Duck v Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads [2026] QCAT 390

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Duck v Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads [2026] QCAT 390 PARTIES: ANDREW JAMES DUCK (applicant) v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND MAIN ROADS (respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: GAR693-24 MATTER TYPE: General administrative review matters DELIVERED ON: 31 July 2026 HEARING DATE: 30 March 2026 HEARD AT: Richlands DECISION OF: Member McLean-Williams ORDERS: The Tribunal confirms the decision under review dated 16 October 2024. CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where applicant sought external review of a decision for cancellation of tow truck driver accreditation – circumstances in which applicant contests the sufficiency of the evidential basis for cancellation Tow Truck Act 2023 (Qld), s 13, s 38 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 3, s 4, s 19, s 20, s 24, s 28. Re Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408 In Re K (An Infant) [1965] AC 201 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Ms Kate Milbourne, instructed by Fraser Lawyers, Bundall Respondent: Ms Angela Hellewell, instructed by the Office of the Crown Solicitor -- 1 of 17 -- 2 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] On 21 October 2024 Mr Andrew James Duck (‘the Applicant’) commenced an Application to review a decision, thereby seeking an external review before the Tribunal of an internal review decision, as made on 16 October 2024 by Mr Mark Why, in his capacity as a Delegate of the Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads. [2] By way of the internal review decision, Mr Why had upheld an original decision, made on 17 September 2024, thereby cancelling the Applicant’s accreditation as a tow truck driver pursuant to the Tow Truck Act 2023 (Qld) (‘Tow Truck Act 2023’ or ‘the 2023 Act’). Powers of the Tribunal [3] Pursuant to Part 6 of the Tow Truck Act 2023, an internal review decision may be externally reviewed, before the Tribunal. When called upon to exercise its review jurisdiction, the Tribunal: (a) must decide the review in accordance with the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’) and the Tow Truck Act 2023; (b) may perform the functions conferred on the Tribunal by either the QCAT Act, or by the Tow Truck Act 2023; and (c) has all the functions of the decision-maker for the reviewable decision being reviewed by the Tribunal.1 [4] When conducting a review the Tribunal ‘stands in the shoes’ of the original decision- maker, so as to produce the correct and preferable decision.2 The Tribunal must hear and decide the review by way of a fresh hearing, on the merits.3 [5] In consequence of its review, and pursuant to section 24 of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal may: (a) confirm or amend the internal review decision; or (b) set aside the internal review decision, and substitute its own decision; or (c) set aside the internal review decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the decision-maker for the decision, with any directions the Tribunal considers appropriate. Relevant background [6] On 18 July 2024 a ‘show cause’ notice had been issued to the Applicant pursuant to section 21D(3) of the Tow Truck Act 1973 (Qld) (‘Tow Truck Act 1973’ or ‘the 1973 Act’), thereby foreshadowing that it was proposed to cancel the Applicant’s authority to operate as a tow truck driver, because of sections 21A(1)(b)(ii), 21A(1)(b)(iii), 21A(1)(g), and section 21A(1)(h)(i), (ii) of the Tow Truck Act 1973 (‘the proposed cancellation’). 1 QCAT Act s 19. 2 Ibid s 20; Re Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No. 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 640. 3 QCAT Act s 20(2). -- 2 of 17 -- 3 [7] Relevantly, section 21A of the Tow Truck Act 1973 provided: 21A Cancellation or suspension of authorities (1) The chief executive may cancel or suspend an authority holder’s authority under section 21D on any of the following grounds— (a) the authority— (i) was issued in error; or (ii) was granted or renewed because of a false or fraudulent document, statement or representation; (b) the authority holder— (i) is convicted of an offence against this Act; or (ii) has, since the issue of the authority, been charged with or convicted of a disqualifying offence; or (iii) contravenes a condition of the authority; or (iv) stops being a tow truck operator, driver or assistant; (c) for an authority holder that is a corporation—an executive officer of the holder is or has been— (i) convicted of an offence against this Act; or (ii) charged with or convicted of a disqualifying offence; (d) the authority holder can not properly drive the class of motor vehicle stated in the authority because of a medical condition, or physical or mental incapacity; (e) the motor vehicle stated in the authority is no longer suitable for use under the authority; (f) the authority holder has given false or misleading information to— (i) an