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

18. Encouraging change in the legal profession and the community

The best way to address misconceptions about the ability of people with disabilities to serve as jurors, is just to get on and do it.^[1]—Daniel Stubbs

Overview

• The legal profession would benefit from disability awareness training and education about new laws and processes.

• The public needs accessible information about how the new laws operate.

Cultural change is needed for legal reform to be effective

18.1 In Chapter 9 we identified concerns about whether people who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind or have low vision are capable of serving as jurors. Some people believe that people in the subject groups are incapable because of their disability. Some views are grounded in discriminatory beliefs and misconceptions about people with disabilities.^[2]

18.2 Consultees from the Victorian Criminal Bar Association recognised:

There are wide prejudices against disabled people within the legal community. Allowing deaf/blind people onto juries is similar to allowing women to sit on juries. Similarly, a bureaucrat may say ‘Ahh but we don’t have the facilities’ (as they did with women) but that just isn’t good enough.^[3]

18.3 Alastair McEwin suggested that misconceptions arise for a range of reasons, including the social isolation of deaf people from hearing people. He observed that:

When empanelling juries, a lot of assumptions are made about people’s abilities. But that comes from a lack of understanding or a misconception of people’s abilities, not an actual lack of ability in many cases.^[4]

18.4 We also explored the concerns of legal professionals about the accuracy and equivalency of Auslan-interpreted evidence^[5] and the training and qualifications of Auslan interpreters in Chapter 9.^[6] Concerns have also been raised about having a 13th person in the jury room.^[7]

18.5 Research examining the feasibility of jury service for deaf jurors and long-standing overseas practices facilitating jury service with adjustments may not be well known in the legal community. Sometimes concerns about reform arise because of a lack of understanding about how adjustments work in practice to enable jury service. Recommendations in Chapters 14 and 15 aim to improve the understanding amongst legal professionals of Auslan interpretation and training requirements, making clear the standards expected of Auslan interpreters and support persons when working with jurors from the subject groups.

18.6 Reforms also aim to address fair trial concerns about the use of reasonable adjustments by jurors to perceive and comprehend certain types of evidence. Recommendations in Chapters 11 and 12 provide for judicial oversight and assessment of the provision of reasonable adjustments.

18.7 To ensure that reform is effective, Alastair McEwin suggested that both informal and formal change is needed.^[8] A judge, the Juries Commissioner and counsel (as well as the accused) have the power to prevent a person from the subject groups from being a juror at various points in the jury selection process, so it is important to tackle any general misconceptions and improve understanding of practice and procedure. In this chapter we consider three ways this can be achieved:

1) disability awareness training

2) professional development for legal professionals, court staff and Juries Victoria about how new laws will work in practice

3) internal protocols for Juries Victoria and the courts to provide guidance about the operation of new laws and procedures.

18.8 This chapter also considers ways to improve community understanding of the new laws and encourage people in the subject groups to serve as jurors.

Disability awareness training for the legal profession

People in the community—and especially judicial officers

and legal practitioners—might not fully appreciate how sophisticated and effective contemporary accessible format/audio description production has become.^[9]—Online survey response

18.9 Disability awareness training ‘focuses on promoting an awareness of disability and the impact that societal attitudes and inherent stigma and discrimination have on the lives of people with disability’.^[10] It aims to inform and improve knowledge of legal obligations, policies and procedures that are relevant to people with disabilities under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and other discrimination and equal opportunity laws; and to address conscious and unconscious bias towards people with disabilities.

18.10 It is important to tackle attitudinal and practical obstacles that combine with a person’s abilities to create disadvantage or exclude them from jury selection. Disability awareness training should have a practical focus and cover the range of adjustments that will break down barriers to participation.

