1 / 86

Justice and Constitutional Development Portfolio Committee

Justice and Constitutional Development Portfolio Committee. Presentation by Mr. S Jiyane, DDG Court Services 22 March 2006. STRUCTURE OF PRESENTATION. The role of Court Services Who are we? What do we do Functional Components and Resources 2005

slade-farrell
Télécharger la présentation

Justice and Constitutional Development Portfolio Committee

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Justice and Constitutional Development Portfolio Committee Presentation by Mr. S Jiyane, DDG Court Services 22 March 2006

  2. STRUCTURE OF PRESENTATION • The role of Court Services • Who are we? • What do we do • Functional Components and Resources 2005 • What we did with the Resources allocated • Challenges met and how we seek to deal with them • Priorities • Planning for 2006 and budget • Conclusion

  3. THE BRANCHCOURT SERVICES

  4. STRATEGIC FOCUS • Linking budget to strategy: 1. Ensuring access to justice for all 2. Enhancing Organizational Efficiency and 3. Transforming Justice • Court Services is dealing with the above through the following Programmes: • Programme planning and judicial support • Court Performance • Vulnerable Groups • Facility/Infrastructure Management • Family Advocacy

  5. PROGRAM 1Programme and judicial support

  6. ISS Report on the IJS - August 2005 Paying for crime: South Africa’s spending on criminal justice • What do we spend on criminal justice and how has this changed? • How do we compare? • What are the key stresses and what can be done?

  7. Growth rates in the criminal justice system over time • Although average growth in the CJS budget has generally exceeded that of the national budget, it has not done so every year. There are also important variations between the three departments. • Between 1995/6 and 2007/8, all 3 CJS depts will have seen their budgets grow faster than the national budget and faster than provincial allocations. • Between 1995/6 and 2001/2 all CJS departments’ budgets grew faster than the national budget. Justice (because of the creation of the DSO) and DCS did particularly well. • Between 2001/2 and 2004/5, all three departments grew more slowly than the national budget as a whole and a good deal more slowly than allocations to provinces. • Over the course of the MTEF, SAPS and Justice will grow a little faster than the national budget and at about the same pace as provincial allocations. DCS, however, will grow more slowly than both. • CJS budgets have always grown faster than inflation, inflation plus population growth, and inflation plus population growth plus economic growth

  8. Conclusion to part one: What does it all mean? • Three basic conclusions: • Despite the politics of crime, criminal justice spending as a whole has never grown significantly faster than the national budget. • In early days of democracy CJS spending grew faster than national spending which grew faster than social services spending. • More recently, this has been decisively reversed. This is NOT a scientific test of whether spending on social services does better than spending on CJS in reducing crime because (a) CJS spending was still rising, (b) there were more cops and (c) tactics were changing It is, however, intriguing and suggests that prioritising social spending, whatever its other purposes, may also have an impact on crime levels. This does not, however, mean that social services spending is a more cost-effective approach to reducing crime.

  9. Part two: How much should SA spend on criminal justice? Benchmarking South Africa’s spending on criminal justice reveals that we spend rather more than the international average both per capita and as a proportion of GDP • Spending as a proportion of GDP • A comparison of spending data for 1997/8 and 2004/5 reveals that while the international average for criminal justice spending as a proportion of GDP was about 1%, in South Africa, spending has risen from about 2.7% in 1997/8 to 3.1% in 2004/5. Per capita spending A comparison of spending data for 1997/8 and 2004/5 reveals that on a per capita basis, SA spends significantly more on criminal justice than does the rest of the world. In 2004, for instance, SA spent about $130 per person on criminal justice while the rest of the world spent only $66. In 1997 the differential was $91 to $63.

