Jury Act 1995 (Qld) Analysis, Case Law and Statutory Interpretation

This report analyzes the Jury Act 1995 (Qld), examining its purpose, structure, and key provisions. It critiques the Act's organization, suggesting improvements to the definition section and the placement of certain parts. The report also includes a case study, Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38, focusing on the issue of whether a deaf person can be excluded from jury duty. The facts of the case, the issue presented, the court's decision, and a critical perspective are provided. The analysis highlights the court's interpretation of the Jury Act and its potential conflict with the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The report provides a detailed overview of the legal framework surrounding jury service in Queensland, including the role of juries, the selection process, and the rights and responsibilities of jurors. The report also addresses the constitutional aspects of jury trials and explores the implications of the High Court's decision in the Lyons case, particularly concerning disability rights and the interpretation of conflicting legislation.

Running Head: Jury Act 1995
JURY ACT 1995
Queensland
System04128

Jury Act
Table of Contents
Part 1..........................................................................................................................................2
Purpose of the Act..................................................................................................................2
The Structure of the Act.........................................................................................................2
Analysis of the Act.................................................................................................................3
Part B..........................................................................................................................................4
Facts of the Case.....................................................................................................................4
Issue........................................................................................................................................5
Decision..................................................................................................................................5
Critical Perspective.................................................................................................................6
Part 3..........................................................................................................................................7
1 | P a g e

Jury Act
Part 1
Jury Act 1995 (Qld)
Purpose of the Act
The Jury Act 1995 (Qld) shows whole mechanism and working of jury goverence in the
territory of Queensland. The Jury Act of 1995 was framed after different panels and bodies
that were established to evacuate the exceptions for clergymen of religion, therapeutic
professionals, individuals from crisis administrations, government representatives, educators,
instructors, individuals from nearby specialists, business voyagers, writers engaged with
court detailing, 'senior male people's and ladies who wished to be excluded, pilots, legal
advisors and their assistants from being the piece of the individual from jury. The main
reports that lead to the formation of Jury Act, 1995 are-
 Report of Nolan Committee
 Report of Litigation Reform Commission on Reform of Jury System in Queensland
 Report of Criminal Justice System
The Jury Act is the answer to the issues related with present system of jury that is pointed out
in the reports. The main purpose is to protect the confidentiality of the jury members and
secrecy of jury1.
The Structure of the Act
Part one of the act that compromises of section one and two are drafted aptly but third section
does not give clarification on definition. The definitions are given in third schedule, which
comes at the last. The definitions should clearly have enacted in third section. A normal being
will first read the definition part and will get the idea about the terminologies used in the act.
The definition section should not have referred it to third schedule instead it should have been
added to third section itself. Responsibility of citizen for acting as a jury member is
mentioned in Part 2 and it is perfectly placed in the act. After qualification, the drafters of the
act should have inserted Formation of juries which has been placed in Part 5. The procedure
of jury should have been inserted before so that the flow of the act does not break as it
includes number of jurors, requirement of additional jurors in specific cases and the process
of jury selection. Part 4 is correctly placed because it is dealing with assembly of jurors as it
provides powers and authority of administrator. After the power of administrators, the duties
1 Jury Bill 1995,
Queensland Bills Explanatory Notes, ( Web Page, 1995) <
http://138.25.65.17/au/legis/qld/bill_en/jb1995101/jb1995101.html >
2 | P a g e

Jury Act
and liabilities of jury members have been prescribed in Part 6 of the act. Part 6 includes
segregation of jury based on criminal and civil cases, the accommodation of jury and the
discharge of a member of jury due to his/her death and to continue jury trial with less than
prescribed members and other criteria. Part 7 of the act fee and salary structure of the jurors
with special preference to extra payment in different cases. It also covers fees of jury
members in civil cases. Part 8 lists miscellaneous terms with main observation on obligations
and duties of jurors towards the court2.
Preliminary by jury is a significant component of the equity framework in Australia. Juries
are comprised of residents arbitrarily looked over the discretionary job. They fill in as
methods for individuals from the network to take part in the organization of equity, and to
guarantee that the utilization of the law is reasonable and steady with network guidelines3.
Analysis of the Act
It is necessary that means should be taken to increment native cooperation in the working of
jury. It is significant not just exclusively to increment the members of the juries, yet
additionally diminishing the feeling of rejection from illegal equity framework, which
happened with various people, belongs Indigenous class. It can be assessed that a part of the
suggestions given by commission, in spite of the fact that not explicitly coordinated towards
Indigenous individuals, should in any case add to an expanded portrayal of distinct
individuals on the juries. Moreover, the Commission gives numerous non-authoritative
suggestions to show down to earth boundaries to Indigenous support. The Department of
Justice and the Attorney-General should audit the present jury locale in respect with the end
goal of expanding the representativeness of juries and including extra Indigenous people
group. If private or public mode of transport is not normally accessible or it cannot be utilized
then the judge should make courses of action, ahead of time, to help individuals. From
Indigenous, people group to go to the court on the time when they are called for
administration of the jury and should meet the expenses of used courses of action in the event
that it is not sensibly practicable for an individual. from an Indigenous people group to head
out every day to go to court for jury administration, settlement ought to be orchestrated, and
subsidized, to empower the individual to visit socially proper instructive projects that
advance the significance also, advantages of jury administration ought to be created and made
2
Jury Act 1995 (Qld)
3 Jury Service,
Australian Law Reform Commission, (Web Page) < https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/7-
access-justice/jury-service>
3 | P a g e