18.11 Youth Disability Advocacy Service (YDAS) suggested that disability awareness training ‘should be happening regardless of this project. It should already be occurring for anyone involved in the court process because people with disabilities are already regularly involved in those processes.’^[11] In its submission Victoria Legal Aid (VLA) noted that ‘over one quarter of VLA clients across Victoria disclose having a disability or experiencing mental health issues’.^[12] Disability awareness training will assist with the implementation of the recommendations in this report and with improving the experience of people with disabilities in the justice system more broadly.

Community responses: disability awareness training is important

It upsets me when people assume that because you have one disability it stands to reason that you will not have the ability to think or clearly plan alternate ways of achieving a suitable outcome.^[13]—Online survey response

18.12 Community responses strongly supported the need for disability awareness training for those who will administer the new laws, Juries Victoria and the judiciary and court staff, as well as the Office of Public Prosecutions (OPP) and counsel.^[14]

18.13 Juries Victoria submitted that it ‘supports education and training for the judiciary, court and Juries Victoria staff and the legal profession on the importance of inclusive juries, on respectful interactions with people with vision, hearing or other impairments, and on unconscious bias’.^[15]

18.14 The County Court commented:

The Court considers training to be essential for judicial officers, court staff and Juries Victoria staff. Training would mitigate the risk of well-meaning questions being asked or comments being made in relation to a person with a disability that are unintentionally offensive or discriminatory. Such questions or comments may result in embarrassment or other feelings of alienation for the prospective juror. Contractors with specialised expertise in disability awareness may be considered suitable to provide such training.^[16]

18.15 The Juries Commissioner further commented that he:

fully supports the provision of Disability Awareness Training for judicial officers, court and JV staff and the legal profession. While we will leave it to the relevant bodies to determine the best method of delivering this training, JV believes that, in our own case, training should be provided quarterly.^[17]

18.16 Vision Australia commented:

We strongly support initiatives such as disability awareness training. This training could mostly be delivered via e-learning, with content developed and validated by the blindness and low vision sector. There may be a need for some training to be delivered face-to-face, especially for people providing direct support and who would need to be familiar with how to safely guide a blind person and other basic orientation and mobility techniques. Experience has shown that disability awareness training can lead to transformations in the way participants understand disability and their appreciation of the contributions that people with disability can make in all areas of society.^[18]

18.17 Associate Professors Bruce Baer Arnold and Wendy Bonython submitted:

training will serve two functions. It will firstly signal that courts, tribunals and Justice Victoria staff have a substantive commitment to inclusiveness. Secondly, it will allay potential anxieties or misunderstandings among staff, something that will translate into their lives outside justice administration settings. An understanding of the challenges many people face and an affirmation of their capacity in addressing those challenges should assist staff in dealings with peers on the tram, at the beach, at the supermarket or at the kids’ school rather than merely in their professional lives.^[19]

18.18 YDAS noted that a ‘holistic approach should be adopted to create legal reform to ensure juries are inclusive. Recommendations should include disability awareness training for the courts and Juries Victoria. This will help ensure young people with disabilities feel comfortable in the legal space’.^[20]

18.19 One survey respondent commented:

as a general rule I find judicial officers and legal practitioners have very low levels of knowledge about discrimination law and Australia’s obligations under the CRPD. Melbourne Law School has only recently added disability human rights law subjects to its programs and many other law schools are yet to do so. To my knowledge Victoria does not have even one judge or Tribunal member with a disability (even in the VCAT Guardianship List) and there are no disabled Commissioners at the VLRC [Victorian Law Reform Commission] despite the massive over-representation of disabled Victorians in our prisons.^[21]

18.20 The Commission is pleased that some legal practitioners are already receiving disability awareness training. The OPP told us that disability awareness training is provided to OPP staff. Crown Prosecutors can also attend. For example, in late 2020 the OPP held a training session, ‘Practical and effective ways of working with people with disabilities’ which covered inclusion and discussed feedback from court users about best practice. The OPP supported disability awareness training for court and Juries Victoria staff and lawyers with the aim of ensuring that reform is effective.^[22]

