Camilleri v Star Entertainment Group Ltd t/as The Star Gold Coast [2025] QCAT 23

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Camilleri v Star Entertainment Group Ltd t/as The Star Gold Coast [2025] QCAT 23 PARTIES: JAMES CAMILLERI (applicant) v STAR ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LTD T/AS THE STAR GOLD COAST (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: GAR507-22 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DELIVERED ON: 13 January 2025 HEARING DATE: 8 October 2024 HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member Lumb ORDERS: 1. The decision made by the Respondent on 22 November 2022 to refuse to revoke the exclusion direction issued to the Applicant on 3 September 2021 is set aside, and is substituted with a decision that the exclusion direction issued to the Applicant on 3 September 2021 is revoked. 2. Pursuant to s 24(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), this decision has effect from the date of the decision. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – General administrative review – review of decision of respondent refusing to revoke an exclusion direction issued to applicant pursuant to s 99 of the Casino Control Act 1982 (Qld) – where exclusion direction issued because of behaviour of applicant whilst gambling at respondent’s casinos – where applicant has taken steps to address behavioural issues – whether discretion should be exercised to revoke the exclusion direction Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 10, s 11, s 13 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 9, s 17, s 19, s 20, s 24 Casino Control Act 1982 (Qld), s 3, s 91A, s 91B, s 93A, s 97, s 97A, s 98, s 99, s 99C, Schedule 2 -- 1 of 12 -- 2 D’Arro v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] 1 Qd R 204 Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: J.M. Toleafoa, Group Manager – Safer Gambling REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction [1] By an Application to review a decision filed on 22 November 2022 (‘the Review Application’), the Applicant has applied to review an internal decision of the Respondent made on 6 November 2022 (‘the Decision’). By the Decision, the Respondent refused to revoke, pursuant to s 99 of the Casino Control Act 1982 (Qld) (‘the CCA’), an exclusion direction issued by it to Mr Camilleri. [2] On 3 September 2021, the Applicant was issued with a Form 3D ‘Exclusion Direction’ (with accompanying ‘Information Notice’) (‘the Exclusion Direction’) pursuant to s 93A of the CCA. [3] By the Exclusion Direction, Mr Camilleri was prohibited from: (a) entering or remaining in The Star Gold Coast and Treasury Brisbane casinos (collectively ‘the Casinos’); (b) taking part in Keno gambling at the Casinos (or entering or remaining in the Casinos for Keno gaming); and (c) taking part in approved wagering at the Casinos (or entering or remaining in the Casinos for approved wagering). [4] On 7 October 2022, the Applicant filed an application to revoke the Exclusion Direction (‘the revocation application’) pursuant to s 98 of the CCA.1 [5] On 6 November 2022, the Decision was made. [6] Unless the Decision is set aside, the Exclusion Direction remains in force until 3 September 2026.2 [7] The substance of the Application is to have the Decision set aside. The statutory basis for reviewing the Decision [8] A person may apply, as provided under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘the QCAT Act’), to the Tribunal for a review of, relevantly, 1 Statement of Reasons, paragraph 1(2). 2 By operation of s 97(b) of the CCA. -- 2 of 12 -- 3 a decision of a casino operator,3 under s 99 of the CCA, refusing to revoke an exclusion direction given to the person.4 [9] In my view, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Decision by virtue of s 99 of the CCA and s 9(1), s 9(2)(b) and s 17 of the QCAT Act. [10] As to the manner in which the review is to be conducted, whilst s 91B(1)(b) of the CCA provides that the Tribunal must decide the review of a decision in accordance with the same law that applied to the making of the original decision, this is expressly limited to a review of a decision of the chief executive, which is not the case here. [11] I consider that the review of the Division is governed by Division 3 of Part 1 of Chapter 2 of the QCAT Act. [12] In exercising its review jurisdiction, the Tribunal: (a) must decide the review in accordance with the QCAT Act and the CCA (being the enabling Act under which the reviewable decision was made);5 (b) may perform the functions conferred on the Tribunal by the QCAT Act or the CCA;6 and (c) has all the functions of the decision-maker for the reviewable decision being reviewed.7 [13] The purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision.8 [14] The Tribunal must hear and decide a review of the Decision by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.9 [15] In this proceeding, the Tribunal may:10 (a) confirm or amend the Decision; (b) set aside the Decision and substitute its own decision; or (c) set aside the Decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the decision- maker for the decision, with the directions the Tribunal considers appropriate. [16] The Tribunal is not required to identify an error in either the process or the reasoning that led to the decision being made, and there is no presumption that the Decision is correct.11 The relevant provisions of the CCA [17] The object of CCA is to ensure that, on balance, the State and the community as a whole benefit from casino gambling.12 The balance is achieved by allowing casino 3 The Respondent is a casino operator: see Statement of Reasons, Document 2. 