches between relevant agencies
The Specialised Youth Justice Court Pilot can be seen as consolidating the problemsolving justice approach in the Court. The Court acknowledges again the assistance
Page 18
of the Tasmanian Police Service in providing dedicated prosecutors, the Director of
Legal Aid for providing dedicated legal practitioners, and all those government and
non-government bodies who have assisted in building a team approach which should
lead to better outcomes for young offenders.
Court User Groups
The Court has established a statewide structure of Court User Groups in each of the
permanent court locations in Hobart, Launceston, Devonport and Burnie. The
concept of ‘Court User Groups’ had been discussed at previous Tasmanian
Magistrates Conferences and had received widespread support from Magistrates in
terms of strengthening the Court’s consultative processes with a range of court
users, including the legal profession and a range of court support agencies.
The Court User Groups assist with feedback on the operation of the courts and
provide useful input which can be included in the Court’s strategic planning
processes. Regional and relatively informal consultation processes with key
stakeholders are also likely to improve the Court’s service delivery, and the status
and reputation of the Court within the broader community.
The establishment of the user groups builds on the Court’s goals of community
engagement and continuous improvement.
A wide range of organisations considered major stakeholders of the Court have
accepted positions on the Court User Groups, including the:

Law Society of Tasmania

Tasmanian Bar Association

Tasmania Police

Community Corrections

Legal Aid Commission

Victims Support Service

Disability, Child, Youth and Family Services (DHHS), incorporating Child
Protection Services and Youth Justice Services

Statewide Mental Health Services (DHHS)

Aboriginal Legal Service

Community Legal Centres

Tasmanian Council of Social Service (TasCOSS)
Page 19
Court User Group meetings were held across the State again in this reporting period
and continue to assist in better service provision to court stakeholders.
Page 20
Criminal & General Division
Legislation
An internal Steering Committee has continued to develop drafting instructions for a
new suite of legislation governing the procedures applicable to the Court’s criminal
and general jurisdiction.
When enacted, the proposed Magistrates Court (Criminal & General Division)
legislative package will result in:

a new Magistrates Court (Criminal & General Division) Act

a new Magistrates Court (Criminal & General Division) Rules

a new Magistrates Court (Criminal & General Division) Fees Regulations

a new Restraint Orders Act

consequential amendments to the Justices Act 1959, the Magistrates Court
Act 1987, the Supreme Court (Civil Procedure) Act 1932 and other courtrelated legislation
The Court’s ability to manage the resolution of cases in a timely manner is dependent
on the legislative framework governing the Court’s processes. The current
framework is provided by the Justices Act 1959. The proposed new legislation will
help to expedite the criminal litigation process while protecting fundamental rights to
a fair trial.
The proposed Bill includes such things as early prosecution disclosure, earlier entry
of pleas, fewer adjournments, facilitating the summoning of police officers as
witnesses, shorter preliminary proceedings on serious indictable charges, and
straightforward methods of evidence presentation.
The legislative package will propose a number of initiatives, including:

new case management procedures, standards, and sentence indication
powers designed to promote the just and efficient determination of matters

a new prosecution and defence disclosure framework for disclosure of
prosecution evidence and some defences

a new way of commencing criminal proceedings via a “court attendance
notice” instead of a “charge sheet” or Complaint
Page 21

new contempt of court powers and increased powers for the Court to control
its own process

increased property value thresholds for matters that may be dealt with
summarily in the Magistrates Court