Other calls for awareness training

18.21 The New South Wales Law Reform Commission (NSWLRC) and the Western Australian Law Reform Commission (LRCWA) have also called for disability awareness training for legal professionals involved in the jury system.^[23]

18.22 The provision of disability awareness training is in line with Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021–2031, which states:

Effective access to justice for people with disability requires consideration of individual needs. Without this there can be no equitable or equal participation. This requires appropriate strategies, including aids, equipment, and accessible legal information and advice to facilitate equal and effective participation in all legal proceedings. In addition, greater awareness of disability is needed among some parts of the judiciary, legal professionals and court staff.^[24]

18.23 The Law Council of Australia outlined a range of systemic and structural barriers to justice for people facing significant economic and other disadvantage, including people with disability. In its report The Justice Project the Law Council concluded that:

People with disability face negative stigma and discrimination both in society generally and in the justice system. Inadequate disability training perpetuates misconceptions about disability and entrenches stigma. It also leads to a failure by justice system personnel, including lawyers, judges, police officers and corrections, to identify disability and thus appropriately respond to an individual’s disability-related needs.^[25]

18.24 The provision of disability awareness training is in keeping with the recommendations of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Convention Committee). In the three cases in which Australia was found to have breached its duties under the CRPD in regard to deaf jurors, the Convention Committee noted Australia’s obligation to take measures to avoid similar violations in the future, including by ensuring that:

appropriate and regular training on the scope of the Convention and its Optional Protocol, including on accessibility for persons with disabilities, is provided to local authorities, such as the Sheriff, and the judicial officers and staff involved in facilitating the work of the judiciary.^[26]

18.25 Comments from deaf jurors in Monroe County, New York State, suggested that they would like to see ‘greater training for the courts about what it means to be deaf and access proceedings via an interpreter’.^[27]

Conclusion: disability awareness training should be required

18.26 Disability awareness training should be required for judges, court officers and Juries Victoria staff, the Victorian Bar and lawyers, to encourage cultural change. The OPP should continue to deliver disability awareness training to staff and incorporate specific training on the topic of jury service. It may be possible for disability awareness training to be included in specialist accreditation schemes for legal professionals.^[28] In Chapter 15 we also suggested that new accessibility officers should receive disability awareness training.

18.27 The Judicial College of Victoria has noted that if ‘Auslan interpreters were to be used to facilitate jury service for people who are deaf, the Judicial College would likely incorporate awareness raising around this in its annual programming education. Subject to resourcing, the College could develop an education and training program for judicial officers incorporating a face-to-face component that would allow judicial officers to experience the use of an Auslan interpreter in a simulated court setting’.^[29]

18.28 The practical aspects of disability awareness training should:

• draw attention to the spectrum of disability and differing needs

• expose the profession to people with disabilities and provide an opportunity for the profession to interact with and ask questions of people with disabilities

• have a practical focus and provide an overview of key adjustments and a demonstration of how they work in practice

• discuss potential challenges for the prospective juror or the court, for example, line-of-sight requirements for Auslan interpreters.

Involving people with disabilities

18.29 Disability awareness training should be prepared and delivered in partnership with disability advocacy organisations. It should occur on a regular basis, perhaps every two years. YDAS suggested that young people should also be involved in the design of this training.^[30]

Professional development about the new laws for the legal profession

18.30 To ease concerns about changes to law and practice, we recommend that professional development training is provided about how the new laws will work in practice. This should form part of existing training modules and should be provided by:

• Juries Victoria (for its own staff)

• the Judicial College (for judges)

• the Victorian Bar (for barristers)

• Juries Victoria in partnership with the courts (for court staff, accessibility officers and support persons)

• the Office of Public Prosecutions for Crown prosecutors and solicitors who prosecute criminal offences

• the Law Institute of Victoria (for solicitors involved in jury trials)

• Victoria Legal Aid.

18.31 Training on the reforms could also be incorporated into practical legal training courses run by the College of Law and Leo Cussen Centre for Law.