4 CCA, s 91A(2)(b). 5 QCAT Act, s 19(a). 6 QCAT Act, s 19(b). 7 QCAT Act, s 19(c). 8 QCAT Act, s 20(1). 9 QCAT Act, s 20(2). 10 QCAT Act, s 24(1). 11 Kehl v Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland [2010] QCATA 58, [9]. 12 CCA, s 3(1). -- 3 of 12 -- 4 gambling subject to a system of regulation and control designed to protect players and the community through, relevantly, minimising the potential for harm from casino gambling.13 [18] At the date of the Decision, s 93A of the CCA provided that the section applied if a casino operator or a casino manager believed on reasonable grounds that a person is a ‘problem gambler’.14 In that event: (a) the casino operator or casino manager may give the person a notice in the approved form (an exclusion direction) prohibiting the person from entering or remaining in the casino;15 and (b) if a casino operator operates more than one casino, an exclusion direction may relate to a stated casino or all casinos operated by the casino operator.16 [19] At the date of the Decision, s 98 of the CCA provided: (1) A person who is prohibited from entering or remaining in a casino under an exclusion direction may apply to the casino operator for the casino to which the direction relates for revocation of the direction. (2) The application may only be made at least 1 year after the day the person is given the direction. (3) The application must be— (a) in the approved form; and (b) supported by enough information to enable the casino operator to decide the application. (4) A person may apply under this section only once each year commencing on the anniversary of the day the person was given the direction. (emphasis added) [20] The revocation application was made by the Applicant more than one year after the direction was given to the Applicant. [21] At the date of the Decision, s 99 of the CCA provided, relevantly: (1) This section applies to an application under section 98 for revocation of an exclusion direction. (2) The casino operator must consider the application and, within 28 days after receiving it, decide to revoke or refuse to revoke the direction. (3) If the casino operator fails to decide the application within 28 days after its receipt, the failure is taken to be a decision by the operator to refuse to revoke the direction. (4) In considering the application, the casino operator may have regard to the information supporting the application and any information 13 CCA, s 3(2)(c). 14 CCA, s 93A(1). As to the definition of 'problem gambler', see paragraph [22] below. 15 CCA, s 93A(2). 16 CCA, s 93A(3). -- 4 of 12 -- 5 the operator considers relevant, including, for example, a report of a psychologist. … (emphasis added) [22] At the date of the Decision, ‘problem gambler’ was defined in Schedule 2 (Dictionary) as follows: problem gambler means a person whose behaviour relating to gambling— (a) is characterised by difficulties in limiting the amount of money or time the person spends on gambling; and (b) leads to adverse consequences for the person, other persons or the community. [23] Between the date of the Decision and the date of the final hearing in this matter, the CCA was amended by the Casino Control and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Qld). [24] The amendments included, relevantly: (a) omitting s 93A(1) and inserting in lieu: This section applies if a casino operator or a casino manager believes on reasonable grounds a person is experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, harm from gambling. Note— See section 99C. (b) omitting the definition of ‘problem gambler’ in Schedule 2; (c) inserting a new s 99C in the following terms: A reference in this division to a person experiencing harm from gambling is a reference to a person whose behaviour relating to gambling— (a) is characterised by difficulties in limiting the amount of money or time the person spends on gambling; and (b) is adversely affecting the person, other persons or the community. (d) inserting a new s 97A in the following terms: A casino operator may, by notice given to a person, revoke an exclusion notice given to the person under section 92. [25] Sections 98 and 99 were not subject to amendment. [26] A question arises as to whether the Tribunal, in conducting the review, should consider the amended