Should deaf people be jurors?

by Ivano Abbadessa - 2014.03.03

For the first time in Australia's history, a deaf woman was on a short-list to serve on a jury. This shouldn't be taken for granted because people with this type of disability need a sign language translator to accompany them during all stages of proceedings. Most legal systems are wary of this set-up because of the possible 'influence' that the translator may have on the deaf juror.



In the end, Drisana Levitzke-Gray wasn't included in the final group of jurors in the court in Perth – the jury was chosen at random from a choice of 43 names and her name was not picked. It is nonetheless a major victory for the entire deaf community in Australia and further afield. “This is a huge step forward for the deaf community in Perth but also for Australia as a whole. Only the US, New Zealand and a few other countries allow deaf people to serve on a jury,” says Drisana. “I am extremely confident that my experience will pave the way for an increase in the number of deaf people who will be able to fulfil this important civic duty.”



This is a complex issue on an international level, including in Europe. The case of Emma Ferguson-Coleman in the UK a little over a year ago was particularly discriminatory. When she was summoned for jury service, she decided to write to the Ministry of Justice to inform them of her disability and of the consequent need for an interpreter to follow the proceedings and deliberations in court. She received a reply telling her it would be impossible for her to serve on the jury because of her disability – the reason given was that only jurors are allowed to be present in the council chamber.



An interpreter, therefore, would not have been admitted. But according to many organisations, this view hasn't been proved. There is no scientific evidence that says having a deaf person and an interpreter present on a jury can have a negative impact on the entire judicial process.