Inclusive Juries—Access for People Who Are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, Blind or Have Low Vision: Report (html)

13. Adjustments to enable jury service

The public will only know what blind/visually impaired people are capable of when we show them what we can do. If the public don’t have any contact with blind/visually impaired people, they don’t know what tools are available to help blind people undertake the same tasks as sighted people. I always say: ‘If you want to know how things work [for a blind person], ask me’.^[1]
— Participant in the Blind Citizens Australia consultation

Overview

• For people who are deaf or hard of hearing, adjustments to enable jury service may include technology such as hearing loops or captioning, and Auslan interpreters.

• People who are blind or have low vision may require reading assistance software or Braille materials, materials provided in accessible formats and a support person.

• Using adjustments may involve changing the way that courtrooms are organised and particular trials are run.

• It may be easier for jurors to bring their own technology to court, but in such cases there are issues of confidentiality and security to be considered.

• Everyone’s experience of disability is unique. Therefore, flexibility will be needed about the provision of reasonable adjustments for jury service.

What types of adjustments might people use to serve on a jury?

13.1 The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) defines ‘reasonable accommodations’ (which we call ‘reasonable adjustments’ in this report) as:

necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.^[2]

13.2 In the context of jury duty, accessibility tools are needed to ensure that a person can understand and follow proceedings, navigate the courtroom and building, and communicate effectively with their fellow jurors. Potential jurors may need to use more than one type of adjustment.

13.3 As noted in Chapter 11 it will be important for Juries Victoria to establish an ongoing relationship with peak disability advocacy organisations to discuss available adjustments and keep in touch with changes in technology.

Adjustments for people who are deaf or hard of hearing

13.4 People who are deaf or hard of hearing already use a range of adjustments to participate in Victorian court proceedings as witnesses and parties. Some of these, as well as additional adjustments that may be useful for jury service, are outlined below.

Lip-reading

13.5 Many people who are deaf or hard of hearing use lip-reading as a tool to understand speech. To lip-read in court the juror would need a clear line of sight and might also want to make use of technology to view evidence and court proceedings at a close range.

Auslan interpreters

13.6 Australian Sign Language (Auslan) is a visual language that enables deaf and hard of hearing people to communicate and participate in society.^[3] There is no one universal sign language. Auslan interpreters interpret everything that is said in English into Auslan, and anything that is signed in Auslan into English. Chapter 14 makes recommendations about Auslan interpreters working with jurors.

Hearing loops

13.7 Hearing loops enable people who wear hearing aids to hear more clearly by taking a sound and transferring it directly into a hearing aid, without background noise interference or distortion.^[4]

13.8 Hearing loops are used by Australian courts, including the County Court and Supreme Court in Victoria, though not all Victorian courtrooms are equipped with them.^[5] The Victorian Disability Access Bench Book notes that, where hearing loops are not in place, ‘judicial officers should consider whether a different courtroom is required’.^[6] Hearing loops are also used in courts in England and Wales, Ireland, New Zealand and the United States.^[7]

13.9 Not all hearing aids are compatible with all hearing loops.^[8] There can be mismatches between a person’s hearing aid and hearing loop technology in a courtroom.^[9] In Chapter 12 we recommended a potential juror be able to visit court ahead of their summons date to discuss their needs. This issue could be tested then.

Captioning, Communication Access Real Time Translation (CART) and stenographers

13.10 Captioning is the display of spoken words as text on a computer screen, mobile device or television. Captions allow viewers to follow the dialogue and the action of a program simultaneously.^[10]

13.11 Captioning can occur in real time, although there is a slight delay.^[11] Alastair McEwin, who is deaf, told the Commission:

Captioning is important and the best services are now only a second or two behind the spoken word. It can now occur almost simultaneously … While it has improved, it is still not perfect, as it relies on the machine getting used to a wide variety of voices.^[12]

13.12 A participant in our consultation with Deaf Victoria commented:

Captioning can be a useful tool not just for deaf or hard of hearing jurors. It is important that reputable and high-quality captioning providers are used as auto-generated captions can be inaccurate.^[13]

13.13 Expression Australia noted that the placement of the captioning screen is important.^[14] Placement and line of sight are discussed further below.

