12. Reforming court and Juries Victoria processes to remove barriers to inclusive juries

Every time a person with disabilities is summoned to perform jury duty, a thorough, objective and comprehensive assessment of his or her request for adjustment [must be] carried out and all reasonable accommodation[s] duly provided to enable his or her full participation.^[782]—United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Overview

•​The practices and procedures of Juries Victoria and the courts need to change to accompany amendments to the Juries Act.

•​We do not expect a large number of people to use reasonable adjustments on Victorian juries. Recommendations therefore aim to work within existing jury selection processes and retain the existing flexibility to respond to the needs of the court and potential jurors as they arise.

•​The new practices and procedures should enable the person from the subject groups to discuss their needs and abilities from the start, and provide them with the opportunity to be heard by a judge.

•​The County and Supreme Courts have different case management practices, and there is uncertainty about whether recent changes will remain after the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Therefore, the courts and Juries Victoria will need to work together to work out the finer details of implementation.

Introduction

12.1​The aim of this chapter is to provide the courts and Juries Victoria with guidance about how legislative reforms (recommended in Chapter 11) can be put into practice.

12.2​County Court consultees stressed the importance of practical recommendations:

The Commission’s recommendations should outline clearly, in a very practical way, how to reform the jury system and enact this reform. This is preferable to merely providing a conceptual review of the need to provide reasonable adjustments.^[783]

12.3​The Supreme Court identified that, in developing reform options, there will inevitably be a tension between:

a)​dealing with matters as far in advance as possible to promote the efficient administration of justice; and

b)​allowing an individual’s circumstances, including the nature of their disability, to be taken into account.^[784]

12.4​The number of people who might serve on Victorian juries with reasonable adjustments is likely to increase over time but will remain small. Because of this, it is not necessary to create complicated new systems and processes. Instead of re-imagining the entire jury selection process, reforms to current procedures should suffice.

12.5​This chapter begins by considering the challenges posed by the Victorian jury selection process. It then reviews procedural frameworks in other jurisdictions, especially the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and England and Wales, where people with disabilities can serve with reasonable adjustments. The chapter reviews the options for reform suggested by the Supreme Court, County Court, Juries Victoria and others. The Commission then provides recommendations on how processes should change to enable people from the subject groups to serve as jurors.

12.6​The Commission’s recommendations focus on:

•​the roles and responsibilities of Juries Victoria and the courts

•​how to fit a judicial assessment of the provision of reasonable adjustments into the existing jury selection process

•​what information the court should provide to counsel and jurors about reasonable adjustments.

The Victorian jury selection process: challenges for reform

12.7​The Victorian jury selection process presents several challenges for implementing our recommendations:

1)​It is difficult to plan in advance.

2)​The Victorian courts are busy.

3)​The Supreme and County Courts’ case management systems operate differently.

4)​Regional courts have varying levels of accessibility.

12.8​These challenges are discussed in the following paragraphs. Court accessibility was discussed in Chapter 11.

It is difficult to plan in advance

12.9​Reasonable adjustments may need to be provided during three stages of the jury selection process:

1)​The early stage—the person attends court in response to a summons and is briefed by Juries Victoria, excuses are called for and people are randomly balloted to a panel.

2)​The middle stage—the potential juror moves to the courtroom as part of a panel to hear information about the upcoming trial, and may again seek to be excused. At this stage the potential juror might be ‘challenged off’ by the accused through the peremptory challenge process or stood aside by the Crown.

3)​The final stage—the person has been selected to serve as a juror and the trial commences.

12.10​The jury selection process makes it difficult to plan for the provision of reasonable adjustments because it is hard to know whether the adjustments will be needed for trial as well as the empanelment process. The person in the subject groups may seek to be excused or have their jury service deferred at multiple points in the selection process. The prospective juror may not be randomly balloted to a panel, or might be challenged or stood aside at the end of the empanelment process.

12.11​Because of the random balloting process, it will not be known which trial, if any, a person in the subject groups will be randomly balloted to until the last minute.^[785] This makes it difficult to find a time in advance of empanelment to hold a hearing to determine whether the person could serve on a particular trial. But there are valid concerns that doing everything on the day of empanelment will place a strain on the court system.

12.12​Not knowing which trial a person in the subject groups will be balloted to also makes it difficult to arrange to hold the trial in an accessible courtroom.

Victorian courts are busy

12.13​In Chapter 11 we recommended that Victoria use the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) legislation as a guide for Victorian reforms. However, Victoria is a much larger and busier jurisdiction than the ACT. For example, we were told that before the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, a busy day in the Melbourne County Court would involve empanelling 5–8 trials with approximately 180 people in the jury pool.^[786]

12.14​The ACT courts hear significantly fewer trials.^[787] The ACT sheriff advised that there are only five judges available who would typically run a jury trial in the Supreme Court.^[788] We were told that generally the maximum number of trials running on a given day is two. Before the pandemic the Court might hear five trials a week.^[789] The ACT has no intermediate court equivalent to the County Court in Victoria, nor does it have regional circuits.

12.15​Case management practices in the ACT are based on an individual docket system, which makes it easier to plan for the delivery and assessment of supports. Cases may be allocated to a judge at any time from several months before the trial up to the week before. Courtrooms are generally allocated a week in advance and judges are assigned their own courtroom for all their trials.^[790]

The Supreme and County Courts operate differently

12.16​There are differences between the case management approaches of the Victorian County Court and the Supreme Court, making it difficult to devise a procedural approach that suits both. In the Supreme Court the trial judge has more control over pre-trial issues. There are fewer trials to manage and trial dates are more certain.^[791] In this way, the Supreme Court more closely resembles practice in the ACT.

12.17​The Commission understands that the Victorian courts have changed their case management processes to adapt to the pandemic.^[792] We discuss changes in the County Court below. While the courts are hopeful that these changes will continue, this remains unclear at the time of writing.

