Rainsford v State of Victoria [2008] FCAFC 31

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rainsford v State of Victoria [2008] FCAFC 31 DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – indirect disability discrimination – whether a requirement or condition imposed on provision of prison transport and accommodation – whether requirement or condition reasonable. WORDS AND PHRASES – "requirement or condition", "reasonable". Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ss 4, 6, 24 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46PO Rainsford v Victoria (2007) 96 ALD 90 affirmed Commonwealth v Humphries (1998) 86 FCR 324 cited Hurst v Queensland (2006) 151 FCR 562 referred to Purvis v New South Wales (2003) 217 CLR 92 cited JAMES RAINSFORD v STATE OF VICTORIA AND GSL CUSTODIAL SERVICES PTY LTD VID 709 OF 2007

TAMBERLIN, NORTH AND MANSFIELD JJ

11 MARCH 2008

MELBOURNE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 709 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: JAMES RAINSFORD

Appellant

AND: STATE OF VICTORIA

First Respondent

GSL CUSTODIAL SERVICES PTY LTD

Second Respondent

JUDGES: TAMBERLIN, NORTH AND MANSFIELD JJ DATE OF ORDER: 11 MARCH 2008

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed with costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VID 709 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: JAMES RAINSFORD

Appellant

AND: STATE OF VICTORIA

First Respondent

GSL CUSTODIAL SERVICES PTY LTD

Second Respondent

JUDGES: TAMBERLIN, NORTH AND MANSFIELD JJ

DATE: 11 MARCH 2008

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

BACKGROUND 1 Mr Rainsford, who at all relevant times has been a prisoner in Port Phillip Prison, made a complaint on 14 September 2001 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission ("HREOC") that he had been the subject of discrimination on the ground of disability. The disability from which Mr Rainsford claimed he suffered arose from a prolapsed disc in his back, the care for which required Mr Rainsford to perform a series of back stretches and exercises. HREOC terminated the complaint and Mr Rainsford made an application to the Federal Magistrates Court. The matter was ultimately heard by Sundberg J of this Court. His Honour dismissed the application: Rainsford v Victoria (2007) 96 ALD 90. 2 In broad terms, Mr Rainsford alleges that he was subjected to indirect disability discrimination in the provision of certain services and facilities relating to his prison accommodation and transportation. His application to the Federal Magistrates Court was made pursuant to s 46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), which enables an affected person to make an application to that Court alleging unlawful discrimination by one or more respondents to a complaint which has been terminated by HREOC. The respondents in this case are the State of Victoria, which is responsible for the control and management of its prisons, and GSL Custodial Services Pty Ltd, which is responsible for the transport of prisoners.