13.14 Communication Access Real Time Translation (CART)^[15] is already used in the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Court of Australia.^[16] It is also used in courts in England and Wales and some states of the United States.^[17] CART can be combined with an audio component such as a hearing loop, to further improve accessibility.^[18]

13.15 Mr McEwin expressed a preference for the older stenography system because he felt that ‘stenographers in the room can hear and sense what is going on, so they are more accurate’ than captioning based on voice recognition technology.^[19]

Special materials and formats of evidence

13.16 Transcripts may need to be provided to jurors from the subject groups to aid their understanding of proceedings.

Emerging technological supports

13.17 In the consultation paper we described new and emerging technologies, including automated speech recognition, lip-reading devices and sign language translators.^[20]

Adjustments for people who are blind or have low vision

13.18 People who are blind or have low vision use a range of methods and tools to access information. The available technologies are advancing rapidly.

13.19 Vision Australia identified two categories of adjustments, environmental and those relating to jury processes, that a person who is blind or has low vision may need in order to serve on a jury. The areas they identified in which supports may be needed are summarised in the box below.

Support persons

13.20 A prospective juror who is blind or has low vision may need the assistance of a support person to help them to serve as a juror.^[23] Vision Australia identifies two roles for that person:

• assisting the prospective juror to navigate the courtroom

• making evidence accessible.^[24]

13.21 In Chapter 15 the Commission recommends a new role for an accessibility officer to help a prospective juror navigate the court building during the jury selection process and the trial. The Commission also recommends that the Juries Act 2000 (Vic) allow the appointment of a support person as an adjustment for a potential juror in the trial and in the jury room.

Special materials and format of evidence

13.22 Documents may be required in alternative or accessible formats, such as in a larger font, a plain typeface with spacing between the words, or printed on tinted paper.^[25] Where a person wishes to use reading enhancement software, documents should be provided in Microsoft Word format rather than PDF.^[26]

13.23 Audio copies of the transcript may also be useful for jurors who are blind or have low vision. One survey respondent noted:

I understand that all hearings are transcribed and on many occasions I have needed an audio copy for a person I represent so that I can present the case to the best of my ability, however in this situation I have either had to pay for or request a fee waiver for the audio copy.^[27]

13.24 Some people may find it useful for electronic documents to be displayed on a black background with white text. This is easier for a person who has low vision to read because the text is less glary, resulting in less fatigue.^[28]

Reading assistance software

13.25 Screen-reading programs translate the written text displayed on a screen to a voice synthesiser which reproduces the text as speech.^[29] Popular screen readers include the Jaws Screen Reader, which provides speech and Braille output for most computer applications.^[30] Another is Zoom Text, which ‘enlarges and enhances everything on [a] computer screen, echoes your typing and essential program activity, and automatically reads documents, web pages, email’.^[31] Apple VoiceOver, an application on iPhones, may also be useful.^[32] These programs can be used with headsets.

Magnifiers

13.26 Magnifiers may be useful for people who have low vision.^[33] They enlarge images and can be manual or electronic.^[34]

13.27 Electronic magnifiers come in many different varieties. Some have a camera system that displays a magnified image on a monitor. Others are hand-held and portable. Electronic magnifiers can be mounted on eye glasses.^[35]

13.28 CCTV magnifiers have a camera on a frame displaying a magnified image on a monitor. Text and images can be enlarged and the contrast can be altered to brighten images. Some CCTV magnifiers include speech output so that a person can hear the text being read as it is displayed on the monitor.^[36] CCTV of court proceedings may also assist with lip-reading.

Braille material

13.29 Braille embossers print Braille from a computer by punching dots onto paper.^[37] Braille embossers are accompanied by translation software that can translate documents in word processing programs into Braille.^[38]

13.30 Electronic or refreshable Braille displays are tactile devices that can be connected to computers or smart devices through Bluetooth. They enable the user to read the contents of a screen through Braille. Braille displays electronically raise and lower different combinations of pins in Braille cells, and the display changes continuously as the user moves their cursor around on the screen.^[39]

Mobility canes and assistance animals

13.31 In Chapter 11 we canvass concerns about the accessibility of court buildings and courtrooms in Victoria. We recommend that the courts improve accessibility across Melbourne and regional Victoria to enable people from the subject groups to serve as jurors.

13.32 Blind jurors may rely on mobility tools such as mobility canes, which come in different forms:

• Long canes enable a person who is blind or has low vision to detect all obstacles and hazards within their path of travel.