a clear and contemporary scale of legal costs
Whilst it has been a long running project I am hopeful that a draft Bill will be available
for comment and consultation with stakeholders later this year. When implemented I
am confident that it will deliver a more modern and efficient process in the
Magistrates Court for those who use the Court’s services.
IT & Technology Projects
Video-conferencing facilities
The Court’s video-conference facilities increase the community’s access to justice for
witnesses and defendants in custody to attend court by video link from any location in
Tasmania, interstate or overseas. Video-conferencing substantially reduces the cost
of adducing evidence from witnesses residing interstate and overseas. The facilities
use large screens installed for evidence presentation. All persons present in court
are able to see and hear these witnesses. Provision has also been made for
vulnerable witnesses to give their evidence remotely from a protected witness room
in the court building or elsewhere, and the entire video conference system has been
integrated into the Court’s digital audio recording system.
Legal Education Initiatives
During the reporting year, Magistrates and Court officers were engaged in a range of
legal education programs that are aimed at improving the understanding of the
justice system for a number of groups, such as young lawyers, prosecutors,
probation officers, justices of the peace, legal studies students, and community
groups.
Legal Practice Course
Since 1997, the Hobart Magistrates have been delivering lectures, and supervising
practical courtroom exercises, for university law graduates who are enrolled in the six
month Legal Practice Course. This is conducted between February and August each
year.
Page 22
The sessions are supervised by the Court’s Criminal Law Practice and Advocacy
unit. Magistrates convene mock courts for two to three hours every week after court
adjourns in the afternoon to introduce law graduates to the courtroom environment in
preparation for when they commence legal practice. The graduates prepare and
deliver applications, make submissions, deliver pleas in mitigation, and conduct
minor contested hearings. The Magistrates provide feedback to the trainees on their
delivery, content, and advocacy skills. The exercises form part of the assessment for
the unit.
Based on feedback from course participants, the Criminal Law Practice and
Advocacy unit is considered to be one of the most practical units studied by the
trainees as the Magistrates Court is the jurisdiction in which most junior lawyers are
likely to practice in the early years of their professional life.
CourtWatch
As part of the Legal Practice Course each year, the Magistrates Court host trainees
for a day as part of our CourtWatch program. On a succession of days over a two
week period, small groups of trainees are shown the practices and procedures of the
Court in both its administrative and judicial functions.
Trainees sit in court with the Court Clerks to observe proceedings, and “shadow”
their allocated Magistrate for the day. Trainees are given an opportunity to discuss
issues that have arisen during the day before the Magistrate in court. They are also
given an opportunity to observe how the administrative tasks of the Court are
conducted in the registry, including filing, listing and record-keeping duties.
It is hoped that the trainees will gain a better understanding of the legislative and
administrative requirements of the Magistrates Court, so they will be better equipped
to comply with the challenges of legal practice.
Sentencing Workshops
Sentencing Workshops were originally developed in 2002 as a joint initiative of the
Magistrates Court, the Supreme Court, Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania, Office of
the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Department of Police and Emergency
Management, the Neighbourhood Watch Association, and the Crime Prevention and
Community Safety Council.
Information about the sentencing workshops can be found at:
http://www.courtlists.tas.gov.au/Sentencing/
Page 23
Over a number of years, Magistrates and officers of the Magistrates Court of
Tasmania have conducted numerous sentencing workshops around the State to
explain the sentencing process and sentencing principles. Participants in the
workshops are then invited to apply the principles to fictitious cases drawn from a
sample that occurs on a daily basis in the Magistrates Court.
Workshops have been organised for Adult Education classes, for school groups, for
members of Parliament, and for relevant occupational groups such as probation
officers and court support workers, and for the public generally during events such as
Seniors’ Week.
The workshops have been very well received, and have resulted in a better
understanding of the complex task of sentencing, including matters taken into
consideration, and the weight to be attached to the wide range of factors relevant to
sentencing. The workshops now form a permanent feature of the Court’s strategic
plan.
Web-Publication of Magistrates’ Decisions
During the reporting year, decisions from our criminal jurisdiction were published on
the Magistrates Court website. Magistrates’ decisions are now available on the
internet for access by legal practitioners and other interested persons. The Court now
publishes decisions on its website from the following Divisions of the Court:

Criminal & General Division

Civil Division

Coronial Division

Administrative Appeals Division

Anti-Discrimination Tribunal
(refer to the Magistrates Court website www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/decisions)
Disability Access to Services
In January 2011 the Department of Justice launched the Disability Access and
Inclusion Plan Communication Strategy and formed a Disability Working Group with
representatives from each Output, including the Magistrates Court. The object is to
ensure people with any form of disability are able to fully participate, contribute and
Page 24
achieve their potential, and to exercise self-determination and responsibility as
citizens in Tasmania.
The Magistrates Court is participating in the Disability Working Group, and the
Programs, Services and Accessibility Working Party to examine and improve not only
physical access to court buildings but access via all mediums to programs and
services (such as telephone enquiries, website information resources, court forms
etc.).
Court Support Services
I acknowledge and thank the range of court support services which are provided, on
a voluntary basis, to assist clients who are having difficulty in understanding the
Court process or accessing legal advice or representation.
Salvation Army - Court and Prison Chaplaincy
A Salvation Army Chaplain attends court on a regular basis to offer help and support
through the Court process to offenders, their families, victims, and witnesses. This
service can be important as a referral service to other programs such as:

personal development programs

alcohol and drug programs

housing and homeless services

aged care assistance

women's domestic violence services

financial counselling.
Page 25
Migrant Resource Centre
The Migrant Resource Centre assists humanitarian migrants who have entered
Tasmania in the last five years when they are involved with the Court system.
The Migrant Resource Centre provides the following case management support
services:

support and advocacy for people proceeding through the justice system

point of liaison between Police, Courts, Legal Aid, Department of Justice,
Corrective Services and clients

support for clients to report incidents to the Police and the Office of the AntiDiscrimination Commissioner

education and awareness raising on legal issues for clients

capacity building for services who work with culturally and linguistically
diverse community members

referrals to relevant agencies within the justice system such as Legal Aid,
Hobart Community Legal Service, Women's Legal Service, etc.

referrals to other relevant government and non-government agencies.
The case management services ensure clients, who are proceeding through the
justice system, understand the information relating to their legal matter and are
treated with cultural sensitivity.
Save the Children
The 'Supporting Young People on Bail' Program commenced in May 2011 in the
Magistrates Court (Youth Justice Division) in Hobart. An initiative of Save the
Children Fund (Australia), the program assists young people, not subject to other
court orders, while they are on bail. This program has helped numerous young
persons while on bail to not reoffend.
Provision has been made for an interview room at the Hobart Magistrates Court for a
Youth Worker from Save the Children to interview the young person and develop a
Bail Support Plan. The plan is designed to identify the recreational, educational and
vocational/employment goals and aspirations of the young person. The Bail Plan is
presented to the Magistrate in court, and progress on the plan is reported at
subsequent appearances.
Page 26
There are four referral streams to Save the Children - the Specialist Youth Justice
Magistrate, Youth Justice (DHHS), a Youth Worker identifying a young person in
court, or the Police (Early Intervention Unit).
Baptcare and Mission Australia
Other services that actively engage with the Youth Justice Court are Baptcare and
Mission Australia offering assistance and support to young people with a range of
needs, such as homelessness, alcohol and drug problems, education and training,
family breakdown, and mental illness.
Community Legal Services
In each region of the State the Court is assisted by the various Community Legal
Services.
The Hobart Community Legal Service has offices in Hobart and Bridgewater. Along
with the provision of free legal advice, the HCLS operates the Volunteer Court
Support Scheme. In Launceston the Launceston Community Legal Centre provides
free legal advice and referral to Legal Aid and private practitioners. In Burnie and
Devonport the North West Community Legal Centre Inc. provides a similar service.
All these organisations assist the Court greatly in preparing parties on how the Court
process operates and what is expected to happen in the courtroom.
Page 27
Coronial Division
The jurisdiction and operation of the Coronial Division is set out in the Coroners Act
1995, and the Coroners Rules 2006. This report is submitted pursuant to the
Coroners Act 1995 s69.
Coroners have the power to inquire into reportable deaths, fires, and explosions.
The purpose of the coronial jurisdiction is to learn from the circumstances
surrounding deaths, fires and explosions with a view to reducing the likelihood of
these arising again in the future. In addition, coroners undertake the primary
investigation into those deaths where the circumstances appear to be suspicious.
Coroner Olivia McTaggart continued her role as the Chief Magistrate’s delegate and
full-time Coroner, and Coroner Simon Cooper was allocated a full-time coronial caseload in April. Coroners Rod Chandler and Stephen Carey continued to provide parttime assistance.
I also acknowledge the Coronial Division’s continued working relationships with:

