hearing loss and the criminal justice system - Australian Indigenous ...

2.3 Facilities for the Hearing Impaired in JailsNAAJA is also extremely concerned as to the inadequate facilities for the hearingimpaired in jails. It is unquestionably the case that the experience of jail issignificantly more severe on people with hearing impairments. Prisons operate with aheavy reliance on prisoners hearing commands, and responding as required. Thisincludes the use of bells and sirens and following oral instructions. It is also forcommunication and participation, such as being able to engage in discourse withother prisoners and being able to access facilities and programs run by the prison.The use of amplifiers, the installation of hearing loops and the use of interpreters forprograms run by prisons are essential human rights provisions for the hearingimpaired. The failure to provide these facilities increases trauma of hearing impairedprisoners, and increases alienation for the hearing impaired in prison.2.4 Defence Counsel and Detecting Hearing ImpairmentsDefence counsel play a crucial role in the criminal justice system as the defendant’s“mouthpiece.” It is the case, however, that defendants can only rely on counsel astheir mouthpiece to the extent that they are able to clearly and effectivelycommunicate with them.It is trite to observe that there are degrees of hearing loss amongst Aboriginaldefendants, as there are amongst the population generally. We are concerned inparticular that partial hearing impairment in Aboriginal defendants is sometimesundetected by defence counsel. As noted above, this may be because clients presentwith cultural and language barriers that also impact on communications and lawyersare simply unaware that a hearing impairment is also present. Or it may be becauseAboriginal defendants having suffered hearing loss for so long, have adapted to theirhearing impairment by lip reading or relying on the few words that they can partiallyhear.Coupled with this are issues of Aboriginal defendants feeling overwhelmed by theprospect of court proceedings. May defendants actually state their desire to “get theircharges over and done with,” irrespective of their guilt. Some may provideinstructions that they are guilty because they do not want to go through the lengthycourt processes associated with having a contested hearing. This situation of clientsmay again lead to difficulties for lawyers in detecting hearing impairments.More generally, the danger of gratuitous concurrence is real and present. Lawyersmay think that a client suffering partial hearing impairment understandscommunications simply because they respond with a ‘yes’ answer or by nodding theirhead. Such responses may in fact mask hearing impairment.Other pressures faced by defence counsel at court also inhibit their ability to detecthearing impairments. This may include the pressures of having multiple clients to seein a very short space of time, the needs of courts to see clients quickly or clients whoare upset or agitated, ‘shamed’ by their hearing impairment or whose communicationdeficit is also influenced by cultural and/or language factors.6