Annual Report 2017 – 2018

Download a full PDF version of the 2017-18 CDPP Annual Report.

We work closely with partner agencies to bring cases to a close through effective prosecution.

24 September 2018

Attorney-General

The Hon Christian Porter MP

Parliament House

Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Attorney-General

I am pleased to present the annual report for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) for the year ended 30 June 2018.

Section 46 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 requires the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to prepare a report to the Attorney-General regarding the CDPP’s operations during the year.

As required by section 10(b) of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014, I certify that the CDPP has prepared fraud risk assessments and a fraud control plan; that the CDPP has fraud prevention, detection, investigation and reporting mechanisms that meet its needs; and that I have taken all reasonable measures to minimise the potential incidence of fraud in the CDPP. There have been no instances of fraud identified during the period.

Yours sincerely
Sarah McNaughton

SC Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Introduction

The CDPP has had an extremely productive year. 

Our prosecutors and external counsel have continued to work hard to progress matters through the prosecution process. Our commitment to bringing cases to a close efficiently remains unwavering, driven by the expectations of our partner agencies and our commitment to achieving outcomes in the public interest.

PERFORMANCE

We measure and report on our performance to assure the public that we are achieving our purpose, which is:

To provide an independent prosecution service that contributes to the respect and maintenance of Commonwealth criminal law and public respect in the justice system through the prosecution of crimes.

While there are several performance measures associated with our program of work, the following three headline measures encapsulate how well we deliver an efficient, effective and independent prosecution service:

• 100 per cent compliance with the terms of the test for prosecution 
• 90 per cent of partners are satisfied or very satisfied with the way we deliver our services
• 90 per cent of prosecutions result in a conviction.

See page 108 for our Annual Performance Statement.

In addition to these headline performance measures, a key goal for us this year was improving our prosecution services by more efficiently assessing complex multifaceted briefs. We aimed to reduce this to a maximum of 90 days, and during the year our prosecutors assessed 94 per cent of briefs within 90 days. We will continue to evaluate our efforts to identify ways to further improve this in the years ahead.

Reflecting on our achievements, it is clear the CDPP’s digital transformation— coupled with the willingness of staff to innovate, collaborate and adopt new work practices being embraced by our partners and stakeholders—has been integral to our performance over the past 12 months.

EMERGING CRIME TYPES

While the prosecution work continued, our prosecutors were also engaged in important legislative reform relating to national security, in particular espionage and foreign interference.

I am proud of the contribution the CDPP made in shaping legislation, from providing valuable insights on the structure of reform, to practical insights regarding its eventual application as law. We continue to bring a unique and profoundly valued perspective to these forums, which also provide indications as to the likely future profile of our prosecutions and legal practice. 

Being party to the Government’s legislative reform program allows us to plan ahead, anticipate and engage in early discussions with partner agencies regarding the potential impact of such reforms, and to continually review resourcing within our legal practice groups and the capability of our prosecutors to respond, should emerging crime types be referred for prosecution.

Preparing our prosecutors for change, in our operating environment and within our legal practice, was a continuing central theme during the reporting year.

DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION

Upskilling our staff for the digital age has become increasingly important as we aim to work within the budget and resource parameters set for the CDPP, while keeping pace with the practices adopted by our partner agencies and the wider justice system.

During the year, I challenged staff to ‘think digital’—to develop and refine core technology skills and capability as building blocks for an agile and flexible workplace. I recognise that their willingness to embrace technology, to be innovative, generate ideas and share knowledge is essential to improving our prosecution services.

This challenge was formalised in our THINK DIGITAL strategy. It explains how we connect and support our people to use systems, tools and technology to transform our workplace for the better. It draws together what we have already done, provides a cohesive roadmap for the future and, importantly, encourages staff to be open to technological innovation. 

BUILDING CASEHQ—OUR NEW VIRTUAL HEADQUARTERS FOR CASE AND DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT

There are a range of projects under the THINK DIGITAL banner that we will look back on as being pivotal in the history of the CDPP. Our virtual headquarters for case and document management is one example. 

It is remarkable to witness the rate of progress. In less than 12 months, the solution has been procured, tailored to our prosecution process, tried, tested and improved through agile development cycles in readiness for its launch in late 2018. 

Named by our people, the system known as caseHQ is one of the most transformative projects the CDPP has ever undertaken. 

FROM PAPER TO ELECTRONIC BRIEFS

Our digital transformation reaches beyond our internal systems to also focus on ways to improve the investigative/ prosecution process. 

During the year we collaborated with partner agencies to develop and implement referral standards for submitting electronic briefs, and developed and trialled a new secure Digital Referrals Gateway to enable their submission.

The gateway was the focus of a trial with the Department of Human Services (DHS). The trial started in October 2017 and saw teams of investigators work alongside our prosecutors to test the gateway to securely submit electronic briefs online. The trial expanded to include DHS nationally in February 2018. More recently the Australian Taxation Office and Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA) also joined the trial, before the Digital Referrals Gateway’s gradual rollout to all partner agencies from July 2018.

This approach demonstrates our commitment to consultation and collaboration as we work to develop and implement robust and proven solutions, which are flexible enough to adapt to the different processes inherent within partner agencies.

OPTIMISING OUR LEGAL PRACTICE

Our national practice model is embedded within the CDPP, with specialist teams of lawyers dedicated to prosecuting specific categories of crime nationally. We are now optimising this model. 

During 2017–18, we focused on the critical role of our middle management cohort. Through consultation we recast the role of Work Group Coordinators to better reflect the scope of what they do, and retitled them Prosecution Team Leaders to emphasise the critical part they play in the operation of the legal practice, as well as the essential link they provide between senior leaders and frontline prosecutors. 

To support our Prosecution Team Leaders, we introduced new communication tools to consistently cascade information to frontline prosecutors from the leadership group. This, coupled with dynamic reporting methods, now provides a streamlined way to report on our case load and escalate issues before problems emerge. 

Combined with new ways of working and reporting, this has created a transparent view of the legal practice for managers and the Executive Leadership Group. It has proven to be particularly effective and is a practical example of how we continue to look for ways to optimise our national practice model.

We will continue to optimise this model next year by providing staff with further opportunities to grow and advance professionally, while also forging ahead with our transformation into a digitallyenabled workplace.

COLLABORATING WITH PARTNER AGENCIES

During 2017–18, legal practice groups collaborated with partner agencies in a variety of ways, including participating in joint conferences and identifying opportunities to improve the investigative/ prosecution process. 

Partner agencies rely on us to bring cases to a close through effective prosecutions—underscoring the ongoing importance of our office transforming in sync with their evolving internal processes.

I am particularly proud of the temporary transfer of staff into partner agencies to share specialist knowledge, build a common understanding of the prosecution process, and help agencies improve their brief preparation processes for specific categories of crime.
This year we also extended our prosecution expertise and capability by expanding our External Junior Counsel Panel. In late 2017 we invited junior counsel to apply for our annual intake, which involves a formal online application process. In March 2018 we added 141 new counsel to our panel, bringing the total to 491.

This experienced group helps us respond effectively to the changing nature, volume and complexity of matters referred by partner agencies, and achieve both an early resolution and effective conclusion of matters before the courts. 

As an extension to our national legal practice, our External Counsel Panel works effectively with our prosecutors and partners to help us achieve our outcome.

See page 34 for more information about the role of our External Counsel Panel.

DIVERSITY AND CULTURE

Built on a foundation of ethics and integrity, the CDPP values innovation, collaboration and diversity. 

This year, we renewed our commitment to embracing diversity within our workplace with the launch of our Diversity Network. Chaired by a Deputy Director, and involving a broad cross-section of staff, this network is actively engaging in a dialogue across our organisations, designed to highlight and celebrate diversity in all its forms. 

I am heartened by the work of this group. 

Another significant activity we carried out during the year to strengthen our positive workplace culture was to formalise and extend our flexible work arrangements. Comprising policy, guidelines and technological solutions to enable our staff to work remotely, this initiative has seen our digital transformation agenda converge with our workplace culture. 

I look forward to seeing staff take advantage of these additional flexible work arrangements. Whether they work remotely from court or home, staff now have the ability to access options, where appropriate, that will ultimately contribute to improved productivity. This is a significant step forward in establishing a connected and flexible workforce.

Finally, the results from our 2017 APS Employee Census were very encouraging, after a record 81 per cent of staff (351 people) took part. The results reassured me that we are making positive progress in many areas.

CONNECTING WITH THE COMMUNITY

Our role in the Australian justice system requires us to deliver Australia’s federal prosecution service. We recognise a key driver behind this is achieving effective outcomes for the broader community. 

We appear in courts across the nation, including before juries made up of members of the community. We also continue to promote prosecution outcomes through media releases and case reports to explain our vital role and deter potential offenders by highlighting the consequences of offending. While this is a very public representation of our prosecution work, our commitment to the Australian community is also demonstrated in more subtle ways.

For example, during the year, we launched a notable staff-led initiative. Known as ‘Together Let’s’, the program aims to unite our workforce behind a charity, to raise funds to help it achieve its objectives during the calendar year.

The inaugural charity chosen this year was Yalari. 

Since 2005, Yalari has been providing Indigenous children from regional, rural and remote communities across Australia the opportunity to receive a full boarding school scholarship for their entire secondary education. Here at the CDPP we value education, and the opportunity to support Indigenous students to achieve their goals and dreams resonated with our workforce. 

I am pleased to report that we easily surpassed our modest fundraising target of $4,000 within the first six months, through a series of National Pledge Days and fundraising activities planned by ambassadors in each office. 

This initiative demonstrates so many of the values that underpin the work of our office—partnership, collaboration, innovation, diversity and a shared drive to achieve results.

LOOKING FORWARD

In the year ahead we will focus on consolidating and embedding underlying systems, procedures and work practices to modernise our workplace as well as support staff to operationalise new systems. Critical to our success—and a continuing focus for us—will be making sure all staff are supported during this change process, with training, online tools and supportive management.

I am pleased and inspired that our people continue to champion our change program and are open to new opportunities and methods of working, enabled by digital tools and technology solutions. This is further evident in our priorities for the year ahead, which include:

• consistently assessing complex multi-faceted briefs within a period of 90 days 
•  continuing to identify cases with potential for early resolution
• strengthening early engagement and collaboration with partner agencies to inform and drive more effective investigation and prosecution outcomes
• expanding access to the Digital Referrals Gateway to all partner agencies for the secure submission of electronic briefs 
• introducing new resources to support victims and witnesses through the prosecution process, including the development of a micro website to improve access to relevant support and key information 
• implementing caseHQ, our new case and document management system
• delivering an innovative training program to build the capability of our staff as they transition to caseHQ
• improving the management of complex cases by providing innovative databases and digital litigation support services to the legal practice
• providing staff with opportunities to build their skills and capability through a central technical toolbox— connecting them to systems, training and experienced users. 

These are just some of the key activities that will advance our work practices, our relationships with our partners, and our people.

As we take significant steps forward in our digital transformation, the benefits will be reflected in our performance and flow through to our stakeholders, partner agencies and the broader Australian community. 

I am proud of our achievements and pleased to present the CDPP’s 2017–18 Annual Report. 

Sarah McNaughton SC Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

OVERVIEW

AUSTRALIA’S INDEPENDENT PROSECUTION SERVICE

The CDPP was established under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (DPP Act) and started operating on 5 March 1984. 

The DPP Act sets out the functions and powers of the Director, including independent responsibility for carrying out prosecutions for offences against Commonwealth laws. The Commonwealth Solicitor for Public Prosecutions takes a lead role in supporting the Director to fulfil our statutory obligations, with the Executive Leadership Group overseeing legal and corporate functions. See Chapter 2 National practice—How we operate for more information about the role of the Director, Commonwealth Solicitor for Public Prosecutions and Executive Leadership Group. While the CDPP is within the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s portfolio, we operate independently of both the Attorney-General and the political process. However, the Commonwealth AttorneyGeneral has power under section 8 of the DPP Act to issue directions or guidelines to the Director. These must be in writing and tabled in Parliament, and there must be prior consultation between the Attorney-General and the Director. The CDPP is bound by such directions or guidelines issued by the Attorney-General. In the past 30 years, seven directions have been issued, with none issued in the current reporting period.

OUR ROLE PROSECUTING OFFENCES AGAINST COMMONWEALTH LAW

We work in an increasingly dynamic environment prosecuting a diverse range of complex crimes, often transnational in nature and regularly involving large quantities of electronic evidence. Complex offending continues to expand and evolve. Criminal cartels, foreign bribery, child exploitation (using carriage services), sophisticated revenue and benefits fraud, large-scale and crossborder organised crime activity including drug offences, human trafficking, slavery and terrorism offences—these are just some of the diverse matters we prosecute. While the profile of our work has not changed dramatically, emerging crime types, for example foreign interference and espionage as well as cybercrime, are anticipated to shape our prosecutions in the future. In addition to actively participating in legislative reform, we also provide pre-brief advice to Commonwealth investigators and apply for superannuation forfeiture orders under Commonwealth law, as an extension of our core work.

PROSECUTION SERVICES FOR PARTNER AGENCIES

We continue to refine and improve our prosecution services for partner agencies. These services cover every aspect of the criminal prosecution process, from pre-brief advice to brief assessment, specialist resources and liaison activity, as well as providing services throughout the entire court process.

We collaborate extensively with our partners to build capability and drive improvements in the prosecution process. This collaboration ranges from tailored training and secondments to joint initiatives such as developing and implementing referral standards for electronic briefs.

The need for digital practices has seen us work closely with partners to design standards to prepare for electronic briefs, and this year we trialled submitting electronic briefs through a new Digital Referrals Gateway with a range of agencies.

See page 126 for more information about our e-brief standards and Digital Referrals Gateway.

Each legal practice group connects with partner agencies to establish and build strong working relationships. Insights gained influence our prosecution services, which must adapt to the changing nature of criminality and partner agency needs.

See page 42 for more information about our prosecution services

WORKING ACROSS ALL JURISDICTIONS NATIONALLY

We have offices in Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, Canberra, Hobart, Darwin, Cairns and Townsville and carry out legal work in the courts of every Australian state and territory. We are also responsible for prosecuting offences against the laws of Jervis Bay and Australia’s external territories, such as Norfolk Island, Christmas Island the Cocos Islands. 

We have offices located in every state and territory, though our prosecutions extend beyond this, to include Australia’s external territories.

A RESPONSIVE NATIONAL LEGAL PRACTICE

Our national legal practice operating model provides an efficient, effective and nationally consistent federal prosecution service.

This national approach means we can harness the expertise of our staff to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of our prosecutions. Importantly, this dynamic model means we can be agile and focus our efforts, adapting as required by allocating matters to specialists in our national network of prosecutors.

Our national practice group model 

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Independent responsibility for conducting prosecutions against Commonwealth law

NATIONAL LEGAL PRACTICE GROUPS

Commonwealth Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

Lead role in supporting the Director and overseeing the operations of the legal practice

• Commercial, Financial and Corruption

      Prosecutes serious financial crimes and corruption offences

• International Assistance and Specialist Agencies

      Prosecutes matters referred by specialist agencies and provides international assistance

• Human Exploitation and Border Protection

      Prosecutes child exploitation, trafficking, people smuggling, migration offences and more

• Illegal Imports and Exports

      Prosecutes offences associated with protecting Australia’s borders

• Organised Crime and Counter-Terrorism

      Prosecutes counter-terrorism and large-scale organised crime offences

• Revenue and Benefits Fraud

      Prosecutes general tax, social security, Medicare and identity fraud

Corporate Services Group

Enables and supports the activities of the legal practice through a range of services—Finance, Technology, People, Communications, Records, Library, Governance, Risk and Audit

Each practice group is led by a Deputy Director who is responsible for:

• prosecutions conducted by the practice group across Australia
• national liaison and delivering prosecution services in relation to the practice group
• policy development for issues that concern the practice group
• the CDPP’s contribution to law reform related to the crime types prosecuted by the practice group.

While the legal practice groups conduct prosecutions on behalf of the Director, the Commonwealth Solicitor for Public Prosecutions takes a lead role in supporting the Director to fulfil her statutory obligations, and overseeing the day-to-day operation of the national legal practice.

See page 29 for more information about our Deputy Directors and page 47 for detailed information about their practice groups.

Our legal practice groups are supported by our customer focused and collaborative Corporate Services Group, led by our Chief Corporate Officer. 

This group provides essential services and solutions necessary to support the efficient operations of our busy legal practice. Functions include finance, people, specialist national legal administrative support, library and research services, records management, internal audit, governance, communications, and information technology.

See page 31 for more information about the role of the Chief Corporate Officer, and page 130 for an overview of corporate functions.

TREATING VICTIMS OF CRIME WITH COURTESY, DIGNITY AND RESPECT

An important dimension of our work is treating victims and witnesses involved in prosecutions with respect. 

We recognise they play an important role in the prosecution process and our dedicated and valued Witness Assistance Service supports the most vulnerable of those involved in matters we are prosecuting.

To ensure the most vulnerable victims of Commonwealth crime are treated in an appropriate and consistent manner, all identifiable child victims and victims of slavery, sexual servitude and forced marriage offences must be referred to the Witness Assistance Service.

Following extensive research and user testing, in 2018–19 we will launch a new micro website for victims and witnesses on the CDPP website. It will provide tailored and timely information and resources to support victims, witnesses and carers through the prosecution process.

It is important to note the CDPP does not act on behalf of victims; this is the role of private sector solicitors. Rather we act on behalf of the whole community. 

Our Victims of Crime Policy guides and supports victims and witnesses through the prosecution process and we have established effective processes and procedures linked to the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth. In all prosecutions, we treat victims with courtesy, compassion, cultural sensitivity and respect for their dignity and entitlements. 

See page 73 for more information about this service

SERVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS

We serve the public interest by maintaining effective working relationships with partner agencies. 

In 2017–18, a total of 60 partner agencies referred cases to the CDPP, comprising 40 Commonwealth investigative agencies including the Australian Federal Police, and 20 state and territory agencies including state and territory police.

This year our top referring agencies, representing more than 75 per cent of all cases referred, were the:

• Australian Federal Police
• Department of Human Services— Centrelink
• state and territory police 
• Australian Financial Security Authority
• Australian Border Force.

As we have no investigative function, we rely on our partner agencies to provide briefs of evidence. The matters they refer must pass a two-stage test before we decide to prosecute: 

• there must be sufficient evidence to prosecute the case
• the prosecution must be in the public interest.

Throughout the prosecution process we work closely with partner agencies, including requisitioning additional evidence when required. However, we make decisions in relation to a prosecution independently of those responsible for investigating.

EDUCATING THE COMMUNITY ABOUT OUR ROLE

To educate the community about our role and build confidence in the federal justice system we:

• promote prosecution outcomes on www.cdpp.gov.au
• highlight the positive working relationships we have with partner agencies and state and territory counterparts
• regularly participate in legal working groups and committees
• attend relevant conferences and events
• provide input into legislative reform.

Promoting prosecution outcomes educates the community about the consequences of committing crimes against Commonwealth law, and also deters potential offenders.

CONNECTING WITH STATE AND TERRITORY DIRECTORS OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

We have established procedures with each Director of Public Prosecutions throughout Australia for trials that involve both Commonwealth and state or territory offences.

We can prosecute indictable offences against state and territory laws where our Director holds an authority to do so under the relevant jurisdiction’s laws. In addition, our Director can carry out committal proceedings and summary prosecutions for offences against state and territory law where a Commonwealth officer is the informant.

