We received a complaint about the conduct of an officer sitting as a member in the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal.¹ The complaint alleged (among other things) that the Officer said that the complainant’s assistance dog was a ‘dangerous dog’ and denied the dog entry to the courtroom.

The complainant referred to the significant distress they felt in leaving their dog outside the court, as well as the impact on the dog.

We acknowledged that the complainant’s experience in attempting to enter the court was difficult and upsetting for them. We noted that planning by officers before a hearing is important to enable people with a disability to participate on an equal basis, and that this
may include physical access considerations in respect of assistance animals.

Assistance animals are regulated under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DD Act). Under the DD Act, it is not unlawful for a person to request a handler to produce evidence that an animal is an assistance animal.

Officers have a fundamental duty to control court proceedings and ensure that matters are dealt with appropriately, safely and with minimal disruption. With respect to security matters, an officer’s authority is absolute.

Having regard to all the circumstances, we were satisfied that:

although framed as an allegation about conduct, the Officer’s purported denial of entry to the complainant’s dog concerned the alleged exercise of a core administrative function; and
referring to a dog as a ‘dangerous dog’ would not be inconsistent with the standards of conduct generally expected of judicial officers.

Therefore, we dismissed the complaint. We were not satisfied that the complaint disclosed a basis to consider that the Officer’s conduct may have infringed the standards of conduct generally expected of judicial officers.

¹ On 18 November 2024, the Victims of Crime Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) replaced VOCAT.

Court security and controlling proceedings consistent with the proper exercise of the judicial function