Woodforth v State of Queensland

CITATION: Woodforth v State of Queensland [2016] QCATA 7

PARTIES:	Veronica Woodforth (Applicant/Appellant)
v
State of Queensland (State of Queensland)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL008-15

MATTER TYPE: Appeals

HEARING DATE: 14 August 2015

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Senior Member Brown
Member Guthrie

DELIVERED ON: 11 January 2016

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    Leave to appeal is refused.

2.    The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: DISCRIMINATION – DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION – COMPLAINT TO POLICE - POLICE INVESTIGATION – HEARING IMPAIRMENT - Where Ms Woodforth is a person with a hearing impairment – whether the police service failed to investigate her complaints due to her hearing impairment – whether the police failed to investigate her complaints in a timely manner due to her impairment – INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION - whether term or condition imposed

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

APPLICANT: represented by Ms P Morreau of Counsel instructed by Caxton Legal Centre

STATE OF QUEENSLAND: represented by Ms S D Anderson instructed by Public Safety Business Agency Legal Service for the Queensland Police Service

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Ms Woodforth is hearing impaired. She mostly communicates in Auslan and that is her first language. Ms Woodforth uses hearing aids. She has minimal lip reading ability and speaking skills and is able to communicate in writing using basic English.

2. In December 2011 Ms Woodforth shared a house with Colleen and Ricky Buck, Natasha Howland and Kym Croad. Mrs Buck, Ms Croad and Ms Howland are hearing impaired.

3. On the evening of 13 December 2011, a physical fight broke out between a number of the residents of the house and Ms Woodforth alleged Mrs Buck had assaulted her. Police (“the QPS”) attended the scene. The investigation of Ms Woodforth’s complaint and the complaints made by others was referred to the Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB). In the days and weeks following the events of 13 December 2011, Ms Woodforth attended the Ipswich Police Station to make other complaints and was assisted by police in collecting some of her belongings from the house.

4. On 28 March 2012, Senior Constable Rosee, who was in charge of the investigation, formally interviewed Ms Woodforth with the assistance of an Auslan interpreter, at the Ipswich Police Station.

5. In April 2012, Ms Woodforth lodged a complaint of discrimination, based on her hearing impairment, against the State of Queensland (Police Service) in the area of services/state laws and programmes with the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland. On 25 November 2012, the matter was referred to the Tribunal.

6. The tribunal conducted a hearing on 27, 28 and 29 October 2014. On 10 December 2014, the tribunal delivered written reasons for its decision to dismiss Ms Woodforth’s application. This is an appeal from that decision.

7. The grounds of appeal, which raise both questions of law and questions of mixed fact and law, are:

   a) The learned member incorrectly formulated the relevant comparator for the purposes of s 10(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (“ADA”);

   b)    The learned member impermissibly gave consideration to the fact that Ms Woodforth…