Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1696589224233.pdf (Vanuatu)
VANUATU C O U RT O F A P P E A L S U P R E M E C O U RT M AG I S T R AT E S C O U RT I S L A N D C O U RT 2019 – A Reflection Version 2a THE YEAR IN REVIEW • As in previous years, 2019 has proven to be a challenging year for the courts, with each jurisdiction having their own unique factors affecting both what occurred in 2019, and what is planned for 2020.

• Resources, be they human resources (judicial #s) or financial resources (to undertake circuits etc.
), needed to provide the services we, and the community expect, is one of these key challenges.

• With the departure of Justice Fatiaki, and soon, Justice Felix, and the arrival of Justice Viran Trief, the Supreme Court will be effectively down one judicial officer for the early part of 2020, and given our workload, and pending #s, will put increased pressure on my Supreme Court judges.
• Our ability to reflect on the performance of the courts on a monthly, quarterly and yearly basis is a credit to the Chief Registrar and his team, and as I have mentioned in previous years, our ability to present to you, the Government and the Community, our 2019 performance analysis within the month of January is testament to the work of many.

• We now have at our disposal more court performance indicators which allow us to assess the operation, impact and efficiency of our case management protocols.
A key international indicator that we are now using on a regular basis is called the Attendance Rate indicator, that is, the number of times a matter appears before the court before being finalized.

This indicator provides an insight into the impact and cost to the parties e.g.

more attendances - more cost/more impact to the parties.

2 CONTINUED • The Court of Appeal continues to provide by world standards such as timeliness and clearance rates, an excellent service to this country.
Despite more cases being filed, the CoA still managed to finalise all of the cases – within an average of 5 months from filing.

There has seen a greater percentage of Supreme Court cases being appealed.

This is now running at approximately 13% - or 1 in 8 cases from the Supreme Court are appealed to the CoA.
This has major implications for not only the workload of the CoA in its scheduled sittings throughout the year, but the flow-on effect to the workload of the Supreme Court justices in their normal workload.

• The commitment that the Supreme Court shows to the criminal workload has ensured that the timeliness of cases to be finalized, the attendance rates, and the relatively low number of pending cases reflects a positive outcome for this work in 2019.
• However, as I outlined last year, additional judicial resources are needed immediately, and I will canvass options with the Government and donors in the 1st quarter of this year for assistance.

Without such assistance, I have doubts as to whether we can address many of the issues I have raised in a timely manner.

• We still want to reduce our pending caseload down to approximately 900 cases, a reduction of 320 – and this will require significant effort and resources from all of us.
• With Civil cases, we are seeing higher than desired Attendance Rates which as I mentioned earlier, has direct impact and cost to the parties.

Many of our Civil pending #s are also subject to no further/visible listings, which we need to address immediately - internally.

If parties are unaware of their next court appearance, delay creeps in, along with uncertainty.
3 CONTINUED • The Enforcement matters in the Supreme Court have even higher Attendance Rates than Civil and will be investigated in the first part of the year, along with the issue of many of our Enforcement matters not being finalized which affects our overall performance.

I will personally discuss these issues with the Masters.
• While Reserved Judgments have greatly reduced over the years, I am well aware that several of the 22 judgments (down from 40 a year ago) have been outstanding for some time, and this needs to be rectified as soon as possible.

• From an Island Court perspective, this is now of considerable concern to me, to see such a reduction in filings in the court, especially around Maintenance matters.
In addition, not only have we seen a reduction in filings, but we have been unable to finalize cases and the pending numbers have risen considerably – along with the age of these pending cases.

• As a Court typically seen as one for easy access, and quick resolution of matters, this is not the case with the Island Court today, and we must restore confidence and the usage of the Island Court in 2020.

• Resources needed to service this jurisdiction is much needed.
4 CONTINUED • Finally, with respect to the Magistrates Court, as mentioned earlier the Clearance Rate of 90% was well below our target, and this has resulted in an increased pending caseload.

• The productivity of disposals per Magistrate continues to drop and I will raise this with the Acting Chief Magistrate to better understand and address the causes of this.

• There is now clear evidence in the shift/mix of filings (lodgments) between the two main court locations namely, Port Vila and Luganville.
This has implications for the resourcing of the respective court locations and I will be discussing this with the Magistracy in the coming weeks.

• The previous drop in criminal filings over years 2016-2018 appears to have stopped, with Police/SPD/OPP filing more cases in 2019.
• Finally, as we reflect on the performance of cases dealt with across the four jurisdictions, we will continue to drill into more specifics such as who appears before us – their age, gender for example, as well the orders and outcomes associated with the cases.

The 2019 detailed analysis will appear on the website within the week.
• As I have been reminded – being in a position to open the Legal Year – and reflect on the year just gone, reflects the hard work of so many around the court, and for that – we have greater transparency about the performance of the courts, and insights into case management.
5 SUPREME COURT • Key Messages • Overall • • SC filings declined from 766 cases to 733, a decrease of 4% - versus an increase of 8% in the previous year SC disposals were similar - 709 to 710 cases • Clearance rate was again below the target 100% - 97% for the 2019 calendar year • • • Pending has steadily grown from approx.

800 at the end of 2013 to now 1223 cases – a concern PDR has grown from approx.
1.2 to 1.7 – a worrying sign • Potential 365 cases in excess of ideal position – equating to 3.5 judicial resources and/or quick improvements in case management handling of our cases Timeliness for completing Criminal cases declined from an average of 414 days to 261 days due to finalising a number of very old matters in 2018 – while Civil cases rose from 632 days to 767 days • • Still struggling to make in-roads into Pending, and Age of Pending naturally growing Judicial output (productivity) – as calculated by disposals/full time Judicial Officer – has dropped – approximately 90 cases per year per judge, BUT there is wide variance between some judicial officers throughout the year • Overall number of cases without a future listing is high • Over 50% are under ‘case management’ without a future listing, and a further15% with no identifiable stage recorded • Only 32% of all pending cases have a future date (international benchmark is 80%) Reserved Judgments has reduced from 40 last year to 22, but over half of these are older than 3 months (international benchmark), with some outstanding for several years Enforcement cases have an unacceptable high attendance rate (causing impact and cost to the community), and are not being finalised, thus have a very high Pending to Disposal Ratio • • 6 MAGISTRATES COURT • Key Messages • Overall • MC filings increased slightly from 2091 cases to 2217 – a modest increase of 6% • MC disposals dropped sharply from 2150 to 2003 cases, a significant decrease of 7% - a concern • Clearance rate was an unacceptable 90%, • • thus causing pending cases to grow Pending has grown tp 1062 from 880 cases the previous year PDR remains at .5 – an acceptable position • There are still approximately 20% of cases older than 2 years that should be assessed • Timeliness for completing Criminal cases – has further reduced from 266 to 166 days – a positive outcome • Pending case numbers (open cases) have grown due to a Clearance Rate of only 90% • While the Pending to Disposal Ratio (PDR) is still at
 an acceptable level of .5, the reducing productivity/output of cases per Magistrate is of concern Judicial output has reduced to an average of approximately 230 cases per year – a decrease of over 30% from 2017 • • Overall # of cases with a future listing is sitting has dropped to just over 30%, with another 10% of cases neither under case management or a future listing • Approximately 60% are under ‘case management’ • Only 2 cases have a Reserved Judgment, down from last year’s 9 • The decline in criminal registrations in previous years appears to have turned around with a small increase in filings this year, but still well down on previous years.
7 ISLAND COURT • Key Messages • Overall • • • • IC filings dropped again - from 410 cases to 286 – a decrease of 43% (29% in 2018) IC disposals dropped from just on 370 cases to 245, a decrease of 52% Pending has increased accordingly to almost 670 cases PDR has increased accordingly and is now at 2.7 – a very worrying position • Almost 80% of pending cases are greater than a year • Clearance rate was lower than desired at 85% - the 5th year in a row less than 100% • The overall decline in filings is of concern.
• Years of not finalising as many cases as being filed has resulted in the Pending workload reaching unacceptable levels, and resulting in lengthy delays for the community who make use of the Island Court • Overall # of cases with a future listing is only 3% - a major concern • Almost 85% of all pending cases are deemed to be awaiting resources before a listing can be made – affecting the community at large • The delays experienced by the community in the Island Court are now worse than any other jurisdiction 8 INDEX Page 10 1.
Case workload Page 29 2.

Pending volumes Page 46 3.

Clearance rates Page 48 4.

Productivity Page 50 5.

Timeliness Page 53 6.

Court of Appeal 7.

Criminal case outcomes Page 58 8.

Criminal charge outcomes & orders Page 62 Page 65 9.

Attendance rates Page 69 10.

Party details 9 1.

CASE WORKLOAD 10 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 S U P R E M E C O U RT TOTA L WO R K L OA D Cases being filed dropped slightly in 2019.
Clearance rate again has not achieved 100%, cases finalized (disposed) have remained constant over the last 3 years.

The overall average for the last 7 years is 94% - slightly under the target, resulting in an increase # of pending cases.
99% 92% 97% 100% 93% 97% 94% 84% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 TOTAL Cases filed TOTAL Cases finalised Clearance Rate 719 710 99% 739 680 92% 777 653 84% 689 665 97% 709 706 100% 766 709 93% 733 710 97% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Overall Average 733 690 94% 11 S U P R E M E C O U RT C R I M I N A L WO R K L OA D While Criminal cases being filed by the OPP have dropped in 2019, clearance rate for the year achieved above the target 100% - at 120%.
The overall average for the last 7 years is 101% - tracking well.
125% 128% 98% 99% 89% 72% 250 200 150 100 50 0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Criminal Cases filed Criminal Cases finalised Clearance Rate Overall Average 164 166 101% 12 S U P R E M E C O U RT C I V I L WO R K L OA D Civil cases being filed have slowly increased over the last 4 years, but clearance rates over the last 2 years has fallen below the target of 100% - at 92%.
The overall average for the last 7 years is 96% - slightly under the target, and thus pending has grown, and further delays incurred.
108% 112% 100% 92% 92% 92% 80% 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Civil Cases filed Civil Cases finalised Clearance Rate Overall Average 309 296 96% 13 S U P R E M E C O U RT A L L C A S E WO R K L OA D 2 0 1 9 Civil and criminal workload accounts for approximately 2/3rds of the Supreme Court filings.
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Civil Criminal Matrimo nial Legal Practitio ner Adoption Judicial Review Probate Criminal Appeal Civil Appeal Enforce ment Constitut ional Compan y Land Appeal Registered Finalised 314 288 151 181 6 7 26 16 15 16 23 30 98 58 7 9 17 22 45 49 17 10 12 11 2 13 14 S U P R E M E C O U RT WO R K L OA D T R E N D S Many of the smaller case types have been relatively consistent over the years 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Land Appeal Criminal Appeal Matrimonial Constitutional Company Legal Practitioner Civil Appeal Adoption Judicial Review Enforcement Probate Criminal Civil S U P R E M E C O U RT L O C AT I O N WO R K L OA D Case filings emanating from Lakatoro has decreased over the years – warrants investigation.
900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Other Isangel Lakatoro Luganville Port Vila M AG I S T R AT E S C O U RT TOTA L WO R K L OA D Cases filed were slightly up in 2019, however disposals dropped, resulting in a Clearance Rate of only 90% - a concern.

The overall average for the last 7 years is 100% - tracking well.
121% 109% 97% 100% 82% 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 TOTAL Cases filed TOTAL Cases finalised Clearance Rate Overall Average 2166 2168 100% 17 M AG I S T R AT E S C O U RT C I V I L WO R K L OA D Civil workload has dropped since 2015, and disposals less than 2017 due to the case reduction activity undertaken in that year.
The overall average for the last 7 years is 109% - tracking well.
Overall Average 218 239 109% 18 2013 2014 Civil Cases filed Civil Cases finalised Clearance Rate 239 147 62% 230 203 88% 112% 120% 107% 90% 100% 96% 98% 94% 99% 100% 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 M AG I S T R AT E S C O U RT DV WO R K L OA D Protection orders (non-criminal) are increasing quite markedly over the last 4 years, but disposals did not match the incoming work in 2019.
The overall average for the last 7 years is 99% - tracking OK. 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Violence Cases filed Violence Cases finalised Clearance Rate 786 707 90% 772 825 107% 756 728 96% 754 754 100% 824 926 112% 889 867 98% 937 877 94% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Overall Average 817 812 99% 19 M AG I S T R AT E S C O U RT P I WO R K L OA D Since 2015, PI matters filed by the OPP have increased.
Clearance rates have not matched total filings in the last two years, averaging 95% over the last 7 years, less than ideal.
112% 112% 105% 120% 100% 95% 91% 90% 76% 80% 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Preliminary Investigation Cases filed Preliminary Investigation Cases finalised 274 209 293 327 174 182 256 204 234 262 278 253 256 231 Clearance Rate 76% 112% 105% 80% 112% 91% 90% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Overall Average 252 238 95% 20 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 M AG I S T R AT E S C O U RT C R I M I N A L WO R K L OA D The filings emanating from VPF/SPD has increased in 2019, after dropping substantially over the last 3 previous years, however Clearance Rate was a very low 83%.
The overall average for the last 7 years is 101% - tracking well.

118% 109% 109% 114% 95% 84% 83% 140% 120% 101% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2013 2014 Criminal Cases filed Criminal Cases finalised Clearance Rate 781 659 84% 827 974 118% 2015 1056 998 95% 2016 2017 2018 2019 822 900 109% 728 790 109% 615 702 114% 728 606 83% Overall Average 794 804 101% 21 M AG I S T R AT E S C O U RT A L L C A S E WO R K L OA D 2 0 1 9 Violence (protection orders) continue to be the biggest case filing type in the MC.
1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Civil Criminal Violence Matrimoni al Registered Finalised 189 214 616 696 890 840 29 37 Preliminar y Investigati on 278 251 Civil Appeal Enforceme nt Coronial Juvenile 10 12 63 43 10 9 8 6 22 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Other Isangel Lakatoro Luganville Port Vila M AG I S T R AT E S C O U RT L O C AT I O N WO R K L OA D Ratio of filings between Luganville and Port Vila has shifted dramatically over the years, with Port Vila now less than 50% of the total MC workload.
This raises the question of resource allocations of magistrates between Santo and Efate.

 I S L A N D C O U RT TOTA L WO R K L OA D Cases filed has dropped significantly in the last 4 years.

The decline warrants further investigation as to the role and service of the Island Court to the communities.
102% 96% 96% 91% 86% 86% 61% 72% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 TOTAL Cases filed TOTAL Cases finalised Clearance Rate 354 216 61% 599 610 102% 337 325 96% 702 504 72% 539 519 96% 410 372 91% 286 245 86% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Overall Average 461 399 86% 24 I S L A N D C O U RT M A I N T E N A N C E WO R K L OA D Maintenance matters have dropped considerably in the last 4 years – worthy of investigation, along with the overall filings in the Island Court.
Clearance rates have only average 89% over the last 7 years, less than ideal.
99% 99% 89% 88% 87% 89% 94% 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 58% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Maintenance Cases filed Maintenance Cases finalised Clearance Rate 180 105 58% 202 200 99% 170 152 89% 285 283 99% 217 192 88% 182 171 94% 158 138 87% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Overall Average 199 177 89% 25 I S L A N D C O U RT C R I M I N A L WO R K L OA D Criminal cases filed has dropped significantly – and by over 50% in the last year.

This warrants close investigation as to the reasons why.
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 116% 89% 45% 13% 195% 167% 250% 200% 150% 97% 100% 75% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Criminal Cases filed Criminal Cases finalised Clearance Rate 77 35 45% 270 312 116% 70 62 89% 137 18 13% 85 142 167% 59 115 195% 24 18 75% 50% 0% Overall Average 103 100 97% 26 I S L A N D C O U RT C A S E WO R K L OA D 2 0 1 9 Maintenance matters is by far the biggest caseload on the Island Court 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Registered Finalised Civil 31 35 Criminal Maintenance 24 18 158 138 Debt 23 8 Enforcement Chiefly Title 19 30 19 9 27 I S L A N D C O U RT L O C AT I O N WO R K L OA D In 2019, Port Vila has seen significant drop-off in cases being filed, along with all other locations.
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Other Banks & Torres Isangel Lakatoro Luganville Port Vila PENDING CASES 29 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 total PDR P E N D I N G C A S E S B Y C O U RT Approximately 3,000 cases are now pending across the four jurisdictions, with just over 40% in the Supreme Court.
Of concern is the high Pending to Disposal Ratio (PDR) in both the Island and Supreme Courts.
The lower the PDR – the better, and ideally under 1.0 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Magistrates Court Island Court Supreme Court Court of Appeal 1062 0.5 668 2.7 1223 1.7 35 0.4 30 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 P E N D I N G B Y C O U RT B Y C A S E T Y P E Each court has its own mix of case type pending ratios as shown in detail in the following charts Magistrates Court Island Court Supreme Court Civil Election Petition Criminal Bail Violence Debt Legal Practitioner Preliminary Investigation Adoption Probate Constitutional Juvenile Criminal Appeal Coronial Admiralty Civil Appeal Company Land Appeal Maintenance Matrimonial Judicial Review Enforcement Chiefly Title 31 Constitutional, 23 P E N D I N G S U P R E M E C O U RT B Y C A S E T Y P E Clearly shows the significant % that Civil cases make- up of the Supreme Court workload.
The Enforcement pending #s are high due to failure to close cases and will be investigated.

Adoption, 21 Company, 15 Matrimonial, 16 Criminal Appeal, 4 Admiralty, 2 Bail, 2 Election Petition, 2 Judicial Review, 22 Legal Practitioner, 29 Civil Appeal, 35 Land Appeal, 60 Criminal, 95 Probate, 98 Enforcement, 120 Civil, 679 32 P E N D I N G M AG I S T R AT E S C O U RT B Y C A S E T Y P E Criminal cases make up the largest component of MC Pending workload.
Violence (Domestic protection orders) are unusually high and will be investigated.

Civil Appeal, 19 Matrimonial, 25 Coronial, 3 Juvenile, 2 Enforcement, 59 Criminal, 492 Violence, 132 Preliminary Investigation, 160 Civil, 170 33 P E N D I N G I S L A N D C O U RT B Y C A S E T Y P E The overall # of pending cases in the Island Court, and evenly spread across the major case types of the Court.
Criminal, 20 Declaration, 17 Customary Land, 56 Chiefly Title, 63 Maintenance, 217 Debt, 78 Enforcement, 96 Civil, 121 34 P E N D I N G B Y C O U RT B Y L I S T E D O R N OT L I S T E D Cases with a future listing (shaded blue) should typically be approximately 80% of the pending case load.

Each court has a significant challenge to address this low % of cases without future listings.

The impact on the parties cannot be under- estimated by this low % of listed matters.
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Supreme Court Magistrates Court Island Court Under case management/awaiting date No listing/stage Future listing 635 176 412 617 117 328 566 79 23 35 P E N D I N G T R E N D S U P R E M E C O U RT Clearly shows the jump in pending between 2014 and 2015 but has remained relatively stable since then – albeit at an unacceptable higher number than desired.
1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 End 2013 End 2014 End 2015 End 2016 End 2017 End 2018 End 2019 Probate Matrimonial Legal Practitioner Land Appeal Judicial Review Enforcement Election Petition Criminal Appeal Criminal Constitutional Company Civil appeal Civil Bail Adoption Admiralty Acceptable Unacceptable 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Number of cases 469 254 134 72 101 39 43 43 18 14 P E N D I N G AG E S U P R E M E C O U RT Approximately 30% of cases are older than 3 years (2016 and earlier), equating to 365 cases.
Further work on addressing these specific old cases needs to be undertaken.

Older than 2009 35 37 900 Acceptable Unacceptable 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 Magistrates Court Island Court 655 139 197 112 94 154 31 144 39 43 18 14 10 14 6 18 1 1 1 P E N D I N G AG E M AG I S T R AT E S & I S L A N D C O U RT S Approximately 1/3rd of cases are older than 2 years (2017 and earlier), equating to 365 cases.
Further work on addressing these specific old cases needs to be undertaken.

Older than 2009 3 30 38 Civil Appeal, 5 Constitutional, 5 Probate, 6 Other, 9 Judicial Review, 7 Adoption, 6 Legal Practitioner, 10 Criminal, 14 Enforcement, 35 Land Appeal, 50 Civil, 219 AG E D P E N D I N G C A S E S S U P R E M E C O U RT This shows for those cases older than 2016, the case type.
39 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Pending SC Pending MC PDR SC PDR MC P E N D I N G T R E N D S A N D P D R The lower the PDR (Pending to Disposal Ratio) – the better.
Supreme Court has seen a steady increase of its PDR to over 1.7 which equates to almost 2 years worth of outstanding cases Company, 15, 1% Admiralty, 2, 0% Land Appeal, 60, 5% Constitutional, 23, 2% P E N D I N G C A S E S S U P R E M E C O U RT Civil, criminal and enforcement matters account for almost 75% of the total pending caseload Enforcement, 120, 10% Civil Appeal, 35, 3% Criminal Appeal, 4, 0% Probate, 98, 8% Judicial Review, 22, 2% Adoption, 21, 2% Legal Practitioner, 29, 2% Bail, 2, 0% Matrimonial, 16, 1% Election Petition, 2, 0% Criminal, 95, 8% Civil, 679, 56% 41 Enforcement, 59, 6% Juvenile, 2, 0% Civil Appeal, 19, 2% Civil, 170, 16% P E N D I N G C A S E S M AG I S T R AT E S C O U RT Preliminary Investigation, 160, 15% Matrimonial, 25, 2% Criminal matters – including PI – make up 60% of the total pending workload Violence, 132, 12% Criminal, 492, 46% 42 Chiefly Title, 63, 11% Enforcement, 96, 16% Debt, 78, 13% P E N D I N G C A S E S I S L A N D C O U RT There is relatively more even distribution of case types making up the pending workload of the Island Court Civil, 121, 20% Criminal, 20, 3% Maintenance, 217, 36% 43 Judgment Reserved, 14, 2% Awaiting submissions or reasons, 13, 2% Listed for Pre-Trial Conference, 11, 2% Other, 23, 3% Listed for Hearing of Application, 15, 2% Closed, 17, 3% Listed for Trial, 17, 3% Listed for Review, 19, 3% Waiting for outcome of related case, 20, 3% Awaiting Service of Proceedings, 26, 4% No further listing, 28, 4% Waiting for compliance, 44, 7% Judges attention, 262, 39% Listed for Hearing, 48, 7% Listed for Conference, 57, 9% <Select...>, 55, 8% P E N D I N G S TAG E S U P R E M E C O U RT C I V I L A very low % of the overall civil pending caseload is listed/ready for trial/hearing– at 5%.
This is a figure that is normally much higher when cases can be prepared quickly for trial 44 No further listing, 1, 1% Listed for Conference, 1, 1% Waiting for compliance, 1, 1% (blank), 1, 1% Closed, 2, 2% Listed for Hearing, 2, 2% Awaiting submission s or reasons, 1, 1% Listed for Plea, 7, 7% Listed for Sentence, 8, 8% Listed for Trial, 9, 9% Warrant issued, 13, 14% P E N D I N G S TAG E S U P R E M E C O U RT C R I M I N A L Just under 15% of the criminal pending matters have no valid stage (<Select…>).
More cases are ready for trial/sentencing – at 15% Listed for Callover, 1, 1% Listed for Judgment, 1, 1% Next Court Tour, 18, 19% <Select...>, 15, 16% Judges attention, 14, 15% 45 3.

CLEARANCE RATES 46 140.0% 120.0% 100.0% 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% Court of Appeal Supreme Court Magistrates Court Island Court C L E A R A N C E R AT E T R E N D S Only the Magistrates Court have been able to achieve an average Clearance Rate of over 100% over the last 7 years.
If less than 100% - a court’s pending workload naturally increases Target Clearance Rate is 100% each year Average 110.2% 96.9% 90.3% 85.7% 93.1% 94.2% 100.1% 86.5% 47 4.
JUDICIAL PRODUCTIVITY 48 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 SC Judges MC Magistrates SC Disposals/Judge MC Disposals/Magistrate D I S P O S A L R AT E S P E R J U D G E & M AG I S T R AT E Many factors affect judicial productivity (disposals per officer) including case complexity, case mix and attendance rates.

Tracking this indicator is vital.

The reducing productivity of the Magistrates will be reviewed.
TIMELINESS 50 e s a c e s i l a n i f o t s y a d e g a r e v A 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 MC Civil SC Civil CoA Civil IC Civil T I M E L I N E S S D I S P O S E D C I V I L C A S E S Civil cases in the Magistrates Court have reduced over the last 2 years, while Supreme Court matters invariably take on average 2 years to dispose.
Year 2014 Year 2015 Year 2016 Year 2017 Year 2018 Year 2019 573 696 86 324 714 654 109 552 474 808 105 200 774 800 90 534 429 632 121 808 391 767 143 664 51 Reductions in timeliness to dispose of cases improved in the Magistrates, Supreme and Island courts.
e s a c e s i l a n i f o t s y a d e g a r e v A 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Year 2014 Year 2015 Year 2016 Year 2017 Year 2018 Year 2019 MC Criminal SC Criminal CoA Criminal IC Criminal 296 253 37 163 244 221 44 32 199 167 74 120 346 178 72 289 266 414 135 268 166 261 153 45 52 6.