• Support canes can aid balance and provide physical support.

• White identification canes indicate to others that a person has low vision.^[40]

13.33 Prospective jurors who are blind may also require an assistance animal to navigate the courtroom, jury room and court building. Under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic), it is against the law to discriminate against a person because they have an assistance dog.^[41]

13.34 The Disability Access Bench Book states that where assistance animals accompany court users with disabilities there will be a need to allow water and toilet breaks.^[42] This would also apply in jury duty. The Office of Public Prosecutions (OPP) told us that assistance animals are routinely accommodated for witnesses or victims.^[43] The courts are therefore accustomed to them.

Emerging technology

13.35 New descriptive applications are emerging to assist people who are blind or have low vision. These may serve a supportive function for jurors in the future.^[44]

Possible changes to courtroom organisation and how a trial is run

13.36 There may need to be changes to courtroom layout, the jury room and trial processes to facilitate the use of adjustments. In Chapters 12 and 18 we make recommendations about anticipating and preparing for these adjustments.

13.37 In Chapter 12 we recommend that Juries Victoria and the court consider possible adjustments and changes to courtroom layout in a pre-empanelment court visit. Training materials for the judiciary should include information about line of sight, with diagrams. This should ensure that the court is prepared and any logistical issues have been addressed ahead of time, allowing everything to run smoothly for the court, the potential juror and interpreter. Victorian Criminal Bar Association consultees noted that a court policy on these issues would mean that a ‘judge doesn’t need to make those decisions on the day’.^[45]

Courtroom organisation

13.38 Vision Australia told the Commission that in ‘most cases only small adjustments would be required’, providing examples:

ensuring that there is sufficient space to accommodate a Seeing Eye dog if the blind or low vision juror uses one, or seating a low vision juror in a place in the courtroom or jury room where they are not negatively impacted by glare or bright light.^[46]

13.39 Similarly, Alastair McEwin noted that there ‘is an assumption that we need to make huge expensive changes to provide access for people with disabilities. But this is not necessarily true’.^[47]

13.40 The adjustments undertaken for the benefit of jurors in the subject groups may also improve access for all court users. Associate Professors Bruce Baer Arnold and Wendy Bonython submitted that:

Our scrutiny of courtrooms in locations in Melbourne, regional NSW, Sydney and the ACT suggests that many people without hearing/vision difficulties would welcome redesign to assist them in following what takes place in court and in jury rooms.^[48]

13.41 The County Court noted that a person requiring an assistance dog ‘could be seated appropriately at the end of the jury box closest to the jury room door’.^[49] The Court told the Commission that it ‘is open to adjusting lighting to an appropriate level to assist with lip-reading, while remaining comfortable for all court users’.^[50] Sometimes it may be necessary to move positions as the light changes,^[51] or for a juror to be seated near the witness stand.^[52] This may mean that particular trials have to be heard in certain courtrooms with the right configuration.

13.42 Special adjustments to the courtroom layout and court procedures may be required to allow Auslan interpreters to work effectively. The key issues that may arise are:

• line of sight for the deaf juror^[53]

• seating position for the interpreters^[54]

• need for regular breaks^[55]

• quality of acoustics.^[56]

13.43 The Jury Commissioner, New York State Courts in Rochester, Monroe County, United States, told us that line of sight and courtroom modifications are common:

sometimes courtrooms need to be re-arranged to accommodate people who are deaf/hard of hearing so that they can see the interpreter (and potentially lip read as well). This can be a tricky process, giving rise to conflicts, as judges like to control their courtroom, but interpreters like to proactively assert the interests of their clients.^[57]

Trial adjustments

13.44 Some adjustments to the conduct of the trial may be required to facilitate access for people in the subject groups. These adjustments might include allowing extra time for jurors in the subject groups to read material, asking counsel to think about the way that they ask questions, or reading exhibit material out in court. In Chapter 14 we consider some of the challenges that arise for Auslan interpreters in court.