authorised officer; or (ii) an authorised officer under the Heavy Vehicle National Law (Queensland); (g) public safety has been endangered, or is likely to be endangered, because of the authority holder’s conduct; (h) having regard to the conduct of the authority holder, when performing activities under the authority or at any other time, the chief executive believes, on reasonable grounds— (i) the person is no longer an appropriate person to hold an authority; or (ii) it is in the public interest to cancel or suspend the authority. … (Emphasis added) -- 3 of 17 -- 4 [8] The Tow Truck Act 1973 was repealed on 26 August 2024, upon the commencement of the Tow Truck Act 2023. The equivalent of section 21A of the 1973 Act is now to be found in section 38 of the 2023 Act. Section 38 provides: 38 Grounds for amending, suspending or cancelling accreditations Each of the following is a ground for amending, suspending or cancelling an accreditation— (a) the accreditation was given in error; (b) the accreditation was obtained because of materially incorrect or misleading information or documents; (c) the holder of the accreditation is not an appropriate person to continue to hold the accreditation; Note— For the holder of an accreditation that is a partnership, see also section 136. (d) it is not in the public interest for the holder of the accreditation to continue to hold the accreditation; (e) public safety has been endangered, or is likely to be endangered, because of the conduct of the following persons while carrying out activities under the accreditation— (i) the holder of the accreditation; (ii) if the holder of the accreditation is a corporation— an executive officer of the corporation; (iii) if the holder of the accreditation is a partnership— a partner in the partnership; (f) the holder of the accreditation has given false or misleading information to— (i) an authorised officer; or (ii) an authorised officer under the Heavy Vehicle National Law (Queensland); (g) another ground prescribed by regulation. (Emphasis added) [9] Both the original decision and the internal review decision were decisions made under the provisions of the 2023 Act, yet in circumstances in which the originating show cause notice had been issued pursuant to section 21D(3) of the 1973 Act. Pursuant to section 171 of the 2023 Act, any notice given under section 21D(3) of the 1973 Act before the commencement of the 2023 Act is deemed as if it were a show cause notice given under section 39 of the 2023 Act. The show cause notice: [10] Now summarising, the show cause notice dated 18 July 2024 specified the following as giving rise to grounds for the cancellation of the Applicant’s tow truck driver accreditation: -- 4 of 17 -- 5 (a) Information reports provided to the Respondent Department by the Queensland Police Service (QPS) on each of 17 April 2023, 12 October 2023, and 5 June 2024 had revealed that the Applicant had been charged with the disqualifying criminal offences of assault occasioning bodily harm (Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), section 339(1) (‘Criminal Code’)) (two counts) and common assault (Criminal Code section 335). The outcomes of these charges were as follows: (i) Assault occasioning bodily harm (on 25 March 2023): dealt with in the Beenleigh Magistrates Court on 11 October 2023 by way of dismissal on the basis of there being ‘no evidence to offer’; (ii) Common assault (on 25 March 2023): also dealt with in the Beenleigh Magistrates Court on 11 October 2023, and resulting in the Applicant being convicted. The Applicant was fined $1,200 and entered a recognisance to be of good behaviour for a further 12-month period; (iii) Assault occasioning bodily harm (on 9 May 2024): further adjourned, to be dealt with in the Southport Magistrates Court, on 1 August 2024.4 (b) Sections 21 and 21A of the 1973 Act specify matters that must be considered when assessing whether it is in the public interest for a person to continue to hold tow truck driver accreditation, including: (i) The need to ensure that the reputation of the tow truck industry is not affected by the involvement of persons likely to affect the industry’s reputation; (ii) The legitimate expectation members of the public have that they will not be subject to assaults, or to aggressive, coercive, or otherwise inappropriate behaviours from persons involved in the tow truck industry. (c) The Applicant’s prior industry history - as reported to the Department of Transport and Main Roads via a series of complaints, witness statements, video footage, photographs, and recorded images held by the QPS - had previously resulted in the cancellation of the Applicant’s tow truck driver accreditation in July 2023. (d) The fact that the conduct giving rise to the Applicant being charged with criminal offences on 25 March 2023 and 9 May 2024 also gives rise to concerns under section 21A(1)(h) of the 1973 Act that the Applicant is not an appropriate person to hold accreditation as a tow truck driver; or that it is no longer in the public interest for the Applicant to hold such an accreditation under the Tow Truck Act 2023. (e) The fact of a speeding offence by the Applicant whilst driving a tow truck on 23 March 2023. (f) Given the factual circumstances giving rise to the assault charges, a reasonable belief having been formed under section 21A(1)(g) that public safety had been endangered, or was likely to be endangered, because of the Applicant’s conduct. 