How other jurisdictions provide reasonable adjustments

12.18​In the ACT and England and Wales, many of the steps involved in arranging and assessing the provision of reasonable adjustments occur before the potential juror is required to attend court. A person notifies the court early in the process about their need for adjustments.^[793] They can visit court ahead of the summons date to discuss their circumstances and needs.^[794] Jury service may be deferred while supports are arranged. A senior court official or the sheriff makes a preliminary assessment about the provision of reasonable adjustments with the final decision being made, if necessary, in a hearing before a judge attended by the person with a disability.^[795]

12.19​We note that because no one has yet served on a jury pursuant to the new ACT Act, the information that follows is the likely approach as outlined by the ACT sheriff.^[796]

Key elements of the ACT approach

12.20​Information sent out with the jury summons advises people to contact the court if they have a disability and wish to serve with supports.^[797] The person seeking to use supports can have a pre-empanelment visit to the court to tour the court building, courtroom and to discuss their needs with the sheriff.^[798]

12.21​If a person seeks to use supports on the day of empanelment, jury duty will likely be deferred to a later time to allow the necessary information to be gathered and arrangements made by the ACT sheriff.^[799]

12.22​The sheriff will make a preliminary recommendation to the court about the provision of supports to enable jury service. In making a recommendation the sheriff will consider matters including:

•​the supports requested

•​details of trials listed for the period the person has been summonsed

•​anticipated costs

•​impact on court resources, facilities and timelines.^[800]

12.23​The sheriff will have information about trials including the charges, expected length of trial and trial callover outcomes.^[801] Judges may have access to pre-trial material and may be better able to assess the evidence likely to be adduced. The sheriff may approach the prospective judges and discuss the provision of supports with them. ^[802]

12.24​It is expected that the sheriff’s recommendation will be communicated to the person with a disability over the phone. If the person agrees with the recommendation, the matter can be dealt with on the papers. If the recommendation is not to provide supports, then the matter will be listed for a hearing before a judge. The sheriff will advise the person of the hearing date. It is preferable for the matter to be determined in advance of the trial. This is likely to be the week before trial if the Court is made aware of the need for supports early in the process.^[803]

12.25​If the matter has been allocated to a trial judge already and if a jury pool is specifically drawn for a single allocated trial, then the allocated judge is likely to determine the application for support. If the matter has not been allocated or the pool is drawn for several trials, it is likely that the chief justice would either hear the application or make a determination about how it should be dealt with. Ultimately, it will be up to the chief justice or an allocated judge to make any determinations.^[804]

12.26​The judge will consider the issue and may discharge the person from further attendance under that summons. The hearing is likely to occur in private and the judge may ‘conduct the hearing and consider such evidence as she or he thinks fit’.^[805]

12.27​If the judge determines that the person with a disability can serve with supports, they will participate in the empanelment process. If they are not challenged they will be sworn in and provide an oath/affirmation, as will the supporter or interpreter. ^[806]

The approach in England and Wales

12.28​The approach to providing reasonable adjustments in England and Wales has the following key elements:

•​A senior court official first makes an assessment about the provision of reasonable adjustments. The court official explains that the person can apply to be excused.^[807]

•​If the juror does not want to be excused and the court officer has doubts about a person’s capacity to act effectively as a juror because of a physical disability, that person is brought before a judge to determine the issue.^[808] Court staff do not have any power to discharge a juror under their summons. The hearing will occur in the court that the person has been summonsed to attend, generally before the beginning of jury service.^[809]

•​The judge ‘shall affirm the summons unless [the judge] is of the opinion that the person will not, on account of [their] disability, be capable of acting effectively as a juror, in which case [the judge] shall discharge the summons’.^[810] If the potential juror is deaf, the judge must consider ‘whether the assistance of a British Sign Language interpreter would enable that person to be capable of acting effectively as a juror’.^[811] If so, the judge now has the power to appoint one or more interpreters to facilitate that person’s jury service. The 13th person rule will continue to prevent a juror from obtaining assistance from a non-juror, other than a British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter, in jury deliberations.

•​The judge could choose to release the potential juror from the panel or from service entirely, or if not, decide that the potential juror could fully participate.^[812]

•​Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) has advised that if the situation is addressed at the start of or before jury service, the assessment by the judge is about capacity to serve generally across all trials. The judge makes their assessment by speaking to the juror and asking questions. If the juror has been selected to form part of a panel from which a jury is selected and needs reasonable adjustments to participate, the judge may consider the nature of the evidence in that particular trial. For example, if the juror is partially sighted and there is a lot of visual evidence, the judge may decide that the juror would not be able to fully participate.^[813]

Different approaches proposed for Victoria

12.29​In our consultation paper we asked whether a similar approach to that used in the ACT could work in Victoria. We asked for feedback on the respective roles of the courts and Juries Victoria.

12.30​The County Court, Supreme Court and Juries Victoria suggested three detailed approaches, which differ from each other, with some overlapping elements. Key elements of those proposals are summarised below. The submissions of these organisations can be viewed on the Commission’s website.

12.31​All approaches supported changing procedural practices so that Juries Victoria is notified as soon as possible about the need for reasonable adjustments.^[814]

The County Court’s proposed approach

12.32​The County Court proposed that Juries Victoria ‘conduct the assessments and determinations’ about adjustments. Undertaking work before trial ‘will not only ensure the efficient commencement of a trial, it ensures all jurors are appropriately supported from the outset’.^[815] County Court consultees did not think that it would be ‘appropriate for the trial judge to have to make a determination about the provision of supports on the day of empanelment’.^[816]

12.33​Other elements of the County Court’s suggested approach include:

•​A judge or judicial registrar could designate an upcoming trial as accessible to those who may require supports. Identifying a trial as an accessible jury trial may be determined at the final directions hearing after discussion with the parties, including whether there are any issues in dispute that would require full hearing or sight, for example, visual or voice identification.^[817] County Court consultees suggested that ‘judicial oversight of this assessment should guard against prejudicial judgements by parties’.^[818]

•​This information could then be provided by the Court to Juries Victoria so that jurors who require supports are not allocated to a trial that is not suitable. The Juries Commissioner would need a new power to achieve this.^[819]

•​A small pool of people in the Juries Commissioner’s Office, with appropriate training and guidelines, could make those assessments instead of judges.^[820]

​Consultees from the County Court suggested additional elements:

•​The decision of the Juries Commissioner ‘should be reviewable by an independent reviewer, for example a Judicial Registrar or a List Judge in advance of the date the potential juror would be summonsed for service. It should not be left to a trial judge when empanelling’.