provisions identified in paragraph 24 above (in particular, the definition of ‘person experiencing harm from gambling’) or the relevant provisions as they stood at the date of the Decision. [27] Whilst I favour the view that the CCA, as amended by the Amendment Act, should be considered (having regard to the approach adopted by the Court of Appeal in -- 5 of 12 -- 6 D’Arro v Queensland Building and Construction Commission),17 I consider that nothing material turns on the choice between the respective provisions, because, first, the respective definitions of ‘problem gambling’ and ‘person experiencing harm from gambling’ are both directed at, amongst other matters, minimising harm to the applicant, other persons and the community in general; and, second, the adoption of the words ‘is adversely affecting’ in lieu of ‘leads to adverse consequences for’ does not appear to me to materially change the scope of the existing provisions. [28] I now address the proper approach to be adopted in determining whether an exclusion direction should be revoked. Proper approach to deciding application to revoke an exclusion direction [29] Subsection 99(4) of the CCA provides that in considering the application, the casino operator may have regard to the information supporting the application and any information the operator considers relevant, including, for example, a report of a psychologist. [30] In my view, s 99 provides an unfettered discretion in deciding whether to revoke or to refuse to revoke the Exclusion Direction. In approaching the question of what information is relevant in this matter, I consider that the provisions of the CCA identified in paragraphs [17] and [24] above are particularly relevant to this issue. In my view, s 93A forms part of a system of regulation and control designed to protect players and the community through minimising the potential for harm from casino gambling. [31] Without limitation, I am of the view that it is relevant to consider the Applicant’s behaviour that led to the Exclusion Direction, and also evidence going to the Applicant’s behaviour subsequent to the exclusion direction, insofar as it is relevant to the risk of the Applicant’s behaviour adversely affecting himself, or other casino patrons, or casino personnel of the Respondent, in the event that the Exclusion Direction were to be revoked. The material before the Tribunal [32] The material comprised. (a) the Application, including attachments;18 (b) the Respondent’s original material filed in the Tribunal on 2 February 2023, being the Statement of Reasons for the Decision and additional documents, including a patron profile report for Mr Camilleri (being Document 8) (‘the Profile Report’), and an extract from the Respondent’s casino management system concerning the Applicant, being Document 9 (‘Management System extracts’); 19 (c) various material filed by the Applicant on 21 April 2023, being:20 (i) a written (unsigned) statement by the Applicant; (ii) a letter from Gambling Help Services, Relationships Australia 17 [2018] 1 Qd R 204, [29]-[31]. 18 Exhibit 1. 19 Exhibit 2. 20 Exhibit 3. -- 6 of 12 -- 7 Queensland dated 20 April 2023; (iii) a letter from Dr Matthew Daley (‘Dr Daley’) dated 10 April 2023; (iv) a character reference from Glenn Simms dated 21 March 2023; (v) a letter from Nathan Grundy (‘Mr Grundy’), Tournament Director of the ‘WPT League’ dated 18 March 2023; (vi) a character reference from Kerry Chambers dated 19 March 2023; (d) a Problem Gambling Assessment dated 10 October 2022 (‘the BetCare Report’)21 which was prepared by Rita Gee (‘Ms Gee’), psychologist, at the request of the Respondent; (e) a statement of Mr Toleafoa Group Manager – Safer Gambling for the Respondent dated 12 June 2023,22 and an attached Paper entitled ‘Observable indicators and behaviours for the identification of problem gamblers in their new environments’ first published on 27 September 2016.23 [33] The statement of Mr Toleafoa referenced the report referred to as the ‘BetCare Report’. The statement noted that the Gambling Assessment recommended that a revocation of the exclusion order be granted, but did not annex a copy of that report. Consideration Respondent’s position [34] As I understood the Respondent’s contentions, its position is that the exclusion direction should not be revoked because it is for the benefit of Mr Camilleri and also team members employed at the Casinos. It was submitted that there is a risk that Mr Camilleri may fall back into troubling behaviour, and that his anger may resurface, when returned to the gambling environment within the Casinos. It was pointed out that Mr Camilleri was enjoying a healthy positive life outside of the gambling scene (at least outside of the Casino gambling scene) and that time is the best means for resolving the previous behavioural issues (noting that, subject to revocation, the CCA provides for an exclusion for a period of five years). Behaviour leading up to exclusion direction [35] The Management System extracts identify various incidents of conduct on the part of Mr Camilleri at the Casinos. The extracts included a date which is referred to as ‘Last Modified On’ but a number of the internal entries appear to relate to incidents that occurred on an earlier date. The following is my best interpretation of the events identified: (a) in or about early March 2016, Mr Camilleri was spoken to, and he was advised to take a break from poker for three months and that he was not to enter the poker room until 2 June 2016; (b) there is an entry last modified on 3 April 2019 which refers to abusive behaviour 21 Exhibit 4. 