4 Ultimately, this charge was dealt with in the Southport Magistrates Court on 30 June 2025, whereupon the charge was dismissed, after the QPS formally indicated that no prosecution evidence would be offered. -- 5 of 17 -- 6 [11] On 14 August 2024, the Applicant’s lawyers provided written submissions to the Department in response to the show cause notice. [12] On 17 September 2024, the original decision was made to cancel the Applicant’s tow truck driver accreditation, with effect from 25 September 2024. [13] On 19 September 2024, the Applicant sought an internal review of the original decision. [14] On 16 October 2024 Mr Mark Why made the internal review decision, thereby upholding the original decision to cancel the Applicant’s tow truck driver accreditation. [15] On 21 October 2024, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for an external review of the internal review decision. Matters for necessary consideration by the Tribunal under the Tow Truck Act 2023 [16] Sections 21A(1)(b)(ii) and 21A(1)(b)(iii) of the 1973 Act - as had been included in the originating show cause notice issued to the Applicant on 18 July 2024 - have no contemporary equivalent under the 2023 Act; such that these grounds for cancellation will not be considered by the Tribunal.5 [17] However, each of sections 21A(1)(g); 21A(1)(h)(i); and 21A(1)(h)(ii) in the 1973 Act – as similarly raised in the show cause notice as affording further grounds for the proposed cancellation – has a modern analogue within section 38; such that these must still be considered by the Tribunal, as part of this Application for review: 1973 Act Provision: Current (2023 Act) Equivalent: Section 21A(1)(h)(i) Section 38(c) ‘holder is not an appropriate person to continue to hold accreditation’. Section 21A(1)(h)(ii) Section 38(d) ‘not in the public interest for the holder to continue to hold accreditation’. Section 21A(1)(g) Section 38(e)(i) ‘public safety has been, or is likely to be endangered because of the conduct of the holder of the accreditation.’ Factual Circumstances Considered by the Tribunal [18] A hearing was conducted by the Tribunal at Richlands on 30 March 2026, at which time the Applicant gave evidence and was cross-examined. [19] As part of that hearing, the Tribunal also viewed and considered three sets of video footage,6 referable to events on 8 and 9 May 2024, as had been provided to the Respondent Department by another industry participant, and which the Chief 5 Relatedly, pursuant to section 4C(1)(d) of the repealed 1973 Act, the criteria for consideration as to whether a person is an appropriate person to continue to be the holder of an accreditation under the Tow Truck Act also included the question whether the person had been either charged with, or convicted of, either an offence against the Tow Truck Act, or another disqualifying offence. Section 4C(1)(d) has no contemporary equivalent in the 2023 Act, such that this specific criterion will also not be considered any further by the Tribunal. Note however section 13(1)(c) of the 2023 Act, as discussed further, below. 6 Now Exhibits ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’. -- 6 of 17 -- 7 Executive says reveal conduct by the Applicant that calls into question the Applicant’s suitability to continue to be the holder of accreditation as a tow truck driver. [20] In broad terms, the factual matters necessary for consideration by the Tribunal as part of this determination whether grounds exist for cancellation of the Applicant’s accreditation as a tow truck driver under any of sections 38(c), section 38(d), and/or section 38(e)(i) of the Tow Truck Act 2023 are as follows: Incident One: The Applicant was found guilty before the Beenleigh Magistrates Court on 11 October 2023 on a charge of common assault (occurring on 25 March 2023), in circumstances in which the victim of that assault had been another tow truck driver, working for another tow truck company. Incident Two: The Applicant was involved in a road-side incident with another tow truck driver ‘H’, on 9 May 2024. Prelude to Incident Two: On 8 May 2024 there was a ‘prelude’ to Incident Two, similarly involving the Applicant and H, also at a traffic incident. Section 38(c): whether the Applicant is an ‘appropriate person’ to continue to hold an accreditation under the Tow Truck Act 2023 [21] When determining for purposes of section 38(c) of the Tow Truck Act 2023 whether the Applicant is an appropriate person to continue to hold an accreditation as a tow truck driver, regard must be had to section 13 of the Tow Truck Act 2023. Section 13 provides: 13 Matters to be considered in deciding