Lyons v QueenslandCitation:[2016] HCA 38Before:French CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle JJDate:05 Oct 2016Case Number:B16/2016Read more

Lyons v QueenslandCitation:[2016] HCA 38Before:French CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle JJDate:05 Oct 2016Case Number:B16/2016Read more

A deaf person who requires the assistance of an interpreter in the jury room is ineligible for jury service under the Jury Act 1995 (Q), and their exclusion does not constitute unlawful discrimination.

Parties
Applicant: Unknown (Deaf Person); Respondent: Unknown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Discrimination Law Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Jury Service Eligibility, Interpreter Presence in Jury Deliberations
Discrimination Law Jury Law Disability Discrimination Jury Service Eligibility Interpreter Presence in Jury Deliberations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unknown (Deaf Person)

Applicant

Unknown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Discrimination Law Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exclusion of a deaf person from jury service due to need for Auslan interpreters constitutes unlawful discrimination
  2. 2 Whether interpreter presence in jury deliberations is permissible under Jury Act 1995 (Q)
  3. 3 Eligibility of deaf persons requiring interpreters for jury service

Ratio Decidendi

A deaf person who requires the assistance of an interpreter in the jury room is ineligible for jury service under the Jury Act 1995 (Q), and their exclusion does not constitute unlawful discrimination.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The exclusion of the deaf person from the jury panel was not unlawful discrimination.