  10. Systemic issues Although looking at the three depts individually is important, the CJS must also be looked at as a system • Growth in capacity has been uneven: • Police personnel numbers have risen by 31%. The numbers in the NPA and courts, however, have grown by only 18% and 9% respectively. DCS’s accommodation has grown by 15%, but its staff numbers by only 8%. • This pattern will be repeated over the next few years. • Since the courts are slaves of the police and the prisons are slaves of the courts and police, uneven growth has the potential to create serious bottlenecks because more police should mean more arrests. • The courts are already struggling to clear their rolls: • Since 2000, the number of cases going to court has risen by 84%. The number of prosecutions has only grown by 31%. • Withdrawals have increased by 42%, but that still leaves a growing number of cases stuck on the rolls. This amounted to more than 350,000 cases in 2003 alone.

  11. ISS Conclusion • Spending levels have grown considerably • Spending, by international norms, is high • Capacity (measured by personnel per capita) is not excessive, but nor is it excessively low, BUT… • Measured in relation to murder rates, capacity is very limited • BUT: much more is probably unaffordable and, in any event, a reasonable case can be made that spending should prioritise social services (especially if that also helps reduce crime, though this may not be its principal purpose). • STILL: Rapid capacity growth in the police is not being matched by similar growth in Justice and DCS. This should be addressed. • BUT: to address growth needs in Justice and DCS at the expense of the police would be to ‘punish’ a department whose performance has improved. This would be perverse. • In the end, therefore, it is hard to conceive an approach to the CJS very different from the present one.

  12. BUDGETARY ASPECTS • Budget 2005/06 • Additional allocations • Resource Utilization • Budget 2006/07 • Additional allocations • Priorities

  13. HIGHLIGHTS IN TERMS OF THE 3 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES OF THE DOJCD The following slides will focus broadly on – • Service delivery improvement • Access to justice for all • Organizational Efficiency • Transformation

  14. Access to Justice for all • Specific activities in 2005 and 2006 • Rationalization of courts – see input later • Facilities – see input later • Maintenance – see Operation Isondlo later • Court Performance – see case flow initiatives later • Family advocacy – see input later

  15. Transformation • Broad Transformation Initiatives • Human Resource Development Strategy • Pool from which women and black practitioners can be prepared for appointment to the bench • Professionalizing court support services through learner ships and skills programmes including improving interpreter services • Capacitating Family courts and Family advocacy • Restructuring of the Justice College • Development of a language policy for courts to promote the use of African languages in court proceedings • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms to ensure public participation in dispute resolution processes

  16. Modernisation • Modernisation Programme • IT: A major exercise providing judges, magistrates, prosecutors and administrative personnel with such equipment has been completed. Out of 342 courts which have no IT connection 160 thereof would be connected by end of April 2006 and the reminder would be connected by end of June 2006. For the courts impact are around: • E-Scheduler (44 ICFM Centres and roll out to 40 more) • Video postponements (piloting KZN) • JDAS/ Maintenance • Court Nerve Centre

  17. Court Management • RAB…… • Court managers…… • Structure of Chief Justice…..

  18. RE-DEMARCATION OF MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS • IMPACT OF THE CONSTITUTION TWELFTH AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 • THE AIM OF THE ACT IS RE-DETERMINING THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF THE NINE PROVINCES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. AS A CONSEQUENCE: WE NEED TO PROVIDE FOR MEASURES TO REGULATE, WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME, THE LEGAL, PRACTICAL AND ANY OTHER CONSEQUENCES OF THE RE-DETERMINATION. • ALL PROVINCIAL RE-DEMARCATION REPORTS AND GIS MAPS TO BE ALIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION TWELFTH AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 AND THE CROSS-BOUNDARY MUNICIPALITIES LAWS REPEAL AND RELATED MATTERS ACT, 2005 (ACT NO. 23 OF 2005) IN ALL AFFECTED AREAS AND PROVINCES, SUCH AS, UMZIMKULU, MATATIELE (EASTERN CAPE AND KWAZULU-NATAL), PAMPIERSTAD (NORTH WEST AND NORTHERN CAPE), EKANGALA (MPUMALANGA AND GAUTENG), GROBLERSDAL (MPUMALANGA AND LIMPOPO), MAPULANENG AND MHALA (LIMPOPO AND MPUMALANGA), OBERHOLZER, KHUTSONG (GAUTENG AND NORTH WEST),GA-RANKUWA AND TEMBA (NORTH WEST AND GAUTENG), LYDENBURG (MPUMALANGA AND LIMPOPO)