whether persons are appropriate persons to hold or continue to hold accreditations (1) In deciding whether a person is an appropriate person to hold or continue to hold an accreditation, the Chief Executive must have regard to the following matters— (a) the person’s criminal history; (b) whether an accreditation held by the person has been cancelled or suspended and, if so, why the accreditation was cancelled or suspended; (c) the person’s conduct while carrying out activities under an accreditation; (d) whether the person has engaged in aggressive, threatening or otherwise inappropriate behaviour towards— (i) an authorised officer; or (ii) a public service employee performing functions under or relating to the administration of this Act; (e) whether the person is, or has been, the subject of a control order or a registered corresponding control order; (f) if the person is a corporation— -- 7 of 17 -- 8 (i) the criminal history of each executive officer of the corporation; and (ii) whether an accreditation held by an executive officer of the corporation has been cancelled or suspended and, if so, why the accreditation was cancelled or suspended; and (iii) whether an executive officer of the corporation is, or has been, an executive officer of another corporation whose accreditation has been cancelled or suspended and, if so, why the accreditation was cancelled or suspended; and (iv) the conduct of each executive officer of the corporation while carrying out activities under an accreditation; and (v) whether an executive officer of the corporation has engaged in aggressive, threatening or otherwise inappropriate behaviour towards a person mentioned in paragraph (d)(i) or (ii); and (vi) whether an executive officer of the corporation is, or has been, the subject of a control order or a registered corresponding control order; (g) if the accreditation is a driver accreditation—the person’s traffic history under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995; (h) any other matter prescribed by regulation. (2) Subject to section 15, the Chief Executive may also have regard to any other matter the Chief Executive considers relevant. (3) In subsection (1)(b), (c) and (f), a reference to an accreditation includes an assistant’s certificate, driver’s certificate and licence under the repealed Act. (Emphasis added) Incident One [22] The Applicant’s National Police Check Results Report reveals that, on 11 October 2023, the Applicant was convicted7 in the Beenleigh Magistrates Court on one count of common assault, referable to an incident on 25 March 2023. [23] Further material8 before the Tribunal referable to the incident on 25 March 2023 – as was placed before the Beenleigh Magistrates Court on 11 October 2023 prior to the Applicant being convicted and sentenced – reveals that: (a) the victim of the assault comprising Incident One was another tow truck driver, working for a rival tow truck company; 7 Schedule 3 to the Tow Truck Act 2023 defines ‘convicted’ as meaning ‘found guilty, or having a plea of guilty accepted, by a court whether or not a conviction is recorded’. 8 Section 21(2) material, p. 61; Transcript T1-19 lines 20-25; Transcript T1-20, lines 22-25; Section 21(2) material, document 1k, p.79, paragraphs 17 – 19. -- 8 of 17 -- 9 (b) the assault occurred at the scene of a motor vehicle accident, whilst the victim had been attempting to arrange the towing of a crashed vehicle, and whilst the Applicant had also been at the scene and working as a tow truck driver; (c) the assault had occurred in the presence of a member of the public whose vehicle had required towing; and (d) in consequence of the assault the victim had been caused to stumble in the presence of a continuous flow of passing traffic. [24] Incident One, as described, is directly relevant in terms of an assessment of matters arising under section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(c) of the Tow Truck Act 2023. In consequence of Incident One the Applicant’s accreditation as a tow truck driver was cancelled (notwithstanding its later re-instatement for a period), such that Incident One is also relevant for purposes of section 13(1)(b). [25] When considering Incident One, in light of sections 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b), and 13(1)(c), the Tribunal considers that the Applicant is not able to be categorised as an ‘appropriate person’ to continue to hold an accreditation as a tow truck driver under the Tow Truck Act 2023. As the basis for that conclusion, the Tribunal observes that the Applicant has: (a) been convicted of offences of violence. (b) previously had his accreditation as a tow truck driver suspended or cancelled by reason of his having been convicted of a violent offence committed whilst working as a tow truck driver. (c) (by reason of the conduct resulting in the conviction recorded against the Applicant on 11 October 2023), engaged in conduct while carrying out activities as an accredited tow truck driver that can only be considered as inappropriate for any person who is the