Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
FREE LEGAL ADVICE CENTRES (FLAC) have said that it is “regrettable” that proposed jury service changes that have been proposed by the Law Reform Commission do not include deaf and blind people.
The legal human rights body, which has previously taken cases on behalf of deaf persons wanting to serve on juries, said that those currently eligible for jury duty would not be truly representative for as long as it continued to exclude both deaf and blind people.
While the report, which was published by the LRC today, expressed concern at the presence of interpreters during jury discussions, FLAC said that deaf and blind people could still serve on inquest juries and in civil cases like defamation, which do not raise the same concerns as criminal trials.
Senior solicitor with FLAC, Michael Farrell, said that if deaf and blind people were “allowed to serve on inquest and civil juries, the concerns that have been expressed about criminal cases would soon be dispelled”.
Progress to date
In November 2010 Mr Justice Carney in the Central Criminal Court had ruled that a deaf person could serve on a jury with the assistance of an interpreter who had taken an additional oath of secrecy about the jury deliberations.
While the LRC has now called for a further study of safeguards for the use of sign language interpreters with jurors, especially in criminal trials, FLAC said that they believed that this study should be accompanied by practical experience.
Would tone of voice and body language of witnesses etc not have a bearing on a juror’s decision?
Im qll for inclusive but blind who can’t see photos of scene the deaf person who needs sign language im sorry but they would delay a case so much would cos a fortune as would surely add days onto a court case and involve paying judges and legal council for another day or two and they dont come cheap.
PC gone mad. If my freedom is at stake I want people on the jury who can see and hear all nuances of the evidence. How do I know an interpreter is translating the full subtlety of the evidence. For all I know the translator could be misleading the jury. How can a blind person evaluate photographs or documentary evidence.
So all about money !!! What about our rights !!
What rights would they be Lisa?
Paul, you know because they are professionals. In the same way as high ranking international diplomats trust the capabilities of UN-appointed interpreters. PC doesn’t even come into it.
Not you again, another stupid question but it is already answered below.
So Alan, you are saying by being deaf we don’t have any rights?
Nora I’m asking you to clarify what rights you feel apply on this situation.
I would have an issue with a deaf or blind person serving in a jury of a case involving me. They would not be able to understand tone of voice or body language, as mentioned above, and these may form crucial evidence where the law is involved.
The right to have a voice. The right to an opinion. The right to be on a jury. Need I list more?
Check your own facts properly. The interpreters translate the tone of the person’s voice through specific facial expressions and body language. They were taught and are qualified to do this. As for body language for blind people- blind people’s hearing levels are much stronger than “normal” people so they can read tones much faster and understand tones a lot better than us. Plus, like John Bosco said the lady of justice has a blindfold on- so she cannot prejudge. Just like you shouldn’t prejudge us.
Alan, deaf people are much better at decoding body language than their hearing peers (admittedly, this is just a generalisation) and it is a professional, trained interpretor’s job to convey tone being used.
Look at it this way, if you were a deaf or blind person and someone told you that your opinion can’t possibly be considered despite the fact that you may have 3rd level education, full time job and you pay tax into the country… you would probably be pretty hacked off, no? Even more frustrating, would be if YOU (as a deaf/blind person) were to go on trial yourself, you can be judged by these same non-blind, non-deaf people, some of whom think you have no rights.
It’s interesting that you say you’d have an issue with a Deaf person on a jury… let’s flip your argument on its head… a Deaf person is to be tried in front of a jury of hearing people – should the Deaf person have the right to object to the hearing jury as they are unable to access the nuance of the language directly? How would you resolve this? It seems to me that if it works one way, then it should work the other way too… Unless there’s some other reason I’m missing…
hey Alan Burke: Considering your ignorance, I am sure you are not aware of the fact that a large numbers of cases that are brought to the courts are not even necessary – just cos the Gardai decides to “get days off” for the courts and not bothered to turn up on the day itself. I am sure you agree with me that it is a waste of our and my taxpayers money (oh, did I mention I am deaf and I rely on interpreters to make it clear to someone ignorant like you) but then again I guess some people out there will rather like licking something off the officials’ soles and attack more vulnerable groups like deaf ISL users…
Another thing: what if you end up being the accused in a Irish speaking court – and that you demand for an interpreter – they will tell you “No, because you live in Ireland, you know Irish, you must use Irish – and you will waste our taxpayers money by demanding an interpreter – who will pay for them?”
So are you saying that deaf and blind people are a burden to the state when they demand equal rights? I work full time, am deaf and pay my taxes so I should be allowed an interpreter if I was to serve on the jury
Can’t believe some comments above about the inclusion of deaf and blind jurors. In other countries, they are allowed to serve as jurors and carry out successfully. We often suggest how citizens should be as productive and supportive to the state as possible. I am sure that FLAC knows what they suggest about.
Ironically, the statute outside the courts near Phoenix Park models on Lady Justice which is blindfolded. Remember before 1974, women and men with no property ownership were considered as incapable to serve as jurors. Think about it.
I’m all for equality and integration, but there are some tasks that just cannot be done effectively with certain disabilities. It’s time to accept these facts rather than trying to avoid them and doing ridiculous thing in the process.
That’s the harsh reality of it.
That’s possibly the most depressing, disheartening comment I’ve ever seen in any debate about the role of people with disabilities and/or Deaf people in Irish society. It’s also profoundly insulting to many of the contributors to this thread. Thank goodness the majority of people disagree with you and that we have equal status legislation to ensure your view does not become accepted ‘common sense’.
And why is it Cormac? If you want to debate the point then by all means do, but shouting that you don’t agree and calling it depraved without backing your comment up at all just makes me completely disregard your point.
Fair enough.