  19. 2. BUSINESS PLAN/PROJECT PLAN • MEETING WITH INTERNAL ROLE-PLAYERS A MEETING TO BE HELD BEFORE THE END OF FEBRUARY 2006 BETWEEN INTERNAL ROLE-PLAYERS OF THE DEPT AND CERTAIN OUTSIDE AGENCIES, SUCH AS THE DEMARCATION BOARD TO DISCUSS THE WAY FORWARD. • NATIONAL WORKSHOP/PROVINCIAL MEETINGS THEREAFTER A NATIONAL WORKSHOP WITH ALL RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS TO DISCUSS VARIOUS ISSUES, SUCH AS THE AMENDMENTS TO THE RE-DEMARCATION REPORTS, THE IMPACT ON HUMAN RESOURCES AT OUR COURTS, A DECISION ON HOW THE RE-DEMARCATION PROCESS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED, I.E PER PROVINCE OR ALL NINE PROVINCES AT ONCE, ACCOMMODATION ASPECTS, THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROCESS ON OUR COURTS, THE ROLE OF SHERIFFS, ETC. IF NECESSARY, PROVINCIAL MEETINGS WILL FOLLOW THIS WORKSHOP • FINALIZATION OF GIS MAPS THE DEMARCATION BOARD UTILIZED GIS MAPS TO DRAW THE MAGISTERIAL BOUNDARIES. THESE MAPS WITH THE NEW MAGISTERIAL BOUNDARIES WITH ALL THE AMENDMENTS NEEDS TO BE ABSORBED BY THE OFFICES OF THE SURVEYOR-GENERAL INTO EXISTING MAPS, CERTIFIED AND APPROVED. AFTER RECEIVING THE NEW MAPS FROM THE SURVEYOR-GENERAL, THE DOJCD WILL BE IN A POSTION TO MOVE TOWARDS FINALIZATION OF THE RE-DEMARCATION PROCESS.

  20. COMPILATION OF MINISTER’S MEMORANDUM, GOVERNMENT NOTICE AND SCHEDULES AS SOON AS ALL THE GIS MAPS OF EACH PROVINCE HAVE BEEN FINALIZED, CHECKED AND CERTIFIED BY THE OFFICES OF THE SURVEYOR-GENERAL, WE WILL APPROACH THE MINISTER TO WITHDRAW ALL PREVIOUS NOTICES AND TO ESTABLISH NEW MAGISTERIAL DISTRICTS AND COURTS IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(1) OF THE MAGISTRATES’ COURTS ACT, 1944 (ACT NO 32 OF 1944). THE GOVERNMENT NOTICE AND SCHEDULES WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE STATE LAW ADVISERS FOR LEGAL SCRUTINY. PUBLICATION OF GOVERNMENT NOTICE AND SCHEDULES WHEN THE MINISTER HAS APPROVED THE ABOVE-MENTIONED GOVERNMENT NOTICE AND SCHEDULES, THE GOVERNMENT PRINTERS WILL BE REQUESTED TO PUBLISH THE NOTICE AND SCHEDULES. COPIES THEREOF WILL BE FORWARDED TO ALL RELEVANT ROLE-PLAYERS. • TIMEFRAME, BUDGET AND LINK WITH RE-AGA BOSWA SECTION 103(3)(a) OF THE CONSTITUTION TWELFTH AMENDMENT ACT, 2005 REFERS TO “WITHIN REASONABLE TIME”. TWELVE (12) MONTHS SEEMS TO BE THE STANDARD FOR A REASONABLE TIME IN INSTANCES SUCH AS THESE. THE BUDGET ALLOCATED FOR RE-DEMARCATION FOR THE 2006/2007 FINANCIAL YEAR IS R 2 MILLION. INTERACTION WITH RELEVANT PARTIES WORKING ON RE-AGA BOSWA WILL ENSURE THAT THE HUMAN RESOURCES ARE ADEQUATE TO ADDRESS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROCESS.