•​On the day of empanelment, if a potential juror is attending with adjustments, the selection of the jury panel would proceed as normal. The judge would talk about the use of supports in directions prior to the empanelment of the jury.

•​An Auslan interpreter would be sworn in at the start of the empanelment process (consistently with the usual practice of swearing in interpreters as soon as they are needed to assist a person to participate in a hearing). At that point, the trial judge can state simply what the role of the interpreter is. The trial judge would hear any excuses and then the parties would proceed with their challenges or stand asides.

•​The trial judge would swear in the jury and the supporter or interpreter would take an additional oath.^[821]

Recent changes to case management practices in the County Court

12.34​The Commission was told in consultations with County Court Registrars that changes to case management practices have flowed from the County Court’s response to the pandemic. Cases are now being allocated to a trial judge one to two months ahead of trial (rather than a few days). Courtrooms are now being allocated several weeks before trial (not the week before). In regional areas, trials are allocated to a judge a minimum of eight weeks before trial. The first day of trial now generally proceeds with jury empanelment. ^[822]

12.35​The changes mean that trial judges now commonly make determinations on pre-trial issues, including issues regarding the cross-examination of witnesses, evidentiary arguments and whether the matter is ready for trial. County Court judicial registrars suggested that:

the new case management system would allow sufficient time for the Court to consider whether an upcoming trial would be suitable for a juror who has vision or hearing loss. The Court would have sufficient information early on to make this decision before empanelment. It would be best to front-load the issue of this assessment and for it to occur close to the trial commencement date, preferably soon after the trial is allocated to a trial judge.^[823]

12.36​The judicial registrars told us that the Juries Commissioner is provided with trial listings approximately one and a half months before trial dates. If the trial is a criminal trial, the Juries Commissioner is notified of the estimated duration of the trial, the number of accused and the charges. The Juries Commissioner is notified of the number of panels needed each week and once the trial is allocated, the judge’s chambers is in contact with Juries Victoria to confirm logistics.^[824]

The Supreme Court’s proposed approach

12.37​The Supreme Court submission notes that it does not put forward a procedural solution but instead ‘suggests options for the Commission’s consideration and identifies potential drawbacks associated with those options where relevant’.^[825] The Court’s approach can be summarised as follows:

•​A post-committal directions hearing or a later directions hearing could be used as an information-gathering exercise to ask counsel whether the trial might be suitable for a juror from the subject groups. This consideration ‘would be at a level of abstraction as regards the nature of the disability and the supports available’.

•​If a person from the subject groups is summonsed, Juries Victoria could book any necessary adjustments for attendance at court. If adjustments could not be arranged, the person could be invited to defer their service. The Court queried whether the Juries Commissioner should have an own motion power to defer service.

•​At the summons stage, Juries Victoria might also consider if adjustments could be made available if the person was selected on a panel. If adjustments could not be arranged, the person could be invited to defer their service.

•​When a panel is requested by a judge, Juries Victoria could notify the judge’s chambers that a person in the pool requires adjustments. Juries Victoria could ask if the judge has any concerns with a person from the subject groups serving as a juror in the particular trial.

•​After being balloted to a panel, the trial judge could give Juries Victoria a non-binding indication that the trial appears unsuitable for all or certain people in the subject groups to serve as a juror, and Juries Victoria could be informed. The Court cautioned against this being a binding decision because ‘judges may find it difficult to make a determination without regard to a specific juror and their specific needs’. It may also give rise to legal challenges from the person that has been excluded.

•​If the non-binding direction raises concerns, Juries Victoria could ask the person if they are content to be excluded from a panel where the trial judge has given an indication of unsuitability. Juries Victoria would need a clear statutory power to exclude them. The person could then be balloted to a different trial.

–​If the person is not content to be excluded, they would remain on the panel. The Court could push empanelment back by one or two hours to hold a hearing to determine capacity to serve. The Court noted ‘it is not unusual for the Court to delay arrival of a panel in order to deal with an issue that has arisen on the morning of empanelment’.

–​The court could hear from the person and counsel. If the court determines that the person would not be capable of serving with supports then the Court should decide whether to return the person to the pool or to discharge them from their summons.

–​If the court determines that the person can serve, then the person could wait in court for everyone else or choose to be returned to the pool room.

•​If the preliminary non-binding direction does not raise any concerns about a person serving with reasonable adjustments, then before the panel arrives in the courtroom, the judge could explain to counsel what will happen.

•​When the panel is seated in the courtroom, the trial judge’s briefing could also include a statement that it is important to be able to understand and assess all types of evidence in a trial. A person may want to be excused after being provided with information from the trial judge in the briefing.

•​If it becomes necessary to excuse or exclude a person from the subject groups during empanelment, this should occur in a respectful and sensitive manner, perhaps in a private hearing. An excluded juror should be required to return to the jury pool unless the court orders otherwise.

•​

•​After the adjournment, when first addressing the jury, the trial judge could explain the following additional matters:

–​the adjustments that will be used during trial

–​seating arrangements

–​matters relating to Auslan interpreters

–​that if jurors have any concerns about adjustments, they can raise them with the court.^[826]

Juries Victoria’s proposed approach

12.38​Juries Victoria submitted that a ‘trial judge may not be best placed to be the primary assessor as to whether or not a person’ from the subject groups can discharge their duties. It argued that ‘any assessment by the trial judge cannot be the first or only assessment made’ nor the most detailed.^[827]

12.39​Juries Victoria raised concerns that the random balloting process means that trial judges would be unable to make a decision ahead of the empanelment process. It did not support delaying empanelment to make this assessment because this would:

•​‘significantly single out the person’, potentially causing distress.

•​the remainder of the panel would need to wait outside the courtroom, raising concerns about the risk of contamination of the jury and logistical problems with having ‘upwards of 35 people clustered’ outside the courtroom.

•​delay empanelment.

12.40​Instead, Juries Victoria suggests the following assessment process:

​Informing Juries Victoria about disability

•​The jury management system could alert Juries Victoria when a person summonsed had earlier indicated they may need reasonable adjustments. ‘Once flagged, a Juries Victoria staff member would contact the individual to initiate a conversation around the provision of supports’.

​Stage 1: Juries Commissioner

•​The Juries Commissioner should make the initial assessment about whether adjustments could be reasonably provided. This would occur when summonses were created, roughly two months before the date of attendance on the summons.