Liaison between Commonwealth and state prosecuting authorities takes place at both the national and regional level. Valuable forums include the Conference of Australian Directors of Public Prosecutions and National Executive Officers’ Meeting.

WORKING AS AN INTEGRAL MEMBER OF THE AUSTRALIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM

We are an integral member of the Australian justice system and remain committed to upholding the highest professional and ethical standards. 

We work with our legal counterparts at every level of the justice system. We actively participate in legislative reform and procedural forums to advance our prosecution service to meet the expectations of the broader community. 

Our national reach allows us to work efficiently and effectively with partner agencies and state and territory counterparts, to progress our prosecution work and strengthen our working relationships with all stakeholders in the justice system.

We also make sure alleged offenders and others affected by the criminal justice process are treated fairly, and we work hard to promote and maintain an organisational culture that values fairness, equity and respect. 

We expect our staff to maintain high ethical standards, as set out in our Guidelines on Official Conduct for CDPP Staff, which all staff sign.

ADVISE:We provide advice to referring agencies, stakeholders and international counterparts about matters, law reform and the application of Commonwealth law.

PROSECUTE :We contribute to a fair, safe and just society by successfully prosecuting crimes against Commonwealth law.

SUPPORT:We treat victims and witnesses with respect and support the most vulnerable through the prosecution process.

EDUCATE:We educate the community about the consequences of breaking the law, which sends a strong message of deterrence.

NATIONAL PRACTICE— HOW WE OPERATE

Organisation structure

Our organisation is made up of specialist legal practice groups supported by our corporate services group. Together they form our national practice group model.

This model enables us to deliver a unified and nationally consistent federal prosecution service, which harnesses the expertise of our knowledgeable and professional staff and allows us to respond to the changing nature and complexity of criminal activity. It creates national consistency in our approach—we are agile, flexible and able to allocate staff to practice groups in response to partner agency referrals and changes to our budget or operating environment. 

A priority for the Director and Executive Leadership Group is optimising the model to ensure it continues to evolve and deliver benefits, including improvements in our brief assessment timeframes, early resolution of matters, timely pre-brief advice, and effective investigative/ prosecution outcomes.

EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP GROUP

The Executive Leadership Group is the key advisory group to the Director, offering a broad range of expertise and specialist knowledge. It is made up of the Director as Chair, the Commonwealth Solicitor for Public Prosecutions, the Chief Corporate Officer, and the Deputy Directors who lead our specialist legal practice groups: 

• Sarah McNaughton SC, Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
• Andrea Pavleka, Commonwealth Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
• David Adsett, Deputy Director, International Assistance and Specialist Agencies/National Business Improvement
• Scott Bruckard PSM, Deputy Director, Organised Crime and CounterTerrorism
• James Carter, Deputy Director, Revenue and Benefits Fraud
• Mark de Crespigny, Deputy Director, Illegal Imports and Exports/Human Exploitation and Border Protection
• Berdj Tchakerian, Acting Deputy Director, Commercial, Financial and Corruption
• Simon A. Ash, Chief Corporate Officer.

Left to right: David Adsett, James Carter, Scott Bruckard PSM, Sarah McNaughton SC, Andrea Pavleka, Berdj Tchakerian, Simon A. Ash, Mark de Crespigny.

The Commonwealth Solicitor for Public Prosecutions, the broader Executive Leadership Group, and all CDPP staff work together to support the Director in delivering Australia’s federal prosecution service.

Figure 1: Organisation chart at 30 June 2018

COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, SARAH McNAUGHTON SC 

On 5 May 2016, the former AttorneyGeneral, Senator the Hon George Brandis QC, announced the appointment of Ms Sarah McNaughton SC as Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for five years. 

Ms McNaughton has 30 years’ experience as a legal practitioner, having held a range of roles in private practice and with the CDPP. She has been a respected member of the New South Wales Bar since 1996 and was appointed Senior Counsel in 2011.

Ms McNaughton has appeared as both prosecution and defence counsel in complex criminal trials and has specialist expertise in offences related to taxation, corporate crime, drug importation and terrorism. 

Ms McNaughton holds degrees in arts (Hons), law (Hons) and a Master of Laws from the University of Sydney.

The role of the Director

Our legislative policy and framework establishes the role of our organisation and the statutory position of Director. Key elements include the:

• Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (DPP Act)
• Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act)
• Public Service Act 1999 
• Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth.

The DPP Act established the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. It sets out the functions and powers of the Director including independent responsibility for carrying out prosecutions for offences against laws of the Commonwealth. 

The Director delegates most of those functions or powers to CDPP staff. The Director and staff together constitute a statutory agency and the Director is the head of that statutory agency.

The Director also has a number of miscellaneous functions, including to:

• provide legal advice to Commonwealth investigators
• apply for superannuation forfeiture orders under Commonwealth law.

The Commonwealth Solicitor for Public Prosecutions takes a lead role in supporting the Director to fulfil her statutory obligations.

COMMONWEALTH SOLICITOR FOR PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, ANDREA PAVLEKA

In February 2017, the Director appointed Ms Andrea Pavleka as the Commonwealth Solicitor for Public Prosecutions for 18 months. 

Ms Pavleka was previously Deputy Director of the Illegal Imports and Exports/Human Exploitation and Border Protection Practice Group.

Ms Pavleka joined the CDPP’s Melbourne office 27 years ago. Before joining the Executive Leadership Group she was a member of the senior executive in the Melbourne office for more than 10 years, where she was Assistant Director for branches including general prosecutions (encompassing drug and fraud prosecutions), tax and people smuggling and organised crime and counter-terrorism. Prior to that, she was a Federal Prosecutor responsible for major criminal litigation, including some of our most complex and long-running trials.

Ms Pavleka holds a law degree from the Australian National University.

See page 32 for more information about the role of the Commonwealth Solicitor for Public Prosecutions.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE AND SPECIALIST AGENCIES/ NATIONAL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT, DAVID ADSETT

Mr Adsett has been a Federal Prosecutor for more than 30 years. During his extensive legal career he has carried out prosecutions for a wide range of Commonwealth offending, including money laundering, tax fraud, commercial fraud, drug importation, people smuggling and terrorism. 

He currently leads the National Business Improvement Practice Group, and also heads the International Assistance and Specialist Agencies Practice Group, overseeing specialist agency work and the international functions of extradition and mutual assistance.

Mr Adsett is a barrister and holds degrees in law and arts from the University of Queensland and a Master of Laws degree from the University of Sydney.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR ORGANISED CRIME AND COUNTER-TERRORISM, SCOTT BRUCKARD PSM

Mr Bruckard leads the Organised Crime and Counter-Terrorism Practice Group and has national responsibility for prosecutions related to terrorism, large-scale drug and tobacco importation, firearms trafficking, money laundering, war crimes and national security.

Mr Bruckard, who joined the CDPP in 1987, has managed this practice group and been a member of the CDPP senior executive since 2014. 

Mr Bruckard is committed to improving law enforcement outcomes and developing better ways to manage large criminal litigation, particularly through early and more effective partnerships, and smarter use of technology. He has represented Australia at international conferences and forums, including at the United

Nations in New York and a Global Counterterrorism Forum in Frankfurt.

In June 2016, Mr Bruckard was awarded a Public Service Medal (PSM) in recognition of his distinguished service to the law enforcement and justice community, after he spearheaded counter-terrorism prosecutions. He holds degrees in arts and law from the University of Melbourne.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR REVENUE AND BENEFITS FRAUD, JAMES CARTER 

Mr Carter commenced his legal career at the CDPP as a graduate legal officer in 1987. After prosecuting in the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales he moved to national legal, liaison, law reform and practice management roles.

Mr Carter has extensive experience in Commonwealth criminal law and working with partner agencies to successfully investigate and prosecute the wide range of Commonwealth criminal offences. He has contributed to the work of the Australian Law Reform Commission, particularly in relation to sentencing federal offenders and to the development of Commonwealth criminal law. 

The breadth of this experience has led to leading the Revenue and Benefits Fraud Practice Group. In this role he is responsible for prosecuting general tax, social security, internal and identity fraud cases nationally, to protect the integrity of Commonwealth programs. 

Mr Carter has been a member of the senior executive of the CDPP since 2004 and a Deputy Director since 2007. 

He holds degrees in law and arts from the Australian National University.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR ILLEGAL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS/ HUMAN EXPLOITATION AND BORDER PROTECTION, MARK DE CRESPIGNY

Mr de Crespigny has national responsibility for a large variety of crime types, including general drug and precursor importation offences, money laundering, child exploitation offences, human trafficking, slavery and people smuggling. 

He has had a long and distinguished career with the CDPP, having joined in 1989. He is currently based in our Sydney office but has previously worked in our Canberra and Adelaide offices. In addition to carrying out Commonwealth prosecutions across numerous crime types, Mr de Crespigny has provided national coordination for specific areas of practice and managing the CDPP’s relationship with a variety of partner agencies.

Mr de Crespigny has been a member of the senior executive for more than 12 years, initially as the Assistant Director of our Legal Advice branch in Canberra and then playing an integral role in leading our Hobart and Canberra offices as part of the International Assistance and Specialist Agencies Practice Group, before taking on responsibility for the Illegal Imports And Exports Practice Group and the Human Exploitation And Border Protection Practice Group in 2017.

Mr de Crespigny holds degrees in law and commerce from the Australian National University.

ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR COMMERCIAL FINANCIAL AND CORRUPTION, BERDJ TCHAKERIAN 

Mr Tchakerian started his career at the CDPP as a legal officer in 1986 in the General Prosecutions branch, where he prosecuted a wide range of cases, including fraud and drug matters. He then moved to a management role and has held various local and national positions.

Mr Tchakerian was the CDPP representative on Project Wickenby, a whole-of-government taskforce focused on combatting tax fraud using off shore tax havens. He worked closely with partner agencies in this role for a number of years and contributed to the success of the taskforce.

Mr Tchakerian has been a member of the senior executive of the CDPP since 2000 and was a member of the senior executive in our Melbourne office for approximately 10 years, before starting his current role in late 2017.

He holds degrees in law and arts from Monash University.

CHIEF CORPORATE OFFICER, SIMON A. ASH

Mr Ash has had a long and accomplished career in the Australian Public Service. As a senior economic adviser to two Prime Ministers, he was instrumental in preparing Commonwealth Budget and Financial Statements, and he has also been Chief Financial Officer of five Commonwealth agencies.

Mr Ash has extensive experience in leading corporate services. He has introduced innovative information and communications technology (ICT) solutions, automated purchasing and procurement systems, and assimilated all corporate functions following the merger of two departments. 

He was a key participant in the Australian Government’s movement to accrual budgeting in 1999 and the introduction of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, and has provided extensive strategic policy and budgeting advice to the Expenditure Review Committee of Cabinet.

Mr Ash has been a member of the Senior Executive Service within the Australian Public Service for more than 20 years, and joined the CDPP in 2017. 

He holds a degree in commerce and economics from the Australian National University.

COMMONWEALTH SOLICITOR FOR PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

The Commonwealth Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (CSPP) works with our legal practice groups and corporate services group to make sure we have the essential systems, processes, people and culture to fulfil our purpose and deliver on strategic themes. 

The CSPP is committed to ensuring the CDPP is a contemporary and innovative legal practice that operates in a nationally consistent manner. The CSPP focuses on:

• ensuring CDPP staff have access to key legal resources and harness their combined knowledge and experiences in the most efficient way possible
• encouraging early and efficient preparation and management of cases, including appropriate digital solutions and engagement of counsel
• fostering a greater team-based approach to the way we manage our matters
• continuing our deep engagement with partner agencies when it comes to liaison, pre-brief advice and court work
• continuing to improve our service to partner agencies, including timeliness
• developing a strong culture and agile workforce by embracing more flexible ways of doing our work 
• developing staff via diverse work experiences (within and outside our organisation) and ensuring access to relevant and high-quality training and education.

The CSPP leads the Legal Business Improvement branch. Elevating this function to the Commonwealth Solicitor has reinforced the Director’s emphasis on transforming the CDPP, improving day-to-day operations of the legal practice, and achieving national consistency.

LEGAL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT BRANCH

The branch focuses on the many operational aspects of enabling, supporting and modernising a busy legal practice. Key activities include:

• developing and maintaining key resources, internal policies and guidelines relating to the legal practice
• maintaining and refreshing a list of experienced barristers appointed to the CDPP’s External Counsel Panel
• maintaining resources integral to the work of partner agencies including various warrant manuals
• managing content and proactively communicating time-critical information to partner agencies through our secure Partner Agency Portal
• managing and developing a continuing legal education program for all prosecutors
• developing and maintaining induction resources for new prosecutors
• coordinating external advocacy training and technology training opportunities
• providing partner agencies and CDPP prosecutors with analysis of post-trial reports to identify systemic issues arising in investigations and prosecutions
• assisting external auditors 
• helping to develop and implement the biennial Partner Agency Satisfaction Survey held in March 2018
• liaising and engaging with the Attorney-General’s Department regarding law reform issues.

The branch also supports the Director by providing statistical briefing and specialist advice and support. Major projects and contributions for the branch this year are set out below.

Sentencing Guide

In consultation with CDPP lawyers, the Legal Business Improvement branch oversaw the development of the Guide for the Sentencing of Federal Offenders, which was drafted by external counsel and completed in June 2018. The Guide is now available to CDPP lawyers and is also available on our website at  www.cdpp.gov.au. It assists legal practitioners, judicial officers and others who deal with the sentencing of federal offenders. This significant resource was launched in June 2018, along with the new National Legal Direction on the Role of the Prosecutor at a Sentencing Hearing. 
These resources will help ensure a nationally consistent approach by CDPP staff in the complex area of federal sentencing.

Practice management project

During the year, the Legal Business Improvement branch led a practice management project designed to improve the efficiency of our prosecution team leaders and Senior Executive Service managers. The focus was on helping managers use data and metrics, and improving the effectiveness of our meeting structure to more effectively cascade information through our organisation. 

Legal learning and professional development

The Legal Business Improvement branch incorporates the Legal Learning and Professional Development team. This team delivers a coordinated and structured education program designed to build the knowledge and skills of our Federal Prosecutors.
These programs and activities align with our strategic objective of investing in our people and our goals of:

• providing the skills to build the technical and digital capability for lawyers at all stages and levels
• delivering sustainable continuous improvement both as prosecutors and public servants 
• instilling confidence so lawyers perform their work knowing they are supported
• reinforcing national consistency of approach in our prosecution work.

Embedding a learning culture through induction, comprehensive e-resources, on the job learning, and targeted activities and training programs is key to building and maintaining an agile, diverse, healthy and highly skilled legal workforce. It is also essential to attracting, managing, and retaining high performing legal staff, in order to provide a high-quality prosecution service. 

Through our national programs and activities, we strive for a healthy and resilient legal workforce that is collaborative, innovative and diverse. We support our employees in their career pathways by building their capabilities and confidence to enable them to reach their full potential. 

As part of our Legal Learning and Development program, in early 2018, the Legal Business Improvement branch took the lead in developing a series of five e-Learning modules authored by subject matter experts within the CDPP. The modules now form part of our national Federal Prosecutor induction package, removing the need for repeated ‘in person’ presentations on these topics to newly appointed prosecutors. 

Our updated and refreshed Induction Guide, which incorporates the e-Learning modules, plans the first four weeks of a new lawyer’s career with us and provides a comprehensive, contemporary and consistent approach to training our lawyers in those early weeks. The Legal Business Improvement branch is now identifying additional areas that might benefit from e-Learning modules.

During 2017–18, this branch also:

• delivered a software skills program for lawyers and administrative staff 
• helped deliver a Continuous Legal Education program for lawyers on a diverse range of topics and in line with the legal training needs identified by staff
• developed a Subject Matter Expert Network for lawyers to readily access specialist technical skills, knowledge and experience in less common areas or aspects of our work
• worked with our new prosecutors on project-based initiatives, to help them quickly develop an understanding of our organisation.

External Counsel Panel

One of the most significant stakeholders we partner with is the private bar—we engage counsel from the bar to appear and advise on some of our more complex cases. 

In late 2016, the Legal Business Improvement branch established the External Junior Counsel Panel to help us select counsel for our cases. After considering applications from around Australia, 364 counsel were selected to establish a formal panel of advocates from the junior bar. 

In early 2018 the panel was refreshed and additional appointments brought the list of counsel up to 491 nationally. In addition, there are approximately 50 silks we brief to carry out the most complex work.

Our panel approach has led to an increase in the number of junior counsel briefed, improving gender equity in our briefing practices¹ and creating a quick and easy application process for members seeking to work with the CDPP. Further, by having a panel that is reviewed every four years and refreshed every 12 months, we can ensure the advocates we brief have up-to-date and relevant experience to carry out prosecution work for us. 

We also streamlined our internal processes for briefing counsel for national consistency, developing a national letter of engagement with standard terms and conditions for counsel and a template ‘observations to counsel’ document.

External Counsel Survey

The Legal Business Improvement branch carried out an anonymous external counsel survey in February 2018, which sought candid feedback from counsel on our briefing practices and how we engage with them. 

Overall the responses were extremely positive. The survey identified some areas for improvement that led to internal policy changes. These included reviewing counsels’ pay rates biennially and improving our practices in calculating the amount of preparation needed in matters.

PARTNER AGENCY SATISFACTION

Our biennial survey was introduced in 2015–16 to measure partner agency satisfaction with CDPP service delivery across a range of issues. 

This year was the second time the survey has been carried out and we achieved an overall satisfaction rate of 87 per cent. The score was just short of our 90 per cent target, but represents a four per cent increase on 2016, which means we are making positive progress.

We achieved a statistically robust response rate of 49.5 per cent with 284 individuals taking part in the survey—up from 121 participants in 2015–16. Satisfaction is derived by a response of greater than 7 in a 10-point scale.

This level of engagement indicates that the survey provides a thorough and reliable snapshot of what our main partner agencies are thinking about critical issues such as our timeliness, and the quality of information we provide.

2017-18 PARTNER AGENCY SATISFACTION SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS

NATIONAL PRACTICE GROUP MODEL

The volume, timing and complexity of incoming briefs of evidence cannot be predicted; our partner agencies work to keep the public safe, apprehending and charging offenders as crimes are committed and preparing briefs for assessment. This has a significant impact on our prosecution workload and our people. We must work diligently to meet our performance targets.

OPTIMISING THE MODEL

By building the capability of our people within our practice groups and enabling them to develop their skills across crime types, we are able to respond effectively and meet these demands.

Since introducing this model in 2014, we have made only minor changes to the categories of crime prosecuted by our national practice groups. This has allowed prosecutors to specialise in a range of crime types for a period of time, while still having the flexibility to explore work in different jurisdictions and practice groups where opportunities and need arises. 

The Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth provides the framework for all our prosecutions. This means our prosecutors can move seamlessly from one practice group to another.

See page 47 for more information about the prosecution work of each Practice Group.

PROSECUTION POLICY OF THE COMMONWEALTH

The Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth applies to all Commonwealth prosecutions. It outlines the principles, factors and considerations our prosecutors must take into account in prosecuting offences against the laws of the Commonwealth.

This policy underpins and promotes consistency and efficiency, and guides decision making throughout the prosecution process for every matter, regardless of crime type or practice group. 

TWO-STAGE PROSECUTION TEST

The Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth provides a two-stage test for all matters referred by partner agencies—there must be sufficient evidence to prosecute a case and prosecution must be in the public interest. Both criteria must be satisfied before a prosecution starts.

