South Australia's Chief Justice has accused the Attorney-General of undermining the administration of justice by failing to appoint two replacement judges to the Supreme Court.

Key points: Two judges who left their positions in the SA Supreme Court this year are yet to be replaced

Two judges who left their positions in the SA Supreme Court this year are yet to be replaced The Chief Justice says he has made "repeated requests" to replacements

The Chief Justice says he has made "repeated requests" to replacements The Attorney-General says the positions will not be filled until legislation for a new Court of Appeal passes

Chief Justice Chris Kourakis said an "unacceptable burden" had been placed on the Supreme Court, in a letter to a parliamentary committee last month.

"The failure to appoint permanent judges has strained the capacity of the Supreme Court Judges to properly discharge their duties," he wrote to parliamentarians.

Justice Ann Vanstone retired from the Supreme Court in June, and in July Justice Martin Hinton was announced as the state's next top prosecutor.

"From that time, it has not been possible, for obvious reasons, to list Justice Hinton to hear any other cases," Chief Justice Kourakis wrote.

He said he had made "repeated requests" for the vacancies to be filled "as soon as possible".

"The decision not to make permanent appointments to fill those vacancies has affected a substantial, 16 per cent, reduction in the capacity of the court," he wrote.

"It undermines the proper administration of justice by this state's highest court."

The Supreme Court is able to appoint 'auxiliary' judges, including retired judges and judges from other courts, to help with its workload.

But Chief Justice Kourakis said this system was being used inappropriately.

"Auxiliary Justice David, who retired in 2014, has been included in the judge's roster as if he were a permanent judge," he wrote.

"Retired judges are often not available."

The State Government is planning to introduce a new Court of Appeal, with a bill currently before Parliament.

No new judges until legislation passes: Attorney-General

Attorney-General Vickie Chapman said she would not be appointing any new judges until that legislation passed.

"If it passes, it will be necessary to appoint judges to the court with the necessary skills and expertise to undertake the specialist functions of that court," Ms Chapman said.

"It would therefore be irresponsible of me to recommend to the Governor that he make appointments to the Supreme Court at this time.

"The sooner the bill gets through Parliament, the sooner these appointments will be made."

Attorney-General Vickie Chapman is planning to introduce a new Court of Appeal. ( ABC News: Nick Harmsen )

She said she did not share the Chief Justice's reservations about using auxiliary appointments to fill vacancies in the Supreme Court.

However, defence lawyer Craig Caldicott told ABC Radio Adelaide delaying the appointment of two judges was unacceptable.

"When you're down two Supreme Court justices clearly it means there will be a backlog of work and things will grind slowly through the courts, a lot slower than they would otherwise," he said.

"Anything that causes that sort of delay is unacceptable."

Mr Caldicott said waiting for a decision on the Court of Criminal Appeal could mean the judges would not be replaced for up to a year.

Opposition not supportive of bill

He said he suspected the State Government was also delaying the appointments to save money.

"This is one way the Government can save money by not reappointing Supreme Court justices, that saves them a fairly large amount of money," he said.

"I pity the poor persons who are waiting for judgments or are waiting for their case to be heard."

Shadow Attorney-General Kyam Maher said using auxiliary judges from other courts, would have a flow-on effect.

He urged the Government to appoint the judges as soon as possible.

"Her reasoning is that 'well this will try and force people to give me what I want', and that is a full-time court of appeal," he said.

"There is a very simple solution, use the budget that's allocated for your 13 Supreme Court judges and get on with hearing cases and let the Parliament decide whether your court of appeal has merit or not.

"Don't delay it for a year or two."

He said the Opposition did not support Ms Chapman's bill as there were too many unanswered questions including how many judges would be appointed to the court.