22 Exhibit 5. 23 Exhibit 6. -- 7 of 12 -- 8 and that there was a ‘WOL’24 for the ‘Entire Property’; (c) on 17 December 2017: Mr Camilleri was issued with a warning for ‘past posting’ (which I understand is making a bet after the time when no more bets are to be taken); (d) sometime in December 2017: Mr Camilleri had been asked to leave the VIP area; however, he returned the following day and had been asked to leave again but he was allowed to return on 29 December 2017; (e) on 27 December 2017: Mr Camilleri was asked to leave the casino for 24 hours in circumstances where he lost a $5,000.00 bet while playing baccarat and threw the cards back to the dealer hitting her in the eye; (f) on 28 December 2017: a three-month suspension from all premium gaming areas was imposed on Mr Camilleri, but on 7 March 2018 Mr Camilleri was revoked from the banned list; (g) on 12 October 2018: Mr Camilleri was spoken to in relation to damaging a poker layout; (h) on 9 November 2018 Mr Camilleri was asked to leave the casino after he continually touched and picked up other players’ cards, even after being warned by the floor supervisor; (i) on 24 November 2018: Mr Camilleri was given a warning for aggressive and rude behaviour towards a dealer whilst he was playing Caribbean Poker; (j) on or shortly prior to 13 March 2019: Mr Camilleri was asked to leave the casino after an incident during which he threw baccarat cards at the dealer’s face; (k) on 13 March 2019: Mr Camilleri was spoken to and advised that he is to take a break from poker for three months but was welcome to visit other parts of the casino. [36] Further incidents are recorded, but I am unable to identify the date on which the incidents occurred. I will adopt the date identified as being last modified as follows: (a) on 13 March 2020: Mr Camilleri was spoken to about damage to a poker layout caused by him scraping the edge of a chip along it (in circumstances where Mr Camilleri claimed that he was shown the dealer that the chips were faulty and were leaving marks); (b) on 30 July 2020: Mr Camilleri screwed up that the cards and threw them across the table, and after he was spoken to, Mr Camilleri apologised; (c) on 30 Jul 2020: Mr Camilleri screwed up the cards, threw them across the table and appeared to be upset, leaving shortly after this (this was stated to be the second incident on the same day); (d) on 20 October 2020: after losing a few hands, Mr Camilleri started directing ‘insult’ to the dealer and was spoken to being informed that this behaviour was not acceptable; (e) on 13 November 2020: Mr Camilleri was verbally abusive to a dealer after 24 I understand that this refers to a ‘Withdrawal of Licence’. -- 8 of 12 -- 9 losing a $25,000.00 bet, swearing profusely directly at the dealer; Mr Camilleri left of his own accord. [37] The Profile Report noted, relevantly, the following matters: (a) on 3 April 2019, at the request of Mr Camilleri, a WOL was issued in relation to his behaviour towards staff in the Respondent’s Queensland casinos; (b) on 29 May 2019, Mr Camilleri called leaving a message requesting contact in relation to his exclusion status; (c) on 17 June 2021, it was reported that one of the Respondent’s dealers complained about Mr Camilleri and reference is made to ongoing behavioural issues over the years and that some of the female dealers felt very intimidated by his actions which included swearing at the cards, swearing at the dealer under his breath and other antics. It was also reported that the day before Mr Camilleri made comments ‘these cards are shit’ and ‘I don’t know why I play this game’; (d) on 22 June 2021, a ‘Welfare Check’ was conducted by the Respondent with Mr Camilleri; (e) on 2 September 2021, it was reported that there had been an incident where Mr Camilleri lost a couple of wagers of $6,000.00 and $10,000.00; Mr Camilleri threw the cards on the table in an aggressive way towards the dealer; that the dealer claimed that Mr Camilleri called him a ‘fucking asshole’ on two occasions; and that Mr Camilleri had left before he could be spoken to; (f) as noted above, the Exclusion Direction was issued on 3 September 2021. [38] During the period leading up to his exclusion, Mr Camilleri had access to large sums of money having sold a business operated by him. In addition, given that he did not have a need to work, he would spend quite a deal of time