the State Forensic Pathologist Dr Chris Lawrence, Forensic Pathologist Dr Don
Ritchey, approved Pathologists Dr Terry Brain and Dr Ruchira Fernando, and
their dedicated staff;

the Office of the Commissioner of Tasmania Police for the vital work undertaken
by coroner’s associates and all Tasmanian police officers in coronial
investigations;

Forensic Odontologists Dr Paul Taylor, Dr Patrick Oxbrough and staff;

Forensic Anthropologist Dr Anne-Marie Williams:

Forensic Science Service Tasmania Director Laszlo Szabo and toxicologists and
forensic scientists Neil McLachlan-Troup, Miriam Connor, Craig Gardner and their
dedicated staff, including forensic technicians Sally Pretyman, Paul Anderson,
and Amy Kok;

Forensic biologist Pam Scott and her team and forensic chemists Michael
Manthey and Claire Fulton;

Professor Tony Bell, Clinical Medical Adviser, and Clinical Nurse Specialist, Libby
Newman;

the General Manager of Workplace Standards Tasmania, Martin Shirley, and his
investigative teams; and
Page 28

the operators of the Mortuary Ambulance Services.
Coronial Findings and Recommendations
All findings and recommendations considered by Coroners to be of public interest are
published on the Magistrates Court website at:
http://www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/decisions
or
http://www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/decisions/coronial_numeric_index
or
http://www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/decisions/coronial_alphabetical_index
Deaths in Custody
As required by s69(2)(a) of the Act, I report that during the reporting period there
were four deaths reported where the deceased died “in custody” (as defined in s3 of
the Coroners Act 1995).
During the reporting period, inquests were conducted and completed into three
deaths in custody, one that occurred in facilities operated by the Tasmanian Prison
Service. The findings of all inquests have been published on the Magistrates Court
website.
Deaths in Care
During the reporting period there were four deaths reported of persons held “in care”
within the meaning of the Coroners Act 1995. During the reported period one inquest
was completed in relation to deaths in care. The Coroner has published a deidentified version of the findings on the Magistrates Court website.
Page 29
Anti-Discrimination
Tribunal
Page 30
Anti-Discrimination Tribunal
The Anti-Discrimination Tribunal was created by the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998.
This report covers the 15th full financial year of the Tribunal’s operation. From 1 July
2015 the Tribunal was co-located with the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation
Commission. Therefore this will be the last time the Tribunal’s operations will be
included in this Annual Report.
Membership of the Tribunal
The membership of the Tribunal is as follows:

Magistrate Glenn Hay (Chairperson – Hobart)

Magistrate Melanie Bartlett (North-West Coast)

Magistrate Michael Brett (North-West Coast)

Magistrate Catherine Rheinberger (Hobart)

Magistrate Simon Brown (Magistrate) (Launceston)

Professor Margaret Otlowski (Dean of Law School – UTAS) (Hobart)

Mr Steven Bishop (Barrister and Solicitor) (Launceston)

Ms Audrey Mills (Barrister and Solicitor) (Hobart)

Ms Kate Cuthbertson (Barrister-at-law) (Hobart)

Ms Lindi Wall (legal practitioner) (Hobart)

Ms Jennifer Bridge-Wright (non-legal practitioner) (Hobart)