Figure 2: Two-stage test for all prosecution matters

To determine if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute a case, we must be satisfied that there is prima facie evidence of the elements of the offence, and a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction.

In making this decision, our prosecutors must evaluate how strong the case is likely to be when presented in court. They must take into account matters such as the availability, competence and credibility of witnesses, their likely effect on the arbiter of fact (magistrate or jury), and the admissibility of any alleged confession or other evidence. Our prosecutors also consider any lines of defence open to the alleged offender and any other factors that could affect the likelihood of a conviction.

In addition, our prosecutors consider if any evidence might be excluded by a court. If that evidence is crucial to the case, this may substantially affect the decision whether or not to prosecute. Our prosecutors need to look beneath the surface of the evidence in a matter, particularly in borderline cases.

Once satisfied there is sufficient evidence to justify starting or continuing with a prosecution, our prosecutors then consider whether pursuing a prosecution is in the public interest. This involves assessing all provable facts and surrounding circumstances. 

Public interest factors vary from case-to-case and may include:

• whether the offence is serious or trivial
• mitigating or aggravating circumstances
• the youth, age, intelligence, physical health, mental health or special vulnerability of the alleged offender, witness or victim
• the alleged offender’s criminal history and background
• the passage of time since the alleged offence
• the availability and efficacy of any alternatives to prosecution
• the prevalence of the alleged offence and the need for general and personal deterrence
• the attitude of the victim
• the need to apply regulatory or punitive imperatives
• the likely outcome in the event of a finding of guilt.

A non-exhuastive list of relevant factors is contained in the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth.

The decision to prosecute must be made impartially and must not be influenced by any inappropriate reference to race, religion, sex, national origin or political association. The decision to prosecute must not be influenced by any political advantage or disadvantage to the government.

The policy is available on our website at www.cdpp.gov.au.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROSECUTION TEST

Since 1 November 2015, our prosecutors have certified compliance in addressing the two-stage test for prosecutions in the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth by completing a Prosecution Policy Declaration. 

Since introducing this performance metric, we have achieved 100 per cent compliance. 

Initially, compliance was measured at the brief assessment and indictment signing stages of the prosecution process, based on a sampling of cases and certification by the relevant case officer or supervisor. From June 2017, we extended the performance metric to apply to all our practice, including partner agency arrests, indictable matters at post-committal stage, and breach matters. These declarations are entered electronically into our case recording and information management system, CRIMS. 

This has been an important initiative to confirm and capture evidence that the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth has been addressed, and specifically whether there is a prima facie case, reasonable prospects of a conviction, and whether a prosecution is in the public interest at each stage of the prosecution process.

See page 108 for more information about our performance metrics and results.

WORKING WITH PARTNER AGENCIES

The formation of our national practice groups has provided new opportunities to collaborate with, and support, partner agencies. We now engage with them earlier and more frequently, and work together to consider strategic issues and how our prosecution services can advance our partner agencies’ enforcement strategies.

Our practice group model also encourages consistent liaison and coordination arrangements, including proactively identifying and addressing common or systemic issues, providing pre-brief advice, and other prosecution services. 

We have formalised our prosecution service offering by establishing guidance for prosecutors to inform their dealings with partner agencies and stakeholders nationally.

As a result, our effective investigation– prosecution partnerships result in well-targeted prosecutions that:

• help partner agencies meet their enforcement and regulatory objectives
• build public confidence in Commonwealth law enforcement and regulatory frameworks.

The insights gained from working effectively with, though independent from, partner agencies continually shape our prosecution services, ensuring improvements to keep pace with changing processes and procedures.

PROSECUTION SERVICES FOR PARTNER AGENCIES

NATIONAL PRACTICE GROUPS

OUR PROSECUTION SERVICES IN PRACTICE 

Our national practice groups work individually and collectively to achieve our purpose: to provide an independent prosecution service that contributes to the respect and maintenance of Commonwealth law and public respect in the justice system through the prosecution of crimes.

While our practice groups focus on different categories of crime, a common approach underpins all efforts:

• the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth guides decisions
• proactive liaison activities strengthen partner agency relationships 
• referrals, while unpredictable in their complexity and volume, are assessed within set timeframes
• action plans focus efforts on achieving our outcome, as defined annually in our corporate plan.

The unwavering commitment of our people enables us to meet our prosecution targets year-on-year. The diversity and complexity of our prosecution work is demonstrated in each practice group profile.

Together, our practice groups deliver Australia’s federal prosecution service.

THE ROLE OF THE COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL AND CORRUPTION PRACTICE GROUP

The Commercial, Financial and Corruption Practice Group prosecutes serious financial crimes with a focus on offences involving corporations, financial markets and services, large-scale tax fraud, and bribery and corruption of Commonwealth and foreign officials. 

These white collar crimes are typically complex and difficult to detect and investigate, and prosecutions are often hard-fought by well-resourced defendants. The Issakidis case study on page 54 is an example of how protracted these prosecutions can be.

In March 2018, Shane Kirne announced his retirement after a career spanning over 30 years with the CDPP, the last four years as head of the Commercial, Financial and Corruption Practice Group. The group is currently led by Acting Deputy Director Berdj Tchakerian.

TRENDS IN 2017–18 PROSECUTIONS 

Most referrals to the Commercial, Financial and Corruption Practice Group came from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (64 per cent), followed by the Australian Federal Police (16 per cent) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (14 per cent).

Referrals relating to cartel offences from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission increased significantly in 2017–18. 

Last year we reported on Australia’s first prosecution for cartel offences. It related to market sharing agreements in the international motor vehicle shipping industry. Another company, Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd subsequently pleaded guilty to giving effect to those agreements. That matter will be finalised in the Federal Court later in 2018. 

Charges have been also initiated against an Australian company, its director and a former employee relating to alleged bid rigging and price fixing in the course of government tenders to supply ‘assistive technology’ products used in hospitals, rehabilitation and aged care facilities. 

In addition, charges have been initiated against three banks and six of their senior executives involving alleged cartel arrangements relating to trading in another bank’s shares following a large institutional share placement in August 2015.

Foreign bribery prosecutions continued to be a focus in 2017–18, including the prosecution of Mamdouh Elomar, Ibrahim Elomar and John Jousif detailed on page 55.

In May 2018, Clifford Gerathy pleaded guilty to false accounting for his role in concealing the true nature of a payment made to a Malaysian agent, who had been engaged by Securency International Pty Ltd and Note Printing Australia Pty Ltd to facilitate a business selling polymer banknotes. On 1 June 2018, Gerathy was sentenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria to three months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for six months.

A large company is facing two charges of conspiracy to bribe foreign public officials. The charges relate to alleged payments made to officials in the Philippines and Vietnam to obtain work on various infrastructure programs. Six of the company’s employees have also been charged for their roles in one or both of the alleged conspiracies. These prosecutions are ongoing.

We are also continuing to prosecute cases arising from Project Wickenby—a multiagency operation to combat international tax evasion. Although Project Wickenby ended on 30 June 2015, eight cases remained before the courts in 2017–18. 

See page 54 for more details about a Project Wickenby prosecution.

PROSECUTION SERVICES

We continue to play an active role in providing pre-brief advice to our partner agencies, including legal advice during active investigations.

We meet our partner agencies on a regular basis at both national and regional levels and regularly collaborate to deliver training and, increasingly, in law reform initiatives. In November 2017, we hosted a foreign bribery workshop attended by approximately 25 Australian Federal Police investigators and lawyers, as well as members of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Australian Taxation Office.

We also held regional joint workshops with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in Sydney and Brisbane.

We continued to work as an active member of the Serious Financial Crime Taskforce, which was established after Project Wickenby ended in 2015. The focus of the taskforce is to investigate offshore tax evasion, the fraudulent use of trust structures and superannuation funds, phoenix fraud and fraudulent gold bullion schemes.

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

This year, our Commercial, Financial and Corruption Practice Group was consulted on a number of proposed legislative reforms. The most significant was the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Combatting Corporate Crime) Bill 2017, which was introduced into Parliament in December 2017 (but at the time of writing had not yet been passed). 

The Bill amends the existing offence of bribing a foreign public official with the aim of removing undue impediments to successful investigation and prosecution of foreign bribery offending. It also introduces a new offence of failing to prevent foreign bribery. 

Significantly to our practice, the Bill also introduces a Deferred Prosecution Agreement scheme, enabling us to enter into an agreement with a company that is alleged to have committed offences against specified provisions of the Criminal Code, Corporations Act 2001 and other legislation. 

A Deferred Prosecution Agreement would typically require the company to pay a financial penalty, improve its compliance practices, disgorge any financial benefits from the offences, and cooperate in investigating and prosecuting any co-offenders. Provided the company complies with the terms of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, no prosecution is instigated. 

The Commercial, Financial and Corruption Practice Group worked closely with the Attorney-General’s Department and other agencies developing the Bill, and we are continuing to collaborate to prepare guidance material and a Code of Practice to underpin its operation.

Our former Practice Group Leader Shane Kirne was a member of a panel leading the government taskforce reviewing the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s enforcement regime. The panel was chaired by the Treasury and included senior representatives of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and the Attorney-General’s Department, as well as the CDPP. The panel submitted its report to the Government in December 2017, recommending reforms to improve the Australian Securities and Investments Commission’s regulatory and enforcement regime, all of which have been accepted (or accepted in principle) by the Government.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Working Group on Bribery monitors implementation and enforcement of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. 

In July 2017, lawyers from the Commercial, Financial and Corruption Practice Group took part in the Working Group’s onsite evaluation of Australia’s compliance with the Convention. In the following months, we worked with the Attorney-General’s Department and the Australian Federal Police to provide additional information to help the Working Group compile its report, which was delivered in December 2017. The report noted a marked increase in Australia’s enforcement of foreign bribery laws, and highlighted recent reforms to the Australian Federal Police and the CDPP that had contributed to that result.

An earlier OECD report had recommended implementing measures to encourage self-reporting of foreign bribery. Work on that measure came to fruition with the publication in December 2017 of the AFP–CDPP Best Practice Guideline on self-reporting of foreign bribery by corporations. 

The guideline aims to encourage companies to self-report foreign bribery, and was produced in response to a call by companies for information about how a self-report would be handled by the Australian Federal Police and the CDPP. It describes the public interest factors we will take into account in deciding whether or not to prosecute a corporation that self-reports suspected foreign bribery (and related offences) and, if a prosecution is started, describes how the self-report may be taken into account by a court when sentencing the corporation.

Foreign bribery and Deferred Prosecution Agreements have been a focus of stakeholder engagement, with Commercial, Financial and Corruption Practice Group lawyers speaking on those topics at forums convened by the Australian network of the United Nations Global Compact and by private law firms.

INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENTS

In May 2018, a CDPP lawyer attended the annual meeting of the International Foreign Bribery Taskforce (IFBT) in London with representatives of law enforcement agencies from Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. The IFBT enables like-minded countries to work collaboratively to strengthen investigations into foreign bribery crimes, and support the OECD and United Nations anti-bribery conventions. It is an acknowledgement by law enforcement of the cross-jurisdictional nature of this crime type. 

The IFBT seeks to ensure that law enforcement in the United States, Canada Australia and the United Kingdom is in a much better position to investigate and bring to justice those responsible for crimes that are causing serious economic, social and personal harm in countries located thousands of kilometres apart.

While in London, the CDPP lawyer also had the opportunity to meet representatives of the United Kingdom Serious Fraud Office to discuss various issues, including their experience with negotiating deferred prosecution agreements.

THE ROLE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE AND SPECIALIST AGENCIES PRACTICE GROUP
The International Assistance and Specialist Agencies Practice Group is responsible for international assistance, including extradition and mutual assistance, and prosecuting matters referred by specialist agencies. It also coordinates our proceeds of crime functions, and manages our obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and Privacy Act 1988.

TRENDS IN 2017–18 PROSECUTIONS 

Fighting serious non-compliance in the family day care sector 

During 2017–18, the International Assistance and Specialist Agencies Practice Group started building its capability and resources to support the multi-agency Family Day Care Integrity Surge Initiative led by key partner, the Department of Education and Training.

We entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Education and Training, which outlines our responsibilities in ensuring the efficient prosecution of family day care service operators, educators and parents who engage in collusive fraud.

During the year, the practice group:

• established a Family Day Care Focus Group to identify and consider emerging strategic issues relevant to the prosecution of these matters— this focus group is the key advisory group responsible for advancing a nationally consistent approach to the assessment and prosecution of family day care referrals within the CDPP
• engaged in a secondment with the Department of Education and Training—a CDPP Senior Federal Prosecutor has been supporting the needs of the department, upskilling investigators, and facilitating the provision of quality briefs to the CDPP. 
• In February 2018, the CDPP was invited to sit on the Family Day Care Payment Integrity Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC). This enables us to engage strategically with a number of Australian Government agencies to:
• pursue joint initiatives
• enhance collaboration
• facilitate the exchange of intelligence.

Failure to vote in a federal election

By mutual arrangement with the CDPP, the Australian Electoral Commission carries out prosecutions for non-contested failure to vote matters.

During 2017–18, in relation to non-voter matters arising from the 2016 federal election, the Australian Electoral Commission finalised a further 631 cases. Of these cases:

• 37 were discontinued 
• 90 summons were unable to be served 
• 467 were proven and resulted in a conviction 
• 34 were proven but did not result in a conviction
• three were proven and dismissed.  

A further 25 cases were referred to the CDPP during the reporting period.

An independent prosecution service for Norfolk Island

An independent, quality prosecution service is critical to building confidence in the Norfolk Island justice system. During 2017–18, we partnered with the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities to deliver prosecution services to Norfolk Island. 

Starting on 5 August 2017, we assumed responsibility for prosecuting Norfolk Island matters by way of amendments made to the Director of Public Prosecutions Regulations. A combination of Commonwealth laws, continued Norfolk Island laws and applied New South Wales laws apply on Norfolk Island. We appear via video link and regularly send prosecutors to appear on the island.

During the reporting period, we completed 34 Norfolk Island matters. We also assisted the Norfolk Island Police Force in applications for domestic violence orders and liquor prohibition orders. 

The work included advising the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities on legislative reform of criminal laws applicable on Norfolk Island. 

On 23 May 2018, amendments to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 completed the changes required to extend the functions, powers and duties of the CDPP to the laws of Norfolk Island.

Jervis Bay Territory

The International Assistance and Specialist Agencies Practice Group is responsible for prosecuting matters in the Jervis Bay Territory. Matters prosecuted tend to primarily involve driving offences, assault, family violence and theft.

The Jervis Bay workload increased significantly this year, with a total of 28 matters finalised before the Jervis Bay court.

PROSECUTION SERVICES Working with specialist agencies

Specialist agencies refer matters relating to a diverse range of Commonwealth criminal laws. Much of this work is specialised and compliance-focused.

To respond efficiently, the International Assistance and Specialist Agencies Practice Group has established a Centralised Referral Model. It operates through specialist prosecutors based primarily in our Canberra and Hobart offices, each with expertise in specific areas. Supported by the national practice model, these matters are processed centrally but prosecuted in all jurisdictions throughout Australia.

Our practice group’s partners have important regulatory and compliance activities and include:

• Australian Building and Construction Commission
• Australian Bureau of Statistics
• Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity
• Australian Communications and Media Authority
• Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission
• Australian Electoral Commission
• Australian Fisheries Management Authority
• Australian Federal Police and state and territory police
• Australian Financial Security Authority
• Australian Maritime Safety Authority
• Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
• Australian Skills Quality Authority
• Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman
• Civil Aviation Safety Authority
• Clean Energy Regulator
• Comcare
• Department of Defence
• Department of Education and Training
• Department of the Environment and Energy
• Department of Health
• Department of Industry, Innovation and Science
• Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities
• Department of Jobs and Small Business
• Director of National Parks
• Fair Work Ombudsman
• Foreign Investment Review Board
• Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
• Murray Darling Basin Authority
• National Measurement Institute
• National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority
• Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
• Office of the Director of Military Prosecutions
• Office of the National Data Commissioner
• Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations
• Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
• Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency
• Therapeutic Goods Administration (within the Department of Health)
• Wine Australia.

Liaison—building relationships with partner agencies

Engaging proactively and effectively with our specialist partner agencies is a key strategic theme for our International Assistance and Specialist Agencies Practice Group. Our strategy is to:

• enhance our liaison relationship with specialist agencies
• foster expertise dealing with their referrals
• work efficiently and effectively with our partners
• assist these agencies to achieve their strategic objectives.

During the reporting period, the practice group held more than 30 national liaison meetings with our key partners. This was supplemented by case-based communications, training opportunities, workshops, field trips and secondments. 

We also trialled regular fortnightly liaison meetings with the Australian Financial Security Authority and the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations. The trials have been successful in establishing an open dialogue between the CDPP and our major partners, enabling key issues to be identified at an early stage. We are considering setting up similar schedules with other key agencies on an agency-byagency basis.

Second Annual Bankruptcy Workshop

Building on the success of our inaugural workshop held in 2017, the CDPP and Australian Financial Security Authority held our second joint annual workshop on 17 May 2018 to discuss key issues impacting the practice group’s bankruptcy practice. 

The forum provided a valuable opportunity for investigators and prosecutors to share knowledge and discuss lessons learnt. 

Support for international capacity building and Australian Federal Police liaison officers

Based on our expertise and practical experience in prosecuting, the International Assistance team within our practice group contributes to legal capacity programs internationally, particularly within the Asia-Pacific region. This helps to strengthen effective investigation and prosecution of criminal activities such as people smuggling, human trafficking, terrorism, and cybercrime. This contribution is also significant in building international and regional relationships.

During the year, the International Assistance team continued to provide support to Australian Federal Police International Liaison Officers, providing training on the admissibility of foreign evidence as part of their pre-embarkation program.

INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE A VITAL TOOL IN PROSECUTION OF TRANSNATIONAL CRIME

International assistance, which includes extradition and mutual assistance, is vital for the effective investigation and prosecution of serious offences such as terrorism, people smuggling, drug trafficking, sexual servitude, bribery of foreign officials, money laundering and offences relating to child exploitation and abuse material.

Increasingly, we seek cooperation from countries to assist in prosecuting transnational crime and to apprehend and extradite fugitives. The primary responsibility for these areas rests with the Attorney-General’s Department, Australia’s central authority for mutual assistance in criminal matters and extradition, and we play an important part in assisting with requests.

MUTUAL ASSISTANCE UNDERPINS INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION FRAMEWORK

Mutual assistance is a formal process countries use to assist each other to investigate and prosecute criminal offences and recover the proceeds of crime.

The formal mutual assistance regime runs parallel with the less formal system of international cooperation between investigating agencies, known as ‘agencyto-agency’ assistance. Formal mutual assistance channels are most commonly used when the request for assistance involves the use of coercive powers or when the material requested is required in a form that is admissible in criminal proceedings.

The mutual assistance regime rests on a network of international relations and obligations together with the willingness of participating countries to provide assistance to each other. This international network is underpinned by a number of bilateral treaties and multilateral conventions. Australia has ratified 30 bilateral mutual assistance treaties and a number of multilateral conventions, which bind the signatories to provide mutual assistance to each other. 

These include the:

• United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
• United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime
• Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds of Crime.