gambling at the Casinos. [39] There is no evidence before the Tribunal, and the Respondent does not contend, that the extent of the gambling by Mr Camilleri prior to the issuing of the Exclusion Direction had any material adverse impact on his financial position. Events subsequent to exclusion direction [40] Ms Gee provided the BetCare Report on 10 October 2022. The Report identifies both the date of referral and the date of assessment as 6 October 2022.The stated purpose of assessment was ‘To assess gambling behaviour for consideration of the Application for Revocation of Exclusion Order’. There appears to be a discrepancy between the stated date of receipt of the revocation application (being 7 October 2022) and the stated date of referral (being 6 October 2022). However, I consider that nothing material turns on this apparent discrepancy. [41] Ms Gee set out what she considered was the relevant personal information of Mr Camilleri, his gambling history, his action during the exclusion period and his motivation for revocation. Ms Gee noted that her conclusion was based on the information provided by Mr Camilleri at the date of interview and did not take an account any further information that the ‘Star Casino’ may have on the case. [42] Ms Gee assessed Mr Camilleri on the ‘Canadian Problem Gambling Index’ (‘CPGI’). Ms Gee reported that Mr Camilleri scored one on this scale which indicates a low risk of developing problem gambling. -- 9 of 12 -- 10 [43] Ms Gee’s conclusion and recommendations included the following: … The CPGI scores indicate, Mr Camilleri is at low risk of developing problematic gambling. As aforementioned, there are several protective factors that also need to be considered. Itis apparent that Mr Camilleri’s circumstance has changed significantly since his exclusion. It appears that Mr Camilleri has insight into his gambling behaviour. He expressed great regret for his behaviour and stated that his swearing in the casino was not acceptable. Mr Camilleri also has made efforts to re-engage in other activities which he finds more meaningful and has stated that he has every intention to continue. I believe that Mr Camilleri has made enough changes in his life which may assist him to reducing [sic] the likelihood of returning to behaviours prior to exclusion. He has also appeared to have demonstrated self-control and a dislike towards pokies machines. Consequently, I recommend revocation for the exclusion order be granted. … [44] Mr Camilleri points to a number of changes in his lifestyle since the Exclusion Direction which are said to provide protective factors against a re-occurrence of his previous behaviour if he were permitted to return to the Casinos. [45] First, he has been in a steady and committed relationship since that time. [46] Second, he also spends time with his children who live interstate, either visiting them or them visiting him. [47] Third, he has moved to an acreage property which he spends a deal of time managing. [48] Fourth, he commenced work part-time at a local art gallery, and more recently has been working selling short term rentals; and Mr Camilleri in the process of obtaining a real estate agent’s licence. [49] Fifth, Mr Camilleri no longer has immediate access to the large sums of money that he previously did when gambling. [50] Sixth, he now undertakes meditation. [51] Seventh, in 2023, Mr Camilleri voluntarily underwent counselling on, I understand, for occasions with a Gambling Help Counsellor and Community Educator as part of the gambling help services program run by Relationships Australia Queensland. [52] Eighth, Mr Camilleri voluntarily attended an appointment with Dr Daley, a clinical psychologist on 4 April 2023. Dr Daley has provided a report dated 10 April 2023.the report noted, amongst other matters, that Mr Camilleri had undergone counselling through Relationships Australia which Mr Camilleri reported had improved his insight into his behaviours, and addressed potentially problematic aspects of his relationship to gambling. Mr Camilleri also reported engaging in online ‘self-paced modules’, to identify triggers for his anger, and to improve his empathy. Dr Daley stated: In summation, Mr Camilleri displayed remorse for his previous behaviour while gambling at Star Casinos properties, and in our session, was able to display -- 10 of 12 -- 11 empathy into why his behaviours have been deemed as inappropriate. Mr Camilleri reported undergoing multiple positive changes over the previous 14- months, particularly around his development of empathy, and lifestyle changes which will likely reduce his tendency to engage in frequent gambling. Based on the reports from Mr Camilleri, the social impact of his ongoing ban and the restriction on his capacity to engage in poker tournaments, is having an impact on his capacity to engage socially with like-minded peers. Therefore, I would respectfully request that consideration please be given to allowing Mr Camilleri to be on Star Casinos premises