18.32 The content of this training should be matched to the needs of the recipients. In Chapter 14, we recommended that the Judicial College provides training on the Recommended National Standards for Working with Interpreters in Court (RNS). Judges should also be briefed about likely courtroom adjustments, including about line of sight requirements.

18.33 Some adjustments are already provided in court for witnesses and parties and are outlined in the Disability Access Bench Book.^[31] Information on working with interpreters (but not specifically about the RNS) is included in the Disability Access Bench Book.^[32] The Judicial College of Victoria features the RNS on its website.^[33] We agree with VLA’s suggestion that the Disability Access Bench Book ‘could be updated to specifically address accessibility and supports for jurors who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind or have low vision’.^[34]

Internal protocols should be developed about the new laws

18.34 Juries Victoria, in partnership with the courts, should develop internal protocols to guide court and Juries Victoria staff about the operation of new laws and procedures.

18.35 Protocols of this kind have been developed in England and Wales and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).^[35] Juries Victoria and the courts should consult with the ACT Court and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Services (HMCTS) to develop its internal protocol.

18.36 Key information to be included in the protocol would be:

• an overview of key roles and responsibilities: Auslan interpreter, support person, accessibility officer, jury foreperson.

• what information is provided to the person summonsed about asking for adjustments

• the definition of a reasonable adjustment, with examples of common adjustments and how they work.

• what to do if a person wants to bring their own technology to court

• how Juries Victoria is notified of the need for an adjustment (and the steps it needs to take to record those adjustments in its database)

• pre-court visits

• excuse and deferral options for people in the subject groups

• examples of common courtroom adjustments and how to facilitate them

• who to direct enquiries to in Juries Victoria and Court Registries

• court expectations of Auslan interpreters and supporters: code of conduct, standards and oaths

• tips for booking Auslan interpreters and service provider information

• template forms

• anonymised examples of jurors who had served with reasonable adjustments.

18.37 It would also be helpful if the protocols contained a procedure map detailing when various steps occur in relation to the jury selection process, for example:

• a visit to the court before the summons date

• preliminary report from Juries Victoria

• judge consideration—on the papers or hearing

• direction from a judge, if adjustments cannot be reasonably provided or there are doubts about capacity

• empanelment process.

18.38 Juries Victoria may need additional protocols outlining the steps to take before service and what to do on the first day of service.

Information for the community about reforms

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.^[36]

—Participant in the Blind Citizens Australia consultation

18.39 Members of the community will need to be informed about the reforms recommended in this report. People in the subject groups may also be unfamiliar with what is involved in jury service and not confident about participating.

Improving community knowledge of disability

18.40 Consultation participants told us that disability awareness and understanding of adjustments, such as Auslan interpreters, has improved in the community over the last few years. In Chapter 7 we note that we are now accustomed to seeing Auslan interpreters at press conferences and public events.^[37] Della Goswell observed that:

Public awareness has increased with more exposure to Auslan interpreters through emergency announcements and COVID-19 briefings etc. Auslan class enrolments have risen sharply as a result.^[38]

18.41 However, Ms Goswell further commented that:

Most people in the community have very little first-hand experience of deaf people. Historical references to ‘deaf and dumb’ has meant that people often think that deaf people are unable to use their voice and are of low intelligence.^[39]

18.42 There is still a lack of in-depth understanding in the community regarding the abilities of people from the subject groups. Participants in our consultation with Deaf Victoria told us that in the broader community:

There is an underlying attitude that deafness equates to ‘can’t’. However, the ability to hear is different from the ability to understand and comprehend.^[40]

18.43 In 2008, the Victorian Office for Disability commissioned research into community attitudes towards disability. It found that attitudes towards people with a disability are steadily improving, with a significant decrease in the number of people who report feeling sorry for people with a disability, from 71 per cent in 2001 to 57 per cent in 2008. Respondents believed that community attitudes had improved but acknowledged that there was still a long way to go.^[41]