​Stage 2: Judicial officer

•​A judicial officer, through a discussion with the person in the subject groups, would make a detailed assessment ‘as to what elements in a specific trial may render it unsuitable for them to serve on as a juror’. Juries Victoria suggests that this would be a general assessment of the overall suitability of trials.^[828] The judicial officer could be drawn from a panel comprising representatives from the criminal and common law divisions of both the Supreme and County Courts.

​Stage 3: Trial judge

•​In the days prior to empanelment, the trial judge would make a final assessment as to the suitability of their trial to have a jury with a member of the subject groups based on the detailed assessment conducted earlier. The trial judge would be required to notify Juries Victoria if they determined the trial was not suitable.

​Balloting the jury panel

•​On receipt of the judge’s notification of trial unsuitability, Juries Victoria would remove that person’s ballot card from the pool when randomly selecting the panel for that trial. The ballot card would remain for other trials not deemed unsuitable. Juries Victoria suggested that an amendment to the Act would be needed to provide similar powers to the Juries Commissioner that are currently in place for lengthy trials.^[829]

Other proposals

12.41​In consultation, the Law Institute of Victoria (LIV) raised the possibility of trial suitability being discussed in a directions hearing, while noting that the final decision should be made by the trial judge.^[830]

12.42​Victoria Legal Aid (VLA) proposed that Juries Victoria provide information about disability and what adjustments have been requested to the judge and parties before the jury panel enters the courtroom. At that stage there should be an opportunity for the parties and trial judge to discuss and decide whether that person can participate as a juror. The jury panel should not be present. VLA noted that ‘critically the trial judge must have the final decision as to whether to empanel a potential juror, with the assistance of the parties’.^[831] This should involve an assessment of the nature of the evidence, the key issues at trial, and the potential juror’s impairments and the supports and adjustments available.^[832]

12.43​The Office of Public Prosecutions (OPP) did not think that all matters would need to go before a judge. However, it stated that it was important that the final decision is made by a judge. ^[833]

12.44​The process suggested by the New South Wales Law Reform Commission (NSWLRC) was:

•​The person would make an early request to be excused or notify the sheriff about adjustments required. The sheriff’s office should have responsibility for ensuring adjustments.

•​Forewarned of potential problems, in the presence of counsel and prior to commencing empanelment, the trial judge could deal with the capacity of the juror to serve in the trial. ^[834]

The Commission’s conclusions: procedural reform

12.45​The Commission makes the following recommendations based on our analysis of the approaches proposed in submissions as well as overseas practice. Because the courts have different case management practices, and there is uncertainty about long-term changes to those practices following the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the courts and Juries Victoria will need to collaborate to work out the finer details of implementation.

Juries Victoria should request information from potential jurors about adjustments

12.46​Juries Victoria should obtain information early in the jury selection process about the need for adjustments and then investigate whether those adjustments can be reasonably provided.

12.47​The questionnaire (jury eligibility form) and the juror summons should be amended to notify the community that people who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind or have low vision are able to serve on Victorian juries with reasonable adjustments. Potential jurors from the subject groups should be asked to contact Juries Victoria to discuss their needs. A range of accessible contact details should be provided to accommodate people in the subject groups.^[835]

12.48​If possible, Juries Victoria’s jury management system should be programmed to flag any summonsed individual who had previously indicated that they are deaf, hard of hearing, blind or have low vision. This approach was supported by the courts, Juries Victoria, the LIV and Vision Australia.^[836] For example, if a person identifies that they are deaf and require Auslan interpreters to serve, Juries Victoria should contact Auslan service providers as soon as possible to ensure that interpreters will be available on the date the person is required to attend court.

12.49​Vision Australia suggested that it should not be mandatory to disclose that a person is deaf, hard of hearing, blind or has low vision in response to the questionnaire or summons. Instead, it should be open to the potential juror to request the provision of reasonable adjustments at any time ‘including, in theory at least, after trial has commenced’, noting:

There may be situations where a person acquires a disability (or the impact of their existing disability changes) after they are summoned, or a person may, at the time of receiving the summons, be unfamiliar with the kinds of supports they would need if they were selected to serve on a jury. The majority of people who are blind or have low vision have had little if any experience serving on a jury and may need time and discussion with others before they can make informed decisions about the supports they would need. ^[837]

12.50​Where Juries Victoria is notified later in the jury selection process about the need for adjustments, for example after the person attends court in response to a summons, the Commission anticipates that new own motion powers to defer service (discussed in Chapter 11) will provide Juries Victoria with more time to arrange those adjustments. Alternatively, the person could seek to be excused. If adjustments were requested after the trial has commenced, the judge would need to make a decision about whether it is necessary to discharge a juror.^[838]

Juries Victoria should discuss the provision of adjustments with the potential juror

12.51​Associate Professors Bruce Baer Arnold and Wendy Bonython stressed that the contact point for the new laws must be accessible to people so that ‘it does not function as a tacit barrier to inclusion’.^[839]

12.52​VLA stated in its submission:

VLA welcomes the VLRC’s proposal for prospective jurors to be asked what supports they require to participate as a juror, and for a flexible and case by case approach to be adopted for the provision of supports. Given the diversity of experience of people who have vision and hearing impairments, it is critical that people with a lived experience of these disabilities are consulted on the types of individual supports that will assist them to participate as jurors.^[840]

12.53​The experiences of jurors (or potential jurors) with disabilities overseas indicates that what happens after a person first receives a jury selection notice and their early interactions with officials is important.^[841]

12.54​In line with community responses, the Commission recommends that the potential juror is given the opportunity to discuss their needs and abilities from the outset of the jury selection process. Juries Victoria is best placed to have this initial discussion. We agree with Juries Victoria that these discussions should occur when the summons is created.

12.55​This role is in keeping with the existing work of Juries Victoria, as it already has one-on-one conversations with many people about their jury service and special needs. More recently it has held conversations with people about social distancing requirements and their level of comfort coming into court during the pandemic.^[842] Discussing reasonable adjustments is an appropriate extension of its role.