Mr Robert Winter (legal practitioner) (Hobart)
From time to time Ms Cate McKenzie of the Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal
is appointed to sit on Anti-Discrimination Tribunal cases where conflicts mean that
Tasmanian members are unable to sit.
By s12 of the Act the Chair must be a legal practitioner of no less than seven years
standing, a Magistrate or former Judge.
The Chairperson and panel members carry out their responsibilities on a part-time
sessional basis and non-Magistrate members are remunerated by way of an hourly
rate for sitting time. It is acknowledged that the hourly sessional rate is only a
Page 31
percentage of what the legally qualified panel members might reasonably expect
from private practice remuneration.
The Chair and panel members who are Magistrates do not receive additional
remuneration for Tribunal matters as they subsume and absorb their panel duties into
their magisterial duties. All current Magistrate panel members were members of the
panel prior to their commissions to sit on the Magistrates Court bench.
All Tribunal Members carry out their responsibilities on a part-time basis.
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
The Tribunal can hear complaints of discrimination on any of the grounds set out in
s16 of the Anti-Discrimination Act.
Further, the Tribunal hears complaints of sexual harassment and also prohibited
conduct (which includes offensive or humiliating conduct: see s17). Other grounds of
complaint are victimisation relating to complaints or proceedings under the Act and
inciting hatred on the ground of race, disability, sexual orientation, lawful sexual
activity, religious belief or affiliation or religious activity.
Location of the Tribunal
During the reporting period, the office (Registry) of the Tribunal was located at the
Magistrates Court, Hobart. Tribunal sittings were arranged in other centres as
required including Burnie, Launceston, and Devonport Magistrates Courts. It has
been the practice for Reviews/Inquiries to be heard in the locality where the
discrimination is alleged to have occurred.
The Tribunal was administratively managed by the Civil Division of the Magistrates
Court. No rental is paid for accommodation provided to the Tribunal and all costs of
the Tribunal are absorbed within the Magistrates Court budget.
Library resources are available to all members in each of the Magistrates Courts
libraries and members have the use of chambers accommodation in the courts when
sitting. Limited typing services are available to members by staff of the Magistrates
Courts. A court staff member is provided to assist in hearings, recording, and
administrative duties.
Members have full web access when sitting or in chambers, including electronic
benchbooks as well as reported and unreported decisions from all Australian and NZ
jurisdictions.
Page 32
Statutory Functions
The main statutory functions of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal are:

conducting Inquiries in relation to complaints referred to the Tribunal by the
Anti-Discrimination Commissioner