13.45 Blind Citizens Australia noted that ‘Blind/visually impaired jurors will need to know what tools they will need to assist them in advance’. Further, Blind Citizens Australia commented that:

Some blind people are less technically savvy. The Commission should keep in mind the broad spectrum of people who are blind and with low vision and that people need to be:

– prewarned about what they will be expected to do

– given some extra time to undertake tasks.^[58]

13.46 Brent Phillips told us that:

It would also be useful if evidentiary documents can be provided to a deaf person earlier. They may need more time to read/comprehend the documents because English may not be their first language. Deaf people are often given an extra 15 minutes reading time in University assessments.^[59]

13.47 The County Court suggested that providing judicial instructions in writing may assist jurors who are deaf or hard of hearing, noting that:

The Court does not foresee any adverse impact of this adjustment and the Court is moving toward updating the Jury Guide for civil and criminal trials which contains many of the instructions and directions in writing. Written instructions may also assist other members of the jury who were not able to fully understand or remember the direction themselves.^[60]

Court documents in different formats

13.48 Sometimes jurors in the subject groups may have—as a result of adjustments—materials in the jury room which other jurors would not normally have, for example digital or hard copy versions of evidence and written jury directions. In this situation, the judge may need to remind the other jurors that they are also free to share and discuss that material. These adjustments will offer benefits to all jurors in the trial in the way that universal design principles aim to make spaces, policies, and programs inclusive and accessible to all people beyond people with disabilities.^[61]

Bringing personal technology to court

13.49 Some community members told the Commission that it would be helpful if they could bring their own technology to court. Vision Australia told us that:

Because there are many combinations and configurations of technology used by people who are blind or have low vision, we think that it will in most cases be preferable for jurors to use their own equipment rather than relying on equipment provided by the court.^[62]

13.50 Vision Australia highlighted that screen-reading programs are regularly updated. Users ensure that this is done regularly, however it was suggested that this might be more difficult for the court to do.^[63] The courts might not be as up to date with technological advancements.

13.51 Blind Citizens Australia commented that:

It might be helpful if a juror could bring their own laptop [with the necessary programs on it] and read off that. If that is not possible people might want to bring their own keyboards that they are familiar with. This would mean that it would take less time to get used to technology that was the Court’s.^[64]

13.52 The Youth Disability Advocacy Service similarly suggested that young people from the subject groups should be allowed to bring their own assistive technology to court.^[65]

The Courts have confidentiality concerns

13.53 The Commission understands that it has become much easier for parties to use their own technology in the court setting than in previous years. This has been developing with greater use of electronic trials. The courts have adapted again during the coronavirus (COVID-19) lockdowns.^[66]

13.54 However, confidentiality concerns may arise with technology that can record and play back information. County Court consultees suggested it could be problematic from a confidentiality perspective for people to bring their own support technology to Court. They noted: ‘Phones are removed from jurors when they deliberate so that they cannot communicate externally’.^[67]

What happens elsewhere?

13.55 In Monroe County, United States, where people with disabilities regularly serve on juries, the Jury Commissioner provides technology for all jurors who require it. Only court-provided technology can be used for official proceedings. Jurors are not allowed to use phones in the deliberation room.^[68]

What is the best solution for Victoria?

13.56 The Commission’s view is that, in general, Juries Victoria and the courts should provide the technological adjustments to enable people in the subject groups to serve as jurors. However, some exceptions may apply, depending on the type of technology. For example, a physical tool like a Braille note taker, Braille keyboard or other modified keyboard could be brought by an individual juror with the approval of the trial judge.

13.57 Juries Victoria should discuss technology with the potential juror to ensure that it can be set up to accommodate their individual needs. Juries Victoria should liaise with In Court Technology (ICT) to see what is possible. Further, as one submission noted:

If the court provides adaptive technology for use during the trial then the juror needs time prior to the trial to adjust settings to their personal preferences and to familiarise themselves with it.^[69]

13.58 Over time the court should develop a list of technologies that are suitable to bring from home that are not capable of external communication or being pre-loaded with data. An example might be a modified keyboard, or a Braille note taker.

Talking to people in the subject groups about reasonable adjustments

13.59 People who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind or have low vision do not form one homogeneous group.^[70] Everyone’s circumstances differ, and people experience disability differently.^[71] Flexibility will be needed about the provision of adjustments for jury service.

13.60 People in the subject groups access information and communicate with their families, colleagues and the broader community every day in a wide range of contexts. They are best placed to tell Juries Victoria and the courts what reasonable adjustments they will require to undertake jury service.