Countries that are not signatories to mutual assistance treaties or conventions may also request mutual assistance from, and provide mutual assistance to, each other. This is done under the principle of reciprocity, where countries agree to provide assistance to each other on a case-by-case basis on the understanding that each will receive similar assistance in return.

We are responsible for drafting mutual assistance requests to foreign countries to support Australian criminal proceedings for federal offences where charges have been laid against the alleged offender. During the reporting period, we were involved in preparing 63 outgoing requests made by Australia to 25 foreign countries in relation to matters where charges were laid by a Commonwealth investigative agency, or where we received specific funding to draft mutual assistance requests related to a particular matter or type of matter. 

These outgoing requests were generally made in conjunction with Commonwealth investigative agencies or joint taskforces comprising law enforcement officers from Commonwealth, state and territory agencies.

EXTRADITION ENSURES CRIMINALS CAN’T EVADE JUSTICE BY CROSSING BORDERS

Extradition is a formal process where offenders who are outside the jurisdiction are returned to the country requesting extradition to be prosecuted or to serve a sentence of imprisonment. Extradition is an important and effective mechanism in law enforcement.

The Attorney-General’s Department has sole responsibility for international extradition for all countries except New Zealand. Our role in extradition is confined to requesting that extradition be sought in Commonwealth matters and the execution of incoming requests from New Zealand.

In the case of outgoing extradition requests, we prepare documents in support of requests for extradition in serious cases where a person is wanted for prosecution for an offence against Commonwealth law or to serve a sentence of imprisonment, and is found to be in a foreign country.

Outgoing requests

During the reporting period, we requested that the Attorney-General’s Department make 14 extradition requests to foreign countries in relation to prosecutions we were conducting. 

Seven people were surrendered to Australia during 2017–18 as a result of extradition requests made in previous years. A further 10 requests from previous years are ongoing, including one request to New Zealand.

Incoming requests

Requests from New Zealand are made on a police-to-police basis and are referred to us by the Australian Federal Police. We appear on behalf of New Zealand in extradition proceedings before a magistrate to determine whether a person will be surrendered, and in any review or appeal arising from those proceedings.

During the reporting period, we appeared on behalf of New Zealand in relation to five matters. Those proceedings resulted in five people being surrendered to New Zealand. 

INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENT WITH OUR UNITED STATES PARTNERS

During the year our International Assistance team participated in a series of workshops in Canberra and Sydney, with the United States Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The aim was to streamline the mutual assistance process for requests made to the United States. 

The meetings provided a forum for discussing what protections can be offered to United States material or witnesses under Australian law, with a view to facilitating responses from United States authorities to our requests for assistance.

CONFISCATION OF CRIMINAL ASSETS

Following the establishment of the Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce in 2012, the Australian Federal Police has primary responsibility for confiscation and recovery action under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA).

Under a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2014, the CDPP has responsibility for conducting applications for:

• a forfeiture order pursuant to section 48 of the POCA where no restraining order has been sought at the time the application is made
• a pecuniary penalty order pursuant to section 116 of the POCA relating to a person’s conviction where no restraining order has been sought at the time the application is made.

Between 1 July 2017 and 30 June 2018, a total of $4,155,927 was recovered through action we took under the POCA.

CORRUPTION OFFENCES AND SUPERANNUATION ORDERS

Pursuant to the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989 and Part VA of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, the CDPP has the function of bringing applications to forfeit the employerfunded component of superannuation payable to Commonwealth and Australian Federal Police employees who have been convicted of corruption offences. 

Superannuation orders were made against three people in 2017–18 related to the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989. No forfeiture action was taken in relation to Part VA of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

PRIVACY

Our obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles are guided by a National Legal Direction. This covers all privacy considerations in relation to the CDPP’s collection and release of personal information.

With effect from 22 February 2018, the CDPP also became subject to the Notifiable Data Breaches (NDB) scheme implemented by the Privacy Amendment (Notifiable Data Breaches) Act 2017.

The scheme requires us to undertake a reasonable and expeditious assessment to determine if a notifiable data breach is likely to result in serious harm to any individual affected. 

In response to the introduction of the scheme, we appointed a Privacy Champion and developed and implemented an effective data breach response plan. 

No notifiable data breaches were reported in the period 22 February to 30 June 2018.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (FOI)

The International Assistance and Specialist Agencies Practice Group is responsible for producing national FOI guidance, coordinating reporting responsibilities, and liaising with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to ensure the CDPP complies with our obligations pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 1982. 

During 2017–18, we received 25 FOI requests. Due to their complexity this resulted in FOI officers spending approximately 58 days completing FOI related activities. This is almost three times the amount of effort directed to FOI during the previous reporting period.

THE ROLE OF THE HUMAN EXPLOITATION AND BORDER PROTECTION PRACTICE GROUP 
The Human Exploitation and Border Protection Practice Group prosecutes a wide variety of offence types including child exploitation offences, trafficking in persons and slavery, people smuggling, passport and migration offences, offences committed by way of telecommunications services or computers, and offences arising from federal community policing. 

This practice group works closely with partner agencies including the Australian Federal Police, Australian Border Force, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australian Passport Office), and state and territory police. A significant proportion of the work involves victims, including child victims. Our prosecutors in this area work with investigators and our Witness Assistance Service to ensure that, in the course of dealing with this very challenging work, victims are treated with courtesy, compassion, cultural sensitivity and respect for their dignity. 

In the past 12 months we prosecuted 268 people for offences relating to the use of a carriage service for sexual or indecent purposes relating to children. These offences include accessing, soliciting and transmitting child pornography and child abuse material, grooming and procuring children to engage in sexual activity and transmitting indecent material to children. The conviction rate for people charged with these offences was 96 per cent, with 72 per cent of those convicted receiving an immediate custodial sentence and a further 22 per cent receiving a suspended custodial sentence.

The Human Exploitation and Border Protection Practice Group regularly provides information to government and Parliament about human trafficking and slavery prosecutions, the operation of Criminal Code offences and the protections contained in the Crimes Act for vulnerable witnesses. The practice group has active members of the Operational Working Group and Labour Exploitation Working Group, which are part of the Interdepartmental Committee on Human Trafficking and Slavery. 

Through these forums we provide input into whole-of-government responses to international trafficking reports and to inquiries, such as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Inquiry into Human Trafficking, Slavery and Slavery-like practices and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Defence and Trade Inquiry into Establishing a Modern Slavery Act in Australia.

TRENDS IN 2017–18 PROSECUTIONS 

The practice group is continuing to see a steady increase in victim-based crime. There is a general trend towards child abuse matters becoming more complex, with investigators concentrating on more sophisticated offending involving a mix of state and Commonwealth offences, and some matters involving international offending including physical contact offending. 

This has led to a greater emphasis on digital forensics, mutual assistance requests and time allocated to dealing with vulnerable witnesses, both from an evidential point of view and providing support through our Witness Assistance Service. 

Similarly, labour exploitation matters are challenging to investigate, assess and prosecute because of the complexity of the evidence and the ability of offenders to distance themselves from the offending by interposing different entities, making it difficult to prove knowledge.

PROSECUTION SERVICES

Liaison activities—regional and national 

The Human Exploitation and Border Protection Practice Group maintains strong relationships with partner agencies and engages in regular national and regional liaison with the Australian Federal Police, Australian Border Force, state and territory police, the Attorney-General’s Department, the Department of Home Affairs and other agencies. 

These forums are an opportunity to discuss trends, identify issues and enable us to provide information to policy makers about legislative reform, including highlighting issues that arise during the practical application of the legislation.

Pre-brief advice

We regard providing pre-brief advice to investigation agencies as a valuable practice that is in the interest of both the CDPP and the investigation agencies. During the year, the Human Exploitation and Border Protection Practice Group provided pre-brief advice in a significant cybercrime case involving offending across multiple international jurisdictions and with two juvenile suspects in Adelaide and Melbourne. 

Ultimately an e-brief in relation to the Victorian offender was referred in February 2018, the first under the new process. The brief has been assessed and charges issued. We received an e-brief in relation to the South Australian offender in April 2018, which we were assessing at the end of the reporting year.  

Conferences

The Illegal Imports and Exports and Human Exploitation and Border Protection Practice Groups held a conference on 5–6 June 2018 in Sydney. The main focus of the conference was the human exploitation and border protection practice. The conference was attended by CDPP prosecutors and representatives from our key partner agency, the Australian Federal Police, on the second day. 

The main focus of the first day was victim impact statements, dealing with vulnerable witnesses and interactive sessions where child exploitation scenarios were considered with a view to ensuring a nationally consistent approach in charging. The second day was devoted to developing ways to innovatively engage with the Australian Federal Police, with a particular focus on identifying measures to increase the focus and efficiency of digital forensic reports. 

Practice group members prepared and disseminated a Draft Guide for Briefs of Evidence in Straightforward Child Abuse Prosecutions, which was well received by the Australian Federal Police.

Practice group members also joined about 160 other participants at the Inaugural Forced Marriage Conference organised by Anti-Slavery Australia at the University of Technology in Sydney on 18–19 June 2018. An observation was that mothers, aunties and other community members play a very significant role in forcing marriages. 

It was also highlighted that consent and coercion need to be considered in a longer timeframe and in the survivor’s community context. So too was the importance of the criminalisation of forced marriage as being an absolute marker that the practice was unacceptable. Criminalisation enabled police, educators and others in the community to take pre-emptive action. A practice group member presented on behalf of the CDPP as a member of a panel on the topic of ‘Legal challenges: prosecution consent and coercion’.

Training

In addition to our regular regional and national liaison with the Australian Federal Police, CDPP prosecutors provide training for the Australian Federal Police Human Trafficking Investigations Course.

Stakeholder engagement

The practice group participates in a number of working groups, including the Operational Working Group on Human Trafficking and Forced Marriage, convened to discuss issues particularly around the support of victims of human trafficking, and the Labour Exploitation Working Group. 

We also take opportunities to engage with civil society more broadly, for example through participating in the Inaugural Forced Marriage Conference in June 2018, and contributing to the National Roundtable on Human Trafficking and Slavery. 

Our Witness Assistance Service regularly engages with the Red Cross—Support for Trafficked Persons Program, including giving presentations about our role and the prosecution process and, with the permission of the victim concerned, liaising with the Red Cross caseworker throughout the prosecution process, to make sure victims are given adequate information and support.

The CDPP is a member of an Interdepartmental Committee responsible for coordinating a whole-of-government response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The practice group has commented on the recommendations that are relevant to the prosecution process and is now compliant with a majority of the recommendations. 

Our new micro website for victims, to be launched in 2018–19, will make it much easier for this group to access relevant information concerning their rights.

Legislative reform

This year, the Human Exploitation and Border Protection Practice Group continued to work closely with the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Home Affairs and other agencies in the important area of legislative reform. The practice group provided input and comment on a number of legislative proposals such as child sex offender reforms, vulnerable witnesses and a new offence for possession of child abuse material in the Criminal Code.

International engagements

Through the Australian Government, we continue to engage with our regional neighbours by providing training and assistance about cybercrime, human trafficking and slavery-related offences and protecting vulnerable witnesses. For example: 

• Sri Lanka, 26–27 November 2017— Third Roundtable on Evidentiary Requirements for People Smuggling cases. A member of the practice group presented a session on a prosecutor’s perspective and an in-depth case study, to build on links formed from the first two Roundtables in November 2016 and March 2017.
• Sri Lanka, 11–12 April 2018—Australia Police Pairing Program, Melbourne. Practice group members carried out several sessions including on the topics of Prosecution Witness Assistance Service and Victims of Crime Policy, and a case study on vulnerable witness protection and people smuggling prosecutions in Australia.
• Tonga, 12–15 June 2018—Pacific Island Law Officers Network Cybercrime Workshop, ‘Combatting Online Child Abuse’. A member of the practice group delivered a presentation on advocacy and presenting child abuse material to the court. In conjunction with other presenters, they then led a small breakout group of 15–20 to discuss approaches to various case studies, which the participants presented on the final day.

VICTIMS AND WITNESSES

It is important in all prosecution action that victims are treated with courtesy, compassion, cultural sensitivity and respect for their dignity and entitlements. 

The CDPP Victims of Crime Policy sets out our obligations towards victims of crime including our responsibility to keep them informed of the progress of the prosecution and to consult with them where appropriate. 

In addition to establishing effective processes and procedures linked to the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth, we have a dedicated and valued Witness Assistance Service (WAS) to support the most vulnerable victims and witnesses involved in the matters we prosecute.

Witness Assistance Service 

Our WAS is a national service provided by dedicated staff with social work backgrounds who are located in our Sydney and Melbourne offices. 

In response to the ever increasing number of referrals to the WAS and associated policy obligations towards victims of crime, the WAS increased by two full-time staff this year. This takes the total staffing levels to 3.8 full-time equivalent positions. 

Our WAS staff provide a range of information and support services including updates on the progress of a prosecution, general information about the prosecution process, court tours, referrals to support services, support at court and during conferences with legal staff, and information concerning victim impact statements.

The WAS delivers these services in accordance with the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth and Victims of Crime Policy.

Referrals to the service

The Witness Assistance Service Referral Guidelines require that our prosecutors refer all identifiable child victims and victims of slavery, sexual servitude and forced marriage offences to the WAS. Such matters must be referred to the WAS within 21 days of their arrival in our office, in order to ensure the most vulnerable victims of crime are provided with information and support as early as possible in the prosecution process.

In 2017–18, the WAS received and accepted 630 new victims/witness referrals, relating to 138 matters. A total of 160 (25 per cent) of all new victims/ witnesses referred were children. There were 2,798 instances of contact with victims/witnesses referred to the service. 

This year there was a significant increase in the total number of WAS referrals compared with previous years, with several new referrals involving adult victims and witnesses being declined due to a lack of capacity within the WAS

Table 1: New Witness Assistance Service referrals in 2017–18 

* Includes parents/caregivers of child victims 
Information resources for victims including the Witness Assistance Service Referral Guidelines are available on our website at www.cdpp.gov.au.

Training and education

The WAS also provides training to CDPP staff in relation to victims’ issues. During the reporting period the Witness Assistance Manager, in collaboration with the Assistant Director of the Sydney Illegal Imports and Exports/Human Exploitation and Border Protection Practice Group, delivered national victim training to staff from across the CDPP. 

This national training raised awareness regarding our policy obligations towards victims of crime, promoted policy compliance, increased knowledge and understanding of victim-related issues, and increased confidence when communicating with victims of crime.  

In August 2017, the Witness Assistance Manager delivered a presentation at the Bi-Annual National Witness Assistance Service conference in Sydney, concerning the delivery of victim training within a prosecution setting. 

In June 2018, the Witness Assistance Manager delivered a presentation at the Illegal Imports and Exports/Human Exploitation and Border Protection conference regarding victim impact statements. Topics covered included the role and approach of Witness Assistance staff, the core principles of trauma informed practice, victims and the victim impact statement process. 

In addition, the Witness Assistance Manager provided victim-related training to a number of external agencies that work with victims of Commonwealth offences, including staff from the Red Cross Support for Trafficked Persons Program, and Anglicare.

Also in June 2018, the entire WAS team attended training in relation to ‘Managing Vicarious Trauma for the Legal and Justice Sector’.

National Victims of Crime Liaison Group

Our National Victims of Crime Liaison Group is co-chaired by the Assistant Director (Legal Business Improvement) and the Witness Assistance Manager. It is made up of staff from each office around the country, and met quarterly during 2017–18 to help the CDPP provide the best possible support for victims of crime. This group is also an important channel to share information and identify opportunities for ongoing improvement.  

THE ROLE OF THE ILLEGAL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS PRACTICE GROUP

The Illegal Imports and Exports Practice Group is responsible for prosecuting offences associated with protecting the integrity of Australia’s borders, including general drug and precursor importation offences, drug-related money laundering, general money laundering, firearms importation, quarantine offences, wildlife imports and exports, and other import and export offences such as those involving illicit tobacco, weapons or steroids. Offences of these types can have devastating impacts on the Australian community and the Australian economy. 

The work of the Illegal Imports and Exports Practice Group is performed across all of our offices. This practice group is arrest driven and carries out the largest number of trials conducted by the CDPP. 

The majority of the practice group’s trial work relates to the importation of illicit drugs and drug precursors and associated money laundering activities. Precursors are an essential part of the production process for illicit drugs. Money laundering involves dealing with money or other property used in or derived from committing crimes. 

Prosecuting those involved in the importation of illicit drugs, drug precursors and associated money laundering activities sends an important deterrent message. 

Prosecutors in this practice group are skilled criminal litigators and negotiators and spend a significant proportion of each year undertaking committal hearings, instructing in trials and appearing at sentence hearings. 

Cases are complex and involve transnational offending. They can also involve large amounts of evidence.

TRENDS IN 2017–18 PROSECUTIONS 

During 2017–18, there was a marked increase in the complexity of matters being referred to this practice group, especially in relation to importations where those involved were more aware of law enforcement techniques and had adjusted their activities accordingly. The roles of those prosecuted appear to be more piecemeal and distinct, and offenders appear to regularly destroy potential evidence such as phone contacts and email traffic. This means it is becoming more challenging to prove circumstantial cases and critical decisions as to whether a person is a potential witness or should be charged, are being made earlier in the assessment of the evidence.

During the year there was an increased focus on the investigation and prosecution of tobacco importation matters, which have also become more complex and difficult to prove, requiring detailed brief assessment and analysis. There was a trend towards providing more pre-brief advice and involvement in mutual assistance requests both before and after charges were laid. 

With the establishment of the Illicit Tobacco Taskforce, the number and complexity of briefs of evidence being referred to the CDPP for consideration and prosecution is expected to increase, along with providing pre-brief advice.

PROSECUTION SERVICES

Liaison activities—regional and national

The Illegal Imports and Exports Practice Group works closely with partner agencies, forging strong relationships that are essential given the time-critical nature of these matters. Our partner agencies include the Australian Federal Police (including the Investigations Standards and Practices Portfolio), Australian Border Force, the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, AusTrade, and state and territory police. 

Apart from providing core prosecution services to agencies during the year, the practice group also engaged in regular national and regional liaison meetings with partner agencies to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the strategic objectives of each agency.
These forums also provided a valuable opportunity to discuss trends, identify systemic issues within the investigative or prosecution processes, and identify potential law reform and training requirements. This also led to the practice group delivering targeted training to the Australian Federal Police, Australian Border Force, and state and territory police.

With the creation of the Department of Home Affairs in December 2017, the practice group started liaising with Home Affairs in addition to the Attorney-General’s Department each quarter, to maintain continuity in areas such as law reform and new policy proposals, as the implementation of the Machinery of Government changes continue to evolve. 

Taskforce participation (operations)

The CDPP is a member of the Illicit Tobacco Taskforce established to expand the current capability to combat illicit tobacco. The ongoing multiagency taskforce was established to prioritise targets, ensure consistency of jurisdictional activity, coordinate the strategic deployment of powers and resources to tackle illicit tobacco, and develop a coherent national picture in relation to the significant actors involved. 

The Illegal Imports and Exports Practice Group was proactive in engaging with members of the taskforce at a very early stage to create relationships, and assist our partners make informed and effective decisions when carrying out complex investigations.

Conferences

The Illegal Imports and Exports Practice Group/Human Exploitation and Border Protection Practice Group conference took place on 5–6 June 2018 in Sydney. While the main focus was human exploitation and border protection practice, members of the Illegal Imports and Exports Practice Group also presented sessions on tobacco importation and the challenges and potential for legislative reform. This session was valuable in provoking discussion and sharing insights, which can be used to promote discussions with stakeholders and potentially may lead to law reform.