12.56​Juries Victoria has existing powers to excuse a person for good cause for a short period or permanently, and to defer jury service. The conversations that Juries Victoria has with people from the subject groups early on in the selection process may free up the judge’s time later on. Juries Victoria noted that ‘time and availability constraints mean that a trial judge would not be able to listen to every reason or request not to serve’.^[843]

Pre-empanelment court visits should be permitted

12.57​Consistent with the approach in the ACT and England and Wales, Juries Victoria should ask the person from the subject groups if they would like to attend court in advance of their summons date to discuss their adjustment needs and to familiarise themselves with court layout and general accessibility.

12.58​This will assist Juries Victoria to make its preliminary decision about whether it would be possible to provide reasonable adjustments (discussed below) and assist the potential juror to determine if they would like to seek to be excused. In addition to possible adjustments, Juries Victoria may also explore how courtroom layout might need to be adjusted and explain what the courts’ expectations are of jurors.

12.59​A standard form should be developed by Juries Victoria to guide staff about key information to discuss. For example, what adjustments does the person need, which are available in the court, and which can be reasonably purchased or booked through a service provider in time? Juries Victoria should consult with HMCTS in England and Wales in preparing these documents, because of its extensive experience providing adjustments for people with disabilities.

12.60​Juries Victoria will need to coordinate with the registrars of the courts to arrange these visits. Court technology services may also need to attend. Arrangements may need to be made to cater for the individual needs of a potential juror.

Juries Victoria should coordinate the provision of adjustments

12.61​Juries Victoria is best placed to coordinate the provision of adjustments for several reasons. The County and Supreme Courts do not currently arrange many adjustments for witnesses and parties. Instead, adjustments are provided by the OPP^[844] or arranged by the parties themselves.^[845]

12.62​The Supreme Court observed that, due to the 13th person rule and the historical exclusion of people from the subject groups, the Court ‘has not had systems in place to provide those supports in the jury context. The Court would of course adapt its processes with changes to the law’.^[846]

12.63​Requiring Juries Victoria to take on this coordinator role means that the provision of adjustments will be coordinated centrally rather than separately in the courts and specifically for jurors. One agency will develop knowledge about adjustments and partnerships with service providers. Having a centralised approach to the provision of adjustments will be particularly important for Auslan interpreters because they are in short supply in the court system.

12.64​Juries Victoria has said in consultation that it is open to playing a role in arranging and paying for adjustments provided it is properly funded to do so. ^[847]

12.65​Because the higher courts and Juries Victoria do not currently arrange adjustments for parties or witnesses, their staff will need training about the types of adjustments available and how they work, and should be funded by Government to provide them. Partnerships will need to be established with Auslan service providers to ensure services can be booked early. We discuss these issues further in Chapter 14.

12.66​Juries Victoria should cover the reasonable costs of the potential juror’s travel to and from the court as part of the provision of adjustments if needed.

The Juries Commissioner should make a recommendation to the court

12.67​Consistent with the approach in the ACT and England and Wales, Juries Victoria should conduct a preliminary assessment about the provision of reasonable adjustments. This assessment should be conducted as soon as practicable in the pre-trial process, to ensure that no practical issues arise with providing reasonable adjustments.

12.68​The preliminary assessment should be guided by information from:

•​the potential juror

•​a pre-court visit

•​the decision-making factors set out in the new obligation in the Juries Act (discussed in Chapter 11)

•​information provided by the court about courtroom organisation, the compatibility of technology and accessibility of courtrooms

•​preliminary conversations with trial judges if the matter has been allocated (discussed below) and information provided by the court when it requests a panel.

12.69​In most cases, this assessment is likely to be straightforward. For example:

•​Can a hearing loop be provided?

•​Will the person be able to hear in the jury box where there is no hearing loop but where jurors are sitting in close proximity?

•​Are Auslan interpreters required?

•​Can a magnifier be provided or is it possible for court documents to be read on an iPad at closer proximity?

•​What other adjustments might the person need?

•​Is it possible and reasonable for the court to provide those adjustments?

12.70​If the recommendation is that adjustments should be provided, Juries Victoria should book them in for the selection process and enquire about their availability for trial should the person be selected as a juror.

12.71​A template form for the Juries Commissioner’s recommendation should be created. This could be modelled on the ACT form, which outlines:

•​pool number, member, pool period

•​trials during pool period

•​information regarding adjustment required (for example, Auslan interpreters, assistance animal, disability aid)

•​factors considered

•​anticipated costs

•​recommendation.^[848]

Juries Victoria could contact judges’ chambers for further information about the trial

12.72​To assist the Juries Commissioner to make a recommendation, in the weeks leading up to trial Juries Victoria could inform the group of relevant trial judges, through judge’s chambers, that there is a person in the pool who is from the subject groups. It could notify the judges of the adjustments the potential juror will need. Juries Victoria could ask trial judges for additional information about the upcoming trial/s to assist the Juries Commissioner to make a preliminary recommendation about jury service.

12.73​It would also be useful for more information to be provided to Juries Victoria about a trial when a judge’s chambers requests a panel before the trial starts. At present, the information included in a panel request form from chambers is:

•​the name of the judge

•​courtroom

•​accused/parties

•​case number

•​charge/claim

•​estimated duration of trial

•​time of empanelment.^[849]

12.74​The Commission recommends that chambers provide additional information about the evidence that is likely to be material to the outcome of a trial and that might make it difficult for the potential juror to serve on that trial. However, we acknowledge that the nature of a case and evidence on the brief may not always enable this to occur. It might not always be obvious whether something is material to the outcome of a trial at this point.

12.75​If, based on all the information that Juries Victoria has collected, it has no concerns, then it should confirm adjustments for the day the potential juror first attends on summons and in readiness for trial if the potential juror is ultimately selected.

When fair trial issues need to be considered

12.76​In some situations, for example, where the person is blind or requires Auslan interpreters, it may be difficult for the Juries Commissioner to make an assessment about whether adjustments will enable the person to perform their role, because they will not be familiar with the evidence likely to be presented at trial.

