Lyons v State of Queensland

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.