Ali v State of Queensland [2014] QCATA 127

CITATION: Ali v State of Queensland [2014] QCATA 127 PARTIES: Raymond Akhtar Ali (Applicant/Appellant) v State of Queensland (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: APL458-13 MATTER TYPE: Appeals HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Hon K Cullinane AM QC, Judicial Member DELIVERED ON: 21 May 2014 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDER MADE: Mr Ali’s application for leave is refused. CATCHWORDS: APPEALS – LEAVE TO APPEAL – HUMAN RIGHTS – TRIBUNALS, COMMISSIONS AND OTHER AUTHORITIES – DISCRIMINATION – where finding that respondent discriminated against the applicant – where applicant seeks leave to appeal findings of fact and quantum of damages – whether the findings were open on the evidence – whether grounds for leave to appeal Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 32 APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act). REASONS FOR DECISION [1] Mr Ali seeks leave to appeal against certain findings of the Tribunal in proceedings instituted by him against the State of Queensland relating to the non-supply of halal food to him as an inmate in a Queensland prison. -- 1 of 3 -- 2 These proceedings were instituted under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (‘the Act’). [2] Mr Ali made a number of claims under the Act but succeeded only in relation to three of these. [3] Leave will only be granted where there is some particular reason for doing so. Generally, there must be a question of general importance or it may be necessary to grant leave in order to prevent an injustice. [4] Here, Mr Ali complains about the alleged inadequacy of the award. The primary claim is that the Tribunal ought to have made findings that the actions which constituted the breaches of the Act were done deliberately with the aim of depriving him of halal food. This states the matter generally. Rather more particularly, Mr Ali complains that the document which is central to the first claim of discrimination (the Request for Medical and Special Diets) was deliberately filled in erroneously so as to include the words: ‘Medical – Vegetarian … specific requirements/ portions/ substitutions - lieu Muslim halal’. [5] The Tribunal concluded that the discrepancy and the subsequent failure to supply halal food between 22 September 2008 and 22 January 2009 was the result of error; or a miscommunication; or a breakdown in Queensland’s system. [6] I think Queensland’s submission that the first ground of appeal is limited to the first of the grounds that Mr Ali succeeded on, and does not extend to the second and third. However, similar considerations apply here. [7] Mr Ali has succeeded on the primary claim: the breach of the Act, but seeks to have the findings of breach made on a different basis. [8] This is clearly enough, a challenge to findings of fact. [9] It is, I think, clear, that the passage of time has probably affected the memories of the persons involved. [10] The submissions of the parties, particularly Mr Ali’s submissions, have taken the form of an analysis of the relevant evidence, and the identifying inconsistencies within the evidence, and conflicts with other evidence. [11] I do not find this of great assistance on this application. [12] Some evidence cannot be reconciled. In particular, Ms Wilson, who was a nurse at the centre, whilst now having no recollection of the matter agrees she filled out the part of the form set out above. She said she did not tell Mr Ali that halal meals were not available, and says she was aware that halal meals were available. The Tribunal found that Mr Ali was told that halal meals were not available, although there was no finding as to the person who made this statement. However, he said that it was a male nurse. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 [13] It seems clear however, that halal meals were available at the centre. [14] Ms Simmons, a nurse, gave evidence as to the process where there was a request for a halal diet. She had no recall of this matter, but says the form was not properly completed here. [15] One Mr Boyer, a male nurse, was involved in Mr Ali’s reception recalls him and recalls completing a form, which he described as a ‘special diet request form’. He says he noted on the form that a halal diet was requested. [16] He says the form on which he noted this was not the form referred to earlier in these reasons. [17] It is not necessary to refer to the statements of others who gave an account. If anything, they make the picture more confused. [18] In these circumstances, it seems to me plainly enough open to conclude that something had miscarried within the system. [19] It may be accepted that some of the evidence could suggest a different conclusion. However, this does not constitute a sufficient basis for the grant of leave. [20] As to the challenge to the quantum of compensation, the decision maker must be allowed a wide discretion in a matter such as this. I am not persuaded that there is anything that calls for the grant of leave on this subject. [21] Leave to appeal should be refused. -- 3 of 3 --