Lyons v Queensland - High Court Rules

Foundation of
Law
Running Head: LAW 100 0
4 / 2 / 2 0 2 0
Student’s Name

“Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38” 1
Contents
Facts............................................................................................................................................................2
Grounds of appeal.......................................................................................................................................2
Procedural History.......................................................................................................................................3
High Court decision.....................................................................................................................................3
Legislation 6
Case laws 6
Other Resources 6

“Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38” 2
Lyons v Queensland1
Facts
In the given case, Ms. Lyons, the appellant was profoundly deaf but being a capable lip-reader
could communicate with the help of Australian Sign Language. In January she was summoned
for jury services where first she completed questionnaire and submitted the same. This
questionnaire was to decide her capability to serve as a juror. Later on, she received summon for
jury services where she demanded two Auslan interpreters for the performance of her jury
services as Juror. The issue of the cases started when The Deputy Registrar rejected her this
demand stating that this cannot be done due to absence of any such provision in “Jury Act”2
(Jury Act) and later on it is not allowed for an interpreter to take part in jury deliberations. At
last, the Deputy Registrar denied selecting Ms. Lyons as a potential Juror as she was incapable to
perform the required functions efficiently due to her physical incapability3.
Grounds of appeal
Dissatisfied from the conduct of the Deputy Registrar, Ms. Lyons has made a complaint to the
“Anti-Discrimination Commissioner (Commissioner)” for unlawful discrimination done with her
by the State of Queensland as the registrar has breached the provisions of section 101 of “Anti-
Discrimination Act”4 (Anti-Discrimination Act)”. She further argued that the Deputy registrar
has discriminated against her, directly as well as in indirect manner due to her impairment. He
did not properly exercise power under Queensland law by not allowing her assistance of Auslan
1 Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38
2 Jury Act 1995 (Qld)
3 bnlaw.com.au, Exclusion from jury duty on grounds of deafness is not discrimination (Barry Nilsson Lawyers, 20th
October 2016) < https://www.bnlaw.com.au/page/Insights/Insurance_Alerts/Discrimination/
Exclusion_from_jury_duty_on_grounds_of_deafness_is_not_discrimination/>
4 Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld)

“Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38” 3
interpreters and therefore breached Anti-Discrimination Law. Anti-Discrimination
Commissioner could not resolve the matter and therefore the same referred it to “Queensland
Civil and Administrative Tribunal” (QCAT).
Procedural History
When the matter went into QCAT, it was held that no unlawful discrimination was there even
though the Deputy Registrar misinterprets the Jury Act. Further, the appellant appealed to
QCAT's Appeal Tribunal where again the appeal has been dismissed and it was said that the
interpretation of Deputy Registrar. Leave to appeal has been requested for Appeal Tribunal's
decision by “The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland”. The appellant
appealed to the “High Court of Australia” by a grant of special.
High Court decision
Ms. Lyons stated the Deputy registrar discriminated against her as the main basis of his decision
was her hearing impairment. She contended this before the High Court. She further argued that
the Tribunal mistaken in the application of the test for direct discrimination, as the same was
required to check whether a person with an impairment has treated less favorably or not. She
further argued that that tribunal failed to compare her situation with the other hearing person who
had asked the assistance of someone in jury trails. She also claimed that the tribunal was on
mistake while reviewing her indirect discrimination claim as registrar put a condition to perform
the duty without the assistance of an Auslan interpreter. The high court has reviewed all the facts
from the original complaint as well as from previous appeals. The majority of the decision has
found that the main issue of the discrimination claim was the correct operation of the Jury Act. It
means the majority of the judges have decided that the Jury Act has no provision to grant the

“Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38” 4
assistance of Auslan interpreter to Juror. Hence, under its final decision, the court has provided
that Ms. Lyons was not able to perform as a juror and therefore was not eligible for jury service.
No breach of the “Anti-Discrimination Act” under Queensland law was found on the part of the
Deputy registrar. One of the judges of the case Gageler J, who also rejected the appeal
provided some additional basis of his decision. He stated that the Deputy Registrar decided
the matter considering the objective definition given in section 4 of the Jury Act. Further, he
also claimed that the registrar has not performed any function that can be treated as any type
of discrimination under the Anti-discrimination Act5.
Their Honours also considered section 54(1) of the Jury Act. It was stated that the section grant
leaves to communicate with Jury when they are being kept together us an exclusive leave and
does not allow a person to be presented throughout the Jury's deliberations. To understand the
reasoning behind the decision of the case can be understood by the following points:-
 No provisions were there in the Jury Act that could apply an oath to an interpreter
 Not similar to a Juror, there would be no restriction on individuals seeking information
related to Jury from an interpreter.
 Since no specific provision exists in legislation, hence Queensland law did not allow
Auslan interpreter to be a part of the Jury room and to attend the Jury deliberations. Due
to the incapacity of Ms. Lyons, the Deputy Registrar had to exclude her because of the
operation law.
 A matter of the contradiction between the Jury Act and Anti-discrimination Act was also
been addressed and it was held that the interpretation must be made in the favor of the
5 hrlc.org.au, High Court of Australia confirms Queensland law does not permit an Auslan interpreter to be present
during jury deliberations (Human Right Law Center, 05th October, 2016) < https://www.hrlc.org.au/human-rights-
case-summaries/2016/12/16/high-court-of-australia-confirms-queensland-law-does-not-permit-an-auslan-interpreter-
to-be-present-during-jury-deliberations>

“Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38” 5
Jury Act. The decision of the registrar was not a matter of discretion but was self-
executing and objective.
Considering the above points and other facts of the case, the High Court concluded that no direct
discrimination was there and the actions have been pursued to give effect to the definitions given
in the Jury Act. Further, no indirect discrimination was there due to the imposition of the term
that could not be held unreasonable where the same has been imposed to give effect to the
definition stated under the act6. Therefore, the appeals of Ms. Lyons have been dismissed.
6 Classic.austlii.edu.au, Jury service – whose right? (austlii) <
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/NSWBarAssocNews/2016/89.pdf>

“Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38” 6
Legislation
Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld)
Jury Act 1995 (Qld)
Case laws
Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38
Other Resources
bnlaw.com.au, Exclusion from jury duty on grounds of deafness is not discrimination (Barry
Nilsson Lawyers, 20th October 2016) <
https://www.bnlaw.com.au/page/Insights/Insurance_Alerts/Discrimination/
Exclusion_from_jury_duty_on_grounds_of_deafness_is_not_discrimination/>
Classic.austlii.edu.au, Jury service – whose right? (austlii) <
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/NSWBarAssocNews/2016/89.pdf>
hrlc.org.au, High Court of Australia confirms Queensland law does not permit an Auslan
interpreter to be present during jury deliberations (Human Right Law Center, 05th October,
2016) < https://www.hrlc.org.au/human-rights-case-summaries/2016/12/16/high-court-of-
australia-confirms-queensland-law-does-not-permit-an-auslan-interpreter-to-be-present-during-
jury-deliberations>