18.44 To address a lack of knowledge in the community about the abilities of people in the subject groups, there should be a public education campaign about new laws.^[42] This would be in line with Australia’s obligations under the CRPD, to ‘combat stereotypes, prejudices’ and ‘promote awareness of the capabilities and contributions of persons with disabilities’.^[43]

18.45 New laws should be publicised by government and advocacy organisations while promoting the rights of people with disabilities to participate in community life on equal terms. Advocacy organisations should publicise new laws in their newsletters and on their social media pages. Juries Victoria and the courts should provide updates about new laws on their websites.

18.46 We note that care must be taken in the production of this educative material to avoid juror identification. All training and publicity must not breach the obligations in Part 10 of the Act.^[44]

Encouraging people in the subject groups to participate on juries

18.47 We were told that people from the subject groups may be hesitant to be jurors because they have been excluded for so long. One consultation participant from Expression Australia noted that:

because deaf people suffer systemic disadvantage, they might not feel they are capable of sitting on a jury. For example, they may not feel that they are sufficiently educated to sit on a jury because they may not have completed school to year 12. However, if deaf people are told about the role of juries and the breadth of people who become jurors then this will help them gain confidence to sit on juries.

It will be important to clearly set out what sort of supports are available and what is expected of the juror.

It could also be noted that there is no need to have a legal background to serve on a jury. Such knowledge cannot be assumed, because deaf people have not been allowed to participate in the past.

Because the cohort has never had opportunity before they need upskilling/training about what is involved to better inform them when they fill out a questionnaire. ^[45]

18.48 Alastair McEwin commented ‘deaf people might not feel confident to do jury duty. Until there is cultural change deaf people will continue to expect less from themselves’.^[46]

18.49 Della Goswell observed:

As with the broader population, many deaf people will not understand what is involved in jury duty. They have less access to explanatory information about the role (especially from a deaf person’s perspective). If deaf people become entitled to be considered for jury service, then it will be helpful to have a community education program/resources in Auslan that explain what is involved, the English literacy skills needed, that they can choose to participate if they feel confident, but that they can also request to be excused if they fear that they will be out of their depth.^[47]

18.50 Deaf Victoria consultation participants explained:

Deaf people will require training or educating as well, to help build their confidence to contribute as a jury member. There may be some cultural differences that will need to be unpacked and understood.^[48]

18.51 We recommend that people from the subject groups have access to clear information about what adjustments are available to allow them to serve as jurors, and what they can expect to happen throughout the process. Information should be provided about all matters that will affect them, including:

• the need for a good understanding of English

• how to notify Juries Victoria that they require an adjustment to serve as a juror

• examples of reasonable adjustments

• the importance of having a discussion with Juries Victoria about adjustment needs

• options to be excused or have service deferred, with examples of common scenarios

• options to visit court ahead of jury empanelment to familiarise themselves with the courtroom and court building and to discuss adjustments

• the assessment process and what that will involve—who will make decisions and the opportunity for the person to express their needs to Juries Victoria and the court, the possibility of not being able to serve if fair trial issues arise or adjustments are deemed unreasonable

• what will be expected of them at trial if they are selected on a jury

• information about the responsibilities that support persons and Auslan interpreters owe to the court

• the role of an accessibility officer

• who to contact if they need to talk to someone about jury service.

18.52 We recommend that this information be provided on the Juries Victoria and court websites. Disability advocacy groups could also distribute information about the reforms to their communities via newsletters or information sessions.

18.53 The ACT Jury Handbook includes a section on ‘Reasonable Support for Jurors’.^[49] This is publicly available on the website of the ACT courts. Public information explains how HMCTS supports court users with disabilities in England and Wales.^[50]

18.54 Juries Victoria should consider developing a short information video, information sheet or ‘Q and A’ about jury service with adjustments in accessible formats.