  21. Language Policy • Establishment of Joint Task Teams • Draft policy document to be completed before the end of the financial year 2006/07 • Organize consultative forums with all stakeholders for further inputs. Presentation on Promotion of Multilingualism in Court Process

  22. Principles • Promoting and protecting linguistic diversity • Supporting democracy through the entrenchment of language equity and language rights. • Viewing multilingualism as a resource • Redressing the marginalisation of indigenous languages. • Encouraging the learning of other South African languages

  23. Contents of the Policy • Language of Record and Proceedings • Interpretation and Translations( including sign language) • Access to records for persons with disabilities • Special redress for the marginalised languages, that is, the African languages including the Khoe and San Languages.

  24. Lay Assessors Purpose of the project • Establishment of Lay Assessors Committees • Determination of the number cases • Obtaining the number of assessors per site • Identify budget needs • Identify further rollout sites • Fast-track the implementation of regulations

  25. Pilot Sites • Cape Town - R1,170 000.00 • Emlazi – R448 615.00 • Polokwane – R746 000.00 • Port Elizabeth – R1,100 000.00 • Pretoria – R3, 186 468.00 • Protea North – R1,170 000.00 • Upington – R255 820.00 Way Forward • Increase the number of pilot sites in the next financial year • Further rollout will be the following offices: Germiston, Kempton Park, East London, Mitchells Plain, Nelspruit, Middelburg, Tzaneen and Bloemfontein.

  26. Budget for Further Rollout • R10m set aside for the pilot project • Each court room will be serviced by two assessors • One lay assessor will be paid to a maximum of R36 000 PA • In addition to allowances for lay assessors, infrastructure costs is expected • Projected amounts in the first and second year do not take into account possible increases in fees. • A further R15 000 000.00 will be required for next financial year.

  27. PROGRAM 2COURT PERFORMANCE

  28. COURT PERFORMANCE MANAGMENT • Development of Court Nerve Centre Measuring tool • Statistics on Court Performance Refer to the main document

  29. REVIEW OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM This is a JCPS initiative led by DoJCS and based on approved Terms of Reference : • Review Team for political guidance, will be constituted by the Minister, DoJCD before the end of March 2006 • Research Team to be constituted by the DG, DoJCD to conduct the actual research -nominations already requested from the JCPS cluster partners • Draft CJS Review Initiation Plan also submitted to the partners for input.

  30. CJS REVIEW PLAN • Broad Project Initiation Activities for January to April 2006. Abudget of R5m for has been allocated to the CJS Review for 2006/7. • 1. Develop/draft CJS Review project initiation plan and solicit JCPS partner inputs/comments • 2. Establish Project Secretariat -Identify/assign Project Manager-Identify support staff for the Secretariat • 3. Set up project office-Identify and secure project space -Source infrastructure needs • 4. Engage JCPS cluster partners to :constitute the Review & Research Teams commit resources • 5. Coordinate the initiation of updating of previous CS review - Identify resources to engage to update the Mulweli Report- Updating of the Mulweli • 6. Facilitate the conducting of the CJS Review project scoping (to develop an integrated CJS Review Plan including budget and capacity/resources) • 7. Conducting of the review • 8. Regular reporting

  31. CASE FLOW MANAGEMENT • CFM is overseen by an National Integrated CFM National Committee – all partners represented • Established CFM governance structures - Provincial & Local Integrated Case Flow Management Forums in some courts chaired by the Judiciary (magistrates/judges)

  32. CFM CENTRES • Already established at 44 courts where the eScheduler is deployed as an enabling tool • CFM Planning Tool/Template developed and being tested in Pinetown, KZN Regional Court Division, Western Cape High Court. • CFM Guidelines developed by DoJCD, NPA and lower Court Judiciary, being implemented • CFM Training of Judicial Cluster/SubCluster Heads initiated Oct 05 and continues to apply guidelines and CFM planning tool