The final directions hearing should not inform the Juries Commissioner’s recommendation

12.77​Although raised by the Commission in consultations, the Commission now does not think that the final directions hearing should generate a binding direction about the suitability of a trial for a person from the subject groups (albeit appealable to the Court). Such a direction would be made in the absence of any understanding of the particular adjustments required by the potential juror. It would run contrary to the recommendations of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ recommendations for an objective assessment of a person’s request for an adjustment.^[850]

12.78​The Supreme Court suggested that rather than generating a binding outcome, the final directions hearing discussion could be an information-gathering exercise only, as the nature of the disability of the person would not be known. This information would then assist Juries Victoria in its preliminary assessment.

12.79​The Commission is of the view that although this information would assist, it may be inefficient to set this process up across all trials when it is likely that most will not be affected. It may also be unnecessary if recent case management changes remain so that the trial is allocated early, and the judge is across pre-trial issues.

A new power for the Juries Commissioner to hold a person out of a pool

12.80​The Juries Commissioner should have a new power to hold a person out of a pool when a panel ballot is being conducted for a particular trial if they do not think that reasonable adjustments can be provided. Section 10 of the Juries Act should be amended to enable an appeal of this decision by the Juries Commissioner to the court. The person’s ballot card could then be returned to the pool for the next panel ballot. It will be important for Juries Victoria to collect data about how often this power is exercised (discussed in Chapter 19).

12.81​Pursuant to the new power recommended in Chapter 11 the Juries Commissioner could also defer the person’s service so that the Juries Commissioner can better enable the provision of reasonable adjustments.

12.82​Alternatively, the Juries Commissioner may recommend to the court that the person is excused from their summons where it does not think that reasonable adjustments will enable them to serve at all. A final determination on this would need to be made by a judge.

The trial judge should make the final decision

12.83​Ultimately, when a person is balloted to a panel for a trial, the judge should consider whether the person in the subject groups can serve as a juror as allowed by the amended legislation.

12.84​If there are concerns, the Supreme Court approach envisages that empanelment might need to be pushed back by an hour or two to deal with these issues. It suggests that empanelment is often delayed for a variety of reasons and that this should be manageable.

12.85​Some submissions suggested that it would be important for counsel to be involved in this hearing.^[851] Ultimately it will be up to the judge to decide how to conduct the hearing and what evidence to admit.

12.86​As few trials may be impacted by reforms, the simplest and fairest approach may be to occasionally delay empanelment to determine the matter. We are confident that Juries Victoria can work out a solution to the logistical issue it raises about where to put the remainder of the jury panel while the matter is being considered by the trial judge. The trial judge will have all the information collected by Juries Victoria to base their decision on so we do not think that this hearing will be lengthy.

12.87​We acknowledge that this approach may be more difficult in the County Court, where there are many more trials to be heard each day, and potentially more judges for Juries Victoria to consult with before empanelment.

The court should provide information about the use of adjustments

12.88​As with many parts of the conduct of a trial, the Commission thinks that it is best left to the trial judge to decide what directions should be given to the court about the use of adjustments, and when. We recommend that the Supreme and County Courts develop standard directions to assist judges regarding the use of adjustments that may be relevant at the time of empanelment, after the jury has been selected and at the commencement of formal deliberations, to explain the nature of any adjustments that have been made and how they will work in practice.

Statement to counsel before empanelment

12.89​It would be helpful for the judge to give a very brief statement to counsel and the accused that there is a potential juror from the subject groups in the panel and that adjustments have been made to enable them to serve. This should occur before the panel is brought into the courtroom. We do not think any other attention needs to be drawn to the potential juror at this point. The purpose of this reform is to shift misconceptions before the exercise of challenges (we also discuss this in Chapter 17).

12.90​The Supreme Court notes that current practice is that once the panel is seated in the courtroom, the judge gives a briefing about the trial and other matters. This ‘generally includes the estimated length of trial hours required if selected as a juror, and the need to be able to sit in jury seats’. The court suggests that the judge’s briefing could ‘also include a statement that it is important to be able to understand and assess certain types of evidence in a particular trial. This case statement could be given in all cases or in cases where the Court is aware that the panel includes a person in the subject groups’.^[852]

12.91​The additional statement suggested by the Supreme Court about being able to assess evidence will probably not be necessary because Juries Victoria will have relayed this information to the potential juror much earlier in its discussions with them. The matter may have also already been considered by a judge in a hearing pre-empanelment.

Swearing in jurors and interpreters

12.92​If a person from the subject groups is empanelled as a juror, they will be sworn in (like all other jurors). First, however, it will be necessary (in some cases) for the Auslan interpreter or support person to be sworn in. We discuss these oaths/affirmations in Chapters 14 and 15.

Discussion with counsel after the jury is sworn in

12.93​The Supreme Court suggested that after the jury is sworn in there may need to be a short break to discuss with counsel the arrangements that will be made for the juror using adjustments. This might include things like ‘seating arrangements during the trial, breaks for any support persons such as Auslan interpreters, and possibly the need to adjust how they speak’.^[853]

12.94​Information about the use of Auslan interpreters could be shared with counsel at this time. In Chapter 9 we referred to the Recommended National Standards for Working with Interpreters in Courts and Tribunals (RNS) that outline best practice for working with interpreters in the legal system, including the need for breaks, briefing etc.^[854] The academics who undertook the mock trial study told the Commission that they provided a one-page briefing document for the participants. Briefing notes were provided to lawyers and the police, the judge, interpreters, hearing and non-hearing jurors. Similar information, based on the RNS, could be developed for judges and lawyers.

12.95​Information provided to lawyers and the judge before the mock trial covered:^[855]

•​The presence of two Auslan interpreters, their professional qualifications and obligations of confidentiality.

•​Their role, which would be to interpret faithfully and impartially everything in court during the trial and in the deliberation room during the jury deliberation.

•​How everyone should address questions and remarks directly to the person they are speaking to, including deaf jurors, rather than to the interpreters who would interpret what was said.

•​The complexity of interpreting and that interpreting accurately does not mean interpreting word-for-word or literally.

•​That if the interpreters required clarification of concepts or to explain a translation difficulty, they would seek permission of the judge by raising their hand.

•​That the deaf jurors could ask for clarifications through the interpreters by raising their hand.

•​The need for lawyers to:

–​phrase questions clearly and ask one question at a time

–​avoid colloquialisms, puns, jokes and overly technical language

–​give copies of written materials they planned to read from to the interpreters because it is challenging to interpret what someone else is reading aloud without the benefit of the text.

