HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-09-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STURT STREET JUSTICE PRECINCT

Ms CICCARELLO (Norwood) (16:15): Can the Attorney-General inform the house about the additional criminal courts in Sturt Street?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (16:15): I can, Mr Speaker. On 4 June last year, the Premier and I announced a $48.1 million package over four years to speed up the state's court system in the interests of delivering swifter justice for all. Included in this package was the resolution to reopen the Sturt Street justice precinct as dedicated criminal courts. Also built into the package was a move to more than double DPP staff numbers, appoint extra judges and devote additional resources to forensic science. That is DNA. We recall that the member for Bragg did not want Bevan Spencer von Einem DNA tested.

The government decided to carry out this strategy in light of the fact that our tough stance on crime had led to a big jump in prosecutions. More cases are now before our courts, and this is because of our huge investment in police, innovative law making and crimes coming to light—more criminals being caught—under the Rann government. However, on the other hand, the backlog of criminal cases for the District Court of South Australia has been identified as an obstacle to progressing the government's law and order agenda. Therefore, the very cornerstone of the government's $48.1 million strategy has been the reopening and modernisation of the Sturt Street precinct, which had lain dormant for many years.

The building at 83 Sturt Street, which had been commissioned for court operations 37 years previously, is now completely refurbished and operational thanks to the government's decision to resurrect it. I am particularly pleased to report that this refurbishment project, which has been jointly managed by the Attorney-General's Department and the Courts Administration Authority, is well ahead of schedule. Originally due for completion in November 2009, the project is now finishing some two months earlier than expected.

The courts are completed to the relevant building standards and operational requirements, and additional funding of $471,000 has been provided in the budget for the necessary resources for an earlier than expected start date. The centrally located courts feature two large courtrooms, two cells, two jury rooms, interview rooms and ample space for prosecution and defence lawyers, witnesses, victims and court administrators.

I have been most impressed with the renovations carried out in the building; it is an excellent use of space. The building completion includes the installation of video cameras for video conferencing, security devices and systems, modern technology and a lift for high quality disabled access. The moving in should be finalised soon, with the court scheduled to go live soon.

There has been some public criticism of the new courts by the Public Service Association. In particular, Mr Peter Christopher, the Chief Industrial Officer of the PSA, has questioned security. Any claims that the building is ill-equipped and insecure are erroneous. All aspects of the Sturt Street court precinct have been endorsed by all the relevant parties. On the matter of security, the proposed facilities combined with the integrated security procedures for the Sturt Street courts have been signed off by the Sheriff's Office, along with the Courts Administration Authority security adviser and security executive.

If the PSA had any issues with the security of the Sturt Street courts it should first have followed the normal procedures and raised those concerns with the relevant agencies. It is disappointing to think that the PSA would take its concerns directly to the media instead of dealing with them in the usual and rather more effective way. Had the PSA asked questions of the agencies in the first instance, it might have learnt that all aspects of security in the courts have been signed off by the relevant authorities.

As people enter the building they will walk through the security detector. Their bags will be placed open on a table for the Sheriff's officer to look through. People can also be checked using a hand-held wand. The jury room can be kept locked and remain inaccessible to the public at any necessary time. The witness box and the dock are as far apart as the courtroom design could allow. The courtrooms feature similar dimensions to those of previous courts at Sturt Street. The vulnerable witness room is secure and is located very close to the Sheriff's Office and has been endorsed by the Commissioner for Victims' Rights, Mr Michael O'Connell. In fact, two vulnerable witness rooms have been created at the Sir Samuel Way Building and are identical in design to the one at Sturt Street. Witnesses other than vulnerable witnesses do not generally wait in the secure area, and there are video link-up facilities between Sturt Street and the Sir Samuel Way Building if necessary. There are also lockers for Sheriff's officers and changing facilities provided in the Sturt Street courts.

I have not had any concerns from the judges about the newly refurbished courts at Sturt Street. Furthermore, Supreme Court justices have scheduled high-profile criminal trials at Sturt Street, which is further affirmation of the precinct coming up to standard. That said, Sturt Street was never intended to hold trials like the 'bodies-in-the-barrels' murders. This week Sturt Street has been deemed inappropriate to hear the Carly Ryan murder trial. It sometimes happens that, upon assessment by both legal counsel, a court is deemed inappropriate to hear certain matters. Sturt Street has only two cells, and in the Carly Ryan murder case there are multiple accused and cells cannot be shared. So, it is not surprising that this is one matter that is not fit for our new courts. The Carly Ryan murder trial can be listed in an alternative court, with Sturt Street being available to hear many other matters.

I was also interested to hear the member for Bragg criticise the Sturt Street refurbishment. I presume that the member for Bragg is out there spending the Leader of the Opposition's pledge money—so, $100 million to $150 million—for a new Supreme Court, as pledged by the member for Bragg: 'k'ching, k'ching', there it goes. With the refurbishment—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Oh, I'm making it up? Would you like me to go through your list of offences?

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Perhaps a real inner city location with zing! With refurbishment complete, the precinct will be a comfortable, practical and well-resourced platform to tackle the state's backlog of criminal cases. Over five years, the two extra courtrooms will hear about 300 trials. This will quickly and efficiently work towards clearing the current backlog and helping to prevent further delays in case listing. Along with other measures, the precinct will minimise waiting times in the state's higher courts.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT