Legislative reforms introduced last year designed to de-clutter our legal system are potentially doing the opposite within our Magistrate Courts.

The Statutes Amendment (Courts Efficiency Reforms) Act 2012 was designed to release pressure on superior courts, principally the District Court.

However, with four Magistrate Courts set to be closed over the coming year, paired with the increased jurisdiction of the Magistracy imposed by the reforms, concern is growing about the current and future workload faced by the courts.

South Australian Law Society President Morry Bailes says the District Courts have been “groaning under the number of matters they are faced with”.

Bailes told InDaily that he is worried the legislative reforms of 2013 have not alleviated that pressure, but simply moved it elsewhere.

“I can understand why you look down the ladder, and try to push some of the matters off to the Magistrate Court – the fear here is that they’re just going to grind down slowly in the speed with which they can deal with matters because they’ve taken a load off the District Court,” Bailes said.

The legislative reforms have increased Magistrate Court jurisdiction in both civil and criminal matters.

Significantly, minor civil claims have been increased from $6,000 to $25,000, and in-court legal representation is no longer permitted.

The monetary increase was a Liberal initiative, opposed by Attorney-General John Rau, who described it as “far too big a jump”.

“If the Liberal Party are prepared to change this I would be happy to accommodate the wishes of the Law Society,” he said.

However, Shadow Attorney-General Vickie Chapman told InDaily that the increased threshold for minor claims was “perfectly reasonable,” and that the pressures on the Magistracy comes from a lack of court resourcing.

Chapman said the pressure on minor civil claims needed to be addressed by moving matters to be heard by less qualified adjudicators than Magistrates such as “Special Justices”.

“The work has got to be done; we have no objection to it going to a lower court … you just need to move the resources,” Chapman said.

Concerns are also being voiced, particularly from the legal profession, about the reforms that disallow legal representation in minor civil claims.

Bailes fears that without representation from lawyers, Magistrate Courts are taking much longer to deal with minor civil claims.

“The problem for the Magistracy is that unrepresented litigants take a lot longer to deal with … three or four times as long as what it would need to take if you were legally represented,” Bailes said.

“Lawyers are often perceived to slow down the process, when in fact what they might be doing is accelerating or hurrying it up because they know what they’re talking about.

“Courts are obliged to bend over backwards to help unrepresented litigants – the dismay expressed by the profession, I can say is also expressed by the magistracy.”

It is not just the Magistrates Courts civil jurisdiction that has been expanded by the reforms, as the courts are now faced with an increase in criminal matters.

“Their (Magistrate courts) criminal jurisdiction has also increased, so they can now hear major indictable matters – so they are really under siege in terms of the jurisdictional shift in quite a number of different areas,” Bailes said.

Bailes’ concern extends to the sitting Magistrates, who are now expected to do more than ever, suggesting that the reforms have put the courts, and the individuals involved “under enormous pressure.”

“These days they have to get through so many matters, that you can barely get a hearing at the bar table in the general list,” Bailes said.

“Now that means that Magistrates are making decisions on inadequate information without properly having the time to listen to advocates acting on behalf of people, and that can lead to injustices occurring…they in a sense, to use a colloquialism, have to suck it up.”

With four Magistrate Courts set to close by mid-2015, the complaints come at a worrying time.

The announcement of the pending closures was made by Chief Justice Chris Kourakis in September earlier this year – an announcement that was met with “dismay” by Bailes and the legal profession.

Magistrate Courts in Port Adelaide, Holden Hill, Mount Barker and Tanunda will be progressively closed over the coming year.

In a statement, Chief Justice Chris Kourakis admitted the closures would “burden and inconvenience many parties, witnesses, and lawyers.”

The move is being described as a “necessary response” to growing pressures on the resources of the Courts Administrative Authority (CAA), with matters to be redistributed amongst remaining Magistrate Courts.

The CAA is set up under the Courts Administration Act, which provides statutory independence for the CAA, in order to maintain the independence of the judicial arm of government, namely the courts and judiciary.

However that independence “affords the Attorney-General and the Attorney-General’s department, the line that we hear over and over again, which is that the CAA manages its own budget, and therefore when it does things like cut services it’s a thing for the CAA,” Bailes said.

“There is a degree of frustration in what feels like a circular argument, when we all know that the closure of courts is bad, but we never seem to be able to get to a point where anything is done proactively to stop it happening.”

Chapman shares this concern over the court closures, describing it as a decision the government “had not planned terribly well”.

“The tsunami is yet to hit, because they (the Magistrate Courts) haven’t closed yet,” Chapman said.

“It’s not just a question about access to justice – police officers, victims; all have to wait years to have their matter heard.

“But this is what happens when you close courts.”

Earlier this year Rau announced a $500 million development for the legal district in Victoria Square – a development that will see new courthouses built for Supreme and District Courts.

Contracts are set to be signed in December this year, with construction to begin early next year, and a completion date estimated for 2017.

However the developments have done little to quell Bailes’ concerns.

“We are having courtrooms built, and they are said to be three years away, but will probably be more three to five years,” Bailes said.

“The question is, can we wait another 5 years, or do we have to start attacking the problem now?”