holder of an accreditation in the tow truck industry. Applicant’s conduct in 2024 [26] The Applicant was involved in another incident (‘Incident Two’) on 9 May 2024 involving ‘H’, another tow truck driver, from a rival Gold Coast tow truck company.9 As already indicated, there was also a ‘Prelude Incident’ between the Applicant and H, on 8 May 2024 that also requires consideration by the Tribunal for purposes of section 13(1)(c). [27] In consequence of Incident Two, the Applicant was charged by the Queensland Police Service (QPS) with one count of assault occasioning bodily harm upon H, contrary to section 339(1) of the Criminal Code. Ultimately, on 30 June 2025, the Queensland Police Service appeared before the Southport Magistrates Court and formally indicated that no evidence would be adduced before the Court in relation to the charge originally preferred against the Applicant referable to the events on 9 May 2024. In consequence, that charge was dismissed. [28] Notwithstanding the dismissal of the charge arising out of Incident Two, the factual circumstances giving rise to Incident Two must still be considered by the Tribunal, by reason of section 13(1)(c) of the Tow Truck Act 2023, which requires that when deciding whether a person is an appropriate person to continue to hold an accreditation 9 Applicant’s statement filed 12 August 2025, paragraph 5. -- 9 of 17 -- 10 under the Tow Truck Act 2023 regard must be had for, inter alia ‘the person’s conduct while carrying out activities under an accreditation’. Preliminary Evidentiary Matters [29] The primary evidence adduced by the Chief Executive that is said to afford the evidential foundation for the proposal for cancellation of the Applicant’s tow truck driver accreditation - at least insofar as it is referable to the Applicant’s conduct arising in Incident Two - is the police brief of evidence pertaining to the charge that was dismissed by the Southport Magistrates Court on 30 June 2025; together with mobile phone camera/dash camera video footage, as subsequently provided to the Department, by H. [30] Relevantly, H was not called by the Chief Executive to give any viva voce evidence before the Tribunal in relation to these proceedings. [31] Similarly, the only evidence before the Tribunal referable to any involvement by the Applicant in the ‘Prelude Incident’ is that as now comprised by ‘dash camera’ video footage also provided to the Department by H, again in circumstances in which H was not called to give evidence to establish the provenance of the video footage; and in circumstances in which the Applicant submits10 that H has a motive to try to ensure that the Applicant does not continue to be the holder of tow truck driver accreditation. [32] Throughout these proceedings the Applicant contends11 that his actions towards H on 9 May 2024 were no more than what had been reasonable and necessary, because of his needing to act in self-defence, in response to a perceived imminent threat made to his person by H. The Applicant contends that this self-defence claim cannot be refuted, in the absence of any contrary evidence from H. [33] Similarly, the Applicant contends12 that the Tribunal could not be reasonably satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Applicant unlawfully assaulted H during Incident Two; and the gravity of that allegation is such that it would be unsafe for the Tribunal to make any findings on the basis of incomplete video footage, and in circumstances in which H - as the putative victim of an assault - was not called to give evidence and establish the provenance of the footage, or to have his evidence appropriately tested, by way of cross-examination. Here, in part, the Applicant submits that the video footage: relied upon by the Department is only a brief excerpt and does not depict the entirety of the altercation or the lead-up events…The short excerpt, viewed in isolation, is incomplete and risks giving a misleading impression of what actually occurred.13 [34] In relation to the Prelude Incident on 8 May 2024, the Applicant contends that he is unsure upon his own viewing of that footage whether it is even accurate, or whether the person in the footage now claimed as being him is even himself. [35] At this juncture, it bears observing that wherever (as here) the Tribunal is called upon to determine an Application for review, the Tribunal is not taken to be acting 10 Applicant’s final submissions dated 5 May 2026 at paragraph [36]. The submission relates to all video footage for both the Prelude Incident and Incident Two. 11 Applicant’s statement filed 12 August 2025, paragraph [5]. 12 Applicant’s final submissions dated 5 May 2026, at paragraphs [31] – [40]. 