18.55 Information should be provided in accessible formats in line with Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021–2031, which requires ‘accessible legal information and advice to facilitate equal and effective participation in all legal proceedings’.^[51]

18.56 We commend the Supreme Court and the County Court for already aiming to provide websites that are accessible to the ‘widest possible audience’, including ‘readers using assistive technology or accessibility features’.^[52] The Supreme and County Court websites conform to level AA Accessibility.^[53] The County Court website is also in line with the Victorian Government’s Digital Standards.^[54]

18.57 It would be helpful if Juries Victoria could arrange a disability liaison officer in its office to be available for people in the subject groups to call (or video call, with the assistance of an Auslan interpreter, if required) with whom they can discuss their needs and any reservations about serving.

Education should be targeted to encourage Aboriginal people to serve on juries

As Aboriginal people, we often see ourselves as victims of the court system. But we’re also members of the community and need to be part of the justice system by serving on juries.^[55]—Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation consultee

18.58 Targeted information encouraging Aboriginal Victorians in the subject groups is also important.^[56] As outlined in Chapter 4, Aboriginal consultation participants advised us that Aboriginal members of the subject groups may feel additional hesitation to serve.^[57] The Victorian Aboriginal Controlled Health Organisation (VACCHO) referred to layers of institutional discrimination on the basis of race and disability that act as barriers to jury service.^[58]

18.59 VACCHO advised the Commission that the success of legal reforms ‘could be improved if there were champions within the Aboriginal community’.^[59] VACCHO further advised that many Aboriginal people work in the court system now, and suggested that they become involved, ‘to educate the community and help encourage Aboriginal people to serve’.^[60] For example, Aboriginal community leaders or Aboriginal people who work in the court system could take groups of people into court to see a jury working and speak with a judge to ‘make the system more humanised’.^[61] Educational tools such as a video could be created to educate Aboriginal people about the importance of jury service.^[62]

18.60 The Victorian Government should consult with Aboriginal leaders, including via the Aboriginal Justice Caucus, about the best way to ensure culturally appropriate and targeted information about the new laws reaches the Indigenous community. This may include funding VACCHO and the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service (VALS) to provide education about the new laws through its networks.

18.61 It might also be helpful for Juries Victoria to create an Internal Aboriginal liaison role. The liaison person could disseminate information about the new laws, educate people of the importance of their service and act as a contact point to explain the new laws if an Aboriginal person from the subject groups was summonsed to serve.

1. Consultation 22 (Daniel Stubbs, Victorian Disability Worker Commissioner, in his personal capacity).

   ↑

2. See, eg, the discussion in David Spencer et al, ‘Justice Is Blind as Long as It Isn’t Deaf: Excluding Deaf People from Jury Duty—an Australian Human Rights Breach’ (2017) 23(3) Australian Journal of Human Rights 332, 341.

   ↑

3. Consultation 4 (Victorian Criminal Bar Association).

   ↑

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

   ↑

5. David Spencer et al, ‘Justice Is Blind as Long as It Isn’t Deaf: Excluding Deaf People from Jury Duty—an Australian Human Rights Breach’ (2017) 23(3) Australian Journal of Human Rights 332, 332, 341–3.

   ↑

6. Jemina Napier and Alastair McEwin, ‘Do Deaf People Have the Right to Serve as Jurors in Australia?’ (2015) 40(1) Alternative Law Journal 23, 26.

   ↑

7. Ibid.

   ↑

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

   ↑

9. Online Survey (Response 2).

   ↑

10. ‘Disability Awareness’, Disability Awareness Courses (Web Page, 2022) <https://disabilityawareness.com.au/elearning/disability-awareness/>. See also ‘Disability Awareness Programs’, Diversity Australia (Web Page) <https://www.diversityaustralia.com.au/training/disability_awareness/>.