Jury Act
accessible inside. Indigenous people group research ought to be directed to decide the degree
of portrayal of individuals of indigenous class on Juries in the territory of Queensland and the
elements that may increment or lessen their rate of cooperation in jury administration.
The privilege to a preliminary by jury in connection to liability related offenses against
national statutes is secured by the constitution of Australia in section 80. The High Court
decided that the relation in section 80 to ‘preliminary by Jury’ is to precedent-based law.
Foundation of jury preliminary and a basic component regarding preliminary by the jury is
prerequisite for the decision of liability to be unbiased and in majority. Due to this, the
arrangements of Jury Act 1995 (Qld) that gives authority to a jury to achieve lion’s share
decision do not have any significant bearing to the preliminary of an offenses against
Commonwealth law. Proceedings on prosecution of the offense against which is punishable
in Commonwealth law are likewise discarded from scope of preliminaries which may be
listen by a judge in the jurisdiction of Queensland. The presiding judge in criminal trial
chooses inquiries related to law; it incorporates decisions on tolerability of proof and other
inquiries during proceedings. In light of the proof, that is conceded and is for jury to choose if
litigant is liable of offense and offenses are being applied by law to actualities.
Part B
Lyons vs Queensland [2016] HCA 38
Facts of the Case
The litigant is deaf but capable of lip reading. She requires an Auslan (Australian Sign
Language) translator when speaking with individuals that cannot understand Auslan.
Subsequent to called for jury administration, the appealing party advised the Deputy
Registrar that Mrs. Lyons will be requiring the Auslan translator. After this, the Deputy
Registrar avoided the litigant as an effective member of the Jury under Section 4(3) (l) of the
Jury Act, 1995 (Qld). This section blocks an individual with a ‘physical or mental incapacity
that makes the individual unequipped for adequately playing out the elements of a hearer’
ineligible for jury administration. The appealing party argues that this choice comprised both
immediate and circuitous segregation, in opposition to the Anti-Discrimination Act, 1991
(Qld). The Queensland Competition Authority (QCA) expelled an intrigue which was not in
favour of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) holding that her deafness
4 | P a g e

Jury Act
was not the reason not to consider her for the member of jury, but instead in light of the fact
that the Jury Act will not let her in touch with the Auslan translator to confidentiality clause
in Section 70 of the act. The Queensland Competition Authority rejected the appeal against
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal that she was not a victim of biasness and she
was not discriminated by the registrar just because she is deaf but communicating with
translator will lead to the infringement of Jury Act.
Issue
The main issue arising out of the case is can a deaf person can be prohibited from being part
of the jury member.
Decision
A consistent High Court expelled the intrigue. The majority of the judges decided that a
person who is deaf and who needs a translator when communicating with other members of
the jury cannot qualified for jury administration in the territory of Queensland because a
mediator is not permitted to help the appellant when the whole jury is sitting together. The
choice of Deputy Registrar is not to incorporate the appealing party, as a member of jury
board was not illegal in the Act. The majority dismissed the dispute and stated that the
revelation of the jury boards thoughts to Auslan mediator is 'permitted by law'. The custom-
based law has since quite a while ago necessitated that juries be kept independent, not speak
with people other than individual members of the jury (or an officer of the court). Nobody
other than a legal hearer be available in the jury room amid consultations to maintain a
strategic distance from any proposal of outside impact and to advance a straight to the point
trade of perspectives between attendants. Thus, the majority dismissed the appealing party's
conflict that section 54(1) of the Jury Act4, which denies any individual other than an
attendant from speaking with any of the members of the jury without the judge's leave.
Stretched out an allow of leave to an Auslan translator than the control is gone for
correspondences with the jury when they are intact, not a normal capacity to concede leave to
an individual to be available amid thoughts. These ends are fortified by the nonattendance of
an arrangement enabling a pledge to be managed to a mediator or a forbiddance against
looking for revelation of jury data as it would apply to a translator.
4
Jury Act s 54.
5 | P a g e

