Hunter v State of Queensland - [2015] QCAT 179

CITATION:

Hunter v State of Queensland [2015] QCAT 179

PARTIES:	Mark Hunter (Applicant)
v
State of Queensland (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

ADL037-14

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

HEARING DATE:

28 November 2014

HEARD AT:

Southport

DECISION OF:

Acting Senior Member Endicott

DELIVERED ON:

18 May 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

State of Queensland must pay $8,000 by way of compensation to Mark Hunter within 45 days.

CATCHWORDS:

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – where after being charged with an offence a person was required to give identification details to the police – where those identification details included providing fingerprints – where a wheelchair user was required to provide fingerprints via a scanning device fixed in a cabinet – where the device was not properly functional when used by a person in a wheelchair

IMPAIRMENT – where the process was prolonged and not straightforward for a person with an impairment unable to stand in front of the scanning device – where a person’s paralysed fingers could not be voluntarily opened to place on the scanning device – where after one unsuccessful attempt the operator continued to manually open a person’s paralysed fingers for further unsuccessful attempts – where the process was prolonged and not straightforward for a person with paralysed fingers

INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION – whether a requirement imposed that fingerprints were to be taken by the scanning device designed to be used while standing – where a person could not comply with that requirement – where persons unable to stand in front of the device could not comply – whether reasonable to impose requirement when another method for taking fingerprints was available

INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION – whether a requirement imposed that a person must place their opened hand onto scanning plate - where a person could not comply with that requirement – where persons with a paralysed hand who could not voluntarily place an opened hand onto the scanning plate – whether reasonable for an operator to repeatedly manually open the fingers of a person’s hand after one unsuccessful attempt at scanning

ACCESS TO PREMISES – where a person attended an office to collect a document – where there was restricted entry to that office – where a person due to impairment could not directly access the area of the office where the document could be collected in person – whether there was a requirement imposed that a person had to attend the office and climb a set of stairs to collect the document

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 ss 6(1), 7, 8, 11(1), 11(3), 101, 209, 209(5) and paragraphs 6(b) and (c) of Introduction to the Act

Australian Medical Council v Wilson (1996) 68 FCR
Williams v Robinson [2000] HREOCA 42
Bell v State of Queensland & Anor (no 1) [2014] QCAT 297
Essa v Laing Ltd [2004] IRLR 313
McCauley v Club Resort Holdings Pty Ltd (no 2) [2013] QCAT 243

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

Mark Hunter on his own behalf

RESPONDENT:

Susan Anderson of Counsel from the Public Safety Business Agency for the respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mark…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hunter v State of Queensland and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] QCAT 179
Decision Date: 18 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hunter v State of Queensland, the plaintiff, Mark Hunter, a wheelchair user, sought redress from the Queensland Police Service for indirect discrimination in the process of providing identification details, including fingerprints, following a criminal charge. Hunter alleged that the requirement to use a fingerprint scanning device, which was designed for standing users, placed him at a disadvantage and amounted to indirect discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The court had to determine whether the State's requirement to use the scanning device, despite its incompatibility with Hunter’s disability, was reasonable and whether the alternative method of taking fingerprints was sufficient to negate the discrimination claim.

The central legal issue was whether the State's method of fingerprint collection was indirectly discriminatory. Hunter argued that the requirement to use the scanning device, which was not accessible to wheelchair users or those with paralysed fingers, constituted indirect discrimination. The court had to assess whether the State's policy was reasonable under the circumstances, considering the availability of alternative methods to collect fingerprints. Furthermore, the court considered whether the State's requirement to collect the document from an office with restricted access, which involved climbing stairs, was discriminatory against persons with mobility impairments.

The court concluded that the State's requirement to use the scanning device was indirectly discriminatory, as it was not reasonably accessible to individuals with disabilities such as Hunter. The court found that the alternative method of taking fingerprints was not sufficient to negate the discrimination claim, as it was not reasonably accessible and did not provide a practical and dignified alternative. Additionally, the court held that the requirement to collect the document from an inaccessible office amounted to indirect discrimination against persons with mobility impairments. Consequently, the court ruled in Hunter's favour, holding the State of Queensland liable for indirect discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).

The State of Queensland was ordered to pay $8,000 to Mark Hunter by way of compensation within 45 days. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that public services and processes are reasonably accessible to all individuals, regardless of their physical abilities, to prevent indirect discrimination.

Orders

Orders of the court

State of Queensland must pay $8,000 by way of compensation to Mark Hunter within 45 days.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.