reviewing decisions made by the Commissioner in either rejecting or
dismissing complaints.
Conciliation
It is usual practice to order early conciliation in any matter referred for Inquiry.
Conciliation is an effective tool not only to settle the matter by agreement without
inquiry hearing, but also to limit the time of potential hearings by agreeing issues and
witnesses to be called and documents to be produced.
External conciliators are engaged on a sessional basis and provided with the use of
conference facilities at a Magistrates Court. ADT decisions can be found at:
www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/decisions
Workload and Case Management
The Tribunal’s method of calculating workload should be noted. Each complaint or
application received by the Tribunal is recorded as one matter regardless of the
number of respondents involved in the matter. By comparison at the Office of the
ADC, a complaint brought against multiple respondents gives rise to multiple files.
In the reporting year, the Tribunal held a total caseload of 66 matters of which were
finalised (63%). A breakdown of all matters received and finalised in the reporting
year is set out in Table 1.
Table 1 - ADT Lodgements (Reviews and Inquiries) 2010-2015
Description
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Applications:
 Review of Rejections
 Review of Dismissals
3
4
8
4
10
7
8
4
6
4
Inquiries
20
32
23
44
29
1
Other
Total
27
44
40
56
Source: Civil Registry Management System
As shown in Table 2, the Tribunal has continued to promote conciliation as an
effective and appropriate method of resolving disputes in this jurisdiction.
Page 33
40
Table 2 - ADT Flow of Matters 2010–2015
Description
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Matters unfinalised at Start of
Period:
27
27
26
24
39
Lodged in period:
27
44
40
56
40
Conciliation
3
5
6
9
5
Settlement between the
parties
3
5
3
6
2
Hearing
4
4
3
0
3
Dismissed
11
8
15
17
14
Hearing
5
3
12
6
2
Dismissed
1
3
3
3
8
Withdrawn
-
-
-
0
3
Finalised in period:
Inquiries
Reviews
Other
1
Matters finalised by the end of the
period
27
28
42
41
38
Matters unfinalised at end of
period
27
26
24
39
41
Page 34
Timeliness
The timeliness of finalisation of matters by the Tribunal during the reporting year is a
measure of efficiency. Table 3 sets out the age of matters that were finalised during
the reporting year regardless of when they were lodged.
This shows the number of cases that were finalised in the last financial year with a
significant proportion of cases (76 %) finalised in less than 12 months.
Table 3 - ADT Clearance rate (finalisations / lodgements) 2010–2015
Criterion
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
No.
No.
Finalised within 6 months
16
25
27
17
Finalised within 12 months
8
6
10
12
Finalised within 18 months
-
5
-
1
Finalised > 18 months
4
6
4
8
Total
28
Source: Civil Registry Management System
Page 35
42
41
38
Court Statistics
Page 36
List of Tables
TABLE 1 - ADT LODGEMENTS (REVIEWS AND INQUIRIES) 2010-2015 ................................................................. 33
TABLE 2 - ADT FLOW OF MATTERS 2010–2015 ............................................................................................. 34
TABLE 3 - ADT CLEARANCE RATE (FINALISATIONS / LODGEMENTS) 2010–2015.................................................... 35
TABLE 4 - CRIMINAL (ADULTS) - MATTERS LODGED 2011-2015 ........................................................................ 38
TABLE 5 - FAMILY VIOLENCE ORDER APPLICATIONS LODGED 2011-2015 ............................................................. 39
TABLE 6 - RESTRAINT ORDER APPLICATIONS LODGED 2011-2015 ..................................................................... 39
TABLE 7 - CRIMINAL & GENERAL DIVISION - APPLICATIONS - MISCELLANEOUS FILED 2011-2015 ............................ 40
TABLE 8 - CRIMINAL (YOUTH JUSTICE) 1 - MATTERS LODGED 2011-2015 ............................................................ 41
TABLE 9 - CIVIL CASES LODGED 2011-2015 ................................................................................................... 42
TABLE 10 - ENFORCEMENT PROCESS FOR CIVIL DEBT RECOVERY CASES 2011-2015 ................................................ 42
TABLE 12 - CHILD PROTECTION - APPLICATIONS LODGED 2011-20151 ............................................................... 43
TABLE 13 - CORONIAL - SUMMARY OF CORONIAL ACTIVITY 2011-2015............................................................... 44
TABLE 14 - CORONIAL - INQUESTS & INVESTIGATIONS COMPLETED 2011-2015 ................................................... 44
TABLE 15 - CORONIAL – MOTOR VEHICLE FATALITIES - INQUESTS & INVESTIGATIONS COMPLETED - 2011-2015 ........ 45
TABLE 16 - CORONIAL – SELF-INFLICTED DEATHS CLOSED – BY METHOD - 2011-2015 ........................................... 45
TABLE 17 - APPLICATIONS RECEIVED 2010-2015 ............................................................................................ 46
TABLE 18 - OUTCOMES OF APPLICATIONS 2010-2015 ..................................................................................... 46
TABLE 19 - ACTS GIVING RISE TO APPEALS 2011-2015 ..................................................................................... 47
TABLE 20 - MINING TRIBUNAL MATTERS LODGED 2010-2015 ........................................................................... 48
TABLE 21 - MACT - REFERENCES LODGED 2011-2015 .................................................................................... 48
TABLE 23 - BACKLOG INDICATOR, THE NUMBER AND PROPORTION OF PENDING CASELOAD LODGEMENTS IN EXCESS OF
TIMELINESS STANDARDS 2013-2015..................................................................................................... 49
TABLE 24 - CLEARANCE RATE % (FINALISATIONS/LODGEMENTS).......................................................................... 50
TABLE 25 - ATTENDANCE INDICATOR 2011-2015 ........................................................................................... 51
TABLE 26 - EXPENDITURE BY OUTLAY - MAGISTRATES COURT SERVICES ................................................................ 53
Page 37
Court Statistics
Criminal & General Division
Table 4 sets out the volume of criminal cases involving adults lodged during the
reporting year. The data has been extracted from the Criminal Registry Information
Management Enquiry System (CRIMES), and reports by offence category as defined
by the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Australian Standard Offence Classification
(ASOC)1.
Table 4 - Criminal (Adults) - Matters lodged 2011-2015
Principal Offence1, 2
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Homicide and related offences
10
8
14
12
Acts Intended To Cause Injury
2,276
1,817
