Backlog of court cases targeted as SA Government seeks to speed up stalling legal system

Police officers would be stripped of powers to decide which charges should be laid against suspected criminals if proposed legal changes are introduced, the South Australian Police Association says.

The State Government wants to ease the backlog of criminal cases clogging up South Australia's courts and has released a consultation paper on the future of the legal system.

The Transforming Criminal Justice document details the reforms which are intended to speed up serious criminal cases and reduce costs.

The major change is the introduction of a pre-charge bail system, which would mean cases could be investigated for six weeks before formal charges are laid.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), not police, would then decide whether there was enough evidence to charge the suspect.

Police Association president Mark Carroll said police should remain part of that process, but welcomed moves to accelerate the system.

"We'd want to look at the detail in relation to the office of DPP being the sole arbiter of what the most appropriate charge should be," he said.

"It is the police who are looking after the victims of crimes in these matters and dealing with them and taking their statements and taking them through the court process, so there is certainly some debate to be had around that issue.

"But certainly where the paper is heading and what it's attempting to do we are supportive of, because we are all aware of the length of time it takes and the games that are played in the court process that aren't necessarily in the interest of justice."

Other changes include revising the state's legal aid system which, in its current form, "discourages early preparation by defence lawyers and the early identification and resolution of cases", according to the document.

The issuing of subpoenas would also be revised to stop defence lawyers using tactical delays.

Sentence reductions of up to 40 per cent would still be on offer, "but only to those who plead guilty at a first hearing".

Issuing of subpoenas a 'fishing trip by defendants'

Attorney-General John Rau said similar reforms have proven successful in the United Kingdom and the changes would ensure police resources are better used.

"Some of the issues that have existed between the police and the DPP about overcharging in some matters should be resolved," he said.

"Police will be less likely to be sent off on wild goose chases answering subpoenas, which are basically a fishing expedition by some defendants.

"The savings are at the back end of the system so more energy goes in to the earlier part of the process. That means that the later part of the process is significantly more efficient and less expensive."

Mr Rau denied the changes would lead to a drop-off in prosecutions and said introducing a holding charge made sense.

"It's better I think to be given a holding charge and be bailed for a period of time and perhaps never ultimately be charged at all than be charged with an offence which is more serious or not even the correct offence because police didn't have the time to properly investigate the matter."

Guilty plea incentive too generous: Victims Commissioner

The state's Victims of Crime Commissioner, Michael O'Connell, said a 40 per cent sentence reduction for early guilty pleas for some types of offence was too generous.

"For most offences ... that makes quite a lot of sense," he said.

"But in offences involving sex crimes in particular - where there already is a perception that the penalties are not long enough in terms of imprisonment and not harsh enough in terms of conditions - to offer a 40 per cent discount may in fact run the risk of greater dissatisfaction for victims."

Mr O'Connell said it was not necessarily the case that an accelerated legal system would lead to greater justice.

"The document appears to presume that victims' rights are currently being met and I'm not convinced that, for all victims on all occasions, their rights are being met," he said.

"I will be arguing strongly that victims' rights should remain as they are and, if possible, strengthened."

The police association said officers are also concerned about the number of serious charges downgraded by the DPP over the last 18 months.

"We have been in discussions for over six months with the Attorney-General representing our members' views," Mr Carroll said.

"[They] are quite concerned about some of those decisions that have been taken.

"We'll be assessing the paper in great detail to respond to the Attorney-General on that point."

Binding defence forms questioned by civil libertarian

The reforms would also require those charged to declare their defence early in the proceedings, effectively binding them to that defence during a trial.

The aim of such a measure is to prevent "ambush defences" in which defendants rely on arguments not previously flagged, and exemptions would only apply in exceptional circumstances.

The chair of the Civil Liberties Council, Claire O'Connor, welcomed the reforms but said she was concerned about that particular measure.

"At this stage I would have very real concerns about defendants having to basically assist the prosecution case in a way by providing all that evidence up front," she said.

"If it's the case that you can't run a defence that's available to you simply because early on a particular lawyer handling the file, who filed the notice, didn't consider a particular aspect of the charge against someone, then that would be a travesty."