Ms Beasley is Deaf and uses Auslan to communicate. Summoned to perform jury duty, she was turned away because she requires an Auslan interpreter to communicate with hearing jurors and others in the courtroom. The Committee found this denial of a ‘reasonable accommodation’ to allow Ms Beasley to exercise her legal capacity on an equal basis was a violation of her rights to equality before the law (art 5(1)), to reasonable accommodation (art 5(3)), to equal access to information and communications (art 9(1)), to access to justice (art 13(1)), freedom of expression (art 21(b)) and to participate in the conduct of public affairs (art 29(b)).

The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities agreed that reasonable accommodation would be to allow an Auslan interpreter to take an oath regarding confidentiality of jury deliberations.

Dr Campbell and her partner of 10 years, Ms A, had a daughter together and are both recognised as the child’s legal parents. Without access to marriage equality in Australia, the couple travelled to Canada to marry. They separated and Campbell assumed sole care of their daughter. They obtained a formal separation and division of property, but no formal proceedings concerning the custody and care of their daughter. Ms A stopped contributing to their mortgage and to child support.

Australia forbids child marriage, polygamous marriage and same-sex marriage, although these kinds of marriages are lawful in certain other countries. Australian law provides divorce proceedings for the former two types of marriage, but forbids same-sex couples who have married abroad from obtaining a divorce in Australia. Campbell alleged that this distinction constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, with difficulties and harms arising both from discrimination and denial of divorce.

The Committee found Australia in breach of article 26 of the ICCPR (equality before the law).

A young man from central Australia was arrested for offences committed while suffering psychosis. He was deemed unfit to stand trial due to his intellectual impairment, but the court ordered that he remain in custody. He was held indefinitely in maximum security prison for over 7 years – far longer than any sentence that might have been imposed had he been tried and convicted – and he was, at times, held in solitary confinement, subjected to involuntary treatment and given ‘very limited or no access’ to mental health and disability services or rehabilitation programs.

The Committee found that Australia did not provide Mr Doolan with the accommodation and supports he needed to stand trial, to exercise legal capacity and access justice (art. 12(2), 12(3) & 13(1). Mr Doolan was deprived of his right to a fair trial and of the equal protection and benefit of the law (art. 5(1) & (2). Mr Doolan’s indefinite detention was arbitrary and his treatment, including solitary confinement, involuntary treatment, violence from other prisoners, denial of habilitation, rehabilitation, mental health and support services, was degrading, in violation of article 15.

Ms G is a transgender woman. She changed her name on her birth certificate and had her driver’s license, Medicare card and credit cards reissued in her new name and successfully applied for a passport in her new name and gender. She married a woman, and subsequently underwent gender affirmation surgery.

Because Australia did not, at the time, permit same-sex marriage, it would not change the gender on the birth certificate of someone who is married. The same restriction did not apply to other identity documents, such as passports.

Ms G’s birth certificate stated that she was born male, but presents and identifies female. It thereby reveals private information about the fact that she is transgender and is a violation of her right to privacy (art 17).

Requiring Ms G to divorce in order to obtain a birth certificate that correctly identifies her gender is arbitrary interference with her right to family (art 17).

Further, “by denying transgender persons who are married a birth certificate that correctly identifies their sex, in contrast to unmarried transgender and non-transgender persons, the government is failing to afford the author and similarly situated individuals equal protection under the law”. The HRC found Ms G experienced discrimination on the basis of her marital status and her transgender identity (art 26).

Australia must make “full reparation” to Ms G, including providing her with a birth certificate consistent with her sex. Australia must also prevent similar violations in the future by revising its legislation to comply with the Covenant.

A young man was arrested for an assault committed while he was apparently suffering psychosis. He was deemed unfit to stand trial due to his intellectual impairment, but the court ordered that he remain in custody. He was held indefinitely in maximum security prison for over 9 years – far longer than any sentence that might have been imposed had he been tried and convicted – and he was, at times, held in solitary confinement, subjected to involuntary treatment and given ‘very limited or no access’ to mental health and disability services or rehabilitation programs.

The Committee found that Australia did not provide Mr Leo with the support he needed to stand trial, to exercise legal capacity and access justice (art. 12(2), 12(3) & 13(1). Mr Leo was deprived of his right to a fair trial and of the equal protection and benefit of the law (art. 5(1) & (2). Making public mental health services conditional on people with disabilities living in an institution is discriminatory (art. 5). Australia justified Mr Leo’s arbitrary detention on the basis of his disability (art. 14(1)(b)) and his treatment was inhuman and degrading (art. 15).

Mr Lockrey is Deaf and requires real-time steno-captioning in order to communicate. He was summoned to serve as a juror, but when he informed authorities he would need steno-captioning in order to serve as a juror, the NSW Sheriff refused, claiming that to have a captioner in the jury room would breach the confidentiality of jury deliberations.

The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities found that Australia had discriminated against Mr Lockrey by failing to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate him, noting that a captioner could take an oath of confidentiality in order to be present in the jury room. The Committee further found violations concerning Mr Lockrey’s right to accessibility, to express himself ‘in official interactions’ and to equal access to justice.

A court decided an intellectually impaired teen facing criminal charges was unfit to plead; he was imprisoned indefinitely without trial. A psychologist determined that with appropriate assistance the author was capable of standing trial, but the charges were dropped owing to insufficient evidence. After 10 years in prison, the man was released on restrictive conditions of unlimited duration and with no avenue of appeal to have them lifted.

The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities found Mr Noble was denied a fair trial, equal protection under the law, and the support he required to exercise his legal capacity. The Committee found his disability was the ‘core cause’ of his deprivation of liberty, which it deemed arbitrary and a form of inhuman and degrading treatment.

In response, Australia admitted failures, but denied violating Mr Noble’s rights and declined to comply with any of the Committee’s recommendations.

A court deciding competing native title claims by 2 First Nations for the same land arbitrarily refused to allow one party to table evidence and refused its request for adjournment. That party – the authors of this communication – was unrepresented, ineligible for legal aid, and misunderstood the law and facts of the proceedings. The court recognised the native title of the competing mob, extinguishing the authors’ rights to their Country, without any avenue for appeal. The authors, represented by an elder named Ailsa Roy, claim that losing their traditional lands means “the dissolution of their culture” and their destruction as a people.

The UN Human Rights Committee found violations of their rights to equality before the law and fair trial (art 14(1)); of their right to an effective remedy (art 2(3)) and of their cultural rights as a minority (art 27) read in the light of their right to self-determination (art 1) and of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Committee recommended, inter alia, a re-examination of the authors’ native title claim, ensuring their effective participation.

Gráinne Sherlock, an Irish national who has multiple sclerosis, applied to enter Australia on a temporary skilled work visa which was refused due to the presumed cost of her healthcare, even though she undertook to fund any costs herself not covered by her insurance. The Committee found that Australia had violated articles 4(1)(a)-(e), 5(1)-(2) and 18(1) of the CRPD, namely her rights to non-discrimination, to equality before the law and to freedom of movement.