You’ve just said there are some tasks that cannot be done effectively with certain disabilities. First off, why is this particular task not possible for (specifically in this case) deaf or blind people? What are the reasons you are giving yourself for why deaf and blind people can’t be jurors?
Secondly, are you not aware that your comments are basically saying to a sector of society “you can’t do this ” when it’s manifestly obvious, to people in other countries at least, that they can? A hundred years ago a deaf person in Ireland would have problems leaving a will, because they could be considered ‘of unsound mind’. Nowadays we obviously consider deaf and blind people able to carry out such tasks.
A deaf person is able to participate in a jury if interpretation is provided. They are as able to enter fully into the trial as any other person is able to enter into any kinds of proceedings using interpretation.
The United Nations doesn’t consider it impossible for the ambassador of a small country with a little used language to participate in congresses; they provide the means for them to participate.
If your argument is that it’s expensive, fine but this is a separate point about the practicalities of providing access to people with disabilities. Otherwise your comment seems to be about the capacity (mental? physical?) of certain categories of people with disabilities to perform tasks related to citizenship. Which is against the spirit of equality legislation. Hence my reaction.
*You’ve just said there are some tasks that cannot be done effectively *by people* with certain disabilities ….. apologies
You obviously are clueless on the concept of equality and integration. Care to define more specifically on “certain disabilities”?
Here are some points for you to consider. We need to think carefully about what exactly a ‘jury’ represents. If a jury is a representation of society that listens to evidence and pass judgement; just what part of society do they represent? If we intentionally exclude deaf or blind jurors, are we not creating a pseudo representation. To exclude deaf and blind jurors would contradict the purpose of having a jury in the first place.
Society has worked to prevent the exclusion of certain groups of people. If you afford a disabled person the right to vote, why can they not sit on a jury? What does it mean to be citizen in your country if one is not considered an equal.
Similar, there is no evidence to state that if a deaf or blind person sits on a jury that the defendant will be poorly judged. In fact, there has been no research at all (except an inquiry in Australia) into the practicalities and impact of having disabled jurors. The comments here are based on opinion, they are not based on facts that prove whether or not justice will be safe.
On the other end of the issue, what about cases that try a deaf or blind person. Do they not have the right to be judge by their peers ie. other deaf or blind people? Otherwise, to be judge by non-disabled person is equivalent to being tried by the very same people who oppress you on a day to day basis. From a deaf or blind person’s perspective, is the judgement, and the court system, respected?
For me, it boils down to a single question: what is a jury and what does it represent?
@ Socretes, Interpreters would not delay any proceedings as Its communicated at the same time as the spoken word…Deaf and Blind people should be included !
Who pays the cost of the interpreter?
The State has said it will pay for interpreters already for the court room. But not for the Jury room. Typical Ireland.
An interpreter is neccesary for a witness or defendant who is deaf or blind. It’s not neccesary for an unneccesary juror.
The taxpayers obviously. Deaf and blind people do pay tax so why cannot they get services such as interpreters. The responses here are unbelievable and really angers me. As a Irish citzen and a Deaf person, with oppression happening from hearing people, what chances do we have of thriving or of achieving our potentials? Exact same attitude the American whites had against blacks back in the 1960s- “oh they cannot think for themselves, they’re inferior.” This country is so unbelievably backward!
What do you mean by “unnecesaary” juror?
I am thinking, today is 16th April 2013 and by now society would accept the socially marginalised people’s equality and rights to be included and to participate. It is disappointing that the Law Reform Commission are not including the Deaf and blind on the jury in the civil and criminal juries. It is even more disappointing to observe some people in this discussion still holding the centuries-old deep prejudiced attitude towards the Deaf and blind. Some are even kicking up the fuss over various things – “hearing” people in the court room, ability of interpreters to translate to Deaf jurors and political correctness. It is the same old story of such some narrow-minded people still resisting Deaf people on the jury.
FLAC agreed that Deaf should be on the jury, so did Judge Carney. Michael Farrell is highly respected lawyer and he is sitting on the Council of the State. He knows what he is talking about when it comes to the rights of the Deaf to sit on the jury.
It is irrelevant whether jurors can hear or not, it is more important for jurors to have the capacity to study the courts’ testimonies and they can be guided to the decision in the jury deliberation and delivering the verdict. There are many Deaf people who are very intelligent and some of them are even far better than the qualified and even the senior barristers. It is fact… It could have happened only for the are often precluded from these opportunities as is the case with the jury service…
Come on guys give the Deaf as well blind a break…
All we need a one simple chance and you will see for yourself. LRC could really have discussed the issue of inclusion of the Deaf with the Deaf community and professionals…
I live in hope that this day will come at least in my lifetime
The same people who pay for all special needs Teachers, wheel chair ramps etc etc etc
special needs teachers, and wheelchair ramps are necessary and are a great help to society enabling people to live independently but having blind/deaf people on juries is not necessary or advisable.
Political correctness gone mad.
How so?
why not let common sense rule – it does not make sense to have blind or deaf people on juries and that is just plain fact.
You could say it’s……senseless
YYEEEEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!
lets do something about the idiots currently on juries. The false imprisonment case in today’s news being an example.
I am deaf I cant do or read sing, but I can lip read but still cant make every word out. I think it is wrong bringing deaf and blind on to the jury.the blind would not be able to see exhibit, and what if the person is blind and deaf, then they could see no evil or hear no evil.
Justice is blind, just not in Ireland…
High Court Case on the matter. http://humanrights.ie/mental-health-law-and-disability-law/high-court-decision-does-little-to-end-the-exclusion-of-deafhearing-impaired-persons-from-jury-service/
There’s another case where a high court judge found no serious impediment: http://www.flac.ie/news/2010/11/29/judge-rules-deaf-man-can-sit-on-jury/
have your say