Training

Members of the Illegal Imports and Exports Practice Group routinely provide training to our referring agencies and stakeholders. During the year, practice group members provided training to Australian Border Force investigators in Melbourne and Sydney, focusing on investigation powers in the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), and the Customs Act 1901 (Cth), and at the Border Force Investigations Course in Canberra. We also provided training to New South Wales Police prosecutors on Commonwealth sentencing.

Stakeholder engagement

The Illegal Imports and Exports Practice Group has a close and effective working relationship with stakeholders and other agencies to improve prosecution outcomes, and keep abreast of the impacts of legislative reforms and changing practices, both within the CDPP and partner agencies. 

This is a very important aspect of our practice as agencies are changing and modernising their activities in response to environmental changes and budgetary constraints. By staying connected to partner agencies we are aware of proposed changes and are able to provide constructive input if appropriate.  

On 29 June 2018, the practice group hosted the inaugural Illicit Tobacco Taskforce Workshop in Sydney. Participants from Australian Border Force, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission attended the conference, which focused on best practice in investigating and prosecuting tobacco-related offences, including those in the Excise Act 1901 and Customs Act 1901. 

CDPP participants from around the country presented on a range of topics including challenges in prosecuting tobacco-related offences, law reform, using intercepted telecommunications in a taskforce setting, e-briefs, disclosure and tobacco sampling. Feedback from the partner agencies was overwhelmingly positive and constructive relationships were established.

Legislative reform

During 2017–18, the Illegal Imports and Exports Practice Group provided significant input into a number of legislative reform proposals. These included state proposals related to bail and criminal procedure, and Commonwealth proposals related to the Export Control Bill 2017 and new illicit tobacco offences contained in the Treasury Laws (Illicit Tobacco Offences) Bill 2018 and the Customs Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Offences) Bill 2018. 

International engagements

The practice group is often called on to contribute to forums and reports at an international level. For example:

• China, 11–12 January 2018—Second Financial Action Task Force/ Asia-Pacific Group/Eurasian Group Workshop for Judges and Prosecutors. A prosecutor from our Melbourne office Illegal Imports and Exports branch attended the workshop and delivered a presentation on prosecuting terrorism financing. The conference focused on money laundering, criminal assets confiscation and terrorism financing.
• Sri Lanka, 11–12 April 2018—Australia Police Pairing Program, Melbourne. Practice group members conducted several sessions including on the topic of government and legal decision making.

THE ROLE OF THE ORGANISED CRIME AND COUNTER-TERRORISM PRACTICE GROUP 
The Organised Crime and Counter-Terrorism Practice Group prosecutes terrorism, national security and more significant organised crime offending.

Terrorism prosecutions include domestic terrorism plots, as well as matters where the offender engaged in, or prepared to engage in, hostile activity in a foreign country. Organised crime prosecutions include transnational drug importations, firearms trafficking and money laundering prosecutions. 

The Organised Crime and CounterTerrorism Practice Group will also manage prosecutions arising from the new Commonwealth espionage and foreign interference laws, which were enacted in late June 2018.

The matters prosecuted by this practice group are routinely large, complex and resource intensive. They often involve multiple offenders, police informers, undercover operatives and voluminous briefs of evidence. 

Due to the unique nature of some of this work, prosecutors in this practice group are regularly called on to provide legal advice to partner agencies during the course of active police investigations. This advice, often sought within tight timeframes, aims to better inform police operational decision making and deliver more effective law enforcement outcomes. 

See page 90 for a case study on our successful prosecution of a terrorism matter.

TRENDS IN 2017–18 PROSECUTIONS

An increasing number of the referrals received by the Organised Crime and Counter-Terrorism Practice Group are arising out of joint-agency investigations. These often involve several Commonwealth, state and territory agencies, all of whom may hold relevant material gathered for different purposes. 

Where these investigations are complex or long-running, they collect significant volumes of potentially relevant material. Some of this material will provide valuable evidence to support the prosecution. Other material will not be required as evidence but may still need to be made available to an accused in order to satisfy the prosecutor’s disclosure obligations. 

To more effectively manage these very large cases, the Organised Crime and Counter-Terrorism Practice Group works closely with partner agencies to seek more evidence and disclosure material in a digital form. Digital materials are easier to manage and enable prosecutors to more quickly search, identify and collate relevant evidence. 

A team-based model has also proven very effective in prosecuting these cases and developing the skills of our staff. Nevertheless, the very large volumes of data now being collected in an increasing number of cases remains a challenge. Significant resources are often consumed examining large data sets to identify relevant evidence and meet prosecution disclosure obligations. 

The prosecution of organised crime and terrorism offences takes place in a global setting. Many of the matters referred to us for prosecution involve criminal conduct that has taken place wholly or partly outside Australia. Where prosecutors in Australia seek to rely on foreign evidence, difficult legal and practical challenges can arise as a result of different laws, customs and procedures that operate in different jurisdictions. 

Our prosecutors increasingly work with partner agencies at home and abroad to secure foreign evidence, support extradition applications, and contribute to international capacity building activities. 

PROSECUTION SERVICES

Liaison activities—regional and national

The Organised Crime and CounterTerrorism Practice Group continues to strengthen its relationships with key partner agencies including the Australian Federal Police, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Australian Border Force, Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, and state and territory police. 

Prosecutors in the practice group regularly liaise with partner agencies at a regional and national level to help develop strategies to deal more effectively with current and future matters, as well as any broader issues or trends that impact on the work of the office. 

In addition to regular liaison meetings, the practice group provides specialist support services to our partners in the form of specialist pre-brief legal advice, brief building assistance and training. Providing pre-brief advice during active investigations is an effective way of helping partner agencies make better informed operational decisions regarding the conduct of significant investigations. 

Conferences

The Organised Crime and CounterTerrorism Practice Group holds an annual conference that brings together select prosecutors from around Australia. Key stakeholders are also invited to attend with the aim of building stronger relationships and promoting cross-agency collaboration. 

The 2017 Organised Crime and Counter-Terrorism conference was held in Melbourne. It opened with a keynote address from Mr Tony Sheehan, Australia’s Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, followed by a panel discussion involving senior police and prosecutors on agency responses to a mass casualty terrorism incident. Attendees heard from a variety of internal and external presenters on counter-terrorism and organised crime related topics.

Training

The Organised Crime and CounterTerrorism Practice Group provides targeted training to the Joint CounterTerrorism Teams around Australia to build their capacity and knowledge of terrorism offences, evidence selection and prosecution issues. Prosecutors from the practice group provided training presentations and took part in panel discussions at numerous training workshops during 2017–18.

Stakeholder engagement

The Organised Crime and CounterTerrorism Practice Group engages with partners and stakeholders in a timely and effective manner to support their work and build more effective partnerships. We continue to have strong and productive working relationships with staff from the Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Home Affairs. 

We regularly engage with these agencies on various legal, policy and legislative issues, and provide weekly and quarterly reports to partners and stakeholders to make sure they have access to timely and accurate information regarding current counter-terrorism prosecutions. 
Practice group prosecutors also engage with staff from state and territory prosecution agencies, legal aid commissions, corrections services and the courts to foster collaboration on key issues across the criminal justice system.

Legislative reform

The Organised Crime and Counter-Terrorism Practice Group continued to support the important legislative and policy work of government in 2017–18. We provide feedback on the practical application of federal criminal laws to better inform effective legislative and policy development. 

Prosecutors from the practice group worked closely with the Attorney-General’s Department on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Act 2018. Our prosecutors also worked with stakeholders in a number of other areas where legislative reform was proposed or considered, including bail and parole, money laundering and counter-terrorism. 

In addition, prosecutors responded to requests related to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor’s review of ‘the prosecution and sentencing of children for Commonwealth terrorism offences’. 

See page 22 for more details about our contribution to the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Act.

International engagements

Practice group prosecutors were involved in an increasing number of international engagements over the past 12 months. These engagements allow prosecutors to develop cross-jurisdictional contacts and exchange expertise with prosecutors, judges and law enforcement officials in other countries. They also provide an opportunity to strengthen relationships with other domestic stakeholders who take part. 

During 2017–18, Organised Crime and Counter-Terrorism prosecutors took part in the following international engagements:

• Australia, November 2017— Prosecutors attended a number of meetings in Canberra and Sydney, Australia with Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation personnel to discuss mutual assistance in counterterrorism matters. The meetings were productive, allowing Australian and United States counterparts to discuss their respective legal systems and relevant issues regarding mutual assistance processes.
• Bangkok, Thailand, January 2018—A prosecutor took part in the 13th Regional Workshop for Judges, Prosecutors and Police Officers in South Asia on Effectively Countering Terrorism. The theme of the workshop was ‘Engaging Communities and Criminal Justice Officials in Developing Joint Strategies to Counter Violent Extremism and Incitement’. The workshop was hosted by the United Nations Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate, in coordination with the Global Centre on Cooperative Security.
• Vienna, Austria, February 2018—A prosecutor attended an expert group meeting at the invitation of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and United Nations CounterTerrorism Committee Executive Directorate. This meeting was aimed at developing a practical guide for obtaining electronic evidence from communications service providers in foreign jurisdictions. The prosecutor took part in a second meeting in Vienna in June 2018 and continues to support this initiative. 
• Semarang, Indonesia, April 2018—A prosecutor delivered a presentation on electronic evidence at the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Co-operation. The conference, organised by the Australian Department of Home Affairs and the Indonesian Attorney General’s Office, examined issues concerning the collection and use of electronic evidence in counter-terrorism investigations and prosecutions.

THE ROLE OF THE REVENUE AND BENEFITS FRAUD PRACTICE GROUP 
The Revenue and Benefits Fraud Practice Group is responsible for prosecuting fraud against the Australian Government, including general tax fraud, social security fraud, Medicare fraud (patient and provider fraud), postal, grants and identity fraud. The practice group also prosecutes fraud-related money laundering, counterfeit currency and child support offences. 

Commonwealth revenue and benefit systems rely heavily on the integrity and honesty of all Australians. Revenue and Benefits Fraud practice group prosecutions play an essential role in protecting Commonwealth resources and ensuring support is provided where it is needed most in the community. 

Briefs typically relate to allegations that people have intentionally engaged in conduct and, as a result, received social, health or welfare services or payments, taxation refunds or grant funds they knew they were not entitled to. These prosecutions are fundamental in protecting the resources of the Commonwealth for the benefit of all Australians.

TRENDS IN 2017–18 PROSECUTIONS 

Prosecuting fraud offences is a major part of the overall practice for this group. Of all partner agencies, the Department of Human Services (Centrelink) refers the largest number of briefs for prosecution. In 2017–18, the practice group saw continued broadening and complexity in the range of Centrelink matters referred for prosecution. These prosecutions have included redirected payments involving people using other identities and directing payments made to those identities into bank accounts under their control. 

These frauds require evidence of Centrelink systems, financial analysis and marshalling of evidence from various sources to establish the identity of the alleged offender and the complex transactions involved. 

Prosecutions also included frauds involving people falsely claiming single parent benefit payments when they were in a relationship. This required evidence to prove the existence of the relationship, including evidence obtained via search warrant and third parties such as employers, real estate agents and hospitals.

This year, the practice group also worked with the Department of Human Services to address alleged offending against the social security system, such as providing false documentation or information to the department in order to obtain early access to superannuation benefits. The practice group worked closely with the department to develop a prosecution response. 

Fraud and non-compliance in the family day care sector impacts several partner agencies including the Department of Human Services, the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Education and Training. These frauds can include multiple accused, and present risks to multiple agencies. The CDPP is a member of the Family Day Care Fraud Interdepartmental Committee, and the Revenue and Benefits Fraud Practice Group has been working closely with the Department of Human Services to address this significant risk to revenue. 

During 2017–18, the practice group also saw an increase in the complexity of Medifraud referrals received from the Department of Health, including medical practices operating via corporate structures and claiming benefits they were not entitled to. The practice group is working closely with Department of Health to effectively prosecute in this area. 

We are also continuing to work closely with the Australian Taxation Office in a range of areas including investigating and prosecuting intermediaries such as tax agents and accountants who use their clients’ taxation accounts and details to obtain benefits they are not entitled to. The prosecution of GST fraud continues to form a significant part of the group’s practice. 

PROSECUTION SERVICES

As the breadth and complexity of fraud work continues to evolve, this year the Revenue and Benefits Fraud Practice Group focused on supporting and developing our lawyers and managing work flows and work types through the effective use of teams, tools and technology. The practice group has been drawing on the expertise of lawyers across the country to work with partner agencies to address new and emerging crime types. 

Liaison and committees

To further enhance the timeliness and quality of our service, the practice group continued to focus on engaging early with partner agencies. This assistance is appreciated by our partner agencies and supports their development of enforcement strategies and their investigation of particular crime types. 

We maintained our focus on liaison in 2017–18, with regular regional and national liaison meetings. This is supported by regular contact at the regional and national level. 

In September 2017, we launched the Australian Taxation Office/CDPP Engagement Framework on the CDPP Partner Agency Portal. This interactive tool enables prosecutors and Australian Taxation Office investigators to access important resources and information from a single source. The second stage of this collaboration commenced in November 2017 with the establishment of the Australian Taxation Office/CDPP Capability Committee. This committee is working on a number of projects aimed at developing investigative and prosecutorial capability. 

The practice group is also working with the Australian Taxation Office in relation to illicit tobacco and cash economy offences via this committee.

During the year, we continued working with the Department of Human Services/ CDPP Capability Review Committee on a number of projects to help in the brief preparation and brief assessment process. A particular focus for the committee is identifying training needs and developing resources in relation to Medicare and family day care fraud. 

The committees we work with provide us with the opportunity to identify areas for capability development within our respective agencies, and to assist our partner agencies to respond to identified crime risks. 

Training

This year we provided targeted training for our partner agencies at the regional and national level including at national conferences with the Department of Human Services and the Australian Taxation Office. 

The practice group provided national training on working in teams and using tools and technology in our fraud prosecution practice. We also arranged workshops and developed resources to help prosecutors appearing in sentencing hearings for social security offences.

Legislative reform and advice

During 2017–18, the practice group provided significant input into several legislative reform proposals related to illicit tobacco and the cash economy. We also assisted the Department of Human Services in relation to recent amendments to its information gathering powers. 

The practice group also supported agencies in relation to new policy proposals by providing advice on the practical application of laws in the prosecution context. 

PROSECUTION APPEALS

Table 2: Prosecution appeals and outcomes

The Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth provides that the prosecution right to appeal against sentence should be exercised with appropriate restraint. Factors we may consider when deciding to appeal include whether: 

• the sentence is manifestly inadequate
• the sentence reveals an inconsistency in sentencing standards 
• the sentence proceeded on the basis of a material error of law or fact requiring appellate correction
• the sentencing is substantially and unnecessarily inconsistent with other relevant sentences
• an appeal to a Court of Appeal will enable the court to lay down some general principles for the governance and guidance of sentencing courts
• an appeal will enable the court to establish and maintain adequate standards of punishment for crime
• an appeal will ensure, so far as the subject matter permits, uniformity in sentencing
• an appeal will enable an appellate court to correct an error of legal principle. 

We only institute appeal proceedings when there are reasonable prospects of success.

The CDPP’s appellate practice assists in providing an effective prosecution service—one that contributes to public respect in the justice system by seeking to remedy sentences that are significantly out of touch with proper sentencing standards. 

Occasionally, appeals may not be upheld, despite the court finding that an error in law or in the application of sentencing principles has occurred. In all appeal cases, the appellate courts have a residual discretion not to intervene and re-sentence if the court believes that to do so would result in an injustice to the offender due to other circumstances. 

Such cases are still critically important as they provide future guidance as to the proper application of legal principles in the sentencing of Commonwealth offenders.

In 2017–18, a total of nine prosecution sentence appeals were decided in indictable matters. Five of those appeals were successful and resulted in significant increases in the offender’s sentence in each case. This outcome (56 per cent of appeals upheld) was just short of our target of 60 per cent, and a significant improvement on the 2016–17 result, when 45 per cent of appeals were upheld. 

While appellate intervention did not occur in four appeals brought by the CDPP, the judgments provided useful guidance in relation to sentencing principles and in the exercise of the residual discretion on appeal.

In one of the five successful appeals, two separate prosecution appeals were filed. One was to the High Court, which overturned a decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal acquitting the offender. The other was an appeal to the Victorian Court of Appeal against the inadequacy of the sentence, which resulted in a substantially increased sentence. 

Prosecution appeals for indictable matters fell into two serious crime types, namely those relating to importation and trafficking of drugs and associated money laundering, and those involving online child sexual exploitation.
 

Table 3: Prosecution appeals by practice group

These five appeals are summerised on pages 100–103.

DPP (Cth) v Afford [2017] VSCA 201

This case involved two successful appeals by the Director, one to the High Court and the other to the Victorian Court of Appeal. Steven Afford, who is a New Zealand citizen, was living in Western Australia when he became involved in an elaborate overseas scam resulting in the importation of 2.4 kilograms of pure heroin into Victoria. The heroin had an estimated street value of between $2.3 and $3.9 million.

Afford pleaded not guilty to one count of importing a commercial quantity of a border controlled drug and maintained he was initially approached by a person overseas by email with a business opportunity. This person claimed he was a Minister in the United Arab Emirates government. Afford claimed that, through a series of emails, he came to believe that if he travelled to Manilla in the Philippines to collect a suitcase with bottles of ‘separation oil’ and return to Australia, he would be rewarded with a building contract in Australia worth half a billion United States dollars. 

Afford claimed he believed the ‘separation oil’ was needed to ‘clean’ the cash funds for the building project in Australia. The suitcase, in fact, contained 2.4 kilograms of pure heroin. 

After a nine day trial, Afford was found guilty of knowingly importing a substance, being reckless to the fact that the substance he imported was a border controlled drug. He was sentenced to three years and two months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 24 months. 

The trial Judge determined that Afford’s moral culpability was low because, as a naïve, uneducated man, he was vulnerable as a victim of a relatively sophisticated international internet scam, and he had acted on a promise of a lucrative contract, which he thought was legitimate. 

Afford lodged an appeal against conviction and the Director lodged an appeal against the sentence. The Victorian Court of Appeal allowed Afford’s appeal on the basis that the trial Judge had erred in his directions to the jury on the elements of the importation offence, and acquitted the offender. 

The Director sought leave and appealed this decision to the High Court. The High Court confirmed the Director’s argument regarding the elements of an importation offence, overturned the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal, and restored Afford’s original conviction for the offence. 

The matter returned to the Victorian Court of Appeal to determine the Director’s first appeal against the inadequacy of the sentence, which was allowed. In upholding the Director’s appeal, the court held that even if Afford had pleaded guilty, the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate given the objective seriousness of the offending, and that a substantially heavier sentence was warranted. 

The majority of the court found that the offending involved a significant degree of moral culpability, and that the offence of importing a commercial quantity of a border control drug is one of the utmost seriousness, demonstrated by the fact that it carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. 

Afford’s sentence was more than tripled on appeal, from three years and two months’ imprisonment with a nonparole period of 24 months, to 10 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years.

R v Ostrowski; Ex parte Attorney-General (Cth) [2018] QCA 62

Kyle Ostrowski, a 24-year-old unemployed man from Queensland, pleaded guilty to importing a commercial quantity of methamphetamine in a parcel from the United States, delivered to him by Australia Post. The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment. 

