Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38
In Queensland, the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 prohibits a person from discriminating against another on the basis of certain attributes. These attributes range from a persons’ sex, sexuality, age, relationship status, race to gender identify and marital status just to name a few. The Act also prohibits discrimination against a person based on impairment. Under the legislation, impairment is defined to include the total or partial loss of a person’s bodily functions.
On 5 October 2016, the High Court handed down its decision in relation to whether or not a deaf person could serve on a jury panel. The question which the High Court was required to answer was whether the Deputy Registrar of the Ipswich District Court, unlawfully discriminated against the appellant, Gaye Lyons by excluding her from a jury panel because she, a profoundly deaf person, required the services of an Australian Sign Language interpreter.
Upon receiving her jury duty summons the appellant wrote back to the Ipswich Courthouse, she said that she was “[l]ooking forward to sitting on the Jury”. She also advised that she was deaf and would require the services of an interpreter. The Deputy Registrar replied to Ms. Lyons as follows:-
“After confirming with the Sheriff at the Brisbane Supreme & District Courts, unfortunately you won’t be able to perform jury service.
There is no provision in the Jury Act to swear in an interpreter for a juror.
It also isn’t possible to have another person in the jury room other than the
jurors and bailiff whilst deliberating.
I will need to excuse you on that basis. If, in the future, you get another
jury questionnaire, please note on it that you are a deaf person.“
The Deputy Registrar defended her actions further using the Jury Act 1995, which states that a person is not eligible for jury service if that person has a physical or mental disability that makes them incapable of effectively performing the functions of a juror.
Ms. Lyon’s submissions to the High Court as to why she should be allowed to serve on a jury panel where:-
- That the Registrar and the lower Courts interpretation of the Jury Act was incorrect as it does not allow for harmonious operation with the Anti-Discrimination Act as the latter Act has the objective of promoting equality and opportunity for everyone and protecting them from unfair discrimination.
- The former legislation explicitly exempted persons who were blind, deaf, dumb, of unsound mind or where they were incapacitated by disease or infirmity. The appellant argued that the changes in the legislation were indicative of Parliament’s intentions that juries be a representation of the community as a whole.
- That the legislation imposes a functional test of whether or not an impaired person can understand the legal process, rather then automatic exclusion under the provisions due to impairment.
The State of Queensland submitted that:-
- The phrase ‘perform the functions of a juror’ in the Jury Act includes both listening to oral evidence and participating in the deliberations in the jury room without the need for non-jury members to be present. It was submitted that a deaf juror who is required to have their evidence mediated through an interpreter is not able to give a true verdict based upon his or her assessment of the evidence.
The High Court emphasised the importance of protecting the jury process, their reasoning was mirrored in earlier case law where assertions were made that “[t]he presence of a person other than a juror in a jury room is an incurable irregularity regardless of whether the person takes part in the jury’s deliberations”.
The Court found that there was no legislative provision that allowed an interpreter to be present during jury deliberations and that the exclusion of Ms. Lyons due to her deafness was not unlawful discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act.
If you feel you have been unlawfully discriminated against please do not hesitate to contact our office.