•​When the interpreters would take breaks, where they would sit, and how they would take turns interpreting every twenty minutes.

12.96​The Supreme Court also recommended that the court would need to discuss with counsel whether the trial will take longer because of the use of interpreters. If the additional time is significant ‘the Court may need to [subsequently] confirm with jurors that there are no issues with the new estimate’.^[856] The Commission does not believe that this would be the best time to discuss this issue. Instead, it would be preferable for the trial judge to take into account that there may be a juror using adjustments on the trial and to factor this into the trial duration estimate that is provided to the panel before empanelment occurs.

Directions to the court before the trial starts

12.97​Some members of the jury may not have met or worked with people who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind or have low vision before. Brent Phillips noted that it is probably safe to assume that ‘hearing jurors are unlikely to know about the role of an interpreter’.^[857]

12.98​The County Court submitted that:

directions may need to be formulated in order to be provided to the jury at the commencement of trial and before they retire to consider the verdict. The directions could encompass, for example, how the person will be assisted, the role of the person who is assisting, and the prohibition on the supporter engaging with the remainder of the jury.^[858]

12.99​Associate Professors Bruce Baer Arnold and Wendy Bonython suggested that training material provided to jurors could incorporate information about jury service with adjustments. They also submitted that a judge should inform the court about the use of adjustments. They note that ‘we specifically refer to a judge because that introduction signals the seriousness of jury participation as part of the justice system and that disrespect of a supported juror is abhorrent. Such signalling serves to educate the broader community …’^[859]

12.100​When the jury is brought back into the courtroom, the judge usually provides a general housekeeping briefing. This includes things like the need to be punctual for jury service, to direct questions to the tipstaff, where tea and coffee will be provided, and not to talk about the trial to non-jurors.

12.101​The Supreme Court suggested that the trial judge should explain the following in addition to the usual housekeeping matters:

•​the adjustments that will be used during the trial

•​seating arrangements

•​matters relating to Auslan interpreters if they are present

•​that if jurors have any concerns about the adjustments, they can raise them with the court.^[860]

12.102​All the Auslan service providers and the mock trial academics suggested that it is important that the court is provided with information about the role of the Auslan interpreter and how they work.^[861] This would ‘help to normalise things, so people don’t get caught up or distracted wondering who the interpreter is’.^[862] The mock trial academics point out that this would not be a significant interruption to the trial and it would be good for the parties, jurors and lawyers and good practice generally. ^[863] NAATI also identified that ‘an Auslan interpreter needs to have confidence that others understand’ their role.^[864]

12.103​At the start of proceedings, and before an interpreter commences interpreting, judges should introduce the interpreter and explain their role as an officer of the court.^[865] This information would be most helpful if it could be reduced into a one-page briefing. The mock trial academics noted that ‘there is benefit in ensuring everyone in the court has a copy of that briefing to understand the role of interpreters’.^[866] They suggested that the key information to pass on about working with interpreters is information about:

•​how they work

•​the need for two interpreters

•​the need for people speaking in court to take turns and not to speak over each other

•​the impartial role of the interpreter

•​not to ask the interpreter for their opinion during deliberations.^[867]

12.104​Some of the information that could be provided to the jurors could be modelled on the information prepared for the mock trial. As well as covering the information provided to lawyers and judges, summarised earlier, this covered how the foreperson would agree strategies with the interpreters to manage the flow of the conversation and minimise overlapping speech.^[868]

Directions to the jury before final deliberations

12.105​The Commission suggests a simple direction be given by the judge to the jury, before jury deliberations formally commence, if a support person or Auslan interpreters are going to enter the jury room. The Commission acknowledges that the jury will be discussing the case and meeting in the jury room from very early on in the trial process. This means that this direction may simply reinforce or remind jurors of previous advice outlined above. In relation to Auslan interpreters, this briefing should remind jurors that the Auslan interpreter has sworn an oath to the court to maintain confidentiality and not be involved in jury deliberations. Jurors should not seek an interpreter’s opinion or interact with an interpreter separately to the juror from the subject groups. A juror should raise any concerns about the interpreter’s conduct with the judge through the foreperson.

12.106​Before a jury formally deliberates, a judge is required to provide directions to the jury pursuant to the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic) and as outlined, for example, in the Criminal Charge Book.^[869] The recommended direction should be included in the relevant bench book.

782. ​Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No 35/2016, 20th sess, UN Doc CRPD/C/20/D/35/2016 (31 August 2018) [8(b)(i)] (‘JH v Australia’). The same conclusion was reached in 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) [9(b)(i)] (‘Beasley v Australia’) and 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) [9(b)(i)] (‘Lockrey v Australia’).

     ↑

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

     ↑

784. ​Submission 11 (Supreme Court of Victoria).

     ↑

785. ​Submission 13 (Juries Victoria).

     ↑

786. ​Information provided by Juries Victoria and Victorian Law Reform Commission, 19 May 2022.

     ↑

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

     ↑

788. ​Information provided by ACT Sheriff to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 4 August 2021.

     ↑

789. ​Information provided by ACT Sheriff to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 16 September 2020.

     ↑

790. ​Information provided by ACT Sheriff to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 4 August 2021.

     ↑

791. ​Consultation 11 (Consultation with a Judge, a Tipstaff and Court policy staff, Victorian Supreme Court).

     ↑

792. ​‘Coronavirus (COVID-19) Divisional Responses’, County Court of Victoria (Web Page, 24 November 2021) <https://www.countycourt.vic.gov.au/news-and-media/news-listing/2021-11-24-coronavirus-covid-19-divisional-responses>; ‘COVID-19 and the Court’, Supreme Court of Victoria (Web Page, 27 April 2022) <https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/news/covid-19>.

     ↑

793. ​Information provided by ACT Sheriff to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 16 September 2020; Information provided by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 17 August 2020.

     ↑

794. ​In the ACT the Deputy Sheriff will show the person around the court and discuss their potential needs: Information provided by ACT Sheriff to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 16 September 2020; Information provided by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 17 August 2020.

     ↑

795. ​Information provided by ACT Sheriff to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 16 September 2020; Information provided by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 17 August 2020.

     ↑

796. ​Information provided by ACT Sheriff to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 30 May 2022.

