CHAPTER 2 Judiciary Administrative and court support work of the Judiciary Administration Audit Commission Hong Kong 31 March 2011 This audit review was carried out under a set of guidelines tabled in the Provisional Legislative Council by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee on 11 February 1998. The guidelines were agreed between the Public Accounts Committee and the Director of Audit and accepted by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Report No. 56 of the Director of Audit contains 8 Chapters which are available on our website at http://www.aud.gov.hk. Audit Commission 26th floor, Immigration Tower 7 Gloucester Road Wan Chai Hong Kong Tel : (852) 2829 4210 Fax : (852) 2824 2087 E-mail : [email protected] ADMINISTRATIVE AND COURT SUPPORT WORK OF THE JUDICIARY ADMINISTRATION Contents Paragraph PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.2 Judiciary Administration 1.3 – 1.4 Audit review 1.5 Acknowledgement 1.6 PART 2: MANAGEMENT OF COURT WAITING TIMES 2.1 Court waiting times 2.2 Setting court waiting time targets 2.3 Audit observations and recommendations 2.4 – 2.7 Response from the Judiciary 2.8 Monitoring and reporting court waiting times 2.9 – 2.10 Audit observations and recommendations 2.11 – 2.14 Response from the Judiciary 2.15 PART 3: PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATION 3.1 FOR COURT OPERATION Accommodation for courts and tribunals 3.2 Intended use of South Kowloon Law Courts Building 3.3 Reasons for changing the intended use 3.4 – 3.5 Audit observations and recommendation 3.6 – 3.7 — i — Paragraph Response from the Judiciary 3.8 Option analysis 3.9 Audit observations and recommendations 3.10 – 3.11 Response from the Judiciary 3.12 Fitting-out requirements 3.13 – 3.14 Audit observations and recommendations 3.15 – 3.17 Response from the Judiciary 3.18 Utilisation of courtrooms and support facilities 3.19 – 3.21 Audit observations and recommendations 3.22 – 3.26 Response from the Judiciary 3.27 Management information for accommodation planning 3.28 Audit observations and recommendations 3.29 – 3.31 Response from the Judiciary 3.32 Response from the Administration 3.33 PART 4: BAILIFF SERVICES 4.1 Bailiff Section 4.2 – 4.3 Monitoring bailiffs 4.4 – 4.8 Audit observations and recommendations 4.9 – 4.10 Response from the Judiciary 4.11 Monitoring contract security guards 4.12 – 4.15 Audit observations and recommendations 4.16 – 4.17 Response from the Judiciary 4.18 — ii — Paragraph PART 5: PROCUREMENT OF STORES AND SERVICES 5.1 Stores and Procurement Regulations 5.2 Procurement through tender procedures 5.3 – 5.5 Audit examination of tendering cases 5.6 Audit observations and recommendations 5.7 – 5.11 Response from the Judiciary 5.12 Procurement of computer products under Standing 5.13 – 5.15 Offer Agreements Audit observations and recommendations 5.16 – 5.18 Response from the Judiciary 5.19 Procurement through direct purchases and bulk contracts 5.20 Audit observations and recommendations 5.21 – 5.25 Response from the Judiciary 5.26 Response from the Administration 5.27 PART 6: MANAGEMENT OF LIBRARY COLLECTIONS 6.1 Library collections 6.2 Manning of main libraries 6.3 Audit observations and recommendation 6.4 – 6.5 Response from the Judiciary 6.6 Acquisition of library materials 6.7 Audit observations and recommendations 6.8 – 6.9 Response from the Judiciary 6.10 Keeping of book registers 6.11 Audit observations and recommendations 6.12 – 6.13 Response from the Judiciary 6.14 — iii — Paragraph Stocktaking of library collections 6.15 – 6.16 Audit observations and recommendation 6.17 – 6.18 Response from the Judiciary 6.19 Missing books 6.20 – 6.21 Audit observations and recommendations 6.22 – 6.23 Response from the Judiciary 6.24 Response from the Administration 6.25 Page Appendices A: Courtsand tribunals inHong Kong 47 B : Judiciary:Organisationchart(extract)(31December2010) 48 C : Averagecourtwaiting times(2004to2010) 49 – 51 D: Chronologyofeventsinplanning the useof South Kowloon Law 52 – 53 Courts Building (1997 to2008) E : Acronyms and abbreviations 54 — iv — PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 This PART describes the background to the audit and outlines the audit objectives and scope. Background 1.2 The Judiciary, headed by the Chief Justice, is responsible for the administration of justice. It is completely independent of the executive and legislative branches of the Government. Different levels of courts and tribunals hear and adjudicate criminal cases and civil disputes. Appendix A shows a list of the courts and tribunals. Judiciary Administration 1.3 The Judiciary Administration is headed by the Judiciary Administrator, who assists the Chief Justice in the overall administration of the Judiciary. The Judiciary Administration is organised into four Divisions, as follows: (a) Operations Division. It provides support services for the operation of courts and tribunals, including the listing of cases, operation of registries, deployment of staff to assist judges, translation and interpretation services, and bailiff services; (b) Development Division. Its responsibilities include reviewing, coordinating and developing policies on court system, practices, rules and procedures, and operating the press and public relations office; (c) Quality Division. Its responsibilities include providing legal reference and operating Judiciary libraries, coordinating efficiency reviews and improvement initiatives, providing digital audio recording and transcription services, and information technology and system management; and (d) Corporate Services Division. Its responsibilities include managing human and financial resources, planning and implementing accommodation strategy, and general administration of the Judiciary. An organisation chart of the Judiciary (showing the four Divisions of the Judiciary Administration) is at Appendix B. — 1 — Introduction 1.4 The Judiciary Administrator is the Controlling Officer for all public funds expended by the Judiciary. The estimated expenditure for 2010-11 is $1.1 billion. As at 31 December 2010, the Judiciary had a strength of 1,668 staff, comprising 162 judges and judicial officers, and 1,506 support staff. Audit review 1.5 The Audit Commission (Audit) has recently conducted a review of the administrative and court support work of the Judiciary Administration. The review has focused on the following areas: (a) management of court waiting times (PART 2); (b) provision of accommodation for court operation (PART 3); (c) bailiff services (PART 4); (d) procurement of stores and services (PART 5); and (e) management of library collections (PART 6). Audit has found room for improvement in the above areas and has made a number of recommendations to address the issues. Acknowledgement 1.6 Audit would like to acknowledge with gratitude the full cooperation of the staff of the Judiciary and the Architectural Services Department (ArchSD) during the course of the audit review. — 2 — PART 2: MANAGEMENT OF COURT WAITING TIMES 2.1 This PART examines issues relating to the Judiciary Administration’s management of court waiting times. The following issues are discussed: (a) setting court waiting time targets (paras. 2.3 to 2.8); and (b) monitoring and reporting court waiting times (paras. 2.9 to 2.15). Court waiting times 2.2 As stated in the Controlling Officer’s Report of the Judiciary, an operational objective of courts and tribunals is to ensure just and expeditious disposal of cases. The Judiciary considers that the waiting times (e.g. from filing of indictment to hearing) of the cases of the courts and tribunals are appropriate indicators of their performance. It has set performance targets, in terms of average waiting times, for the courts and tribunals (except the Juvenile Court). It reports the actual average waiting times, as compared with the targets, in the Controlling Officer’s Report to indicate the extent to which the operational objective has been achieved. Appendix C shows the average waiting times for 2004 to 2010. Setting court waiting time targets 2.3 The Judiciary sets average court waiting time targets in accordance with the provisions of the relevant ordinances or the recommendations of the court users’ committees (Note 1). Details are as follows: (a) Targets based on ordinances. The waiting time target of 30 days (from filing of a case to first hearing) for the Labour Tribunal (LabT) is set in accordance with the provisions of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance (Cap. 25). Similarly, the target of 60 days for the Small Claims Tribunal (SCT) is set in accordance with the provisions of the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance (Cap. 338) (Note 2); and Note 1: The three court users’ committees are the Civil Court Users’ Committee, the Criminal Court Users’ Committee and the Family Court Users’ Committee. They are established to discuss matters of concern to court users. Members of these committees comprise judges, representatives of the legal profession, representatives of other court users and laypersons. Note 2: For 2004to2010, the waiting timesforall casesin the LabT and SCT met the provisions ofthe ordinancesconcerned. — 3 — Managementofcourtwaitingtimes (b) Other targets. According to the Judiciary, targets other than the two mentioned in (a) above are set in accordance with the recommendations of the court users’ committees. In setting the targets, reference has been made to a wide range of factors, including the waiting time statistics, caseload and complexity of cases, the time required by parties to prepare their cases, and the time required by the court or tribunal to process the cases. Audit observations and recommendations 2.4 In 1994, after a review of the court waiting time targets, the Judiciary informed members of the court users’ committees that the committees would review the targets annually. However, Audit found that, since 1997, the court users’ committees had not carried out such annual reviews. In Audit’s view, the Judiciary, in conjunction with the court users’ committees, needs to regularly review the targets to determine whether revisions are required for motivating and measuring performance more effectively. This is because the factors taken into account in setting the targets (see para. 2.3(b)) may change significantly over time, and such changes may require corresponding revisions to the targets. 2.5 Audit noted that the actual waiting times for certain types of cases (Note 3) were significantly shorter than the targets throughout 2004 to 2010. However, given that no reviews of targets were conducted, the targets remained unchanged throughout the period. For example, for building management cases in the Lands Tribunal, the actual waiting times for 2004 to 2010 (ranging from 26 to 54 days) were 46% to 74% shorter than the target of 100 days set throughout the period. In Audit’s view, the easy-to-achieve targets for such cases require particular attention of the Judiciary, as they may not serve the purposes of motivating and measuring performance. 2.6 In addition, Audit notes that the Judiciary has set waiting time targets for all courts and tribunals except the Juvenile Court (see para. 2.2). Audit could not find documented justification for not setting targets for the Juvenile Court. In Audit’s view, the Judiciary needs to review the need for setting such targets. Note 3: Obvious examples included building management and tenancy cases in the Lands Tribunal, SCT cases and classification cases in the Obscene Articles Tribunal (seeitems(F)3, (F)4,(J)1and(K)1of AppendixC). — 4 —