13 Applicant’s statement filed in the Tribunal on 12 August 2025, at paragraphs [12] – [13]. -- 10 of 17 -- 11 judicially, and is not required to consider questions of guilt at the requisite criminal standard. Rather, the Tribunal is performing an administrative function,14 wherein the Tribunal is not bound by rules of evidence, practice or procedure,15 as apply in the case of courts of record when performing different – specifically judicial – functions. In this instance the Tribunal is performing a different role, and is required to determine a regulatory question, posed under statute - whether there are grounds for cancellation of the Applicant’s tow truck driver accreditation, pursuant to any of sections 38(c), 38(d), and/or 38(e) of the Tow Truck Act 2023? When making that determination, the Tribunal may, if satisfied as to its reliability, proceed and act on the basis of hearsay evidence,16 or on the basis of any other category of evidence that could be at risk of being assessed as unsatisfactory, if it were gauged against the more exacting standards expected in the context of criminal proceedings. [36] Having regard to the objects17 of the QCAT Act – which require that the Tribunal deal with matters in a way that is ‘economical, informal and quick’; and the functions of the Tribunal, which require it to ensure proceedings are ‘conducted in an informal way that minimises costs to parties and is as quick as is consistent in achieving justice’,18 and to conduct its proceedings in a way that ‘may inform itself in any way it considers appropriate’,19 with ‘as little formality and technicality and with as much speed as the requirements of this Act, an enabling Act or the rules and a proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permits’,20 the Tribunal considers that it may consider the video footage, notwithstanding the absence of testimony from H, and notwithstanding any non-conformity by the Chief Executive with the requirements of QCAT Practice Direction 11 of 2020. As to the weight that may attach to the video footage the Tribunal considers that it is able to make its own assessments, on the basis of an assessment of what is revealed by the Tribunals viewing of the video footage. [37] ‘Incident Two’ arose as a sequel to another roadside incident between the Applicant and H on 8 May 2024, at another traffic accident scene (‘the prelude incident’). Because of section 13(1)(c) of the 2023 Act, the Tribunal must also take into consideration the events arising at the Prelude Incident, in terms of the Tribunal conducting the necessary assessment of the conduct of the Applicant whilst carrying out activities under his tow truck driver accreditation. The Prelude Incident [38] During the hearing on 30 March 2026 the Tribunal viewed dash camera video footage of the prelude incident.21 [39] Despite the Applicant challenging22 the reliability of the video footage from 8 May 2024, and his claiming whilst under cross examination to be ‘unsure’ whether the person revealed in that footage was in fact himself, the Tribunal – having now viewed the video footage for itself – records that it is reasonably satisfied as to the reliability 14 Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408 at 424-425. 15 QCAT Act s 28(3)(b). 16 In Re K (An Infant) [1965] AC 201 at 208 per Lord Devlin. 17 QCAT Act s 3(b). 18 Ibid s 4(c). 19 Ibid s 28(3)(c). 20 Ibid (d). 21 Exhibit ‘B’. 22 Applicant’s final submissions dated 5 May 2026, at paragraphs 41 – 44. -- 11 of 17 -- 12 of the video footage, and is reasonably satisfied, on the balance of probabilities,23 that the video footage is from 8 May 2024, and does show both the Applicant, and H, working as tow truck drivers, at the scene of a Gold Coast traffic accident. [40] On the basis of its own assessment of that video footage, the Tribunal records that it is reasonably satisfied that what the Tribunal herein describes as the ‘Prelude Incident’: (a) arose in the course of the Applicant conducting activities under his tow truck driver accreditation; (b) involved the Applicant attempting to obstruct H, by way of the Applicant pushing, shoving, and shepherding H, as part of what is now assessed by the Tribunal to be an effort by the Applicant to prevent H from engaging with a member of the public who may have required towing services in the aftermath of a traffic accident, to help facilitate another tow truck driver (also in the employ of the same tow truck company as the Applicant) secure the towing job, in lieu of H; (c) occurred in circumstances in which traffic continued to flow through the accident scene, in close proximity to each of the Applicant, H, and other persons at the accident scene; such that the conduct of the Applicant increased risks for the safety of persons at an accident scene. [41] On the basis of its own assessment of the video footage, the Tribunal is satisfied that the conduct revealed in the footage is relevant for purposes of section 13(1)(c), and reveals conduct that is not appropriate for the holder of an accreditation as a tow truck driver under the Tow Truck Act 2023. Incident Two [42] The Tribunal also viewed video footage taken of Incident Two,24 occurring on 9 May 2024, after which the Applicant had been charged with assault occasioning bodily harm upon H. [43] According to the Applicant,25 Incident Two arose after he had attended at a traffic accident on the Gold Coast