The amount imported was 7,793 tablets equating to 3.14 kilograms of pure methamphetamine, which had an estimated street value of between $2.7 million and $8.1 million depending on the method of sale. Ostrowksi was not the principal offender but played an essential role by agreeing to use his grandfather’s residential address to receive the consignment of drugs. At the time of the offence, Ostrowksi was a drug addict and expected to receive money and drugs for his assistance. 

Taking into account Ostrowski’s personal circumstances including his plea of guilty, his youth and his progress and prospects for rehabilitation, the District Court Judge at first instance sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2.5 years. 

The Director appealed to the Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal, which agreed that the non-parole period of the sentence did not adequately reflect the objective seriousness of the offending and was far too lenient. 

The court held that while no error could be discerned in the sentencing remarks, the sentence itself revealed that there must have been an error of principle. The court determined that the shortness of the non-parole period rendered the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge manifestly inadequate. 

While the court declined to interfere with the head sentence of eight years, it increased the non-parole period to four years, agreeing with the Director that the sentencing judge placed too much weight on the favourable prospects for rehabilitation, namely that Ostrowski had sought treatment for his drug addiction before and after the offending, and had been drug free for nine months by the time he was sentenced. 

The court agreed with the sentencing judge that while Ostrowski did not know the type of drug being imported, or the amount, he knew he was a party to the importation of a dangerous drug and willingly took part for reward. 

DPP (Cth) v Masange and DPP (Cth) v Kachunga [2017] VSCA 204 

Kiza Masange and Gilbert Kachunga were both sentenced in relation to drug offences arising from their respective participation in the same overseas drug syndicate. 
Masange facilitated the importation of 10 postal consignments from overseas over a six-month period by organising addresses and attempting to collect the various consignments on behalf of others. Nine of the consignments contained a total of 2.4 kilograms of pure methamphetamine, with the remaining consignment containing 20.1 grams of pure heroin. 

The drugs were concealed in various items including books, candles and handbags. The estimated value of the methamphetamine was at least $540,000 wholesale and $2.025 million retail. Using false identification, Masange also conducted five cash transactions over a seven-month period totalling $77,000 connected to his drug importation activities, and was found in possession of $22,000 in cash. 

Additionally, Masange applied for a passport in a false name when he was on bail for the importation and money laundering offences.

During the same period, Kachunga conducted six money transactions under false names relating to the importation of drugs, totalling $88,000, including transferring large sums of money to Peru and China. On one occasion, Kachunga attended a residential address and asked the occupant to collect a parcel from China from a nearby post office, which contained 504 grams of methamphetamine. The parcel was addressed to the residential address in a fictitious name. The occupant refused to collect the parcel. 

When Kachunga’s home was searched pursuant to a search warrant, he was found to be in possession of two suitcases containing 2.79 kilograms of pure methamphetamine and 12.2 grams of pure cocaine. 

Masange pleaded guilty and was convicted of importing a commercial quantity of methamphetamine and cocaine, dealing with money reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime and making a false statement in relation to a passport application. 

Masange was sentenced to a total effective sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years. 

Kachunga pleaded guilty and was convicted of dealing with money reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime, attempting to possess a marketable quantity of methamphetamine, possession of a commercial quantity of methamphetamine and possession of a marketable quantity of cocaine. Kachunga was sentenced to a total effective sentence of five years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months. 

The Victorian Court of Appeal jointly heard the prosecution appeals against sentence, allowing the appeal in respect of Masange and dismissing the appeal in respect of Kachunga. The court found that both sentences were manifestly inadequate, and resentenced Masange to nine years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years. 

In respect of Kachunga, the majority of the court exercised the residual discretion not to intervene and re-sentence, on the basis that to do so would result in an injustice. This was because by the time the appeal was determined, Kachunga had been on parole for six months. He had complied with all his conditions of parole, was in full-time employment, and had started IVF treatment with his wife to start a family. 

However, the majority of the members of the court indicated that, but for his release on parole, they would have resentenced Kachunga to a total effective sentence of seven years and six months with a non-parole period of four years and six months. 

R v Dittman; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2017] QCA 302

Brock Dittman pleaded guilty and was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment for offences relating to the possession and making available of child pornography material. The most serious offence involved 103 occasions, on 97 separate dates, on which Dittman made child pornography material available to two or more people concurrently. Dittman was sentenced on four Commonwealth charges to an overall period of imprisonment of five years with a minimum of 12 months to serve. 

At the time of his sentence, he had already begun to serve a sentence for an unrelated state offence of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child. He needed to serve 12 months of this sentence before the Commonwealth sentence started, meaning he would be in prison for a minimum of two years. 

The Director appealed on the basis that the sentence for the Commonwealth offences was manifestly inadequate. In dismissing the appeal, the Queensland Court of Appeal found that a sentencing court must consider the entirety of the offender’s criminal conduct to ensure the sentence it is imposing is appropriate. This totality principle also applies where a prisoner is sentenced for an offence while already serving a term for a different offence. 

As Dittman was serving an unrelated state sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment before the Commonwealth sentence started, the application of the principle of totality meant that the sentence imposed in the District Court of Queensland was held to be within the sentencing discretion of the sentencing Judge, and the Director’s appeal was dismissed. 

However, the appeal court acknowledged that the sentence for the Commonwealth offences was low, and the appeal may have been allowed in different circumstances.

DPP (Cth) v Beattie [2017] NSWCCA 301

In DPP (Cth) v Beattie (2017), the CDPP appealed against the leniency of a sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years, for an offender who was charged with 22 offences of causing children in the Philippines to engage in sexual intercourse, via instructions he gave over a real-time video link.

The offender paid a man to perform sexual acts on children, or cause them to perform sexual acts, while the offender watched and gave instructions. In upholding the Director’s appeal, the appeal court held the sentences did not adequately acknowledge the separate harm done to each child and increased the total effective sentence to 14 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years. 

The court stated it should not necessarily be inferred that moral culpability for an offence of ‘causing a child to engage in sexual intercourse in the presence of the defendant’ involves lesser moral culpability than a sexual assault physically committed by an offender. 

The impoverished circumstances and vulnerability of the children were factors in assessing the seriousness of the offending.

This matter was originally reported in the 2016–17 Annual Report.

EXERCISE OF STATUTORY FUNCTIONS AND POWERS

The Director has various statutory functions and powers, including in relation to filing a ‘no bill’ (that is discontinuing a prosecution), granting an indemnity from prosecution to a witness, taking over a private prosecution, filing an ex officio indictment, and consenting to conspiracy charges being laid in a particular case

‘No bill’ applications

After a defendant has been committed for trial, the question sometimes arises whether the prosecution should continue. This can arise either as a result of an application by the defendant or on the CDPP’s own initiative. The Director’s power to discontinue a prosecution is derived from section 9(4) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (DPP Act). A submission made to the Director to discontinue such a matter is known as a ‘no bill’ application.

The Director’s power to discontinue is delegated to the Commonwealth Solicitor for Public Prosecutions, Practice Group Leaders (Deputy Directors) and branch heads (Assistant Directors) who make these decisions in certain circumstances. 

In 2017–18, a total of 11 prosecutions were discontinued, following decisions by the Director or Practice Group Leaders. These prosecutions were discontinued either because there was insufficient evidence to proceed, or for compelling public interest reasons. 

More particularly, in the past year there were seven ‘no bill’ applications received from defendants or their representatives, of which two were granted and five were refused. 

A further nine prosecutions were discontinued on the basis of a recommendation from a prosecutor without prior representations from the defendant. 

The discontinued matters were primarily commercial frauds, tobacco importations and drugs offences, with a small number involving other offences such as people smuggling and human trafficking.

Indemnities

The DPP Act empowers the Director to give an undertaking—referred to as an indemnity—to a potential witness in three circumstances:

• section 9(6) authorises the Director to give an indemnity to a potential witness in Commonwealth proceedings that any evidence the person may give, and anything derived from that evidence, will not be used in evidence against the person, other than in proceedings for perjury
• section 9(6B) empowers the Director to give an indemnity to a person that any evidence he or she may give in proceedings under state or territory law will not be used in evidence against them in a Commonwealth matter
• section 9(6D) empowers the Director to give an indemnity to a person that he or she will not be prosecuted under Commonwealth law in respect of a specified offence.

In the past year, the Director provided indemnities under section 9(6) to nine persons, and granted nine indemnities under section 9(6D), usually in relation to drug and related offences. 

Taking matters over—private prosecutions

Traditionally it has been open to any person to bring a private prosecution for a criminal offence. That right is protected in Commonwealth matters by section 13 of the Crimes Act 1914 and is expressly preserved under section 10(2) of the DPP Act. 

Under section 9(5) of the DPP Act, the Director has the power to take over a prosecution for a Commonwealth offence that has been instituted by another person. The Director is empowered to either carry on the prosecution or, if appropriate, to discontinue it. 

The Director was required to exercise this power on four occasions during 2017–18. In each case, the Director took over the prosecution and discontinued it as the evidence was either insufficient for the charges to proceed or alleged an offence not known to law.

Ex-officio indictments

The Director has the function under section 6(2A)–(2D) of the DPP Act to institute prosecutions on indictment, referred to as ex officio indictments. These powers in section 6(2A)–(2C) are used in circumstances where a defendant consents to a prosecution on indictment without being examined or committed for trial, or where a defendant having been committed on either Commonwealth, state or territory offences, is indicted on different charges from those on which they were committed. 

Section 6(2D) of the DPP Act provides that in any other case, where the Director considers it appropriate to do so, the Director may institute a prosecution of a person on indictment for an indictable offence against the laws of the Commonwealth, in respect of which the person has not been examined or committed for trial. 

In certain circumstances the decision to present an ex officio indictment is delegated to the Commonwealth Solicitor for Public Prosecutions, Practice Group Leaders and branch heads. In 2017–18, the Director or a Practice Group Leader exercised ex officio powers on 19 occasions.

Consent to conspiracy proceedings

The Director’s consent is required before proceedings for Commonwealth conspiracy offences can commence. In 2017–18, the Director consented to the commencement of conspiracy proceedings against 87 defendants in relation to 41 alleged conspiracies. 

Consent under section 121(8) of the Family Law Act 1975

The Director’s consent is required before proceedings are commenced for an offence against section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975, which restricts publication of court proceedings. 

During 2017–18, the Director gave consent to commence proceedings in one such matter

PERFORMANCE

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STATEMENT

I, Sarah McNaughton SC, as the accountable authority of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, present the 2017–18 annual performance statements of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, as required under paragraph 39(1)(a) of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act). In my opinion, the annual performance statements are based on properly maintained records, accurately reflect the CDPP’s performance in the reporting period and comply with subsection 39(2) of the PGPA Act.

Sarah McNaughton

SC Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

ENTITY PURPOSE

To provide an independent prosecution service that contributes to the respect and maintenance of Commonwealth criminal law and public respect in the justice system through the prosecution of crimes.⁷

ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE AGAINST OUR PURPOSE 

Performance criterion 1: Compliance in addressing the terms of the test for prosecution in the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth

This performance measure has been in place since November 2015. The prosecution test under the Prosecution Policy requires the prosecutor to determine whether there is a prima facie case and reasonable prospects of a conviction and whether a prosecution is required in the public interest, when deciding to commence or continue the prosecution. Compliance for this measure occurs via a Prosecution Policy Declaration (PPD), which must be completed by the decision maker, confirming the application of the prosecution test. The PPD is directed at providing assurance that the prosecution test has been addressed and also references information on the file that supports the decision made (for example, summaries, file notes, submissions). The test set out in the Prosecution Policy is integral to all cases considered and prosecuted by the CDPP. It is of fundamental importance to the manner in which we undertake our work, and its proper application reinforces the independence of the CDPP. Consequently, assurance that the policy is being applied at key junctures in the prosecution process is vital.

From shortly before the start of 2017–18, the CDPP moved from a paper file based internal audit and compliance framework to a more reliable wholly electronic one. During 2017–18, PPDs were generated from within the CDPP’s Case Recording 

Information Management System (CRIMS) database and were utilised throughout the prosecution process. The move to electronic PPDs has streamlined reporting and allowed us to measure the application of the Prosecution Policy at a greater number of points in the prosecution process than occurred in the previous financial year. This has given us a greater data set, which has increased the overall reliability and completeness of the measure and enhanced the CDPP’s capacity to monitor and audit performance against this measure on an ongoing basis, and address any potential lack of timely compliance.

Throughout this period, there has been quarterly progress reporting to the Audit Committee and publication annually in the Annual Report.

Performance criterion 2: Partner agency satisfaction with CDPP service delivery 

A partner agency satisfaction survey was conducted in 2015–16. This survey has established a methodology and baseline to track satisfaction on an ongoing basis. Understanding partner agency perceptions of the CDPP across a range of service areas provides valuable insights that help shape and improve processes, procedures and performance, thereby allowing us to be responsive to the priorities of our law enforcement and regulatory partners. To align with the introduction of the biennial satisfaction survey in 2015–16, the CDPP set a partner agency satisfaction target of 90 per cent⁸ and achieved an initial satisfaction rating of 83 per cent, based on a 60 per cent response rate.

While this result fell slightly short of the target, it captured valuable feedback to assist the CDPP to meet the target in the future.

Following analysis of that feedback from our first stakeholder survey in 2016, we delivered a number of initiatives to improve our services, including:

• reducing our brief assessment timeframe from 120 days to 90 days, and eliminating our backlog of unassessed files
• strengthening our regular liaison meetings
• holding national conferences where partner agencies can take part, to explore topical issues, share knowledge and improve communication
• redeveloping our Partner Agency Portal, including updating a large number of National Offence Guides and Manuals
• launching our National Legal Direction on Prosecution Services for Partner Agencies to ensure that expectations of CDPP lawyers around service delivery are clear and service delivery is consistent
• developing e-brief Referral Guidelines and our new Digital Referrals Gateway
• continuing to actively participate in local, national and international engagements with partner agencies
• providing more training to frontline investigators
• participating in secondments with partner agencies.

The effectiveness of these measures was apparent in the 2018 partner agency satisfaction survey. An 87 per cent overall satisfaction score was achieved. This result is now just under the target set of 90 per cent, and represents a four per cent increase on the results of the 2016 survey. The agency response rate also increased from 163 in 2016 to 284 in 2018 (an increase of 74 per cent). Moreover, this year’s survey included participants that were randomly selected from our CRIMS database, as well as participants nominated by CDPP staff.

The 2018 survey provides a thorough and reliable snapshot of what our main partner agencies are thinking about critical issues such as our timeliness, and the quality of information we provide. Importantly, the increased level of engagement from our partner agencies and more randomised selection means the three-week survey was more statistically robust than the 2016 survey, allowing more weight to be placed on the findings. 

This survey comprehensively assessed partner agency satisfaction with our day-to-day dealings and our service delivery. The results were very positive across the board and showed a definite improvement on 2016. The CDPP will analyse the outcomes and continue to look for areas where we can strengthen and improve our service delivery to agencies in the future. It is anticipated that the CDPP will need to be particularly responsive to the needs of partner agencies investigating new and emerging crime types of significant complexity.

Performance criterion 3: Prosecutions resulting in a conviction

The CDPP has consistently exceeded the target of 90 per cent set for this measure. This measurement of court outcomes evidences the CDPP’s contribution to ensuring the safety of the Australian community and the maintenance of the rule of law. This year’s result of 97 per cent was achieved through the commitment and hard work of CDPP staff working in collaboration with partner agencies.

This measure is calculated by taking the number of defendants convicted as a percentage of defendants convicted or acquitted within a prosecution phase. The calculation does not include defendants where the CDPP discontinued the prosecution against them in its entirety. During 2017–18 we also monitored an adjusted figure (of approximately 89 per cent), which included discontinuances. Formally making provision for discontinuances will be considered as part of a review of Performance criterion 3 during 2018–19. It does include findings of guilt that do not result in the recording of a conviction.

‘Conviction’ includes any finding of guilt by jury or tribunal of fact including but not limited to where a conviction is recorded. As to the latter, a court may proceed to impose a ‘non-conviction’ disposition. This most commonly occurs in less serious matters, where extenuating circumstances exist.  

A ‘prosecution phase’ means summary, committal, trial and sentence phases.

Defendants may be prosecuted for more than one offence; a defendant is counted as being ‘convicted’ if at least one offence is recorded with an outcome of ‘proven’.

Progress reports are provided monthly to the Executive Leadership Group, quarterly to the Audit Committee and published annually in the Annual Report.

This measure is inter-related with Performance criterion 1, in that a proper application of the Prosecution Policy test should inevitably link to prosecution outcomes, including the level of convictions. Over the next 12 months we intend to review, refine and develop our performance measure framework, in cooperation with key stakeholders, to better measure and assess our performance in achieving our Outcome and Purpose.

PROSECUTION STATISTICS

The following tables set out details of prosecutions we conducted in 2017–18. Cases were referred by 40 Commonwealth agencies as well as 20 state and territory agencies.

Table 4: Outcomes of successful prosecutions in 2017–18

Table 5: Summary prosecutions in 2017–18

Table 6: Committals in 2017–18

Table 7: Prosecutions on indictment in 2017–18

Table 8: Prosecution appeals against sentence in 2017–18

Table 9: Defence appeals against sentence in 2017–18

PROSECUTION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 2017–18

In 2017–18 we met all of the following prosecution performance indicators:

• prosecutions resulting in a conviction
• defendants in defended summary hearings resulting in a conviction
• defendants in defended committals resulting in a committal order
• prosecution sentence appeals in summary prosecutions upheld.

However, we did not meet the following prosecution performance indicators:

• defendants tried on indictment and convicted
• prosecution sentence appeals in a prosecution on indictment upheld.

Table 10: Prosecution indicators for 2017–18

* The conviction rate is calculated by taking the number of defendants convicted as a percentage of defendants convicted or acquitted. The calculation does not include defendants where the CDPP discontinued the prosecution against them in its entirety.

Table 11: Prosecution performance indicators for 2015–16, 2016–17 and 2017–18

* The conviction rate is calculated by taking the number of defendants convicted as a percentage of defendants convicted or acquitted. The calculation does not include defendants where the CDPP discontinued the prosecution against them in its entirety.

STATISTICS ABOUT RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND PARTNER AGENCIES

We received the most referrals from the Department of Human Services, Australian Financial Security Authority, Australian Federal Police, Australian Border Force, Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian Taxation Office. 

The following tables provide statistics covering relevant legislation and referring agencies in relation to matters dealt with in 2017–18.
Table 12: Legislation under which charges were dealt with summarily and on indictment in 2017–18

Table 13: Referring agencies—defendants dealt with summarily and on indictment in 2017–18

The above table contains names of only current Commonwealth agencies as at 30 June 2018.

‘Defendants dealt with’ includes not only convictions and findings of guilt, but also matters resulting in acquittals, prosecutions that are discontinued in accordance with the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth based on evidentiary or public interest considerations or as part of a charge negotiation, as well as when there is a hung jury, a warrant has been issued as the defendant has absconded, and determinations that a defendant is unfit to be tried. It also includes matters where a charge is issued but is unable to be served and prosecutions commenced in one jurisdiction and recommenced in another jurisdiction because the defendant has moved. It does not include matters where the CDPP has provided pre-brief advice to an investigation agency, brief assessments that do not proceed to prosecution on evidentiary or public interest grounds, breach proceedings, or matters determined on appeal.