    ↑

11. Consultation 17 (Youth Disability Advocacy Service (YDAS)).

    ↑

12. Submission 8 (Victoria Legal Aid).

    ↑

13. Online Survey (Response 1).

    ↑

14. Submissions 7 (Law Institute of Victoria), 8 (Victoria Legal Aid); Consultations 9 (Consultation with two Victorian County Court Judges, Court policy staff and two Associates), 17 (Youth Disability Advocacy Service (YDAS)), 24 (Alastair McEwin AM, Royal Commissioner, Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, in his personal capacity).

    ↑

15. Submission 13 (Juries Victoria).

    ↑

16. Submission 14 (County Court of Victoria).

    ↑

17. Submission 13 (Juries Victoria).

    ↑

18. Submission 10 (Vision Australia).

    ↑

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

    ↑

20. Consultation 17 (Youth Disability Advocacy Service (YDAS)).

    ↑

21. Online Survey (Response 2).

    ↑

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

    ↑

23. New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Blind or Deaf Jurors (Report No 114, September 2006) 61; Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, Selection, Eligibility and Exemption of Jurors (Final Report Project No 99, April 2010) 107–8,
    
    Recommendation 57.

    ↑

24. Department of Social Services (Cth), Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021–2031 (Report, December 2021) 17, Policy Priority 5.

    ↑

25. Law Council of Australia, Introduction and Overview (The Justice Project, Final Report, August 2018).

    ↑

26. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Views: Communication No 35/2016, 20th sess, UN Doc CRPD/C/20/D/35/2016 (31 August 2018) [8] (‘JH v Australia’). Identical recommendations were made in a further two cases: Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Views: Communication No 11/2013, 15th sess, UN Doc CRPD/C/15/D/11/2013 (25 May 2016) (‘Beasley v Australia’); Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Views: Communication No 13/2013, 15th sess, UN Doc CRPD/C/15/D/13/2013 (30 May 2016) (‘Lockrey v Australia’). See also Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, opened for signature 30 March 2007, 2515 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 May 2008) art 8.

    ↑

27. Comments identified in Jemina Napier et al, ‘Training Legal Interpreters to Work with Deaf Jurors’ in Jeremy L Brunson (ed), Legal Interpreting—Teaching, Research and Practice (Gallaudet University Press, 2022) 267.

    ↑

28. For example, Victoria Legal Aid only briefs barristers on the Criminal Trial Preferred Barrister List for major criminal trials (unless an exemption is granted). To be on the Criminal Trial Preferred Barrister List, barristers must hold an Indictable Crime Certificate accreditation from the Victorian Bar. Potentially, some questions regarding the use of adjustments to facilitate participation of jurors from the subject groups could be included in the test to obtain the Indictable Crime Certificate: see ‘Criminal Trial Preferred Barrister List’, Victoria Legal Aid (Web Page, 25 January 2022) <https://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/criminal-trial-preferred-barrister-list>; ‘Victorian Bar to Introduce Accreditation for Criminal Trial Barristers’, Victorian Bar (Web Page, 31 October 2014) <https://www.vicbar.com.au/news-events/victorian-bar-introduce-accreditation-criminal-trial-barristers>.

    ↑

29. Information provided by Judicial College of Victoria to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 5 July 2022.

    ↑

30. Submission 3 (Youth Disability Advocacy Service).

    ↑

31. 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>.

    ↑

32. Judicial College of Victoria, Disability Access Bench Book (Online Manual, 2016) <https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/DABB/index.htm#59523.htm>: see chs 5.6.1, 5.9, 7.6; Information provided by Judicial College of Victoria to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 5 July 2022.

    ↑

33. ‘Recommended National Standards for Working with Interpreters in Courts and Tribunals’, Judicial College of Victoria (Web Page, 28 April 2022) <https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/news/recommended-national-standards-working-interpreters-courts-and-tribunals>. On the prohibition of the use of Auslan interpreters in the jury room: see generally Judicial College of Victoria, ‘5.26.1 Eligibility of jurors’, Disability Access Bench Book (Online Manual, 1 December 2016) <https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/DABB/index.htm#59523.htm>; Judicial College of Victoria, ‘11.1 Selecting a Jury’, Victorian Criminal Proceedings Manual (Online Manual, 30 August 2021) <https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/VCPM/index.htm#27318.htm>. The Judicial College of Victoria told us that if ‘there are reforms to Victorian law to permit interpreters in the jury room, we would update these’: Information provided by Judicial College of Victoria to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 5 July 2022.