13.61 Alastair McEwin noted that the ‘key is that the court works with the deaf person to support their needs. The individual will usually have a solution to any issues that arise’.^[72]

1. Consultation 1 (Blind Citizens Australia).

   ↑

2. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, opened for signature 30 March 2007, 2515 UNTS 3 (entered into Force 3 May 2008) art 2.

   ↑

3. The Victorian Department of Health website explains that: ‘Like other sign languages, Auslan is equal in complexity and expression to spoken language and can express nuance, force and subtlety, as well as concrete information. It is not just English conveyed through signs or a manual code, but a distinct visual language’: Department of Health (Vic), ‘Sign Language—Auslan’, Better Health Channel (Web Page) https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/sign-language-auslan; also Consultations 6 (Deaf Victoria and community participants), 8 (Brent Phillips).

   ↑

4. AMPETRONIC, All About Induction Loops (Factsheet, 2019).

   ↑

5. We were told that the Supreme Court of Victoria has hearing loops in every courtroom but the County Court of Victoria does not: Consultations 9 (Consultation with two Victorian County Court Judges, Court policy staff and two Associates), 11 (Consultation with a Judge, a Tipstaff and Court policy staff, Victorian Supreme Court).

   ↑

6. Judicial College of Victoria, ‘4.4 Planning—Accessibility Checklist’, Disability Access Bench Book (Online Manual, 1 December 2016) <https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/DABB/index.htm#59523.htm>.

   ↑

7. Information received from Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 2 September 2021; ‘Accessibility’, The Courts Service of Ireland (Web Page) <https://www.courts.ie/accessibility>; Consultations 14 (Jury Commissioner, New York State Courts in Rochester, Monroe County, United States), 15 (Representatives of High Court and District Courts of New Zealand).

   ↑

8. ‘Hearing Loops Frequently Asked Questions’, Hearing Link (Web Page) <https://www.hearinglink.org/living/loops-equipment/hearing-loops/hearing-loops-frequently-asked-questions/>.

   ↑

9. This was raised as an issue by the Jury Commissioner in Monroe County, New York State: Consultation 14 (Jury Commissioner, New York State Courts in Rochester, Monroe County, United States). The Jury Commissioner also noted that there are two different types of hearing loops and the courts should consider which one will assist the most people.

   ↑

10. ‘Captions For Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Viewers’, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (Web Page) <https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/captions-deaf-and-hard-hearing-viewers>.

    ↑

11. ‘Captioning and CART’, Hearing Loss Association of America (Web Page) <https://www.hearingloss.org/hearing-help/technology/cartcaptioning/>.

    ↑

12. Consultation 24 (Alastair McEwin AM, Royal Commissioner, Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, in his personal capacity).

    ↑

13. Consultation 6 (Deaf Victoria and community participants).

    ↑

14. Consultation 5 (Expression Australia).

    ↑

15. Raul Sanchez, Good Sport Captioning, ‘Differentiating CART and Closed Captioning’, Our Blog (Blog Post, 28 March 2016) <https://goodsportcaptioning.com/differentiating-cart-and-closed-captioning/>.

    ↑

16. Federal Court of Australia and Family Court of Australia, Service Charter for the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Court of Australia (Report, 2016) 7; ‘Interpreter Policy and Guidelines’, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Web Page, 2021) <https://www.fcfcoa.gov.au/policy/interpreter>.

    ↑

17. See American Judges Foundation and National Court Reporters Foundation, Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) in the Courtroom: Model Guidelines (Report, 18 September 2002).

    ↑

18. ‘Captioning and CART’, Hearing Loss Association of America (Web Page) <https://www.hearingloss.org/hearing-help/technology/cartcaptioning/>.

    ↑

19. Consultation 24 (Alastair McEwin AM, Royal Commissioner, Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, in his personal capacity).

    ↑

20. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Inclusive Juries—Access for People Who Are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, Blind or Have Low Vision (Consultation Paper, December 2020) 69 [8.25]–[8.28].

    ↑

21. The Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) s 53 provides that a ‘judge may, on application, order that a demonstration, experiment or inspection be held’. This is known as a ‘view’. The Juries Act 2000 (Vic) s 45 also provides that: ‘If, during a civil trial, the judge considers it desirable for the jury to view a particular place or object, the judge may order a view’. See also ‘Jury Trial and Verdict’, NSW Government, Communities & Justice (Web Page, 29 June 2020) <https://courts.nsw.gov.au/courts-and-tribunals/for-jurors/for-individuals-/jury-trial-verdict.html>.