In addition there were four private prosecutions initiated by private citizens that were taken over and discontinued by the Director, on the basis of insufficiency of evidence. 

See page 105 for more details on private prosecutions.

SUPPORTING THE LEGAL PRACTICE

NATIONAL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT PRACTICE GROUP

Deputy Director: David Adsett
The National Business Improvement Practice Group fosters innovation and drives business improvements across the legal practice.
During 2017–18, this practice group advanced some of the most transformative projects in the CDPP’s history, within the following streams:

In addition to these areas, this practice group was also accountable for Legal Learning and Development before the function was transferred to the Legal Business Improvement branch. In exchange, it assumed responsibility for data management and reporting across the CDPP due to the synergies of this function with our new case and document management solution, caseHQ.

The effective management of our prosecution lifecycle connects all the projects managed by the National Business Improvement Practice Group.

BUSINESS SOLUTIONS— BUILDING THE FOUNDATION FOR caseHQ

This year we developed caseHQ, our new virtual headquarters for case and document management. To be launched nationally in late 2018, caseHQ will provide end-to-end case management, with embedded document and workflow management functions—revolutionising our work practices.

In the 2017–18 budget we received $4.5 million through the Government’s Modernisation Fund to develop a new Legal Business Management Solution, to include the following functionality:

• case management
• document assembly (precedents)
• document storage and access 
• advanced search
• workflows
• contact management
• system administration
• reporting.

For the first time, caseHQ is bringing together into one place a range of tasks and functions previously completed across multiple systems and platforms— hence the apt name, caseHQ. 

In October 2017 a project team was established and in just eight months, the team progressed methodically through the critical milestones:

• analysis and design
• configuration
• user acceptance testing.

The caseHQ project vision is to provide a secure, flexible and contemporary system that supports the business processes of the CDPP and offers end-to-end case management with embedded document and workflow management functions. The system will provide the CDPP with an efficient and effective business tool for managing information related to criminal prosecution matters.

In March 2018, the system underwent User Acceptance Testing, which involved a group of subject matter experts and caseHQ Champions helping to identify any defects in the system so they could be corrected, and shape the training program being developed and customised for the different user groups.

In July 2018, caseHQ will be piloted by the Sydney legal practice, with the national launch to follow in late 2018.

caseHQ will significantly improve the way our lawyers and administrative support staff carry out their work. It will also position us to meet our case and document management needs into the future.

IMPROVING OUR PROSECUTION SERVICES— ENABLING THE SUBMISSION OF ELECTRONIC BRIEFS

During the year, we delivered two key projects to enable our partner agencies to submit briefs electronically: the e-Brief Referral Guidelines: and the Digital Referrals Gateway.

e-Brief Referral Guidelines

A quality digital brief helps prosecutors and defence lawyers quickly identify key evidence. This helps to narrow issues in dispute and generate earlier guilty pleas, saving valuable time and resources.

In collaboration with the Australian Federal Police, the e-Brief Referral Guidelines project established a set of agreed standards for electronic briefs covering metadata, structure and file formats.

In July 2017, partner agencies were invited to provide feedback on the guidelines and, following some minor improvements, we introduced the e-Brief Referral Guidelines in September 2017.

Since then, we have been working proactively with key partner agencies to tailor brief submission templates to ensure they meet the standards outlined in the guidelines, while accommodating different internal processes and procedures across our partner agencies’ varying operating models.

Partner agencies are embracing electronic document management practices to deal with the extensive amount of material that typically makes up a single brief of evidence. The e-Brief Referral Guidelines have improved both the standard and completeness of briefs submitted in this format.

Key project benefit:

• Improved efficiency in brief analysis and assessment thanks to comprehensive electronic indexing and searchability of material.

Digital Referrals Gateway

The Digital Referrals Gateway is a new platform that allows us to securely receive e-briefs and requisitioned material via the internet. 

We established the gateway in July 2017. Following extensive functional and software integration testing, the gateway was trialled by a select group of investigators from the Department of Human Services in Brisbane and their counterpart CDPP prosecutors.

This first phase of testing identified opportunities for improvement within the system and the related training material, to enable the gateway to be adopted by partner agencies. With the improvements made, we scaled up the trial to include additional teams from the Department of Human Services.

In May 2018, the trial expanded again to include the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Financial Security Authority. To drive broader adoption, we included a link to the Digital Referrals Gateway in our Partner Agency Portal, making it easy to access the gateway and related training material.

In 2018–19, the gateway will be introduced to all partner agencies. This will signal a significant shift in work practices, for us and for our partner agencies, making them more streamlined and in step with the digital transformation of the broader justice system. 

Key project benefit:

• Increased speed, security and ease of transferring and allocating files both internally and externally.

WE DEVELOPED AN INTRODUCTORY VIDEO TO HELP PARTNERS USE THE NEW DIGITAL REFERRALS GATEWAY

To drive broader adoption, we included a link to the Digital Referrals Gateway in our Partner Agency Portal, making it easy to access the gateway and related training material.

BUILDING OUR DIGITAL CAPABILITY—INTRODUCING SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS TO IMPROVE LEGAL PRACTICES

A key theme during 2017–18 was providing relevant digital tools and software to prosecutors to improve their practices.
In particular, we advanced two software projects—dtSearch and CaseLink—to enable lawyers to view multiple sources of information at once and analyse evidence more efficiently.

dtSearch

dtSearch is a powerful search tool that enables our prosecutors to search across documents. Key uses include searching e-briefs, trial materials and other documents stored on network drives. Search results are returned efficiently, allowing prosecutors to find results based on search parameters. dtSearch is a licensed program that has been installed on all prosecutors’ personal computers.

CaseLink

CaseLink is a suite of internally developed litigation support databases ideal to use in larger, more complex cases. CaseLink databases are designed to:

• be a one-stop-shop for all summaries and chronologies
• map relationships between items of evidence, witness statements, summaries, chronologies and factual and legal concepts
• enable all CDPP prosecutors to easily extract subsets of evidence according to how they have categorised or tagged the evidence or summaries.

The CaseLink Categories Database is one of our new user-friendly digital litigation support tools. 

It is ideal for complex cases with voluminous evidence because it allows our prosecutors to easily review, analyse and categorise evidence, as well as order written summaries of evidence in a variety of ways, for example by theme, category, witness and applicable law. 

The database can also generate multiple reports for use in trial, including exhibit lists, jury books and witness bundles.

In addition, it helps legal teams work efficiently, as it can delegate and assign work to multiple team members and enable team members to work collaboratively and contemporaneously. 

It was used by prosecutors in the Operation Rune trial, which was a complex foreign bribery matter.

Driving adoption of these solutions

To drive the adoption of these tools, dedicated project leads were assigned from the legal practice to demonstrate the capability of each tool, carry out training and provide ongoing guidance.

Key project benefit:

• Building prosecutors’ capability to use digital support tools in complex legal matters, saving them valuable time and enabling them to gain full control of their material.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES—ESTABLISHING A CONSISTENT AND PROVEN METHODOLOGY

In March 2018, following a complete review of the CDPP’s project management methodology, we introduced a new process and supporting templates to ensure the consistent initiation, management, reporting and closure of projects.

The CDPP Project Management Framework draws on methodologies as appropriate to provide suitable procedures and templates for use in CDPP projects across the organisation. For simplicity, the framework does not include a program level as there are insufficient projects to justify an additional governance level.

The templates ensure that all aspects of CDPP projects can be considered, controlled and approved at the appropriate level and that regular progress and risk reports are delivered. 

The methodology has been thoroughly tried and tested during the various phases of the caseHQ project.

Key project benefit:

• Applying the project management methodology and templates establishes a standard for the delivery of projects to ensure the effective management of project schedules, budgets and risks.

CORPORATE SERVICES GROUP

Chief Corporate Officer: Simon A. Ash

The Corporate Services Group provides a customer-focused and collaborative approach to tailoring and strengthening the support services for the legal practice. This approach has delivered many transformational projects across the CDPP—designed and delivered in close partnership with prosecutors and partner agencies. 

The work of the Corporate Services Group is ongoing and prioritised to balance both our office’s immediate and long-term needs.

The Corporate Services Group is made up of a number of Service Centres.

These dedicated teams of specialist corporate staff work behind the scenes and directly with legal staff to deliver support services, and ensure these services are always maintained, improved and advanced in line with the needs of the business.

GOVERNANCE, AUDIT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

The Governance team is responsible for both organisational governance and internal audit. The team provides strategic, operational advice and support to the Executive Leadership Group and senior management on all aspects of public sector governance, in accordance with the relevant legislation and government policy.

In 2017–18, the team continued to strengthen our governance practices and relationships with our stakeholders in the Department of Finance, and the Attorney-General’s Department.

The internal audit team provides independent assurance on compliance with procedures and systems of internal control, and helps management improve business performance. 

INTERNAL GOVERNANCE
Guiding policies

Our legislative and policy framework establishes the role of our organisation and the statutory position of Director. Key elements include:

• Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (DPP Act)
• Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act)
• Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014 (PGPA Rule)
• Public Service Act 1999 
• Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth.

Corporate governance

Governance in the CDPP provides a framework to ensure we meet the standards of fairness, openness, consistency, accountability and efficiency in prosecuting offences against the laws of the Commonwealth and, in meeting these standards, maintain the confidence of the public we serve. 

Good governance considers both performance and accountability within a risk management framework rather than trading one off against the other.

We continually refine our governance arrangements to ensure they are fit-for-purpose and clear to everyone. Our governance structure provides clarity on accountabilities and aligns our work and relationships with our stakeholders, to work together to achieve the outcome and purpose expressed in our corporate plan.

Figure 3: CDPP governance structure at 30 June 2018

EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP GROUP
Our Executive Leadership Group is the key advisory group to the Director and includes the Director as Chair, Commonwealth Solicitor for Public Prosecutions, Deputy Directors and Chief Corporate Officer. The Executive Leadership Group meets monthly in person to:

• identify and consider emerging strategic issues
• monitor and consider legal practice performance and outcomes
• consider, endorse and oversee CDPP strategies and policies on matters such as human resource management, communications, planning, information and communications technology, information management, security and governance
• oversee budget reporting and financial strategy
• ensure national consistency in legal practice and corporate policies and processes
• oversee projects to drive innovation and the digital transformation of our work practices 
• oversee strategic planning, including risk identification and management
• oversee implementation, evaluation and improvement of our governance structures and processes
• monitor and provide oversight on significant issues of national interest to the CDPP
• consider and approve work plans and outcomes of its sub-committees
• contribute to a culture of innovation, collaboration and diversity.

The Executive Leadership Group is an accomplished team of highly experienced professionals offering a broad range of expertise and specialist knowledge.

AUDIT COMMITTEE 

Our Audit Committee provides independent advice and assistance to the Director on the CDPP’s financial and performance reporting responsibilities, risk management, and system of internal control.

The committee is made up of three external members. Management representatives who attend regular meetings are the Commonwealth Solicitor for Public Prosecutions, the Chief Corporate Officer, the Chief Financial Officer and the Chief Audit Executive. Representatives from the Australian National Audit Office and others attend meetings to address particular agenda items or as agreed with the Chair. 

The Audit Committee met five times in 2017–18.

NATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY COMMITTEE

In accordance with the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, we take all reasonably practicable steps to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of our staff and other workers. This includes consulting with workers who are, or are likely to be, directly affected by a work health or safety matter.

The independent National Health and Safety Committee assists and advises on matters affecting the health, safety and wellbeing of staff and other workers at CDPP workplaces. As the central point of cooperation and consultation between management, staff and other workers, the committee is responsible for disseminating work health and safety information, particularly in the regional offices, in a regular and timely manner. In the past 12 months the committee has assisted in the consultation process regarding the new work health and safety management system and its associated policies and procedures. The committee has also been a key forum to promote the identification and management of work health and safety risk. 

Membership is agreed between management and staff, with representatives drawn from across the functions and locations of the CDPP.

PROJECT BOARD 

Our Project Board chaired by the Commonwealth Solicitor for Public Prosecutions provides focused oversight of the feasibility and achievement of agreed outcomes for all projects across the CDPP. It monitors, evaluates and reports on project progress and risk profiles to the Executive Leadership Group. The

Project Board meets monthly and provides a status update to the Executive Leadership Group on a quarterly basis.

PLANNING PERFORMANCE AND REPORTING 

We manage our performance through a combination of careful planning, effective measurement and monitoring of performance, and appropriate, transparent reporting.

Our 2017–21 Corporate Plan focused on 2017–18 and provides this year’s performance measures, building on the baseline set in 2016–17. It aligns with our Portfolio Budget Statement 2017–18 and was developed in accordance with the requirements of the PGPA Act.

As with all other elements required by the Act, we are working to ensure we meet these requirements with incremental improvements. Our resulting integrated performance, planning and reporting framework will ensure our operational performance aligns to, and supports achievement of, our strategic outcome.

RISK MANAGEMENT 

Risk management is part of our strategy and planning processes and is seen as a preventative measure, rather than a back-end control. 

The Executive Leadership Group and Audit Committee actively monitor and manage our Strategic Risk Register and Management Plan. The plan identifies the following risks to achieving our outcome and purpose:

• inability to deliver a timely, highest quality prosecution service 
• partner agency goals and priorities not enhanced and supported
• high-quality staff not attracted, retained and developed.

We are actively building a true risk management culture where operational risks are identified in our Business Plan and then assessed and analysed, with treatments recorded and monitored in the Strategic Risk Register and Corporate Services Operational Risk Register and Management Plan.

FRAUD PREVENTION AND CONTROL 

We work diligently to minimise the potential for fraud and corruption through continuous improvement of our fraud control framework and mechanisms. Our Fraud Control Policy helps employees, contactors, consultants and the public understand what fraud is, and encourages employees at all levels to participate in protecting public resources.

Through reporting in the Strategic Risk Register and Management Plan and the Corporate Services Operational Risk Register and Management Plan, we assure our Audit Committee and senior management that fraud prevention, detection, investigation and reporting mechanisms are in place to meet the requirements of the Commonwealth Fraud Control Framework 2014, and specifically section 10(b) of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014.

FRAUD REPORTING

During the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018 there were no reported incidents of fraud.

PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE

We are committed to the highest standards of ethical and accountable conduct, encouraging, supporting and protecting public officials who report disclosable conduct in accordance with the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013. 

We recognise it is important to have an effective system for reporting and investigating disclosable conduct. We provide training for our Authorised Officer network, and have a dedicated email address for disclosures to be made to Authorised Officers, who report to the Director. 

Our Public Interest Disclosure Policy and supporting documents are on our intranet for our staff, and on our external website at www.cdpp.gov.au. 

ETHICAL STANDARDS

Part of developing strong leadership for an organisation like the CDPP is bringing an ethical framework to our decision making. Everyone at the CDPP undertakes to follow these standards on joining our organisation, and is expected to adhere to the standards throughout their time with us.

The Ethics Advisory Service is available to all employees who wish to discuss and seek advice on ethical issues that occur in the workplace and make sound decisions around these issues. Our people can also access policies, guidance and support from our People team and through the Employee Assistance Provider.

We rigorously pursue disclosure and management of conflicts of interest. 

Our Governance team reviews and strengthens the conflicts policy and related guidance and procedures each year to enable all officials under the PGPA Act, including the Director as the accountable authority, to meet their disclosure requirements. 

INTERNAL AUDIT

We carry out an internal audit each year to provide independent assurance on compliance with procedures and systems of internal control, assist CDPP management improve business performance, and monitor the implementation of audit outcomes. The internal audit program is approved by the Executive Leadership Group and endorsed by the Audit Committee.

In 2017–18, we completed a performance audit on the Application of the Victims of Crime Policy, which is the first performance audit on the legal side of the business. In addition, we have completed an audit on our Wellbeing Checks Program and started an audit on the Compliance with the Decision Making Matrix.

PEOPLE

The People branch supports the CDPP’s operation by implementing strategic workforce measures and providing efficient and effective client-focused human resource (HR) services, advice and support. Services include:

• dedicated HR business advisers
• Workplace Wellbeing Program
• payroll, recruitment and HR reporting services
• work health and safety advice and support
• case management and rehabilitation services.

The wellbeing of our people is integral to our work and the operations of the CDPP. During the reporting period, our Workplace Wellbeing Program continued to support the wellbeing of all staff. 

The program includes regular wellbeing checks, a dedicated Employee Assistance Program, and other health initiatives including a Health and Wellbeing Portal.

Due to the diversity and nature of our prosecution work, it is essential that we support staff who may be exposed to confronting imagery and information, contained in briefs of evidence that could cause trauma or stress.

We conduct regular wellbeing checks, with more frequent checks for prosecutors and support staff working in high-risk areas, or considered at risk of psychological injury or accumulative stress. During each wellbeing check, staff are offered strategies and resources to support workplace participation while coping with challenging work situations.

This is just one example of the many initiatives designed to support our people.

PEOPLE PROFILE

At 30 June 2018, the CDPP had 388 employees with a full-time equivalent (operative employees only) of 349.

A total of 67 per cent of our employees were lawyers assigned to legal roles across practice groups. Our prosecution function is supported by a range of corporate services, including legal administrative support, finance and business services, information technology, people services, communications and governance. 

During 2017–18, the number of Principal Federal Prosecutors increased by 11.6 per cent, while Senior Federal Prosecutors reduced by 16.5 per cent and the number of employees at Federal Prosecutor Levels reduced by 13.4 per cent. The ratio of Senior Executive Service employees to total employee numbers increased slightly, from 4.0 to 4.6 per cent of total employees.

Our employees were previously employed under either the Public Service Act 1999 or the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1982. As at 30 June 2018, all employees were employed under the Public Service Act 1999. 

See page 138 for more information on our workforce statistics.

HR INITIATIVES

Our workplace is collaborative, innovative and diverse. Empowered by strong leadership, we attract, manage and retain high performing and engaged staff in all our locations. Implementing HR initiatives that support these objectives is integral to achieving our strategic themes. Key initiatives delivered in 2017–18 included:

• national recruitment processes for our legal practice, ensuring a consistent practice across the organisation in attracting and securing required capability
• implementing the Performance Excellence Program, supported by coaching and mentoring our managers in best practice performance management
• implementing the Flexible Working Arrangements Framework, demonstrating our commitment to a flexible and agile working environment
• implementing our Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2018–20.

WORKFORCE STATISTICS 
Table 14: Employee headcount by classification level and region at 30 June 2018

Notes:

1. This table includes inoperative employees.

2. Employees are reported at their substantive classification

Table 16: Workforce profile by location at 30 June 2018

ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT AND COMMON LAW CONTRACTS

The terms and conditions of non-SES employees are covered by the CDPP Enterprise Agreement 2017–2020. The terms and conditions of employment for substantive and longer-term acting Senior Executive Service (SES) staff are provided under individual common law contracts. As at 30 June 2018, there were 24 of these contracts in place.

PERFORMANCE PAY

The CDPP does not provide for performance pay.

SECTION 24(1) DETERMINATION

In 2017–18, there were three determinations pursuant to section 24(1) of the Public Service Act 1999.

WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY

We are committed to providing and maintaining a safe and healthy workplace for all staff, in accordance with the requirements of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

See Appendix 3 for information about our work health and safety arrangements (in accordance with Schedule 2, Part 4 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011).

