Maguire v Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (1999)

Last updated

Maguire v SOCOG 1999
Court Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
Full case nameBruce Lindsay Maguire v Sydney organising Committee for the Olympic Games
Decided18 October 1999
Citation(s) HREOC Decision H99/115
Case history
Subsequent action(s) Maguire v SOCOG 2000
Case opinions
*By failing to provide the ticket book to the complainant in braille, the respondent unlawfully discriminated against the complainant in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.
*(Given practical difficulties in retrospectively providing the ticket book) ... that the respondent conference with the complainant and provide direct and individual assistance in applying for remaining tickets.
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingHon William Carter QC, Commissioner

Maguire v SOCOG 1999 was a decision of the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which ruled on 18 October 1999 that a blind man had been directly discriminated against by the failure of a government agency to provide ticketing materials for the Sydney Olympic Games in braille.

Contents

The Commission held it was not reasonable for the agency to rely on alternatives such as telephone information lines or an assumption the respondent could have the materials read to him by another. The commission also held that the cost of providing materials in braille should be considered in the context of an agency's overall budget rather than an assessed cost-benefit of the number of potential users of that material.

Background to the case

Bruce Lindsay Maguire (b 1957) a small business owner from Baulkham Hills, New South Wales, was born totally blind and without sight or light perception. On 31 May 1999 Maguire sought to purchase tickets for himself and his family for the Sydney Olympic Games. At the time tickets were only available via an application form in a ticket book issued by the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (SOCOG).

Maguire initially tried to have the ticket book read aloud to him by his sister, but the level of detail and cross-referencing required in this process was onerous and the attempt was abandoned after several hours. Maguire then enquired about obtaining a braille version of the ticket book. SOCOG indicated a braille version would be published but this did not occur. On 7 June 1999 Maguire was contacted by SOCOG to advise that the book would not be printed in braille as the cost was considered too high given the likely small number of braille-literate users. [1]

Maguire then lodged a complaint with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, alleging direct discrimination against him personally, and indirect discrimination against those with vision impairment. The specific grounds for the complaint were:

In September 1999 this third ground for complaint was separated from the others and formed the basis for the standalone decision in Maguire v SOCOG 2000

Prior to the matter being heard, SOCOG instituted a telephone helpline for ticketing enquiries by the visually impaired. [1]

Arguments

Jurisdiction of HREOC

SOCOG initially objected to the Commission hearing the complaint on jurisdictional grounds. SOCOG argued it was a government agency and not a trading corporation and therefore not captured by section 12 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. Instead, SOCOG argued the complaint should be heard by State disability tribunals.

On 24 September 1999 SOCOG withdrew its objection to the complaint being heard but indicated it may renew it should the matter proceed to the Federal Court. Commissioner William Carter maintained the commission was competent to hear the complaint but was not required to formally rule on the objection as it was withdrawn prior to hearing.

Direct discrimination

In failing to provide the ticket book in braille, the Commissioner found that SOCOG breached section 24 of the Act. [1] [2] SOCOG argued that the delivery of the information in the ticket book did not constitute the provision of services within the meaning of section 24. [1] [2] The Commissioner did not accept that argument as the services provided by SOCOG fell inside the definition stated in section 4, [3] in which SOCOG was providing tickets to sessions at the 2000 Olympics where SOCOG cannot refuse as the terms of conditions for the tickets was the same for Maguire as for any sighted person and that the ticketing process was integral to gaining a ticket to attend and to enjoy the entertainment provided by SOCOG. [1] In providing the ticket book in print and not in braille meant that Maguire was denied access to the ticket book, the consequential services provided by SOCOG and accordingly, Maguire was denied the opportunity to make a valid application for tickets to the Olympic games. [1]