1,898
1,929
Sexual Assault And Related Offences
107
97
137
111
Dangerous Or Negligent Acts
Endangering Persons
705
610
Abduction, Harassment And Other
Offences Against The Person
2
7
2
8
Robbery, Extortion And Related Offences 68
74
54
56
Unlawful Entry With Intent/Burglary,
Break And Enter
509
479
428
453
Theft And Related Offences
1,644
1,384
1,390
1,490
Fraud, Deception And Related Offences
341
342
307
369
Illicit Drug Offences
1,283
965
886
1,036
Prohibited And Regulated Weapons And
Explosives Offences
207
222
235
252
Property Damage And Environmental
Pollution
528
427
405
380
Public Order Offences
1,392
1,005
905
740
Traffic And Vehicle Regulatory Offences
8,819
6,861
6,917
8,057
Offences Against Justice Procedures,
Government Security And Government
Operations
1,680
1,428
1,350
1,416
Miscellaneous Offences
186
151
153
144
Breaches of bail, suspended sentences,
community service orders, probation 3, 4
3,714
3,395
3,279
3,709
TOTAL
1.
23,471
19,272
558
18,918
563
20,729
The data in this year’s Annual Report is coded according to the Australian & New Zealand Standard Offence Coding system
(ANZSOC).
Page 38
2.
3.
4.
The data in this year’s Annual Report adopts the counting rules for the Report on Government Services on criminal
lodgements which, in addition to counting single criminal lodgements, also counts as a single unit multiple complaints filed
against a single Defendant on the same day. The rationale for such a counting rule is that multiple charges filed on the same
day will usually relate to an episode of offending behaviour that is likely to be heard and determined by the Court as a single
unit of work.
The counting rules for the Report on Government Services on criminal lodgements exclude related applications and
complaints lodged for breaches of court orders.
A review of the data collected by the Magistrates Court has led to amendments to corresponding data collect in earlier years.
Family Violence Orders
Table 5 shows the number of matters involving family violence orders lodged with the
Court during the reporting year. The Table does not include family violence offences,
which are included in Table 4 above, and does not include applications for Police
Family Violence orders.
Table 5 - Family Violence Order Applications lodged 2011-2015
Application Type
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
to extend Police Family Violence Order
5
15
16
10
to revoke Police Family Violence Order
55
43
58
46
to vary Police Family Violence Order
82
77
85
115
for grant of Family Violence Order
602
486
565
532
to extend Family Violence Order
17
25
29
35
to revoke Family Violence Order
29
10
31
22
to vary Family Violence Order
110
93
83
128
to register interstate Family Violence Order
13
7
TOTAL
913
17
756
21
887
909
Restraint Orders
Table 6 shows the number of restraint order applications lodged with the Court.
Table 6 - Restraint Order Applications lodged 2011-2015 1
Application Type
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Application for grant of Restraint Order
1,346
1,184
1,057
1,148
Application to extend Restraint Order
19
29
20
21
Application to revoke Restraint Order
22
28
25
24
Application to vary Restraint Order
37
29
31
30
Registration of interstate Restraint Order
1
2
1
0
TOTAL
1,425
1,272
1,134
1,223
1
A review of the data collected for this Table has led to amendments to the data in earlier years to ensure accurate
comparisons
Page 39
Applications
During the reporting year, the Court heard a range of applications. Some of the more
frequently made applications are listed in Table 7 below.
Table 7 - Criminal & General Division - Applications - Miscellaneous Filed
2011-20152
Application Type
Legislation
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Application for Bail
Bail Act 1994
41
61
129
104
Application to vary Bail
Bail Act 1994
425
345
316
280
Preliminary proceedings
order by Supreme Court
Justices Rules
2003
107
141
104
101
Application to set aside
conviction and penalty
Justices Rules
2003
94
43
25
38
Application to have
conviction set aside or
total penalty varied
Monetary
Penalties
Enforcement Act
2005
209
171
126
111
Other applications under
Sentencing Act
Sentencing Act
1997
244
230
230
121
Other applications under
Youth Justice Act
Youth Justice
Act 1997
33
35
54
46
501
491
486
467
Other miscellaneous
applications
Drug Treatment Order
review
Sentencing Act
1997
87
78
63
55
Restricted Driver
Licence Application
Vehicle & Traffic
Act 1999
817
623
481
604
2,558
2,218
2,014
1,927
TOTAL
2
A review of the data collected for this Table has led to amendments to the data in earlier years to ensure better and more
accurate comparisons
Page 40
Youth Justice Division
Table 8 shows the number of criminal matters dealt with in the Court’s Youth Justice
Division during the current and previous reporting years. The Youth Justice Division
has jurisdiction to hear and determine offences alleged to have been committed by a
person aged under 18 years at the date of the offence.
Table 8 - Criminal (Youth Justice) 1 - Matters lodged 2011-2015
Principal Offence 2
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Homicide and related offences
0
0
2
0
Acts Intended To Cause Injury
364
227
226
199
Sexual Assault And Related Offences
20
13
15
7
Dangerous Or Negligent Acts
Endangering Persons
104
65
46
45
Abduction, Harassment And Other
Offences Against The Person
0
1
1
0
Robbery, Extortion And Related
Offences
38
45
13
24
Unlawful Entry With Intent/Burglary,
Break And Enter
271
197
174
165
Theft And Related Offences
471
390
326
280
Fraud, Deception And Related
Offences
31
25
21
17
Illicit Drug Offences
66
31
28
31
Prohibited And Regulated Weapons
And Explosives Offences
18
15
8
18
Property Damage And Environmental
Pollution
166
144
74
98
Public Order Offences
174
116
89
85
Traffic And Vehicle Regulatory
Offences
271
227
212
202
Offences Against Justice Procedures,
Government Security And Government
Operations
Miscellaneous Offences
114
90
65
46
34
16
7
16
Breaches of bail, suspended
sentences, community service orders,
probation 3
785
661
476
231
2,779
2,228
1,783
1,464
TOTAL
1.
The data in this year’s Annual Report is coded according to the Australian & New Zealand Standard Offence Coding system
(ANZSOC). A review of the data collected for this Table has led to amendments to the data in earlier years to ensure better
and more accurate comparisons
Page 41
2.
3.
The data in this year’s Annual Report adopts the counting rules for the Report on Government Services on criminal
lodgements which, in addition to counting single criminal lodgements, also counts as a single unit multiple complaints filed
against a single Defendant on the same day. The rationale for such a counting rule is that multiple charges filed on the same