WORKPLACE WELLBEING PROGRAM

Our wellbeing program is part of our commitment to investing in our people. It is an integral part of our Work Health and Safety (WHS) arrangements and establishes a framework to strengthen and synchronise wellbeing policy and practice across the CDPP. The program is centred on two pillars:

• Healthy People—encourages workers to adopt healthy lifestyles through education, awareness and activities
• Healthy Places—creates a healthy, supportive workplace environment through culture, policies and facilities.

The program comprises eight key initiatives that represent a holistic approach to support the health and wellbeing of all staff through a range of tailored initiatives, promotions, education and wellness strategies.

Activities under the program include:

• Wellbeing checks. All legal and support staff are required to undertake wellbeing checks. Wellbeing checks assess our employees’ wellbeing at regular intervals and support staff by providing strategies and assistance or a referral pathway where there is a potential risk of psychological injury or cumulative stress.More frequent checks are undertaken of employees who are working in areas at high risk of exposure to material that could result in trauma or stress. In addition, employees are required to undertake a check before working in these higher risk areas. Since the start of the program, we have completed a total of 435 wellbeing checks across the CDPP. 
• The Employee Assistance Program (EAP). This provides CDPP staff and their immediate family members 24/7 access to free confidential counselling services by experienced psychologists.
• Awareness sessions. These sessions, carried out across all our offices for managers and staff, focused on general awareness of WHS, staff and managers’ responsibilities and duty of care, as well as sessions on vicarious trauma, resilience and constructive communication.
• Flu vaccination. Our annual flu vaccination program in March 2018 offered all staff free influenza vaccinations. A total of 167 staff registered to have influenza vaccinations through the program.
• Ergonomic Workstation Assessments (EWA). These are offered to staff who have completed an online selfassessment to ensure workstations are suitably adjusted and to reduce the risk of injury. External qualified assessors have carried out 52 EWAs since September 2016.
• Wellbeing reimbursements. We recognise that staff who are fit and healthy will be more productive in the workplace. Staff are therefore encouraged to participate, in their own time, in activities that promote good health. A total of 138 staff were reimbursed for expenditure on approved health and wellbeing activities and equipment as part of the Employee Health Initiative.
• Health and Wellbeing Portal. This online resource offers our staff health and wellbeing resources and interactive lifestyle programs to proactively assist them with their own holistic health and wellbeing journey. Since it was launched, the portal has been accessed 3,228 times.
• Workplace Wellbeing Program Stakeholder Committee. We established this committee as a collaborative working group, which brings together representatives from all practice groups and corporate areas, with a senior executive as its sponsor. The committee reviews the operation and effectiveness of the Workplace Wellbeing Program, makes recommendations for improvement and provides input to the program’s future direction.

WORKPLACE DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION

Diversity and inclusion are principles integral to the CDPP. They strengthen our ability to provide a fair, equitable and consistent prosecution service for the community.

We recognise that diversity takes many forms—cultural background, caring responsibilities, gender, sexual orientation, education, profession and life experience—and celebrate this through the promotion of diversity across our office.

Our Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2018–20, launched in 2018, focuses on three key principles of valuing diversity and inclusion, opportunities for all, and knowledge and understanding.

Our newly established Diversity Network is an employee-led group that meets regularly to discuss matters related to gender, disability, cultural and linguistic diversity, and Indigenous identification. It also provides input and feedback into HR policies and initiatives from a diversity and inclusion perspective and supports and promotes inclusion in the office through a variety of events and initiatives.

See page 146 for more details about our Diversity and Inclusion Strategy or visit www.cdpp.gov.au.

RECONCILIATION ACTION PLAN 

Our Reconciliation Action Plan 2018–2019 was endorsed by Reconciliation Australia in June 2018. It provides the foundation for building a culturally supportive, knowledgeable and responsive workforce, and demonstrates our commitment to building positive relationships and investigating employment opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People. 

Table 23: Employees by diversity group at 30 June 2018

NATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

The National Administrative Support team provides a range of specialist and general administrative support services to prosecutors. The team focuses on delivering timely quality services to support the day-to-day needs of the legal practice, and has a physical presence in each office location.

This year, the team embedded the use of its national service offering along with a dynamic e-form that details a full range of support activities and functions provided to the legal practice nationally. Over the past 12 months these two key pieces of architecture have become critical for the team to identify priority service, and now allow for more targeted workload and resource management on a national basis.

The changing needs of the legal practice and introduction of caseHQ will see the service offer and skill set of the team continue to evolve.

See page 128 for more details on caseHQ. 

COMMUNICATIONS AND MEDIA

The Communications team strengthens our engagement, collaboration and communications with stakeholders, including staff, partner agencies, media, state and territory counterparts, and the broader Australian community. During 2017–18, the team delivered an extensive program of work.
Internal communications initiatives included:

• enhancing our intranet (e-hub) with the introduction of an interactive organisation chart (e-chart), collaboration tool (e-talk) and custom profile tools for counsel and legal subject matters experts
• launching a bespoke digital job tracking tool for our National Administrative Support team, known as the Admin Request e-Form (ARF) which enables our legal staff to request and tasks across a vast range of services nationally
• delivering our inaugural Innovation Competition with a unique marketing campaign to encourage widespread participation
• developing and delivering internal campaigns and events to engage staff in initiatives and major projects including celebrating achievements and acknowledging successes. 
• Projects related to communication with partner agencies included:
• working with practice groups and industry partners to promote prosecution outcomes and emerging crime types 
• launching a bespoke interactive engagement framework for the Australian Taxation Office on our Partner Agency Portal, to support investigators and prosecutors better understand the lifecycle of matters
• supporting practice groups to design, develop and deliver professional partner agency liaison events and conferences
• managing the Partner Agency Satisfaction Survey.
• Work to educate the community and provide media liaison included:
• promoting prosecution outcomes across a range of crime types on the CDPP website
• providing prosecutors with resources, presentations and promotional materials to take to conferences, forums and career events
• responding to media enquiries and working collaboratively with partner agencies on joint media opportunities in serious financial crime matters.

TECHNOLOGY

The CDPP’s computing environment is made up of a national network covering all our offices across Australia. 
The focus for 2017–18 was to continue delivering fit-for-purpose products with a key focus on aligning the ICT systems to meet the digital objectives of our business. These activities included:

• expanding the mobile computing and secure remote access platforms to enable CDPP employees to work from any location in a flexible manner
• piloting the Digital Referrals Gateway to enable secure submission of electronic briefs
• migrating new business systems to cloud-based environments
• standardising the CDPP’s computer infrastructure to a single operating environment
• helping develop and implement a dynamic digital organisation chart, e-Charts, via CDPP intranet
• implementing an identity management solution to provide base functionality between our Human Resource Management System and Active Directory
• upgrading the Human Resource Management System to a cloud-based environment.

Our Technology team continued to collaborate with our legal business to enhance the newly configured digital case management platform by:

• establishing core platform components for an enterprise reporting platform
• establishing core infrastructure and operating platforms for our new case management system, caseHQ
• implementing middleware and software patterns for message-based integration between our core systems
• on-boarding caseHQ, CRIMS, Technology One, Identity Management and Digital Referrals Gateway to the integration middleware platform.

LIBRARY, RESEARCH AND INFORMATION SERVICES

The Library and Research Services team supports the work of the legal practice groups by providing high-level research services and managing access to legal resources and training. The team operates a National Research Support Helpdesk that delivers a high quality and efficient research service equitably to all staff.

The Library and Research Services structure was reviewed and restructured in 2017. The aim is to develop a service that aligns with CDPP priorities and is tailored to the needs of the practice groups. A national coordinator administers the system and oversees a team of librarians delivering services in the following key areas: 

• research
• online and physical resources
• cataloguing and current awareness 
• training.

Improvements to our Library Management System have also enhanced our search and reporting capabilities. 

RECORDS MANAGEMENT

The Records Management Team supports the work of the CDPP by providing a range of specialised and general records management activities.

This year, targeted training was provided to staff in the National Administration Support team who perform records management activities, to increase awareness of their roles and responsibilities, and provide greater support to the legal practice groups. 

A Records Management Community of Practice was established to help develop and implement nationally consistent practices as the CDPP transitions to a digital environment. Another area of focus has been the review and sentencing of legacy paper records with a view to reducing our offsite storage holdings.

Our new virtual case and document management system, caseHQ, has been developed to incorporate records and information management functionality, in line with the whole-of-government Digital Continuity 2020 Policy, to enable a transition to a digital environment.

FINANCE

The Finance Services teams provide policy, reporting, and advisory support to the CDPP across all areas of finance. Services provided include:

• procurement, contracts, financial delegations and approving expenditure of public money for goods and services
• payment of accounts payable and receivable, credit cards, petty cash and staff reimbursements
• travel management including booking tool administration, processing movement requisitions, allowances and payments
• policy and guidance including the Director’s Finance Instructions and financial delegations
• administration of the Financial Management Information System
• financial reporting, budgets and asset management.

See page 156 for more information about financial management reporting and key initiatives in 2017–18. 

STRATEGIC PROPERTY PROGRAM

As part of our strategic property program we are implementing new flexible, modern work environments that integrate technology and ergonomics to allow improved work practices and efficiencies for the legal and corporate practices. This program is being progressively rolled out to all CDPP sites as leases expire. 

This year the Canberra and Darwin offices relocated to new premises respectively. 

MODERNISATION OF NOMINATION OF COUNSEL FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION

A project was undertaken to improve the financial administration of the CDPP’s Nomination of Counsel (NOC) procurement and payment processes. TechnologyOne, the CDPP’s Financial Management Information System, used Business Process Automation functionality to create an electronic end-to-end process solution. This consists of a series of business forms to create, workflow, and manage related procurement and payment processes. The solution simplifies internal processes with an overall improvement in efficiency. 

FINANCIALS

FINANCIALS

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

The audited financial statements included in this report were prepared in accordance with the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Financial Reporting) Rule 2015. Detailed information on the accounting policies used to prepare the audited financial statements is at Note 1 to the financial statements.

Under current Budget arrangements, the CDPP has one government outcome with one program of activities to achieve this outcome. Further information about our agency’s budget can be found in the Attorney-General’s Portfolio Budget Statements.
There were no significant instances of non-compliance with the finance law.

FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

Our operations are primarily funded through parliamentary appropriations but we also receive a small component (8.6 per cent) of revenue independently. The Australian Taxation Office transfers part of its appropriation to us to cover the cost of prosecutions for offences under, for example goods and services tax (GST) legislation. The amount receipted in 2017–18 under this arrangement was $3.5 million. This is accounted for under an arrangement pursuant to section 74 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) as agency revenue, and retained for our use.

OPERATING RESULTS

Our operating revenue for 2017–18 was $85.619 million, which is a decrease of $0.997 million from 2016–17. 

Operating expenses for 2017–18 were $84.049 million (excluding depreciation and amortisation expenses). This is an increase of $1.623 million compared with 2016–17. The increase was mainly due to our expenses for external legal counsel and contractors across 2017–18. 

The operating result for 2017–18 was a surplus of $1.582 million, excluding depreciation and amortisation expenses (in line with the Australian Government’s net cash appropriation arrangements).

ASSET MANAGEMENT

Our major assets are office fit-out, office furniture, computer equipment, purchased software and library holdings. We conduct an annual stocktake to ensure the accuracy of our asset records.

PURCHASING

We undertook our procurement and purchasing in 2017–18 in accordance with the principles set out in the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, which are underpinned by value for money.

We adhere to the core purchasing policies and principles in the Commonwealth Procurement Rules including encouraging competition among actual and potential suppliers, promoting the use of resources in an efficient, effective, economical and ethical manner, and being accountable and transparent during the procurement process.

We apply these principles to our procurement activities through the Director’s Finance Instructions and supporting guidelines, which have been developed to ensure we undertake competitive, non-discriminatory procurement processes, use resources efficiently, effectively, economically and ethically, and make decisions in an accountable and transparent manner

CONSULTANCY SERVICES

We engage consultants where we lack specialist expertise or when independent research, review or assessment is required. Typically, we engage consultants to investigate or diagnose a defined issue or problem, carry out defined reviews or evaluations, or provide independent advice, information or creative solutions to assist in our decision making.

Before we engage consultants, we take into account the skills and resources required for the task, the skills available internally, and the cost-effectiveness of engaging external expertise. We make decisions to engage a consultant in line with the PGPA Act and related regulations (including the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and relevant internal policies).

Annual reports contain information about actual expenditure on contracts for consultancies. Information on the value of contracts and consultancies is available on the AusTender website:  www.tenders.gov.au.

During 2017–18, we entered into 25 new consultancy contracts with a total actual expenditure of $621,501 (including GST). In addition, nine ongoing consultancy contracts were active during 2017–18, involving a total actual expenditure of $479,298 (including GST).

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE ACCESS CLAUSES

During the reporting period, we did not let any contracts for $100,000 or more (including GST) that do not provide for the Auditor-General to have access to the contractor’s premises.

EXEMPT CONTRACTS 

We have exempted the publication of details of prosecution legal counsel on the basis that to do so would disclose exempt matters under the Freedom of Information Act 1982.

PROCUREMENT INITIATIVES TO SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESS

We support small business participation in the Commonwealth Government procurement market. Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) and Small Enterprise participation statistics are available on the Department of Finance’s website: www. finance.gov.au/procurement/statistics-oncommonwealth-purchasingcontracts/.

We recognise the importance of ensuring that small businesses are paid on time. The results of the survey of Australian Government Payments to Small Business are available on the Treasury’s website: www.treasury.gov.au/.

Some of the ways that our procurement practices support SMEs include:

• using the Commonwealth Contracting Suite for low-risk procurements valued under $200,000
• communicating in clear, simple language and presenting information in an accessible format
• adhering to the Pay on Time Policy relating to paying small business suppliers.

EXTERNAL SCRUTINY

The Auditor-General issued an unqualified audit report for the CDPP’s 2017–18 financial statements.

No other reports that included information on our operations were issued by the Auditor-General, a Parliamentary committee, or the Commonwealth Ombudsman. There was no agency capability review of our operations during 2017–18.

During the reporting period, there were no decisions of administrative tribunals or the Australian Information Commissioner that have had or may have a significant impact on our operations.

LEGAL SERVICES EXPENDITURE

The Legal Services Directions 2017 require agencies to report expenditure on legal services.

These directions are not intended to cover the handling of criminal prosecutions and related proceedings (see General Note 4 to the Directions). Therefore, our report relates to our administrative activities only.

Our total expenditure on legal services (excluding the handling of criminal prosecutions and related proceedings) during 2017–18 was $141,707 (excluding GST). Further details are in the following table.

This is a statement of legal services expenditure published in compliance with paragraph 11.1(ba) of the Legal Services Directions 2017. 

Table 24: Legal services expenditure in 2017–18 

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For the period ended 30 June 2018

INDEPENDENT AUDITORʼS REPORT

To the Attorney-General

Opinion

In my opinion, the financial statements of the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutionsfor the year ended 30 June 2018:

(a) comply with Australian Accounting Standards –Reduced Disclosure Requirementsand the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Financial Reporting) Rule 2015; and

(b) present fairly the financial position of the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions as at 30 June 2018 and its financial performance and cash flows for the year then ended.

The financial statements of the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, which I have audited,comprisethe following statements as at 30 June 2018and for the year then ended:

• Statement by the Accountable Authorityand Chief FinancialOfficer;
• Statement of Comprehensive Income;
• Statement of Financial Position;
• Statement of Changes in Equity;
• Cash Flow Statement;and
• Notes to and forming part of the financial statements.

Basis for Opinion

I conducted my audit in accordance with the Australian National Audit Office Auditing Standards, which incorporate the Australian Auditing Standards. My responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditorʼs Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of my report. I am independent of the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements for financial statement audits conducted by the Auditor-General and his delegates. These include the relevant independence requirements of the Accounting Professional and Ethical Standards Boardʼs APES 110 Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (the Code) to the extent that they are not in conflict with the Auditor-General Act 1997. I have also fulfilled my other responsibilities in accordance with the Code. I believe that the audit evidence I have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for my opinion.

Accountable Authorityʼs Responsibility for the Financial Statements

As the Accountable Authority of the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions the Directoris responsible under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 for the preparation and fair presentation of annual financial statements that comply with Australian Accounting Standards –Reduced Disclosure Requirementsand the rules made under that Act. The Directoris also responsible for such internal control as theDirectordetermines is necessary to enable the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

In preparing the financial statements, the Director is responsible for assessing the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutionsʼ ability to continue as a going concern, taking into account whether the entityʼs operations will cease as a result of an administrative restructure or for any other reason. The Director is also responsible for disclosing, as applicable, matters related to going concern and using the going concern basis of accounting unless the assessment indicates that it is not appropriate.

GPO Box 707 CANBERRA ACT 2601

19 National Circuit BARTON  ACT

Phone (02) 6203 7300   Fax (02) 6203 7777

Auditorʼs Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements

My objective is to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditorʼs report that includes my opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with the Australian National Audit Office Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of the financial statements.

As part of an audit in accordance with the Australian National Audit Office Auditing Standards, I exercise professional judgement and maintain professional scepticism throughout the audit. I also:

• identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks, and obtain audit evidence that is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for my opinion. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control;
• obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to designaudit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entityʼs internal control;
• evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates and related disclosures made by the Accountable Authority;
• conclude on the appropriateness of the Accountable Authorityʼs use of the going concern basis of accounting and, based on the audit evidence obtained, whether a material uncertainty exists related to events or conditions that may cast significant doubt on the entityʼs ability to continue as a going concern. If I conclude that a material uncertainty exists, I am required to draw attention in my auditorʼs report to the related disclosures in the financial statements or, if such disclosures are inadequate, to modify my opinion. My conclusions are based on the audit evidence obtained up to the date of my auditorʼs report. However, future events or conditions may cause the entity to cease tocontinue as a going concern; and
• evaluate the overall presentation, structure and content of the financial statements, including the disclosures, and whether the financial statements represent the underlying transactions and events in a manner that achieves fair presentation.

I communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and significant audit findings, including any significant deficiencies in internal control that I identify during my audit.
Australian National Audit Office

Rebecca Reilly

Executive Director

Delegate of the Auditor-General

Canberra

20 September 2018

OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS STATEMENT BY THE ACCOUNTABLE AUTHORITY AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

In our opinion, the attached financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2018 comply with subsection 42(2) of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act), and are based on properly maintained financial records as per subsection 41(2) of the PGPA Act . In our opinion, at the date of this statement, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions will be able to pay its debts as and when they fall due.

Sarah McNaughton SC Director (Chief Executive)

Steven Burggraaff A/g Chief Financial Officer

20 September 2018

OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS STATEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

For the period ended 30 June 2018

The above statement should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notes. 

Accounting Policy 

Equity injections

Amounts appropriated which are designated as ʻequity injectionsʼ for a year (less any formal reductions) and Departmental Capital Budgets (DCBs) are recognised directly in contributed equity in that year. 

OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS CASH FLOW STATEMENT

For the period ended 30 June 2018

OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS NOTES TO AND FORMING PART OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

For the period ended 30 June 2018

Note 4:Expenses

OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS NOTES TO AND FORMING PART OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

For the period ended 30 June 2018

Note 6:Financial Assets

APPENDICES AND REFERENCES

APPENDIX 1:  LIST OF REQUIREMENTS  2017–18

Below is the table set out in Schedule 2 of the PGPA Rule. Section 17AJ(d) requires this table to be included in entities’ annual reports as an aid of access.

Table 25: List of requirements 2017–18