    ↑

22. See Submission 10 (Vision Australia) Appendix.

    ↑

23. Consultation 1 (Blind Citizens Australia).

    ↑

24. Submission 10 (Vision Australia).

    ↑

25. Judicial College UK, Equal Treatment Bench Book (Manual, February 2021) 460 <https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Equal-Treatment-Bench-Book-February-2021-1.pdf>; Consultations 1 (Blind Citizens Australia), 22 (Daniel Stubbs, Victorian Disability Worker Commissioner, in his personal capacity).

    ↑

26. Judicial College UK, Equal Treatment Bench Book (Manual, February 2021) 460 <https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Equal-Treatment-Bench-Book-February-2021-1.pdf>; Consultation 1 (Blind Citizens Australia).

    ↑

27. Online Survey (Response 1).

    ↑

28. Consultation 1 (Blind Citizens Australia).

    ↑

29. ‘Computer Screen Readers’, Vision Australia (Web Page) <https://www.visionaustralia.org/information/adaptive-technology/using-technology/computer-screen-readers>.

    ↑

30. ‘JAWS’, Freedom Scientific (Web Page) <https://www.freedomscientific.com/Products/software/JAWS/>; Consultation 1 (Blind Citizens Australia).

    ↑

31. ‘ZoomText Magnifier/Reader’, ZoomText (Web Page) <https://www.zoomtext.com/products/zoomtext-magnifierreader/>.

    ↑

32. Consultation 1 (Blind Citizens Australia).

    ↑

33. Ibid.

    ↑

34. ‘Magnifiers’, Vision Australia (Web Page) <https://www.visionaustralia.org/information/adaptive-technology/using-technology/magnifiers>.

    ↑

35. ‘Guide to Buying Low Vision Magnifiers’, All About Vision (Web Page) <https://www.allaboutvision.com/buysmart/magnifiers.htm>.

    ↑

36. Brian Gerritsen, ‘Electronic Magnifiers and Magnifying Systems’, VisionAware (Web Page) <https://visionaware.org/everyday-living/helpful-products/overview-of-low-vision-devices/electronic-magnifiers/>.

    ↑

37. ‘Braille’, Vision Australia (Web Page) <https://www.visionaustralia.org/information/adaptive-technology/using-technology/braille>; Consultation 7 (Vision Australia).

    ↑

38. ‘Braille’, Vision Australia (Web Page) <https://www.visionaustralia.org/information/adaptive-technology/using-technology/braille>.

    ↑

39. ‘Library Guide: Blind/Visual Impairment: Common Assistive Technologies’, Illinois Library (Web Page) <https://guides.library.illinois.edu/c.php?g=526852&p=3602299>.

    ↑

40. ‘Accessible Equipment’, Vision Australia (Web Page) <https://www.visionaustralia.org/information/living-independently/accessible-equipment>.

    ↑

41. Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) s 7. See also Domestic Animals Act 1994 (Vic) s 7(4).

    ↑

42. Judicial College of Victoria, Disability Access Bench Book (Online Manual, 2016) [4.4] <https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/DABB/index.htm#59523.htm>.

    ↑

43. Consultation 16 (Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria).

    ↑

44. See generally Victorian Law Reform Commission, Inclusive Juries—Access for People Who Are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, Blind or Have Low Vision (Consultation Paper, December 2020) 72 [8.47].

    ↑

45. Consultation 4 (Victorian Criminal Bar Association).

    ↑

46. Submission 10 (Vision Australia).

    ↑

47. Consultation 24 (Alastair McEwin AM, Royal Commissioner, Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, in his personal capacity).

    ↑

48. Submission 4 (Associate Professors Bruce Baer Arnold (University of Canberra) and Wendy Bonython (Bond University)).

    ↑

49. Submission 14 (County Court of Victoria).

    ↑

50. Submission 14 (County Court of Victoria).

    ↑

51. Judicial College UK, Equal Treatment Bench Book (Manual, February 2021) 422 <https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Equal-Treatment-Bench-Book-February-2021-1.pdf>.