COURT OF APPEAL 53 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Filed Finalised Rate of Appeal C O U RT O F A P P E A L WO R K L OA D T R E N D S CoA workload in decreased slightly in 2019, while finalized cases increased significantly.
Of note is the increasing % of 1st instance matters finalized that are appealed, now running approximately 12-13% (or one in 8 cases are being appealed) Filed Finalised C O U RT O F A P P E A L C I V I L Civil Appeals workload in 2018 increased significantly, and approximately 20 matters were not finalized and will be carried forward into Filed Finalised 9 8 6 5 C O U RT O F A P P E A L C R I M I N A L CoA workload in 2018 increased significantly, and approximately 20 matters were not finalized and will be carried forward into 2019 2015 20 17 2016 19 19 2017 23 20 2018 34 28 2019 19 23 56 C O U RT O F A P P E A L O U T C O M E S In Criminal Appeal matters, approximately 50/50 split between allowed and dismissed, whereas in Civil Appeals, only 30% of appeals are allowed 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Civil Appeal Criminal Appeal Withdrawn Struck Out Dismissed Allowed 4 2 37 20 5 8 9 57 7.
CRIMINAL CASE OUTCOMES 58 M AG I S T R AT E S C O U RT P I C A S E O U T C O M E S An … 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2016 2017 2018 2019 Withdrawn Orders made Dismissed 59 S U P R E M E C O U RT C R I M I N A L C A S E O U T C O M E S An … 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2016 2017 2018 2019 Withdrawn Orders made Dismissed 60 M AG I S T R AT E S C O U RT C R I M I N A L C A S E O U T C O M E S An … 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2016 2017 2018 2019 Withdrawn Orders made Dismissed 61 8.
CRIMINAL CHARGE OUTCOMES AND ORDERS 62 C H A R G E O U T C O M E S Provides an insight into the results of individual charges as brought before the respective courts during 2019.

More analysis on actual orders e.g.

imprisonment to be undertaken during 2020.


100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Magistrates Court Supreme Court Dismissed/Not Guilty Withdrawn/Nolle Guilty/Committed 120 338 798 53 162 467 63 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Other Dismissed Withdrawn Suspended Sentence Fine Imprisonment Compensation Community Work Acquitted Unknown C H A R G E O R D E R S More and more entries are being made of the specific orders being made by the judiciary e.g.
imprisonment or fine, but in 2019, many orders had no entries (unknown).

This data entry practice be rectified in 2020.

Magistrates Court Supreme Court 27 46 180 80 169 67 10 49 37 591 37 23 7 45 153 30 151 31 207 64 9.

ATTENDANCE RATES Attendance rates, as measured by the number of visits/appearances at court to dispose a matter is now being tracked.
65 S U P R E M E C O U RT C O M P L E T E D AT T E N DA N C E R AT E S Of concern is the high number of attendances for Enforcement cases, which has direct impact on inconvenience and costs to parties.

This is to be reviewed.


9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2017 2018 2019 Adoption 2.7 3.6 5.3 Civil 4.5 5.5 6.6 Company Constitutional Criminal Enforcement Judicial Review Probate 3.4 3.5 2.6 6.4 4.8 4.7 4.5 4.8 5.2 4.2 8.3 6.8 5.2 5.6 4.8 2.2 2.2 3.6 66 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Enforcement Total 5.9 S U P R E M E C O U RT O P E N AT T E N DA N C E R AT E S For the currently open/pending cases, again, the high attendances already had by enforcement matters will be investigated.
Civil 5.4 Criminal Company Probate Adoption Constitutional Judicial Review 4.7 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.2 2.5 67 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2017 2018 2019 Civil 4.7 5.8 5.4 M AG I S T R AT E S C O U RT C O M P L E T E D AT T E N DA N C E R AT E S For the main case types, criminal, PI and Violence (protection orders) – the attendance rates are generally in- line with good practice for Magistrates Courts Coronial Criminal Enforcement Preliminary Investigation Violence 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.4 4.3 3.0 2.6 3.1 6.3 4.2 4.3 4.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 68 10.
PARTY DETAILS 69 G E N D E R A N A LYS I S For criminal cases in Supreme and Magistrates Court, and Violence (protection matters) – filed in 2019, analysis by gender can now be undertaken for key roles such as the accused/defendant and applicant (violence matters).

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% MC Criminal - Accused/Defendant SC Criminal - Accused/Defendant MC Violence - Respondent/Defendant MC Violence - Applicant Male Female 828 58 191 16 917 165 124 804 70