El Mercado de Trabajo de los Profesionales

The Committals Project is generally thought, by most stakeholders consulted by the CJC, to have made a worthwhile contribution to the efficiency of the criminal justice process. There have been two independent evaluations of the Brisbane Central Committals Project — one by the CJC34 _{in 1996 and the other by Coopers & Lybrand}35 _{in 1997. LAQ has}

also conducted regular evaluations of the Brisbane and Ipswich Committals Projects.36

In their evaluations, both the CJC and Coopers & Lybrand recommended the continuance of the Committals Project, despite the fact that the successes of the project were difficult to substantiate with only three months of pre-evaluation data from which to make comparisons and draw conclusions.

In its evaluation, the CJC identified several factors that made it difficult to accurately measure the overall cost effectiveness of the project, including:

• inaccurate time costing by the ODPP

• the fact that only a small number of matters had completed a key stage • incomplete data on the time and costs associated with processing matters, and • inability to quantify the time saved by the Magistrates Courts and the higher courts. LAQ evaluations have consistently advocated the continuance of the Committals Project based upon ongoing administrative savings for the organisation — although the savings claimed to have been generated are fairly low. The LAQ evaluations have also identified a number of process difficulties that have hindered the success of the Committals Project.

Significant findings from the LAQ evaluations of the Committals Project, by year of the evaluation, include:

August 1996

• high numbers of hand-up committals without cross-examination • little impact on the number of matters going to the District Court

• in-house LAQ legal practitioners are more ‘cost-efficient’ than private providers. August 1997

• late or incomplete provision of police briefs • understaffing and changes in staff of the ODPP

• communication problems within the ODPP and between the ODPP and the QPS • inability of the ODPP to manage the ex officio process (see the discussion of the ex

officio process, page 89)

• ‘greatest drop in matters being committed for trial were those in the control of in- house legal aid staff’

• changes to rights of election, creation of new offences and increased penalties under the Criminal Code.

May 1998

• 20 per cent of cases are referred from other metropolitan courts to the Brisbane Central Committals Project Magistrates Court

• evidence of the effect of increased penalties (the maximum penalty for some common offences increased to over 14 years imprisonment)

• 92 per cent of committals handled by private practitioners were hand-ups and 8 per cent involved cross-examination; there were no full committals.

October 1999

• greater use of in-house legal practice staff, resulting in more matters finalised in the Magistrates Court

• inter-agency meetings held quarterly between the QPS, the ODPP and LAQ have resolved a number of process issues, including the need for early provision of QP9s and early contact between defence and the ODPP (QP9 is shorthand for the QPS Court Brief that details the charges laid against the accused person and the facts of the case)

• more assigned matters (that is, matters handled by private legal practitioners as opposed to in-house LAQ legal practitioners) are committed to the higher courts and subsequently pleaded than those managed in-house.

March 2001

• greater use of in-house legal staff resulted in greater savings; suggest using only LAQ staff for Brisbane duty lawyer scheme.

The success of the Committals Project has been viewed differently by the various stakeholders consulted by the CJC.

Positive comments have included:

• The Committals Project is an example of ‘front-end efficiency’ (that is, a commitment of resources to early stages of the disposition of matters). It allows both sides to look at the matter early.37

• The Committals Project has improved the quality of advocacy within the Magistrates Court.38

• The Committals Project has significantly reduced the backlog of matters going to the District Court and has resulted in a decrease in the ‘rubbish’ going up to the District Court.39

• The Committals Project has increased the number of early pleas of guilty, which is regarded by the ODPP as a strong indicator of the success of committal proceedings.40

Negative comments have included:

• LAQ fees paid to private lawyers have encouraged an increase in the number of hand-up committals and guilty pleas. Dewar et al. were of the view that the $500 flat fee paid for a Committals Project court committal encouraged the practice of hand-up briefs.41 _{A solicitor has informed the CJC that:}

The effect of this funding approach is that the Legal Aid Office has achieved what the DPP couldn’t in terms of diminishing the importance of committals. Some practitioners are finding that you can make more money through bulk pleas and hand up committals rather than trials. Any funding approach that is not determined by the work actually undertaken leaves open this flaw to be exploited.42

The Queensland Bar Association has expressed the opinion that the impact of the current legal aid fee structure on the committals process threatens the interests of justice. The following comments were made by the Bar Association in relation to lump-sum grants:

… it is a fundamentally flawed concept which may be seen as tending to place the practitioner’s financial imperative at the forefront, at the potential risk of the interest of the client. As has already been observed on behalf of this Association, this type of proposal provides a bias against the provision of proper legal services to the underprivileged and it is difficult to imagine a proposal more likely to result in miscarriages of justice for legal aid clients, or, at least, result in grave criticism by legal aid clients unhappy with an outcome.

Much of the criticism which can now be made in respect of the shortcomings of the committals project in Brisbane and Ipswich can be traced to the introduction of a lump sum fee for this type of matter. It is this Association’s contention that further and more extensive forays down the path of lump sum fees are doomed to failure.43

An inter-agency working party established to examine the effectiveness of the Committals Project also noted the indirect impact of LAQ fees on the performance of the Committals Project:

… legal aid scales fees … do not encourage the defence [counsel] to settle matters in the magistrates court … Until this issue has been satisfactorily resolved, the full benefits of the committals project will not be realised.44

• The diminished role of the committal in testing the evidence through the cross- examination of witnesses has also troubled the legal profession.45 _{According to the}

1998 research report commissioned by the QLS:

Concern was expressed that the funding structure encouraged practitioners to do as many committals as possible without cross-examination of any witnesses. One LAQ staff member indicated that straight hand-ups without cross-examination of any witnesses now account for 90% of Brisbane & Ipswich committals. The tendency not to cross-examine may be viewed as resulting in a disadvantage to assisted persons.46

Figures 6.1 and 6.2 chart the outcome of matters dealt with in the Committals Project courts, from three months before the commencement of the pilot until 1999– 2000. No significant changes in outcome are apparent over that period.

Sources: LAC and LAQ annual reports, 1995–96 to 1999–2000.