LAW100 Assignment: Analysis of Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38

This assignment analyzes the High Court case of Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38, concerning a discrimination claim related to jury service. The material facts involve Ms. Lyons, a deaf woman, being excluded from jury duty due to her need for an interpreter. The grounds of appeal centered on direct and indirect discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act. The procedural history includes decisions by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal and its Appeal Tribunal, both ruling against Ms. Lyons. The High Court unanimously rejected her appeal, holding that allowing an interpreter during jury deliberations was impractical and that the Jury Act implicitly repealed the Anti-Discrimination Act in this context. The court reasoned that the registrar acted within the Jury Act's framework, and the absence of provisions for interpreters or an oath for them supported the decision. The court emphasized that the phrase “perform the functions of a juror” included the requirement to actively participate in deliberations without the assistance of non-jurors. The decision underscored the importance of jury secrecy and the integrity of jury deliberations, ultimately dismissing Ms. Lyons' claim of unlawful discrimination.

Law100
Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38
4/7/2020
Student’s Name

“Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38”
1
Contents
Material Facts of the case..................................................................................................2
Appeal................................................................................................................................3
Procedural History.............................................................................................................3
The decision of the High court and the Reasoning of the same.......................................4
Bibliography.......................................................................................................................6
Legislation......................................................................................................................6
Case laws.......................................................................................................................6
Other Resources............................................................................................................6

“Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38”
2
Lyons v Queensland1
Material Facts of the case
The subjective case is related to the discrimination in selection for a job. To discuss
facts of the case this is to state that Ms. Lyons was appellant of the case who could not
hear due to her deafness. However, she could read lips and therefore could
communicate using Australian Sign Language. She has been summoned for performing
the functions in jury services as a juror and successfully filled a given questionnaire.
The motive of this questionnaire was to test her ability to be a juror and to determine
whether she could serve on this post or not. Later on, the deputy registrar of “Ipswich
District Court” summoned Ms. Lyons for jury duty where the appellant asked for the
assistance of Australian Sign Language interpreters to communicate with those people
who do not know Auslan. The Deputy Registrar (hereinafter referred to as registrar) did
not fulfill the request of Ms. Lyons and also excluded her as a potential juror by the
virtue of section 4(3)(l) of “Jury act”2. This section outlines that a person cannot take
part in jury services where the same is not capable to serve as a juror efficiently due to
mental or physical incapacity. The registrar further informed the appellant that firstly
“Jury act” does not contain any such provision that entitles a juror to seek the
assistance of an interpreter. Secondly, it was not possible to allow outsiders like an
interpreter during deliberations.
1 Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38
2 Jury Act 1995 (Qld).

“Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38”
3
Appeal
Ms. Lyons contends that the actions of registrar institute direct and indirect
discrimination in contradiction of “Anti-Discrimination Act3” (ADA). She further made a
compliant before “Anti-Discrimination Commissioner (Commissioner)” arguing that the
registrar discriminated against her unlawfully and breached the provisions of section
101 of the "Anti-Discrimination Act” and she was entitled to receive the assistance of
Australian Sign Language interpreters. The commission failed to resolve the complaint
made by Ms. Lyons and therefore sent the case to “Queensland Civil and Administrative
Tribunal (QCAT)”.
Procedural History
To discuss the procedural part of the case, this is to state that QCAT reviewed the
whole matter and provided the final decision against the applicant. In its decision, QCAT
held that no discrimination has been made unlawfully against the appellant. Against the
decision of QCAT, the appellant appealed to “QCAT's Appeal Tribunal”. The appellant
tribunal provided that the registrar did not make any discrimination based on Ms.
Lyons deafness despite the misunderstanding of the act and it was the “Jury act”
that prevented assisting an interpreter4. Later on, a subsequent hearing has been
made under Appeal Tribunal and the panel has been agreed with the decision of QCAT
and concluded that the registrar has correctly understood the ““Jury act””.
3 Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld)
4 Timebase.com.au, Lyons v State of Queensland [2016] HCA 38: Discrimination in Jury Selection,
(Timebase., 05th October, 2016) <https://www.timebase.com.au/news/2016/AT3921-article.html>

“Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38”
4
The decision of the High court and the Reasoning of the same
Before “High court”, Ms. Lyons again argued that the registrar has treated her unlawfully
and made direct and indirect discrimination against her. The jury panel of the High court
has rejected this appeal unanimously. Nettle JJ. French CJ and Bell held that a person
who needs interpreter to communicate with another jury due to his/her deafness could
not serve a juror in Queensland and allowing so do not seem practical while Jury is kept
together and therefore the decision of the registrar where he rejected the demand of
Ms. Lyons. Due to the unavailability of any provision under the Queensland Act, the
appellant was not entitled to serve as a juror and therefore the registrar had no other
option than to exclude her from jury services.
Further, the important point to mention here is that plurality denied the contention that
the presence of an interpreter in jury deliberation is allowed. The common law does not
allow any person to be present during deliberation in a jury room, as juror needs to be
separate and not to be in communication with any third party to avoid the suggestion of
external influence and to motivate free exchange of opinions between jurors. In addition
to this, the majority of the court also rejected the appellant’s argument that section 54(1)
of the “Jury act”, which prohibits any third party to communicate with a juror without the
leave of the judge, does not apply to the interpreter. It was held that the extension of the
grant of leave was not a general power and could not provide in the case of an
interpreter. These provisions are further reinforced by the absence of any of the
provision that contains an oath to be administered by the interpreter. Gageler J has
been agreed with the decision of the majority and also provided additional clarity to the

“Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38”
5
matter. He stated that the decision of the majority where it was provided that a person
who needs the assistance of the interpreter also answer the claim made by the
appellant that the registrar discriminated against her mentioned under section 101 of
ADA5. He focused on the application of section 4(3)(l) and believed that the “Jury act”
impliedly repealed ADA. Due to the application of the subjective section, neither direct
nor indirect discrimination was there.
The state of the Queensland made it clear that the phrase “perform the functions of a
juror” mentioned in the “Jury act” refers to all the functions of Juror including listening in
oral evidence as well as participating in deliberation as an active jury member without
the help of any non-jury member6. Conclusively, the high court decided that the registrar
acted within the framework prescribed in the “Jury act” and therefore the claim of
discrimination raised by Ms. Lyons had to be rejected.
5 queenslandjudgments.com.au, Lyons v State of Queensland (queensland judgments) <
https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/case/id/89241>.
6 Macamiet.com.au, Lyons v Queensland – High Court Rules on Deaf Juror (Macrossan & Amiet
solicitors) < https://www.macamiet.com.au/2016/10/18/lyons-v-queensland-high-court-rules-deaf-juror/>.

“Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38”
6
Bibliography
Legislation
Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld)
“Jury act” 1995 (Qld)
Case laws
Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38
Other Resources
Macamiet.com.au, Lyons v Queensland – High Court Rules on Deaf Juror (Macrossan
& Amiet solicitors) < https://www.macamiet.com.au/2016/10/18/lyons-v-queensland-
high-court-rules-deaf-juror/>
queenslandjudgments.com.au, Lyons v State of Queensland (queensland judgments) <
https://www.queenslandjudgments.com.au/case/id/89241>
Timebase.com.au, Lyons v State of Queensland [2016] HCA 38: Discrimination in Jury
Selection, (Timebase., 05th October, 2016)
<https://www.timebase.com.au/news/2016/AT3921-article.html>