Less favourable treatment

The commissioner felt that unless Maguire could have access to the information in order to make a valid application, he was treated less favourably because of his blindness than a sighted person. [1] SOCOG contested the charge of less favourable treatment by outlining that Maguire could have got a sighted person to read the document for him, and that Maguire had access to a phone helpline and to an electronic format of the booklet. [1] The commissioner dismissed those arguments. [1] Reading the booklet to Maguire would have meant an incomprehensible oral presentation of tabulations, a great feat of memory, a requirement to find a time of convenience and hours of explanations was considered by the commissioner to be treating Maguire less favourably than the sighted person who could access the material without assistance at his or her leisure, capable of referencing and cross-referencing from page to page and thereby ensuring the completion not only of a valid application complete with alternatives that reflected in all respect the final decided choices of That person. [1] The commission raises the question as to how a person in the position of Maguire could acquire any primary information in the ticket book which could then be perfected or developed by the officer in the course of a telephone conversation. [1] The dilemma indicated by the commissioner was that if the ticket book was produced in braille, Maguire would have not required the assistance of the helpline. [1] The vital information in the ticket book was presented in tabular form in which the line of information scrolled off the right-hand edge of the screen, making it difficult for Maguire to comprehend when the material was presented in Braille form on the refreshable braille pad. [1]

Unjustifiable hardship

SOCOG argued that the provision of the ticket book in braille was an unjustifiable hardship under section 24 (2). [1] [2] Using Section 24 [2] and section 11 of DDA 1992, [4] the commissioner found that despite the small proportion of blind persons in the community who use Braille, SOCOG had the financial capacity to bear the additional cost as the cost of 200 braille copies of the ticket book would be $17,250.00 in comparison to the ticket book printing and distribution expenditure noted in SOCOG's budget which was $7.18 million. [1]

Indirect discrimination

The commissioner found that SOCOG in not providing the ticket book in braille treated Maguire less favourably than persons without the disability which is also a breach of section 6. [1] [5]

Decision

After finding in favour of Maguire, under section 103(1)(b)(ii) of the act, the commissioner made a declaration that SOCOG provide to Maguire forthwith the second booklet and that prior to 8 October, that SOCOG consult and inform Maguire as best it can of the classes and sessions for which tickets remain available and assist him in making a valid application for the remaining tickets by 8 October 1999. [1] Consequently, the commissioner made a further declaration that, if Maguire desire to engage in the final ticketing process and SOCOG is unable to provide Maguire with the third booklet in Braille by 23 October, SOCOG again consult with Maguire and inform and assist him in the same manner as described in the second declaration above. [1]

Related Research Articles

Australian Human Rights Commission Human rights institution of the Australian Government

The Australian Human Rights Commission is the national human rights institution of Australia, established in 1986 as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and renamed in 2008. It is a statutory body funded by, but operating independently of, the Australian Government. It is responsible for investigating alleged infringements of Australia's anti-discrimination legislation in relation to federal agencies.

Web accessibility, or eAccessibility, is the inclusive practice of ensuring there are no barriers that prevent interaction with, or access to, websites on the World Wide Web by people with physical disabilities, situational disabilities, and socio-economic restrictions on bandwidth and speed. When sites are correctly designed, developed and edited, more users have equal access to information and functionality.

Human rights in Australia have largely been developed under Australian Parliamentary democracy through laws in specific contexts and safeguarded by such institutions as the independent judiciary and the High Court, which implement common law, the Australian Constitution, and various other laws of Australia and its states and territories. Australia also has an independent statutory human rights body, the Australian Human Rights Commission, which investigates and conciliates complaints, and more generally promotes human rights through education, discussion and reporting.

The Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, or informally the Cole Royal Commission, was a Royal Commission established by the Australian government to inquire into and report upon alleged misconduct in the building and construction industry in Australia. The establishment of the Commission followed various unsuccessful attempts by the Federal Government to impose greater regulation upon the conduct of industrial relations in that industry.

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Australian research institute for Indigenous studies

The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS), established as the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies (AIAS) in 1964, is an independent Australian Government statutory authority. It is a collecting, publishing and research institute and is considered to be Australia's premier resource for information about the cultures and societies of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Institute is a leader in ethical research and the handling of culturally sensitive material and holds in its collections many unique and irreplaceable items of cultural, historical and spiritual significance. The collection at AIATSIS has been built through over 50 years of research and engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and is now a source of language and culture revitalisation, native title research and family and community history. AIATSIS is located on Acton Peninsula in Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.

The Australian Law Reform Commission is an Australian independent statutory body established to conduct reviews into the law of Australia. The reviews, also called inquiries or references, are referred to the ALRC by the Attorney-General for Australia. Based on its research and consultations throughout an inquiry, the ALRC makes recommendations to government so that government can make informed decisions about law reform.

