When Maryborough woman Kristina Greenwood first attended court as the alleged victim of stalking and family violence, she couldn't enter through the front door.
A difficult experience was made all the more difficult, as Maryborough Magistrates' Court, built in 1893, was not designed to accommodate wheelchair users.
"They actually had to let me in the back entrance, after all the criminal matters have been heard, because the back door was usually where criminals are brought in handcuffs into the courtroom" Ms Greenwood said.
The experience led Ms Greenwood to lobby the Central Goldfields Shire Council for better access to her local courthouse.
It has taken her over six years to have a ramp installed at the front of the courthouse, but the building is still not fully accessible.
"The clerk of courts' office and the public toilets adjacent to the courtroom [are] only accessible by stairs," Ms Greenwood said.
"[In] a huge smack in the face, they actually have what they call a disabled toilet symbol on the door."
A Court Services Victoria spokesperson said that while a major redevelopment of the Maryborough Magistrates' Court improved accessibility in 2019, accessible toilets remained in a staff-only area, meaning permission must be sought from court staff to access the facilities.
The spokesperson said it was a similar process for wheelchair access to the clerk of courts' office.
They disputed Ms Greenwood's claims of having to be taken into court via the same entrance as a person in custody, saying that could never happen.
Ms Greenwood said her battle to change the inadequate conditions has been met with resistance from the local council and Heritage Victoria, on the basis that the courthouse was heritage-listed.
"People are concerned about preserving history and the heritage of the building," she said.
"They forget this is our world too, and that we very much belong in it, and that we should be allowed to participate."
'No exemption' for heritage-listed buildings
Natalie Wade is a disability rights lawyer and the founder of Equality Lawyers, based in South Australia.
She said countless people like Ms Greenwood were caught between their right to access the community without discrimination, and the law that protected the integrity of historically significant places.
"The interaction between heritage laws and disability discrimination laws is, I think, an area where there's a lot of confusion for the general public," Ms Wade said.
While anti-discrimination laws can vary from state to state, at a Commonwealth level, the Disability Discrimination Act (1992) gave people with disabilities the right to equal access to buildings and premises, Ms Wade said.
In other words, the act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability.
Ms Wade said that people's limited understanding of heritage laws meant most people believed if a building was heritage listed, they were automatically exempt from disability discrimination laws.
"But that's not actually the legal case," Ms Wade said.
"There is no exemption or defence to a disability discrimination complaint, on the basis that the building is heritage listed."
The only way the owner of a heritage-listed building found to be inaccessible could avoid making modifications was to prove it was unreasonable to do so, Ms Wade said.
"For example, if it was literally not possible," she said.
"Like if the construct of the building was such that it was physically impossible to provide the infrastructure to make that building accessible.
"Another example of it being unreasonable would be if it was going to cost a significant amount of money, and that significant amount of money would have created unjustified hardship on the plaintiff."
Though there aren't many known precedents, Ms Wade said in a case where it was found to be "unreasonable" to make a heritage-listed building accessible, it didn't mean discrimination had not occurred.
"The organisation should really give serious thought as to whether that is an appropriate building to occupy in the circumstances where parts of their client base are not able to access their premises," she said.
'Accessibility is important'
Ms Greenwood believes the Central Goldfields Shire Council has fobbed her off.
"They don't want to hear that accessibility is important," Ms Greenwood said.
"They just want me to go home — I'm largely treated like a pain in the neck."
The ABC has contacted the Central Goldfields Shire Council for comment, but has been unable to facilitate an interview.
The ABC also contacted Heritage Victoria, who would not answer specific questions.
"Heritage Victoria actively encourages equitable access to state-listed heritage places," a Heritage Victoria spokesperson said in a statement.
"Universal design is an overriding objective that should always be aimed for when upgrading a heritage place to provide all people the opportunity to appreciate and enjoy heritage places."
