Lyons v Queensland

This case concerned an appeal by a deaf person, Mr. Lyons, who had been summoned for jury service but was subsequently excluded from the jury panel. Mr. Lyons required the assistance of Auslan interpreters to participate fully as a juror, and the dispute centred on whether his exclusion constituted unlawful discrimination and whether the presence of an interpreter in the jury room during deliberations was permissible under Queensland law. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the exclusion of Mr. Lyons from jury service amounted to unlawful discrimination based on his disability, and, more fundamentally, whether a deaf person requiring an Auslan interpreter could lawfully perform the functions of a juror, particularly in relation to jury deliberations, under the *Jury Act 1995* (Qld). The State contended that the phrase "perform the functions of a juror" encompassed both listening to evidence and participating in deliberations without the need for a non-juror to be present.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, focused on the common law requirement that a jury be kept separate from external influence. The Court held that the presence of a person other than a juror in the jury room during deliberations, even if that person did not participate in the discussions, constituted an incurable irregularity. This prohibition is designed to protect the jury from the suggestion of external influence and to promote the frank exchange of views among jurors, who are bound by their oath and responsible for the verdict. The Court found that absent specific statutory provision, disclosure of jury deliberations to an Auslan interpreter could not be permitted, as it would breach this fundamental principle.