Lyons v State of Queensland - [2015] QCA 159

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lyons v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 159

PARTIES:

GAYE PRUDENCE LYONS
(applicant)
v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 11013 of 2014
QCAT Appeal No 8 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act

ORIGINATING COURT:

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal at Brisbane – [2014] QCATA 302

DELIVERED ON:

28 August 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 May 2015

JUDGES:

Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION – INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION – where the applicant, who was deaf, was excluded from jury service by a Deputy Registrar – where the applicant made a complaint of indirect discrimination – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal a decision of the Appeal Tribunal of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal – where the Tribunal Member found, and the Appeal Tribunal agreed, that the Deputy Registrar had not imposed a term on the applicant’s participation as a juror – where the applicant argues that the Appeal Tribunal erred in its construction and application of s 11 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) by failing to conclude that the respondent had imposed a term that the applicant be able to communicate by conventional speech in the jury room – where the applicant further argues that the Appeal Tribunal erred by failing to consider an alternative term that the applicant be able to participate in jury activities without the assistance of an Auslan interpreter – where the applicant conceded that there was no real difference between the terms – whether the Appeal Tribunal erred – whether leave to appeal should be granted

HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION – DIRECT DISCRIMINATION – where the applicant, who was deaf, was excluded from jury service by a Deputy Registrar – where the applicant made a complaint of direct discrimination – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal a decision of the Appeal Tribunal of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal – where the Appeal Tribunal concluded that the reason for the Deputy Registrar’s exclusion of the applicant was a consideration of all of the circumstances and the effect of the interpretation of the Jury Act 1995 (Qld) with respect to the impermissibility of allowing an additional person in the jury room – where the applicant argues that the Appeal Tribunal erred in concluding that her impairment was not the reason for her exclusion, rather than considering whether it was a substantial reason for it – where the applicant argues that her impairment was inextricably linked to her requirement of an Auslan interpreter – whether the Appeal Tribunal erred – whether leave to appeal should be granted

HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION – DIRECT DISCRIMINATION – where the applicant, who was deaf, was excluded from jury service by the Deputy Registrar – where the…

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 Lyons 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] QCA 159
Decision Date: 28 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, who is deaf, brought a case against the State of Queensland after being excluded from jury service by a Deputy Registrar. The applicant argued that this exclusion constituted indirect discrimination, and further claimed that the exclusion was due to direct discrimination. The case was brought before the Appeal Tribunal of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed the applicant's claims. The applicant then sought leave to appeal this decision.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Appeal Tribunal erred in its construction and application of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). Specifically, the applicant argued that the Tribunal had incorrectly determined that the Deputy Registrar did not impose a term that the applicant be able to communicate by conventional speech in the jury room, and that the Tribunal failed to consider an alternative term regarding the applicant's ability to participate without the assistance of an Auslan interpreter. Additionally, the applicant contended that the Tribunal erred in concluding that her impairment was not the reason for her exclusion, rather than considering whether it was a substantial reason for it. Lastly, the applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to exclude from consideration the need for an interpreter, which amounted to taking into account the fact that the applicant required special services, contrary to section 10(5) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).

The court examined the arguments presented and concluded that the Appeal Tribunal did not err in its interpretation of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The court found that the Tribunal correctly determined that the Deputy Registrar did not impose a term that the applicant be able to communicate by conventional speech in the jury room, and that the Tribunal adequately considered the applicant's need for an Auslan interpreter. Furthermore, the court found that the Tribunal correctly concluded that the applicant's impairment was not the reason for her exclusion, as the reason was a consideration of all of the circumstances and the effect of the interpretation of the Jury Act 1995 (Qld) with respect to the impermissibility of allowing an additional person in the jury room. The court also determined that the Tribunal did not err in its consideration of the need for an interpreter, as it was not a special service that amounted to direct discrimination.

The application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal is refused.

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.

CITATION:	Lyons v State of Queensland [2015] QCA 159
PARTIES:	GAYE PRUDENCE LYONS (applicant) v STATE OF QUEENSLAND (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 11013 of 2014 QCAT Appeal No 8 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act
ORIGINATING COURT:	Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal at Brisbane – [2014] QCATA 302
DELIVERED ON:	28 August 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 May 2015
JUDGES:	Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION – INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION – where the applicant, who was deaf, was excluded from jury service by a Deputy Registrar – where the applicant made a complaint of indirect discrimination – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal a decision of the Appeal Tribunal of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal – where the Tribunal Member found, and the Appeal Tribunal agreed, that the Deputy Registrar had not imposed a term on the applicant’s participation as a juror – where the applicant argues that the Appeal Tribunal erred in its construction and application of s 11 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) by failing to conclude that the respondent had imposed a term that the applicant be able to communicate by conventional speech in the jury room – where the applicant further argues that the Appeal Tribunal erred by failing to consider an alternative term that the applicant be able to participate in jury activities without the assistance of an Auslan interpreter – where the applicant conceded that there was no real difference between the terms – whether the Appeal Tribunal erred – whether leave to appeal should be granted HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION – DIRECT DISCRIMINATION – where the applicant, who was deaf, was excluded from jury service by a Deputy Registrar – where the applicant made a complaint of direct discrimination – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal a decision of the Appeal Tribunal of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal – where the Appeal Tribunal concluded that the reason for the Deputy Registrar’s exclusion of the applicant was a consideration of all of the circumstances and the effect of the interpretation of the Jury Act 1995 (Qld) with respect to the impermissibility of allowing an additional person in the jury room – where the applicant argues that the Appeal Tribunal erred in concluding that her impairment was not the reason for her exclusion, rather than considering whether it was a substantial reason for it – where the applicant argues that her impairment was inextricably linked to her requirement of an Auslan interpreter – whether the Appeal Tribunal erred – whether leave to appeal should be granted HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION – DIRECT DISCRIMINATION – where the applicant, who was deaf, was excluded from jury service by the Deputy Registrar – where the…