High Court dismisses appeal by deaf juror

On 5 October 2016, the Full Bench of the High Court delivered its judgment unanimously dismissing an appeal by Ms Gaye Lyons against the Queensland Court of Appeal’s decision in which Ms Lyons’ claim of impairment discrimination was dismissed.

The High Court’s decision confirms the ability of the District Court to continue its practice of finding persons who are deaf to be ineligible to perform service on a jury.

Background

Ms Lyons is a hearing impaired person who was summonsed to perform jury service at the Ipswich District Court in February 2012. The Department of Justice and Attorney-General (through the Deputy Registrar of the Ipswich District Court) involuntarily excused Ms Lyons from performing jury service, following Ms Lyons’ request that two Australian Sign Language (Auslan) interpreters be engaged by the Department so that she could participate in jury service.

In a complaint filed with the Anti-Discrimination Commission, Ms Lyons claimed that this conduct constituted less favourable treatment of her in comparison to the Department’s treatment of other persons who are summonsed to perform jury service. Ms Lyons alleged that the Department directly and indirectly discriminated against her on the basis of impairment in the areas of the administration of State laws and programs, and goods and services. Ms Lyons brought her complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.

Following an unsuccessful conference before the Commission, the complaint was referred to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed Ms Lyons’ complaint.

Ms Lyons appealed the decision of the Tribunal to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Appeal Tribunal (QCATA). The QCATA upheld the decision of the Tribunal. The QCATA’s decision was subsequently the subject of Ms Lyons’ appeal before the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed.

Ms Lyons then filed an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court on 25 September 2015 against the whole of the Court of Appeal’s decision, which was allowed. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the High Court on 25 July 2016.

Ms Lyons was represented at the hearing of the appeal by Ms Kylie Nomchong QC and Mr Ben Fogarty of Counsel, instructed by the Australian Centre for Disability Law.

The judgment

Ultimately, the majority held that the Deputy Registrar was required under Queensland law to exclude Ms Lyons from the jury panel. This was because it was found that the Deputy Registrar had rightly concluded that Ms Lyons was ineligible for jury service pursuant to s 4(3)(l) of the Jury Act 1995 because she had a physical disability that rendered her ‘incapable of effectively performing the functions of a juror.’ The exercise of the Deputy Registrar's powers in conformity with the command of the Jury Act did not infringe the Anti-Discrimination Act's prohibition on unlawful discrimination in the performance of a function or exercise of a power under Queensland law.

In separate reasons for dismissing the appeal, Gageler J held that the Deputy Registrar's exclusion of Ms Lyons from jury service was not in the performance of any function or the exercise of any power which she had within the ambit of s 101 of the Anti-Discrimination Act (relating to the administration of State laws and programs). Rather, the exclusion occurred in the course of the Deputy Registrar carrying out responsibility for the administration of the Jury Act in a genuine (and ultimately, justified) attempt to give effect to s 4(3)(l) of the Jury Act.

Now that the High Court’s judgment has been delivered, Ms Lyons has exhausted all appeal processes available to her in Australia in relation to her complaint.