  33. AUDIO VISUAL CASE REMAND SYSTEM • Exploiting technology to remove security risks and logistical nightmare associated with daily transportation of ATD’s between court and prison, and free time & resources in the system for trial ready cases. • Currently being piloted in Durban, Pinetown & Westville prison in KZN since Oct 05 • Targeting only remand cases where no juveniles are involved • Continuously optimizing procedures to operate the system between court & prison

  34. AUDIO VISUAL CASE REMAND SYSTEM cont. • Number of cases processed through the system since implementation/piloting of the system in Oct 05 : • October 05 – 87 cases • November 05 – 437 • December 05 – 404 • January 06 – 363 • Draft legislation to be with Minister 1st quarter of 2006 • Outcome of the pilot - impact assessment will be conducted after 6 months – May 06 • Excellent court stakeholder cooperation must be applauded in KZN for the testing of this system

  35. CASE e-SHEDULER • Deployed at 44 district criminal courts and being stabilized • System currently operating on distributed database platform (each court with own server and database) • System adapted to the web based version (centralized) to enable all to access the system database centrally for better performance • Testing the web base version, by end March 06 all 44 sites will be converted from distributed version • April 06 – next 40 sites to be deployed with the web based central access version

  36. Court Performance cont. • Development of the new Quality Management Framework • The new function on QM for courts is being redefined to be relevant to courts and enhance overall performance. The setting of service standards inline with Batho Pele principles will underpin the new QM role. Relevant bodies/institutes like SABS and TQM Institutes will be interfaced with in this exercise. This will be a paradigm shift from the current policing approach to quality assurance/inspecting of offices. • Backlog of cases / Monitoring Court Performance • It is clear that court performance is not only dependant on additional resources, but on management at court level (and here the judiciary have a crucial role) • RAB as support mechanism • ICFM Centres • Dedicated Courts (Commercial crime; hijack; drugs; environmental; community courts) • Additional capacity/courts • Review of CJS • Court Nerve Centre

  37. Court Nerve Centre • The Court Nerve Centre was established to provide a framework for measuring court performance that will reflect the court system as a system of closely interlinked processes and tasks in the integrated justice system. • For this purpose all court managers are required to submit monthly returns to the respective area court managers. In this process District Court Managers, appointed at main seats of court, are responsible for the collection of information from the main seat and the courts linked to the main seat (i.e. branch and periodical courts

  38. Returns to be submitted • The returns to be collected are collected at three levels: • the “Monthly Court Return” contains detailed information on court “occupancy” which is captured at a court room level; • the “Monthly Return” contains workload information on other activities and functions performed in a magistrates office (civil matters, criminal matters and family law related matters) and other court activities (such as estates, lay assessors, appeals and divorces) which is captured at a court house level; and • the “Monthly Establishment Returns” contains information on the establishment (human resource capacity) which is captured at a court responsibility level (a responsibility centre being a main court, that manages branch and periodical courts) • These levels are shown in the next slide

  39. Levels for Data Collection

  40. INFORMATION FLOW Court A Court A Area 1 Court Services Court A Region Court Nerve Centre Court A Area 2 Court A INFORMATION FLOW

  41. Court Performance • The next slides provides information of the court performance

  42. DEDICATED COURTS • Commercial, Community and other dedicated courts will be continued with as part of the strategy to ensure that courts focus on productivity as a measurement of success. Our strategy is to deal with these courts as part of our court structure and to ensure that the other courts also receive additional attention and resources so that all courts can deliver improved services. • The current model of community courts is to be integrated into the original concept intended to focus on enhancing community justice through strengthening traditional courts in rural areas and relevant structures in the townships.

