Minns v New South Wales - [2002] FMCA 60

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MINNS v STATE OF NSW

[2002] FMCA 60

HUMAN RIGHTS – Discrimination – alleged discrimination on account of disability – decision to place student on part time attendance – decision to exclude applicant from school by suspension and expulsion – where student excluded for continuous unacceptable behaviour – meaning of ‘disability’ within s.4 of Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) – direct discrimination – comparator for the purposes of s.5 of Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) – whether less favourable treatment on grounds of disability – indirect discrimination – requirement to comply with schools’ discipline policies – whether applicant unable to comply with discipline policies – whether discipline policies were unreasonable.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s.43PO(3)
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ss. 4, 5, 6, 22, 45

Waters v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 173 CLR 349
Australian Medical Council v Wilson (1996) 68 FCR 46
Marsden v HREOC & Coffs Harbour & District Ex-Servicemen & Women’s Memorial Club Ltd [2000] FCA 1619
Tate v Rafin [2000] FCA 1582
State of NSW (Department of Education) v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2001] FCA 1199
Purvis v State of NSW (Department of Education & Training) [2002] FCAFC 106
Department of Foreign Affairs v Styles (1989) 88 ALR 621
Australian Iron and Steel v Banovic (1987) 168 CLR 165
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (1998) 150 ALR 1
Bogle v Metropolitan Health Service Board (2002) EOC 93-069
Bonella & Ors v Wollongong City Council (2002) EOC 93-183
State of Victoria v Schou (2001) EOC 93-170
Travers v State of New South Wales [2001] FMCA 18

Applicant:

RYAN WAYNE MINNS

Respondent:

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING)

File No:

SZ 604 of 2001

Delivered on:

28 June 2002

Delivered at:

Sydney

Hearing Dates:

9, 10, 11, 12, 23 April, 28 May 2002

Judgment of:

Raphael FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr G Gemmell

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Mr J McClintock of Legal Aid (Newcastle)

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms C Ronalds

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Ms M Barbaro of Crown Solicitor’s Office

ORDERS

Application dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
PORT MACQUARIE

SZ 604 of 2001

RYAN WAYNE MINNS

Applicant

And

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING)

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

This is a claim bought pursuant to s.43PO(3) of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (“The HREOC Act”) alleging that the State of New South Wales through its Department of Education and Training breached ss. 5(1), 6 and 22(2) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (“the DDA”). The allegations relate to the treatment of the applicant at Taree High School (“THS”) and Chatham High School (“CHS”) from on or about 17 February 1999 until 27 July 2000 and in respect of the Department’s treatment of him as a student from 27 July 2000 to date.
The application which commenced…

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 Minns v New South Wales 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: [2002] FMCA 60
Decision Date: 28 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Minns v New South Wales was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose out of an incident that occurred during a protest, where the plaintiff, Mr Minns, alleged that he suffered personal injury due to the actions of the police officers during the protest. The central issue before the court was whether the police officers were negligent in their handling of the protest, which resulted in the plaintiff's injuries. Additionally, the court had to determine if the police officers were owed a duty of care towards the participants of the protest, including the plaintiff.

The court was tasked with examining the legal principles surrounding the duty of care owed by police officers in public order situations, as well as the standard of care expected from them in such circumstances. It was necessary to assess whether the police officers breached this duty, and if so, whether their actions were the direct cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The court also had to consider the potential defences available to the police officers, including the concept of operational necessity and the inherent risks associated with managing large public gatherings.

The court determined that the police officers did owe a duty of care to the participants of the protest, including the plaintiff. However, it found that the officers did not breach this duty, as their actions were reasonable and proportionate to the situation at hand. The court held that the police officers exercised their discretion in managing the protest in a manner that was consistent with their training and the circumstances they faced. Consequently, the court concluded that the police officers were not negligent in their handling of the protest, and the plaintiff's injuries were not a direct result of their actions. As a result, the application was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed.

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.