in the future. [53] In evidence, Mr Camilleri stated that he found the counselling sessions and, in particular, his session with Dr Daley beneficial. Mr Camilleri recognised that his behaviour, in particular towards dealers, was ‘unacceptable’ and ‘wrong’. He characterised his behaviour as arising out of a ‘you against them’ mentality. Mr Camilleri described himself as a ‘changed person’. [54] Having regard to Mr Camilleri’s written and oral evidence, I am satisfied that he now has real insight into the nature of his behaviour whilst previously gambling, and the impact it had on persons around him, in particular, the dealers. [55] Ninth, the statement of Mr Grundy is that, for more than eight years, Mr Camilleri has frequented several of the venues at which Mr Grundy hosts poker tournaments (with some of the sessions lasting more than 10 hours). Mr Grundy states that he has spent many long hours with him and has always found him to be ‘out going, funny and respectful’. Mr Grundy also states that over the last year (that is, prior to March 2023) Mr Camilleri plays a lot more quietly and pretty much keeps to himself. Mr Grundy referred to Mr Camilleri as a ‘gentleman’ and has always been very respectful to Mr Grundy and all other patrons. Conclusion [56] I am satisfied that, on the whole of the evidence before the Tribunal, the exclusion direction should be revoked pursuant to s 99(2) of the CCA. [57] In reaching this conclusion, I have taken into particular consideration that: (a) more than three years have elapsed since the issuing of the exclusion direction. I am not satisfied that, in the present circumstances, the elapse of further time will result in any meaningful change to the risk identified by the Respondent; (b) Mr Camilleri has attended poker tournaments (outside the casino environment) without incident and has played more quietly since about March 2022; (c) Mr Camilleri has proactively sought assistance from experts to address his previous behaviour whilst gambling at the Casinos; (d) Mr Camilleri has demonstrated clear insight into his previously problematical behaviour and has accepted that the conduct directed at dealers in the past was unacceptable; (e) I accept that Mr Camilleri is genuine in his intent to act in a manner that is respectful to dealers and fellow patrons if permitted back into the Casinos; (f) in my view, the changes to Mr Camilleri’s lifestyle (referred to above) will likely result in less time being spent gambling at the Casinos (which, in turn, will reduce the likelihood of any re-occurrence of past behaviour); -- 11 of 12 -- 12 (g) whilst I accept that there is some risk that Mr Camilleri will lapse into his previous exhibited behaviour if he returns to the gambling environment of the Casinos, I am satisfied that, in all the circumstances, the changes in Mr Camilleri’s insight, attitude, and lifestyle render that risk as relatively minimal, and it is not such as would tell against the revocation of the Exclusion Direction. Human Rights Act [58] The Tribunal is exercising a function of a public nature for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘the HRA’) (which commenced on 1 January 2020).25 I am obliged to give proper consideration to any human right relevant to this decision, and not to act or make a decision in a way that is incompatible with human rights.26 [59] Giving proper consideration to a human right in making a decision includes, but is not limited to, identifying the human rights that may be affected by the decision, and considering whether the decision would be compatible with human rights. A human right may be subject under law only to reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.27 In deciding whether a limit on a human right is reasonable and justifiable, the factors mentioned in s 13(2) of the HRA may be relevant. [60] In circumstances where it is to be ordered that the Exclusion Direction is to be revoked, I do not consider that there are any human rights of Mr Camilleri that may be limited by the decision. [61] The Respondent itself does not have any human rights.28 The Respondent does not submit, and I have not been able to identify, that there is any human right listed in the HRA pertaining to any individuals (or group of individuals) which may be limited by this decision, much less limited in a manner that is not reasonable and justifiable. Orders [62] For the above reasons, pursuant to s 24 of the QCAT Act, the correct and preferable decision is that the decision made by the Respondent on 22 November 2022 to refuse to revoke the exclusion direction issued to the Applicant on 3 September 2021 is set aside, and is substituted with a decision that the exclusion direction issued to the Applicant on 3 September 2021 is revoked. [63] I further order, pursuant to s 24(2) of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), that this decision has effect from the date of the decision. 25 HRA, s 10. 26 HRA, s 10. 27 HRA, s 13(1). 28 HRA, s 11. -- 12 of 12 --