day will usually relate to an episode of offending behaviour that is likely to be heard and determined by the Court as a single
unit of work.
The counting rules for the Report on Government Services on criminal lodgements exclude related applications and
complaints lodged for breaches of court orders.
Civil Division
Table 9 is a comparison of the major types of civil claims lodged with the court.
Table 9 - Civil cases lodged 2011-2015
Nature of Case
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Minor civil cases (to $5,000)
4,593
4,147
3,540
3,061
Civil cases (to $50,000)
1,222
1,179
1,084
911
Residential tenancy
452
475
461
457
Other
0
4
0
0
Total
6,267
5,805
5,085
4,429
Source: Civil Registry Management System
Table 10 sets out the volume of debt recovery matters in which a Judgment Creditor
proceeded to enforcement of the Judgment.
Table 10 - Enforcement process for civil debt recovery cases 2011-2015
Enforcement Process
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Warrant to Sell Property
1,215
1,146
1182
938
Garnishees
1,253
1,080
701
615
Judgment Summons
261
142
90
61
Oral Examination
142
120
84
70
Warrant of Possession
50
48
51
56
Total
2,921
2,536
2,108
1,740
Source: Civil Registry Management System
Page 42
Child Protection
Table 12 - Child Protection - Applications Lodged 2011-20151
Application Type
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
68
66
27
43
194
178
109
97
Application for further Assessment Order
s22(5)
66
45
39
49
Application for further Assessment Order
s22(5)(b)
33
53
10
5
Application for Care & Protection Order (12
months) s42
253
169
157
159
Care and Protection Order granting
custody of child to the Secretary s42(4)(b)
50
80
36
33
Application for Care and Protection
(Guardianship Order) s42(4)(c)
27
25
11
19
118
109
72
81
Application for extension of Care &
Protection Order s44(1)
78
95
79
56
Application for revocation of a care &
protection order
21
26
19
19
Application for variation of a care &
protection order
89
83
94
72
Other applications under Children, Young
Persons and Their Families Act 1997
46
41
37
26
1,043
970
690
659
Application for Warrant to Take Child to
Place of Safety
Application for Assessment Order
Application for Care & Protection order
(until attains 18 years) s42(4)(d)
TOTAL
Page 43
Coronial Division
Table 13 - Coronial - Summary of coronial activity 2011-2015
Description
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
478
555
581
542
Fires/Explosions reported to the Coroner
0
0
0
0
Number of inquests held
9
7
5
10
Number of cases closed
462
450
536
489
2
4
6
8
Deaths reported to the Coroner
Deaths in custody or care
Table 14 - Coronial - Inquests & Investigations Completed 2011-2015
Description
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Aircraft
0
0
1
1
Death in Custody/Care
2
5
7
4
Domestic Accident
1
0
3
3
Drowning
5
11
8
13
Drug Overdose
13
19
18
29
Fall
13
12
40
31
Homicide
5
2
4
2
Hospital
17
14
15
17
House Fire
1
2
1
0
Marine Fatality
0
3
1
2
Industrial Accident
3
2
3
2
Natural
270
281
317
242
Other
12
12
19
16
SIDS
1
5
2
4
Suicide
77
49
68
71
Undetermined Causes
31
16
6
17
Vehicle Crash
21
17
23
34
462
450
536
489
Total
Page 44
Table 15 - Coronial – Motor Vehicle Fatalities - Inquests & Investigations
completed - 2011-2015
Description
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Driver
12
10
11
10
Bystander / Pedestrian
5
2
6
1
Passenger
1
2
2
8
Bicycle
0
1
1
3
Motorcycle
3
2
3
12
Motorised Wheel chair
0
0
0
0
21
17
23
34
TOTAL
Table 16 - Coronial – Self-Inflicted Deaths closed – by method - 2011-2015
Description
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Hanging
25
19
25
32
Carbon Monoxide
10
6
6
7
Drug Overdose
9
2
12
11
Burns
1
0
1
0
Gunshot
12
7
8
8
Drowning
6
7
4
2
Jumping
5
1
2
4
Other
9
7
6
7
77
49
64
71
TOTAL
Page 45
Administrative Appeals Division
Table 17 is a comparison of applications filed over four reporting periods (2010/11 to
2014/15), and Table 18 shows the outcomes of the applications considered, while the
legislation under which the appeals arose can be seen at:
http://www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/decisions
Table 17 - Applications received 2010-2015
Type of Application
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Review (Appeal) of a
reviewable decision - S17
30
38
18
43
33
Declaration of entitlement to
reasons for decision – S15(1)
0
0
0
1
0
Extension of time to apply for
review of decision - S20
0
4
0
0
1
Other
4
Total
0
0
34
1
42
0
18
45
34
Source: Civil Registry Management System
Table 18 - Outcomes of applications 2010-2015
Description of Outcome
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Decisions
8
11
8
2
6
Withdrawn
5
1
1
6
4
Pending or listed for Court’s
consideration
5
5
1
0
0
Dismissed
5
3
11
5
12
Reserved for decision
0
0
0
0
0
Settled by Agreement
3
2
4
9
3
Adjourned sine die
6
7
5
2
6
Other
2
0
0
0
0
Total
34
29
Source: Civil Registry Management System
Page 46
30
24
31
Table 19 - Acts giving rise to appeals 2011-2015
Legislation
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Dog Control Act 2000
8
3
14
8
Legacy - AAD
0
0
0
0
Firearms Act 1996
4
5
11
5
Security and Investigations Agents Act 2001
2
0
2
0
Local Government Act 1993
13
2
3
0
Vehicle and Traffic Review of Decisions
Regulations 2010
2
1
1
0
Property Agents & Land Transactions Act 2005
0
0
1
0
Building Act 2000
1
4
2
1
Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999
2
-
5
1
Adoption Act
1
0
0
0
Crown Lands (Shack Sites) Act 1997
0
0
2
0
Plumbers and Gas-fitters Registration Act 1951
0
0
0
0
Local Government (Highways) Act 1982
1
0
0
0
Dangerous Substance (Safe Handling) Act
0
0
0
0
Tasmanian Qualifications Authority Act 2003
1
0
0
0
Births Deaths and Marriages Act 1999
1
0
0
0
Taxation Administration Act 1997
2
0
0
1
Youth Justice Act 1997
0
0
0
0
Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995
1
0
0
0
Teachers Registration Act 2000
2
0
0
0
Explosives Act 2012
0
1
0
4
Food Act 1998
2
Registration to Work with Vulnerable People Act
2013
1
Veterinary Surgeons Act 1987
1
Local Government Act 1993
5
Other
1
Total
0
42
Source: Civil Registry Management System
Page 47
0
18
5
45
34
Mining Tribunal
Table 20 shows the volume of matters lodged with the Tribunal from 2010 to 2015.
Table 20 - Mining Tribunal matters lodged 2010-2015
Description of Outcome
Referred to Tribunal for hearing
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
6
3
2
2013-14
2014-15
3
1
Motor Accidents Compensation Tribunal
Table 21 shows the number of references lodged with the Tribunal over the last four
reporting years.
Table 21 - MACT - References lodged 2011-2015
Description
2011-12
References Lodged
30
2012-13
26
2013-14
2014-15
41
24
Performance Indicators
The measures used to assess the performance of the Magistrates Court are:

