Macras v Victoria Police - [2019] FCA 1848

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Macras v Victoria Police [2019] FCA 1848

Appeal from: Application for leave to appeal: Macras v Victoria Police [2018] FCCA 1908

File number: VID 979 of 2018

Judge: DAVIES J

Date of judgment: 13 November 2019

Catchwords: HUMAN RIGHTS – discrimination – application for leave to appeal from Federal Circuit Court of Australia – applicant diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder – claim that police interception and illicit drug tests constituted discrimination on basis of disability – causal requirements in ss 5(1) and 6 of Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) – no reasonable prospects of success – application dismissed

Legislation:
Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46PO

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ss 5, 6, 8, 39, 42

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) s 17A

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r 13.10

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 4.12

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth)

Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (Vic) s 14

Cases cited:
Bellamy’s Australia Ltd v Basil [2019] FCAFC 147

BVG17 v BVH17 [2019] FCAFC 17

Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397

Luck v University of Southern Queensland [2014] FCAFC 135

Mulligan v Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd (2015) 234 FCR 207; [2015] FCAFC 130

MZABP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 242 FCR 585; [2015] FCA 1391

Purvis v State of New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) (2003) 217 CLR 92; [2003] HCA 62

Robinson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] FCAFC 64

Sklavos v Australasian College of Dermatologists (2017) 256 FCR 247; [2017] FCAFC 128

Tropoulos v Journey Lawyers Pty Ltd (2019) 287 IR 363; [2019] FCA 436

Date of hearing: 30 May 2019

Registry: Victoria

Division: General Division

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 27

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr C Tran

Solicitor for the Respondent: Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

ORDERS

VID 979 of 2018

BETWEEN:
STEPHEN MACRAS

Applicant

AND:
VICTORIA POLICE

Respondent

JUDGE:

DAVIES J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 NOVEMBER 2019

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the costs of the respondent, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DAVIES J:

The applicant, Mr Macras, has applied for an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal and for leave to appeal the decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (“FCC”) in Macras v Victoria Police [2018] FCCA 1908. An extension of time is not required because Mr Macras filed his application for leave within 14 days after the date on which the FCC pronounced the orders. Leave to…

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 Macras v Victoria Police 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: [2019] FCA 1848
Decision Date: 13 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Macras v Victoria Police involves an application for leave to appeal to the High Court from a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant, Macras, who has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, argues that the police interception and administration of illicit drug tests amounted to discrimination on the grounds of disability, contrary to the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). The legal issues before the court were whether the actions of the police constituted discrimination under the Act and whether the applicant had satisfied the causal requirements set out in sections 5(1) and 6 of the Act.

The court considered the definitions of discrimination and disability under the Act, noting that discrimination on the basis of disability occurs when a person with a disability is treated less favourably than another person without the disability, in circumstances related to the disability, and where the treatment cannot be justified. The court further examined the causal requirements, which involve a substantial adverse effect on the person with a disability due to the disability, as a result of the conduct in question. After weighing the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

In accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, the orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed, and that the applicant pay the costs of the respondent, with costs to be taxed in default of agreement. This decision underscores the importance of meeting the stringent criteria for leave to appeal and highlights the court's approach to assessing discrimination claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondent, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.

Appeal from:	Application for leave to appeal: Macras v Victoria Police [2018] FCCA 1908
File number:	VID 979 of 2018
Judge:	DAVIES J
Date of judgment:	13 November 2019
Catchwords:	HUMAN RIGHTS – discrimination – application for leave to appeal from Federal Circuit Court of Australia – applicant diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder – claim that police interception and illicit drug tests constituted discrimination on basis of disability – causal requirements in ss 5(1) and 6 of Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) – no reasonable prospects of success – application dismissed
Legislation:	Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46PO Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ss 5, 6, 8, 39, 42 Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) s 17A Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r 13.10 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 24 Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 4.12 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 (Vic) s 14
Cases cited:	Bellamy’s Australia Ltd v Basil [2019] FCAFC 147 BVG17 v BVH17 [2019] FCAFC 17 Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 Luck v University of Southern Queensland [2014] FCAFC 135 Mulligan v Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd (2015) 234 FCR 207; [2015] FCAFC 130 MZABP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 242 FCR 585; [2015] FCA 1391 Purvis v State of New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) (2003) 217 CLR 92; [2003] HCA 62 Robinson v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force [2013] FCAFC 64 Sklavos v Australasian College of Dermatologists (2017) 256 FCR 247; [2017] FCAFC 128 Tropoulos v Journey Lawyers Pty Ltd (2019) 287 IR 363; [2019] FCA 436
Date of hearing:	30 May 2019
Registry:	Victoria
Division:	General Division
National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	27
Counsel for the Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr C Tran
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

JUDGE:	DAVIES J
DATE OF ORDER:	13 NOVEMBER 2019