South Australian Court System

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:20): Sir, they seem very nervous, don't they?

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Self-congratulation, the Hon. Mr Hood, is not in order. Order!

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Attorney-General—

The Hon. K.J. Maher: Oh no!

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Yes—regarding South Australia's court system and its current state.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: The President of the Law Society, Alex Lazarevich, has publicly raised concerns about the strain our court system is currently under due the hundreds of arrests that were made as a result of Operation Ironside, led by the Australian Federal Police in recent times. Three years after these arrests were made, only 17 people have been sentenced in South Australia, with most of the accused remaining before the courts, some of whom are not expected to face trial until 2027.

The president has recently told The Advertiser that this considerable case load revealed shortfalls in the state's legal system and that there was an urgent need for more prosecutorial resources, court personnel and upgraded court facilities. He stated:

Typically, a criminal matter will take about two years to move through the courts, and the impact of Operation Ironside means that wait times are not likely to improve in the near future unless significant investments are made to enhance the state's criminal justice system...This has adverse and far-reaching consequences for victims, defendants and other court users.

My questions to the Attorney-General are: does the Attorney agree with the Law Society of South Australia's assessment of the current state of South Australia's criminal justice system, that is, 'that there is urgent need for more resources', and also, 'they have adverse and far-reaching consequences'?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (15:22): I thank the honourable member for his questions, and it is true that people in this chamber look uncomfortable when the Hon. Dennis Hood gets up to ask a question. It is mainly the frontbenchers on the opposition side who are looking uncomfortable because they know he is the only one we ever feared. He is the only one we ever feared.

It is a very good question the honourable member raises about Operation Ironside—the arrests and now the investigations and potential prosecutions—and the effect that has on our court system. We have invested very heavily, particularly in terms of the DPP in relation to Operation Ironside, recognising the vast amount of evidence that has been collected and the vast amount of work that needs to be done to have many of these matters ready for prosecution.

We have not only invested heavily in the DPP, I think most budgets, including some Mid-Year Budget Reviews, but also in other aspects of our justice system in recognition of the effect that this will have in the short and medium term in terms of the criminal load on our mainly District but also Supreme Court. There has been investment, not in physical court infrastructure but in terms of support staff to the courts, and it is a very significant issue.

We know that, in relation to Operation Ironside, between late 2018 and the middle of 2021 the Australian Federal Police, in conjunction with the FBI in the US, conducted an investigation—as the honourable member talked about in his question—known as Operation Ironside that used the AN0M platform used by organised crime groups globally, including in Australia.

AN0M is an encrypted communications network that was preinstalled on mobile telecommunication devices and distributed to members of organised crime groups, enabling law enforcement agencies to have access to privately encrypted communications that had previously avoided detection by law enforcement agencies.

As part of Operation Ironside, the federal police identified users in South Australia, and in June 2021 the platform was shut down and numerous arrests were made. In relation to Ironside matters in this state, it is alleged that the distribution of the AN0M platform to those arrested was not exclusively, but predominantly, to members of outlaw motorcycle gangs who themselves used the platform, not being aware, as other users internationally and interstate, that their communications were being received in this country by the Australian Federal Police and in the US by the FBI.

Many people have been arrested and charged by SAPOL in this state in relation to that operation. They are a wide variety, but some extraordinarily serious charges, as you would expect when they are being used by members of outlaw motorcycle gangs. Charges in this state have included conspiracy to murder; conspiracy to cause serious harm; participating in a criminal organisation; money laundering; arson; trafficking in large commercial quantities of methylamphetamines, fantasy, MDMA, cocaine, heroin and cannabis; manufacturing large commercial quantities of controlled drugs; and also firearms offences.

There are some matters that are still subject to ongoing SAPOL investigations, and there are many matters that are proceeding through the courts at the moment. The honourable member would be aware that there was a challenge to the admissibility of evidence by, I think it was, two people charged in relation to Operation Ironside AN0M communications.

At first instance, a single judge of the Supreme Court found that the evidence was admissible but referred that matter to the Court of Appeal in South Australia, which only today handed down a decision that found in favour of the admissibility of that evidence. I think everyone suspects that may be tested in the High Court, but the admissibility of that evidence has now withstood a challenge to a single judge of the Supreme Court to the full court of a court here in South Australia, so we are hopeful that that continues and that people who, as I said, face a huge range of very serious charges can have their cases heard in the courts in South Australia, but that is pending a final determination of the admissibility of the evidence.

We are gearing up not just with resources for our prosecutors but also with resources for the court system, recognising that in the short to medium term this will be an unexpected increase in the workload of the court that we need to put resources into, and if we need to do it further we will look at doing that too.