    ↑

52. Victorian Law Reform Commission, Inclusive Juries—Access for People Who Are Deaf, Hard of Hearing, Blind or Have Low Vision (Consultation Paper, December 2020) 31 [4.25], citing Ministry of Justice (NZ), ‘Disability Support’, Jury Service (Web Page, 18 August 2020) <https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/jury-service/disability-support/>. We note that this web page no longer appears online.

    ↑

53. Consultations 3 (Academics: Professor Jemina Napier (Heriot-Watt University), Professor Sandra Hale (University of New South Wales), Associate Professor Mehera San Roque (University of New South Wales)), 5 (Expression Australia); Consultation 8 (Brent Phillips), 14 (Jury Commissioner, New York State Courts in Rochester, Monroe County, United States), 18 (Australian Sign Language Interpreters’ Association, Victoria and Tasmania (ASLIA)), 19 (Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators (AUSIT)), 21 (Della Goswell, Lecturer, Convenor Auslan-English Interpreting Program, Macquarie University, NSW), 24 (Alastair McEwin AM, Royal Commissioner, Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, in his personal capacity).

    ↑

54. An ASLIA consultation participant who is an Auslan interpreter noted that when interpreting in court, she ‘is usually placed at the front of the courtroom, or positioned in a suitable space, depending on the layout of the courtroom. Usually, if at all practicable, interpreters do not have their back to the judge’: Consultation 18 (Australian Sign Language Interpreters’ Association, Victoria and Tasmania (ASLIA)). Also consultations 8 (Brent Phillips), 19 (Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators (AUSIT)).

    ↑

55. Consultations 3 (Academics: Professor Jemina Napier (Heriot-Watt University), Professor Sandra Hale (University of New South Wales), Associate Professor Mehera San Roque (University of New South Wales)), 22 (Daniel Stubbs, Victorian Disability Worker Commissioner, in his personal capacity).

    ↑

56. Consultations 19 (Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators (AUSIT)), 21 (Della Goswell, Lecturer, Convenor Auslan-English Interpreting Program, Macquarie University, NSW).

    ↑

57. Consultation 14 (Jury Commissioner, New York State Courts in Rochester, Monroe County, United States).

    ↑

58. Consultation 1 (Blind Citizens Australia).

    ↑

59. Consultation 8 (Brent Phillips). Expression Australia made similar comments about the need for extra time to analyse the evidence: Consultation 5 (Expression Australia).

    ↑

60. Submission 14 (County Court of Victoria).

    ↑

61. ‘Universal design’ is defined in the Victorian State Disability Plan as: ‘Making spaces, policies and programs that are inclusive, accessible and can be used independently by all people’. The implementation of ‘universal design’ is one of six systemic reforms outlined in the Victorian State Disability Plan: Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (Vic), Inclusive Victoria: State Disability Plan 2022–2026 (Report, March 2022) 60, 24, 29. See also: ‘Accessible Communications and Universal Design’, VIC.GOV.AU (Web Page) <https://www.vic.gov.au/state-disability-plan/systemic-reform-commitments-actions-and-accountability/accessible>.

    ↑

62. Submission 10 (Vision Australia).

    ↑

63. Consultation 7 (Vision Australia).

    ↑

64. Consultation 1 (Blind Citizens Australia).

    ↑

65. Submission 3 (Youth Disability Advocacy Service).

    ↑

66. ‘Virtual Hearings and Trials’, County Court Victoria (Web Page, 26 April 2022) <https://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/going-court/virtual-hearings-and-trials>.

    ↑

67. Consultation 9 (Consultation with two Victorian County Court Judges, Court policy staff and two Associates).

    ↑

68. Consultation 14 (Jury Commissioner, New York State Courts in Rochester, Monroe County, United States).

    ↑

69. Submission 5 (Name withheld).

    ↑

70. The ‘diversity of persons with disabilities’ is recognised in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, opened for signature 30 March 2007, 2515 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 May 2008) Preamble.

    ↑

71. Consultations 6 (Deaf Victoria and community participants), 7 (Vision Australia), 8 (Brent Phillips), 22 (Daniel Stubbs, Victorian Disability Worker Commissioner, in his personal capacity), 25 (Peter Ward, Partner, Galbally and O’Bryan Lawyers).

    ↑

72. Consultation 24 (Alastair McEwin AM, Royal Commissioner, Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, in his personal capacity).

    ↑