Backlog Indicator - a measure of effectiveness in relation to timeliness and
delay

Clearance Rate - an efficiency measure of the inputs per output unit

Attendance Indicator - an effectiveness measure of timeliness and delay.
These measures should be treated as indicative rather than definitive, as the Court
does not have total control over the process for adjudicating criminal matters,
resolving civil disputes and investigating coronial matters, and consequently other
parties may introduce delays.
Backlog Indicator
This indicator is a measure of case processing timeliness. This measure has been
developed on a national basis as a means of determining the performance of a
Court.
In the criminal jurisdiction, those defendants who have bench warrants associated
with them have been excluded from the count, and in the civil jurisdiction those
lodgements that have not been acted upon in the last 12 months have been
excluded. The aim has been to focus on those matters that are part of an ‘active
pending’ population.
Page 48
Similarly, the indicator recognises that case processing must take some time and that
such time does not necessarily equal delay. Timeliness can be affected by delays
caused by factors other than those related to the workload of the Court (for example,
a witness, a party, or counsel not being available or ready to proceed).
The backlog indicator measures the Court’s pending caseload against timeliness
standards and the Court’s performance is set out in Table 23.
Table 23 - Backlog indicator, the number and proportion of pending caseload
lodgements in excess of timeliness standards 2013-2015
Jurisdictions
2013-14
Number
2014-15
%
Number
%
Criminal (Adult)
Pending caseload (no.)
5,938
7,312
Cases < 6 mths.
4,340
73.1
4,952
67.7
Cases > 6 mths < 12 mths.
897
15.1
1,353
18.5
Cases > 12 mths.
694
11.8
1,007
13.8
Youth Justice
Pending caseload (no.)
412
438
Cases < 6 mths.
321
77.9
316
72.1
Cases > 6 mths < 12 mths.
48
11.7
69
15.8
Cases > 12 mths.
43
10.4
53
12.1
Child Protection
Pending caseload (no.)
109
45
Cases < 6 mths.
60
55.0
38
84.4
Cases > 6 mths < 12 mths.
23
21.1
3
6.7
Cases > 12 mths.
26
23.9
4
8.9
Coroners
Pending caseload (no.)
479
518
Cases < 12 mths.
305
63.6
346
66.8
Cases > 12 mths < 24 mths.
112
23.4
107
20.7
Cases > 24 mths.
62
12.9
65
12.5
Civil
Pending caseload (no.)
4,130
Cases < 6 mths.
2,365
57.3
2,092
57.1
Cases > 6 mths < 12 mths.
1,306
31.6
1,177
31.7
459
11.1
460
11.2
Cases > 12 mths.
Page 49
3,729
Clearance Rate
The clearance rate is an indicator of efficiency in processing the inflow of cases
through the Court and has been agreed nationally as a measure of whether a Court
is keeping up with its workload. The Court’s performance against this measure is set
out in Table 24.
The clearance rate is the number of finalisations in the reporting period divided by the
number of lodgements in the same period (multiplied by 100 to convert to a
percentage).
The following should assist in understanding the clearance rate:

A figure of 100 per cent indicates that, during the reporting period, the Court
finalised as many cases as were lodged

A figure greater than 100 per cent means that the pending caseload of the
Court is decreasing

A figure less than 100 per cent means that the pending caseload of the Court
is increasing
It should be noted that the clearance rate can be affected by external factors, such as
the readiness of parties, changes in legislation, and the Court’s case management
practices.
Table 24 - Clearance rate % (finalisations/lodgements)
Jurisdictions
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Magistrates (Adult)
Criminal
97.3
102.1
94.3
90.4
Civil
100.9
104.5
108.9
106.8
All matters (civil & criminal)
98.4
103.3
98.9
96.0
Children’s
Criminal
94.8
105.7
97.6
98.9
Civil
96.3
112.7
97.5
121.2
All matters (civil & criminal)
Coroners
95.1
96.7
Page 50
107.2
81.1
97.6
92.3
103.2
90.2
Attendance index
The Attendance index is based upon the number of Court attendances required to
resolve a matter has been identified nationally as an appropriate effectiveness
measure. At present, this measure is only available in the coronial and criminal
jurisdictions and Table 25 shows the Court’s performance against this measure.
The number of attendances is the number of times that parties or their
representatives were required to be present in Court to be heard by a judicial officer
or mediator/arbitrator (including appointments which were adjourned or rescheduled).
This year’s Report presents the total number of finalisations during the year and the
number of attendances associated with these matters (no matter when the
attendance occurred). This approach simply represents an average number of
attendances per finalisation.
In the context of the attendance indicator, it is important to note that Alternative
Dispute Resolution (ADR) can resolve matters out of Court and reduce Court
attendances.
Table 25 - Attendance indicator 2011-2015
Average listings - per case
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Criminal:
- Magistrates (Adult)
- Children’s (Youth Justice)
Coroners:
4.0
4.3
4.0
4.0
5.2
5.7
5.8
5.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Page 51
Court Finances
Page 52
Court Finances
The Magistrates Court contributes to the Department of Justice output entitled
‘Administration of Justice’ and the Court’s funding is set out in Table 26 below.
Table 26 - Expenditure by outlay - Magistrates Court Services
2011-12
Actual
2012-13
Actual
2013-14
Actual
2014-15
Actual
$'000
$’000
$,000
$,000
511 - Salaries and Wages
8457
8427
8585
8589
512 - Other Employee Related Expenses
162
224
182
225
522 - Information Technology
233
230
250
280
523 - Materials Supplies & Equipment
176
142
102
105
524 - Travel and Transport
353
288
291
268
525 - Property Expenses
1592
1583
1567
1565
528 – Other Expenditure
1366
1094
762
374
2
11
4
8
529 - Consultants
TOTAL
12,343
11,999
11,743
11,414
The totals include expenditure from both the Consolidated Revenue Fund and revenue retained by the Court.
Page 53