    ↑

34. Submission 8 (Victoria Legal Aid).

    ↑

35. Information provided by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 15 September 2021; information provided by ACT Sheriff to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 18 September 2020.

    ↑

36. Consultation 1 (Blind Citizens Australia).

    ↑

37. Zach Hope, ‘“But Seriously, I’m Really Nervous”: The Everywhere Faces of Auslan Interpreters and Their Vital Work’, The Age (online, 10 May 2020) <https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/but-seriously-i-m-really-nervous-the-everywhere-faces-of-auslan-interpreters-and-their-vital-work-20200509-p54rcu.html>; Holly Tregenza, ‘The Coronavirus Pandemic and Bushfire Emergency Have Thrust Auslan Interpreters into the Spotlight’, ABC News (online, 11 April 2020) <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-11/coronavirus-bushfires-thrust-auslan-interpreters-into-spotlight/12140824>.

    ↑

38. Consultation 21 (Della Goswell, Lecturer, Convenor Auslan-English Interpreting Program, Macquarie University, NSW).

    ↑

39. Ibid.

    ↑

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

    ↑

41. Department of Planning and Community Development (Vic), Community Attitudes Towards Disability (Report, 2008), cited in Council of Australian Governments, National Disability Strategy 2010–2020 (Report, 2011) 37.

    ↑

42. A public education campaign was supported by Dr Baer Arnold and Dr Bonython who also stressed that the best advocates for inclusion are those who serve under new laws: Submission 4 (Baer Arnold & Bonython).

    ↑

43. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, opened for signature 30 March 2007, 2515 UNTS 3 (entered into force
    
    3 May 2008) art 8.

    ↑

44. Juries Act 2000 (Vic) pt 10.

    ↑

45. Consultation 5 (Expression Australia).

    ↑

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

    ↑

47. Consultation 21 (Della Goswell, Lecturer, Convenor Auslan-English Interpreting Program, Macquarie University, NSW).

    ↑

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

    ↑

49. Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Jury Handbook (Handbook, 12 June 2019) 10.

    ↑

50. Email from Live Services Team, Strategy and Change Directorate, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 2 September 2021; Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, ‘Equality and Diversity’, GOV.UK (Web Page) <https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service/about/equality-and-diversity>.

    ↑

51. Department of Social Services (Cth), Australia’s Disability Strategy 2021–2031 (Report, December 2021) 17, Policy Priority 5.

    ↑

52. ‘Accessibility’, County Court of Victoria (Web Page) <https://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/accessibility>; ‘Accessibility’, The Supreme Court of Victoria (Web Page) <http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/accessibility>.

    ↑

53. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 (Web Page, 18 May 2021) <https://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/>.

    ↑

54. ‘Accessibility’, County Court of Victoria (Web Page) <https://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/accessibility>; Victorian Government, ‘Digital Guides’, VIC.GOV.AU (Web Page) <https://www.vic.gov.au/digital-guides>.

    ↑

55. Consultation 23 (Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (VACCHO)).

    ↑

56. The QLRC similarly recommended that ‘culturally appropriate educational programs that promote the importance and benefits of jury service should be developed and made available within Indigenous communities’: Queensland Law Reform Commission, A Review of Jury Selection (Report No 68, 2011) v, Recommendation 11–4.

    ↑

57. Consultation 23 (Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (VACCHO)).

    ↑

58. Ibid.

    ↑

59. Ibid.

    ↑

60. Ibid.

    ↑

61. Ibid.

    ↑

62. Ibid.

    ↑