Jury Act
Critical Perspective
While the result of this case is frustrating from an incapacity rights point of view and is
somewhat awkward is disappointment of High Court’s majority to manage what has all the
earmarks of being an immediate clash of two statutes and legislations of Queensland. The
Court opted the case on the basis that section 53 and 54 of the Jury Act, 1995 (Qld)
disallowed an individual who is not a member of legal hearer present in jury room amid
consultations. Ms Lyons cannot let an Auslan translator where the whole jury is present who
rendered her ‘unequipped for viably playing out the elements of a member of the jury’ in
Section 4(3) of the Jury Act and along the lines “ineligible to serve on a jury”. Be that as it
may, the Anti-Discrimination Act 19915 (Qld) forbids handicap segregation by any individual
in purview of capacities or doing of obligations “under State law or for the motivations
behind a state government program” under section 101 of the act. The main exception of the
Act for activities in consistence with different statutes is for laws which are presented before
the Anti-Discriminatory Act was received in section 106. So, by suggestion, the act does not
commonly excluded activities needed by enactment embraced afterwards. It would
incorporate the Jury Act. In this regard, the ADA is more grounded in its insurances against
segregation than numerous enemy of separation laws, a significant number of which absolved
activities needed by all other enactment whether instituted under the watchful eye of the law.
Regarding this obvious authoritative clash, a person would hope to see the way of
determination of choices by the High Court. Be that as it may, the main goals presented by
majority of High Court was the explanation that Jury Act problem was a 'predecessor
problem'.
While there might be various perspectives on the right goals of issue of contention among
Anti-Discriminatory Act and the Jury Act. The majority’s inability to manage this problem
proposes it essentially limited the ADA. It provide definite consideration regarding the
development and significance of Jury Act. It gave no explanations behind not thinking about
the ADA’s task on jury determination. It cannot be digested that why against the legislation
of separation was not dealt as conveying a similar load as the Jury Act. The choice gives few
direction on the most proficient method to break down potential clashes between hostile to
segregation laws and different laws of a similar locale to which they seem to apply on the
grounds that the ‘statutory expert’ special case does not cover the circumstance.
5
Anti- Discrimination Act 1991
6 | P a g e

Jury Act
In Queensland, the antecedent to the Jury Act exempted from jury administration people who
"are visually impaired, hard of hearing, or imbecilic, or of unsound personality or are
generally crippled by ailment or sickness". The Explanatory Notes to the Jury Act note that
the aim of the new area 4 is to guarantee progressively agent juries. In any case, Ms Lyons’
case builds up that notwithstanding these changes to the Jury Act, an individual requiring the
help of an Auslan mediator will be ineligible for jury administration in the territory of
Queensland. By and by, this features a plausible inability to follow Australia’s bargain
commitments in the “Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities”. In the territory
of Australia, no deaf person has even been part of the jury.
Part 3
Ruby and Declan both have violated section 546 of the Jury Act because they both breached
section 54. According to this section, an individual apart from member of the jury is not
having any right to communicate with the jurors without the consent of the judge but here
Declan indirectly contacted Ruby and asked her about the progress of the jury, It was the
clear infringement of the said act. If the judge found out about the act done by Ruby before
the prouncement of the judgment then it is the discretion of the judge to dismiss the jury.
Ruby and Declan both are liable for breach of section 707 of the Jury Act as well. Section 70
clearly says that no one should publish the information related to jury to the public. Anyone
found of doing the said act will be punished for 2 years of imprisonment. Ruby can get the
jail term of 2 years under the clause. Declan here is violating clause 2 of the act and he too
can be punished for 2 years because he was seeking information from a jury member. Here
public is 200 followers of Ruby on Instagram who can get access to the information of the
jury because Ruby has replies on the query asked by Declan regarding the jury proceeding.
According to this section, jury information means any kind of information which is related to
personal views and opinions, arguments presented and the statements made by the members
of the jury. The jury member should give the information. There are numerous illegal acts
which are related to revealing, printing and give the protection to private information of
jurors. The main point of consideration is that a person only can be punished with contempt
of court if he try to communicate with the juror without the consent of the judge in the
presence of jury.
6
Jury Act S 54.
7
Jury Act S 70.
7 | P a g e

Jury Act
It is attractive that the punishment routine under the Jury Act 1995 (Qld) be predictable with
other Queensland enactment, especially enactment managing comparative urban obligations.
In any case, it is hard to recognize whatever other city commitments that are similar to jury
administration; therefore, there are not many promptly accessible or important purposes of
examination. Given the one of a kind sort of jury administration, any examinations are, best
case scenario, flawed. What's more, in checking on offenses of a comparable sort under other
Queensland rules, the Commission did not locate any perceptible or unequivocal patterns as
far as punishment levels; punishments change impressively crosswise over resolutions relying
upon the specific down to earth and arrangement contemplations of every unique situation.
The punishments under the Act are once in a while higher and now and then lower than those
forced in different resolutions, yet it is hard to survey whether they are altogether conflicting.
8 | P a g e