Disability Discrimination Act 1992

The Disability Discrimination Act is an act passed by the Parliament of Australia in which prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, education, publicly available premises, provision of goods and services, accommodation, clubs and associations, and other contexts. Discrimination is defined to include failing to make reasonable adjustments for the person.

The Court of Summary Jurisdiction is a court in the Northern Territory of Australia. It has jurisdiction to deal with criminal offences which occur in the territory. It is one of the courts that is usually referred to as a magistrates court.

Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

The New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 is an Act of the NSW Parliament, relating to discrimination in employment, the public education system, delivery of goods and services, and other services such as banking, health care, property and night clubs.

Government of the Australian Capital Territory Territory government of the Australian Capital Territory, Australia

The Government of the Australian Capital Territory, also referred to as the Australian Capital Territory Government or ACT Government, is the executive authority of the Australian Capital Territory, one of the territories of Australia. The leader of the party or coalition with the confidence of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly forms Government. Unlike the Australian States and the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly directly elects one of their number to be the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory as the head of the Government, rather than being appointed by a Governor or Administrator.

Maguire v SOCOG 2000 was a legal case in Australia about making a website accessible to a visually impaired person.

The hate speech laws in Australia give redress to someone who is the victim of discrimination, vilification, or injury on grounds that differ from one jurisdiction to another. All Australian jurisdictions give redress when a person is victimised on account of colour, ethnicity, national origin, or race. Some jurisdictions give redress when a person is victimised on account of colour, ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender identity, HIV/AIDS status or sexual orientation.

Financial regulation in Australia is extensive and detailed.

There is no absolute right to privacy in Australian law and there is no clearly recognised tort of invasion of privacy or similar remedy available to people who feel their privacy has been violated. Privacy is, however, affected and protected in limited ways by common law in Australia and a range of federal, state and territorial laws, as well as administrative arrangements.

Health Insurance Fund (HIF) is an Australian, not-for-profit insurer. In 1954 it was brought into existence as the WA Government Employee's Hospital and Medical Benefits Fund Incorporated. But has since undergone a series of name changes to better reflect the scope and services it provides.

<i>Broadcasting Services Act 1992</i>

The Broadcasting Services Act 1992 is an Act of the Australian Parliament. It broadly covers issues relating to content regulation and media ownership in Australia.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977

Administrative Decisions Act 1977 is an Act of the Parliament of Australia. The Act created a way for a person or other parties affected by most administrative decisions by an Australian federal department or agency of an Australian federal department to appeal the decision at the Federal Court of Australia. Review of administrative decisions under the Act is limited to matters of law.

Iowa Civil Rights Commission

The Iowa Civil Rights Commission is the state agency that enforces the Iowa Civil Rights Act of 1965, Iowa's anti-discrimination law.

The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability is a royal commission established on 4 April 2019 by the Australian government pursuant to the Royal Commissions Act 1902. The Honourable Ronald Sackville, who serves as Chair of the Royal Commission, The Honourable Roslyn Atkinson, Ms Barbara Bennett, Dr Rhonda Galbally, Ms Andrea Mason, Mr Alastair McEwin, and The Honourable John Ryan currently serve as Royal Commissioners.

The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide is a royal commission established on 8 July 2021 by the Australian government pursuant to the Royal Commissions Act 1902. The Royal Commissioners are required to provide an interim report by 11 August 2022, and a final report by 15 June 2023.

References

Bibliography

  1. Bruce Lindsay Maguire v. Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (Respondent) H 99/115 (2000), 17 December 2007, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, last visited on Saturday 30 August 2008, 10:43pm, http://www.humanrights.gov.au/disability_rights/decisions/comdec/2000/DD000200.htm
  2. DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 25 August 2008, Australasian Legal Information Institute, last visited on Friday 29 August 2008, 6:37pm, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dda1992264/
  3. Maguire v Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games [2000] FCA 1112 (3 August 2000), 11 August 2000, Federal Court of Australia, last visited on Friday 29 August 2008, 9:57pm, "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2000/1112.html"
  4. The Law Report: 5 October 1999 - SOCOG and HREOC; Jaidyn Leske-Justice Denied?, 5 October 1999, ABC, last visited on Friday 29 August 2008, 9:14pm, "http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/stories/s57027.htm"
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.