Stevens v Hancock [2015] NSWCATAD 126

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Stevens v Hancock [2015] NSWCATAD 126 Hearing dates: 14 May 2015 Decision date: 22 June 2015 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: A Britton, Principal Member N Hiffernan, General Member A Lowe, Gneral Member Decision: If Mr Hancock does not comply with Order (2) within 21 days of the date of this decision, he must pay Mrs Stevens the sum of $2,000. Catchwords: EQUAL OPPORTUNITY — Transgender vilification — whether conduct had the capacity to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule — whether that assessment is made by reference to the "ordinary", "reasonable" or "ordinary reasonable" member of the relevant audience or group Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Evidence Act 1995 Cases Cited: Sunol v Collier and anor. (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 44 Trad v Jones & anor (No. 3) [2009] NSWADT 318 Jones v Trad [2013] NSWCA 389 Trad v Jones (No 7) [2014] NSWCATAD 225 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Pindi Stevens (Applicant) Troy Hancock (Respondent) Representation: Applicant in person Respondent in person File Number(s): 1410289

reasons for decision 1. Pindi Stevens is a transgender person who resides in social housing in Surry Hills, Sydney. She complains that for over a decade she has been subjected to "transgender vilification and discrimination" by neighbouring tenant, Troy Hancock. 2. Section 38S of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (the Act) makes it unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person on the ground that the person is a transgender person. 3. In these reasons we examine whether the acts the subject of Mrs Stevens' complaint to the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board (respectively, "the President" and "the Board") occurred, and if so, whether they contravened s 38S of the Act. The latter requires us to decide whether any act found proven: was a "public act" had the capacity to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of Mrs Stevens, and was "on the grounds of" Mrs Stevens being a transgender person 1. It falls to Mrs Stevens to establish each of the above elements on the balance of probabilities. 2. Throughout these reasons, as requested, we will refer to the applicant as "Mrs Stevens". For convenience, when referring to comments made by Mr Hancock and third parties, we will use the prefix "Mrs", notwithstanding that they refer to the applicant as "Ms Stevens".