  43. Commercial Crime Courts:April 2005 to December 2005

  44. Commercial Crime Courts • There are 4 Commercial Crime Courts in the RSA at present • Durban (established during 2005) : • New cases: 381; Removed from roll (withdrawal, warrants issued, etc.): 113; Finalised guilty verdict: 239; Finalised Not Guilty: 4; Outstanding Roll as on 31 December 2005: 198 • Johannesburg : • New cases: 276; Removed from roll (withdrawal, warrants issued, etc.): 98; Finalised guilty verdict: 115; Finalised Not Guilty: 8; Outstanding Roll as on 31 December 2005: 291 • Port Elizabeth (established during 2005) : • New cases: 123; Removed from roll (withdrawal, warrants issued, etc.): 49; Finalised guilty verdict: 94; Finalised Not Guilty: 15; Outstanding Roll as on 31 December 2005: 91 • Pretoria : • New cases: 237; Removed from roll (withdrawal, warrants issued, etc.): 100; Finalised guilty verdict: 248; Finalised Not Guilty: 13; Outstanding Roll as on 31 December 2005: 229

  45. Community Courts • There are 15 Community Courts in the RSA at present • Bloemfontein : • New cases: 1 273; Removed from roll (withdrawal, warrants issued, etc.): 332; Finalised guilty verdict: 940; Finalised Not Guilty: 1; Outstanding Roll as on 31 December 2005: 0 • Cape Town : • New cases: 6 131; Removed from roll (withdrawal, warrants issued, etc.): 3 089; Finalised guilty verdict: 3 146; Finalised Not Guilty: 40; Outstanding Roll as on 31 December 2005: 0 • Durban: • New cases: 3 510; Removed from roll (withdrawal, warrants issued, etc.): 980; Finalised guilty verdict: 2 551; Finalised Not Guilty: 10; Outstanding Roll as on 31 December 2005: 161 • Hatfield (two courts) • New cases: 3 744; Removed from roll (withdrawal, warrants issued, etc.): 2 388; Finalised guilty verdict: 1 460; Finalised Not Guilty: 76; Outstanding Roll as on 31 December 2005: 412

  46. Community Courts (cont.) • Mitchells Plain: • New cases: 4 271; Removed from roll (withdrawal, warrants issued, etc.): 5 377; Finalised guilty verdict: 501; Finalised Not Guilty: 77; Outstanding Roll as on 31 December 2005: 216 • Phuthaditjaba: • New cases: 471; Removed from roll (withdrawal, warrants issued, etc.): 295; Finalised guilty verdict: 64; Finalised Not Guilty: 4; Outstanding Roll as on 31 December 2005: 0 • Protea - Lenasia: • New cases: 213; Removed from roll (withdrawal, warrants issued, etc.): 77; Finalised guilty verdict: 73; Finalised Not Guilty: 7; Outstanding Roll as on 31 December 2005: 0 • Thohoyandou: • New cases: 2 979; Removed from roll (withdrawal, warrants issued, etc.): 2 373; Finalised guilty verdict: 419; Finalised Not Guilty: 3; Outstanding Roll as on 31 December 2005: 383

  47. Community Courts (cont.) • Johannesburg – Hillbrow : • New cases: 1 498; Removed from roll (withdrawal, warrants issued, etc.): 17; Finalised guilty verdict: 1 486; Finalised Not Guilty: 2; Outstanding Roll as on 31 December 2005: 0 • Kimberley : • New cases: 446; Removed from roll (withdrawal, warrants issued, etc.): 375; Finalised guilty verdict: 98; Finalised Not Guilty: 25; Outstanding Roll as on 31 December 2005: 147 • Kwa-Mashu : • New cases: 3 457; Removed from roll (withdrawal, warrants issued, etc.): 1 373; Finalised guilty verdict: 1 819; Finalised Not Guilty: 9; Outstanding Roll as on 31 December 2005: 298 • Mankeng: • New cases: 255; Removed from roll (withdrawal, warrants issued, etc.): 50; Finalised guilty verdict: 171; Finalised Not Guilty: 34; Outstanding Roll as on 31 December 2005: 0

  48. Community Courts (cont.) • Umtata: • New cases: 2 996; Removed from roll (withdrawal, warrants issued, etc.): 2 817; Finalised guilty verdict: 160; Finalised Not Guilty: 4; Outstanding Roll as on 31 December 2005: 59 • Wynberg - Fezeka: • New cases: 1 869; Removed from roll (withdrawal, warrants issued, etc.): 1 013; Finalised guilty verdict: 869; Finalised Not Guilty: 126; Outstanding Roll as on 31 December 2005: 321

More Related