Concerns that the case backlog is shifting to the ACT's lower court has prompted it to stop a policy of scheduling hearings outside of ACT Supreme Court blitz periods.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
The decision will see ACT Magistrates Court list hearings during the Supreme Court's busy blitz periods, prompting fears that already-stretched prosecutors will find it harder to meet the demands of both courts.
Since her appointment two years ago, ACT Supreme Court Chief Justice Helen Murrell has led a significant shake-up of the way cases are managed in the higher court.
The reforms were designed to cut through the higher court's extensive backlog, which had caused delays of more than 18 months for many criminal cases, frustrating victims, defendants, police, and witnesses.
Chief Justice Murrell's strategy is to intensively list trials during a four to five week period every few months, known formally as Criminal Central Listing, but referred to in the profession as the "blitzes".
The measure has proven highly successful, and delays are now vastly improved.
To support the measure, the ACT Magistrates Court had originally agreed not to list its own hearings during the blitzes, to free up lawyers and prosecutors to participate in the higher court trials.
Chief Magistrate Lorraine Walker has now announced an end to that support, which she said had become unsustainable.
Ms Walker, in consultation with the ACT's other magistrates, made the decision after seeing the ACT Supreme Court's listing schedule for next year.
"When advised of the Supreme Court's listing arrangements in 2016, the Chief Magistrate took the view that the policy was no longer sustainable and advised the profession in its various forms that if it is unable to meet court listings, then it needs to look to its own resourcing," a statement from her office said.
"The Chief Magistrate applauds the Chief Justice on her work in addressing the Supreme Court's back log of cases.
"Noting the significant increase in the Magistrates Court jurisdiction in recent years in the civil, industrial and criminal jurisdictions, the Chief Magistrate considers that it is incumbent on the Magistrates Court to take what steps it can to ensure that the problems which have plagued the higher court for many years are not shifted to the summary jurisdiction."
The decision has raised concerns that prosecutors will be further stretched trying to meet requirements in both courts.
Director of Public Prosecutions Jon White said his staff were already under pressure due to the doubling of case mention lists and the increasing of part-heard lists in the ACT Magistrates Court.
"Obviously, increasing even further the number of Magistrates Court lists will add to that," he said.
Mr White said the solution to preventing backlogs in the Magistrates Court was improved efficiency.
"The DPP has made a number of suggestions for better listing practices in the Magistrates Court, and is hopeful of working with the court to improve listing efficiency."
The ACT Magistrates Court has recently seen increases to its jurisdiction, meaning it hears more cases.
It has relied on special magistrates and used block and over-listing of criminal hearings to help it manage its own workload while supporting the ACT Supreme Court blitzes.
Despite that, the policy has significantly reduced the availability of dates for hearings this year, with a flow-on effect into next year.
