There are also people who have the right to claim exemption from service under the Act. These people, set out in Schedule 2 of the Act, generally fall within certain professional and other employment categories, including dentists, pharmacists, medical practitioners and persons who reside with and have the fulltime care of a person who is sick, infirm or disabled. In addition, a person may request the Sheriff exempt him or her from jury service by The Sheriff may also exempt a person for whether or showing ‘good cause’. ‘good cause’, not on is defined under section 14A of the Act and includes where request. ‘Good cause’ some disability associated with the person would render him or her, without reasonable accommodation, unsuitable for or incapable of serving as a juror. Other persons are also ineligible for jury service because of the (Cth). Jury Exemption Act 1965 On this basis Australia respectfully disagrees with the interpretation of the Committee on the content of Article 9. Australia notes that the Committee has not provided any analysis in its views to support such an interpretation such that its views on this Article are unconvincing. Even accepting the interpretation of Article 9, the Committee has not Committee’s demonstrated that jury duty is an of it is not open to the public ‘aspect life’ even though writ large, as detailed above. Further, Article 9 only requires States parties to appropriate a ‘take measures’. That is, State is not required to take any measures that would be considered inappropriate. As set out above in paragraphs 8 and 10, Australia does not consider the provision of Auslan interpretation and stenography to potential jurors to be an appropriate measure to ensure accessibility. Article 13(1) Access to justice, including in conjunction with Articles 3, 5(1) and 29(b) – The Committee considered that of jury duty is an integral part of the ‘the performance Australian judicial system, and as such, it constitutes a in legal “participation” It further considered, particularly in reference to Article 29(b), that proceedings’. must therefore be given to the participation of persons with disability in the ‘[a]ttention justice system in capacities besides those of claimant, victim or defendant, including in jury service, on an equal basis with On this basis, the Committee concluded that others’.
There are also people who have the right to claim exemption from service under the Act. These people, set out in Schedule 2 of the Act, generally fall within certain professional and other employment categories, including dentists, pharmacists, medical practitioners and persons who reside with and have the fulltime care of a person who is sick, infirm or disabled. In addition, a person may request the Sheriff exempt him or her from jury service by showing ‘good cause’. The Sheriff may also exempt a person for ‘good cause’, whether or not on request. ‘Good cause’ is defined under section 14A of the Act and includes where some disability associated with the person would render him or her, without reasonable accommodation, unsuitable for or incapable of serving as a juror. Other persons are also ineligible for jury service because of the Jury Exemption Act 1965 (Cth). On this basis Australia respectfully disagrees with the interpretation of the Committee on the content of Article 9. Australia notes that the Committee has not provided any analysis in its views to support such an interpretation such that its views on this Article are unconvincing. Even accepting the Committee’s interpretation of Article 9, the Committee has not demonstrated that jury duty is an ‘aspect of life’ even though it is not open to the public writ large, as detailed above. Further, Article 9 only requires States parties to ‘take appropriate measures’. That is, a State is not required to take any measures that would be considered inappropriate. As set out above in paragraphs 8 and 10, Australia does not consider the provision of Auslan interpretation and stenography to potential jurors to be an appropriate measure to ensure accessibility. Article 13(1) – Access to justice, including in conjunction with Articles 3, 5(1) and 29(b) The Committee considered that ‘the performance of jury duty is an integral part of the Australian judicial system, and as such, it constitutes a “participation” in legal proceedings’. It further considered, particularly in reference to Article 29(b), that ‘[a]ttention must therefore be given to the participation of persons with disability in the justice system in capacities besides those of claimant, victim or defendant, including in jury service, on an equal basis with others’. On this basis, the Committee concluded that
G-B-v-Australia-Australian-Government-Response.DOCX