     ↑

797. ​Information provided by ACT Sheriff to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 16 September 2020.

     ↑

798. ​Ibid.

     ↑

799. ​Ibid.

     ↑

800. ​See legislative factors listed in Juries Act 1967 (ACT) s 16.

     ↑

801. ​Information provided by ACT Sheriff to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 4 August 2021.

     ↑

802. ​Information provided by ACT Sheriff to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 16 September 2020.

     ↑

803. ​Ibid.

     ↑

804. ​Information provided by ACT Sheriff to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 4 August 2021.

     ↑

805. ​Information provided by ACT Sheriff to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 16 September 2020.

     ↑

806. ​Ibid.

     ↑

807. ​Information provided by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 17 August 2020.

     ↑

808. ​Juries Act 1974 (UK) s 9B(1).

     ↑

809. ​Information provided by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 15 September 2021.

     ↑

810. ​Juries Act 1974 s 9B(2).

     ↑

811. ​Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (UK) s 196(2). This Act only applies to England and Wales.

     ↑

812. ​Information provided by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 15 September 2021.

     ↑

813. ​Ibid.

     ↑

814. ​Submissions 11 (Supreme Court of Victoria), 13 (Juries Victoria), 14 (County Court of Victoria).

     ↑

815. ​Submission 14 (County Court of Victoria).

     ↑

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

     ↑

817. ​Submission 14 (County Court of Victoria).

     ↑

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

     ↑

819. ​Submission 14 (County Court of Victoria).

     ↑

820. ​Ibid.

     ↑

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

     ↑

822. ​Consultation 12 (Consultation with Victorian County Court Registrars and Court policy staff). It was noted that matters are not allocated as early in the Common Law List because they are more likely to settle before trial.

     ↑

823. ​Ibid.

     ↑

824. ​Ibid.

     ↑

825. ​Submission 11 (Supreme Court of Victoria).

     ↑

826. ​Ibid.

     ↑

827. ​Submission 13 (Juries Victoria).

     ↑

828. ​The Commission notes that at this stage it will not be known what specific trial the person may be balloted to.

     ↑

829. ​Submission 13 (Juries Victoria).

     ↑

830. ​Consultation 2 (Law Institute of Victoria).

     ↑

831. ​Submission 8 (Victoria Legal Aid).

     ↑

832. ​Ibid.

     ↑

833. ​Consultation 16 (Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria).

     ↑

834. ​New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Blind or Deaf Jurors (Report No 114, September 2006) [4.8].

     ↑

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

     ↑

836. ​Submissions 7 (Law Institute of Victoria), 10 (Vision Australia), 13 (Juries Victoria).

     ↑

837. ​Submission 10 (Vision Australia).

     ↑

838. ​Juries Act 2000 (Vic) s 43.

     ↑

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

     ↑

840. ​Submission 8 (Victoria Legal Aid).

     ↑

841. ​See the comments by Jim Moynihan in relation to his jury service in Missouri in 2002 in Chapter 10 at [10.32].

     ↑

842. ​Consultation 10 (Juries Victoria).

     ↑

843. ​Ibid.

     ↑

844. ​The OPP pays for adjustments, including interpreters for witnesses, victims, and for the accused, when requested by defence and supported by a reason. It also provides iPads in electronic trials: Consultation 16 (Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria).

     ↑

845. ​The Supreme Court notes that it provides an accessible website, wayfinding systems, hearing loops, portable headphones, and communication assistance in accessing registry services: Submission 11 (Supreme Court of Victoria). The County Court notes that it has hearing loops in some courtrooms and public areas, but not in jury rooms. Headsets are available for use in all courtrooms if arrangements are made in advance: Submission 14 (County Court of Victoria).

     ↑

846. ​Submission 11 (Supreme Court of Victoria).

     ↑

847. ​Consultation 10 (Juries Victoria).

     ↑

848. ​Information provided by ACT Sheriff to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 16 September 2020.

     ↑

849. ​Information provided by Juries Victoria to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 6 October 2020.

     ↑

850. ​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) 17 [9(b)] (‘Beasley v Australia’).

     ↑

851. ​Submission 8 (Victoria Legal Aid).

     ↑

852. ​Submission 11 (Supreme Court of Victoria).

     ↑

853. ​Ibid.

     ↑

854. ​Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity, Recommended National Standards for Working with Interpreters in Courts and Tribunals (Report, Second Edition, March 2022).

     ↑

855. ​Information provided by Sandra Hale to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 25 February 2021; Sandra Hale et al, Participation in the Administration of Justice: Deaf Citizens as Jurors (Australian Research Council Linkage Project No 120200261, 2016): Extracts from ‘Briefing for Judge’ for mock trial, held 16–17 July 2014.

     ↑

856. ​Submission 11 (Supreme Court of Victoria).

     ↑

857. ​Consultation 8 (Brent Phillips).

     ↑

858. ​Submission 14 (County Court of Victoria).

     ↑

859. ​Submission 4 (Baer Arnold & Bonython).

     ↑

860. ​Submission 11 (Supreme Court of Victoria).

     ↑

861. ​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)), 13 (National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI)); Consultation 19 (Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators (AUSIT)).

     ↑

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

     ↑

863. ​Consultation 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)).

     ↑

864. ​Consultation 13 (National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI)).

     ↑

865. ​Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity, Recommended National Standards for Working with Interpreters in Courts and Tribunals (Report, Second Edition, March 2022), 19 [17.5].

     ↑

866. ​Consultation 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)).

     ↑

867. ​Ibid.

     ↑

868. ​Information provided by Sandra Hale to Victorian Law Reform Commission, 25 February 2021; Sandra Hale et al, Participation in the Administration of Justice: Deaf Citizens as Jurors (Australian Research Council Linkage Project No 120200261, 2016): Extracts from ‘Hearing Juror Protocol’ for mock trial, held 16–17 July 2014.

     ↑

869. ​Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic); Judicial College of Victoria, ‘1.11 Consolidated Preliminary Directions’, Victorian Criminal Charge Book (Online Manual, 16 May 2019) <www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/CCB/index.htm#19193.htm>. See also Judicial College of Victoria, Civil Juries Charge Book (Online Manual, 2014) <https://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/CJCB/index.htm#45310.htm>.

     ↑