Highway, just south of the Miami State High School. H had also happened to arrive at that same accident location, shortly after the Applicant. The Applicant says that H had attempted to persuade the vehicle owner to select H to perform the required vehicle tow, whereupon the Applicant says that he and H got into an argument about whether H had breached the Tow Truck Act 2023, by H attempting to obtain consent from the vehicle owner to tow the vehicle by means of H exerting ‘undue influence’ over the vehicle owner.26 [44] The Applicant says that he saw H put his right hand into his jacket pocket, and pull something out, and that he was fearful at that juncture that H was going to stab him, on the basis of threats the Applicant claims had been uttered by H earlier that day, and also on the evening prior, during the Prelude Incident.27 In response, the Applicant 23 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336, at 361-362. 24 Exhibit C. 25 Applicant’s statement filed 5 November 2024, at paragraphs 20 and following. 26 Ibid, paragraph 52; Transcript, 1-40, lines 43-45. 27 Applicant’s statement filed 5 November 2024, paragraph 55. -- 12 of 17 -- 13 claims to have taken no more than defensive action against H.28 The Applicant also says that only after taking initial defensive action had he realised that H had only been attempting to retrieve a mobile phone from his jacket pocket. [45] The Applicant agreed when under cross-examination that the person depicted in the video footage of Incident Two was himself.29 [46] The Tribunal records that it is reasonably satisfied that the video footage is of the incident on 9 May 2024, notwithstanding submissions from the Applicant that the provenance of the video footage remains uncertain in the absence of the creator of the video; or that the credibility of the footage should now be doubted by the Tribunal because of credibility issues referable to H. The Tribunal has viewed the video footage for itself, and considers that the video footage of Incident Two comprises standalone evidence, such that it is able to be assessed and considered in its own right, and quite independently from any credibility30 issues that may now attach to H. [47] On the basis of the Tribunal’s own assessment of the video footage, the Tribunal records that it is reasonably satisfied that the video footage shows a traffic accident scene, and shows that the person identified by the Applicant whilst under oath as being himself rapidly approaching H, from behind, before forcefully grabbing H around the neck and shoulders. In consequence of same the Tribunal is also reasonably satisfied on the balance of probabilities that H sustained injuries, including a displaced incomplete fracture of the rib, and a bruised and swollen eye.31 [48] The Tribunal records that it is further satisfied that Incident Two involving the Applicant and H on 9 May 2024 occurred whilst the Applicant was conducting activities under his tow truck driver accreditation; and in circumstances in which it was at least very probable that the Applicant’s interaction with H was able to be viewed by members of the public, as well as by other tow truck industry participants. [49] As foreshadowed, the Applicant submits32 that at the relevant time during Incident Two he was only acting in self-defence. However, the Tribunal does not accept that the video footage of Incident Two shows conduct by the Applicant that could be reasonably categorised as consistent with the Applicant reasonably acting in self- defence. The Tribunal is satisfied that the video footage33 shows that the Applicant was aware that H was holding a mobile phone, and had been in the process of attempting to use that mobile phone to record video footage of the Applicant. The video reveals that the Applicant grinned and gave a ‘thumbs up’ gesture in response to H attempting to film the Applicant. A voice may also be heard using words including: ‘nice phone fuckwit’. On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that these words were expressed by the Applicant.34 In the context revealed by the video footage, the Tribunal concludes that the use of these words by the Applicant is inconsistent with the Applicant’s claims that he was in fear of being stabbed by H at that time. Nor on the balance of probabilities is the Tribunal satisfied 28 Applicant’s statement filed 5 November 2024, paragraphs 56 – 58. 29 Transcript, 1-40, line 20; Transcript 1-41, line 12. 30 For the purposes of determining this Application for review the Tribunal is not required to make any assessment of the credibility of H. 31 Section 21(2) material, documents 1(d) and 1(i) (on USB). 32 Applicant’s final submissions dated 5 May 2026, see generally, paragraphs 45 – 62. 33 1i. 20240510_004157 – now Exhibit ‘A’. 34 Transcript 1-44, lines 16-17. -- 13 of 17 -- 14 that the use of any force by the Applicant upon H was a matter that was reasonably necessary in all the circumstances to prevent (or otherwise bring to an end), any assault upon the Applicant by H. It follows therefore that the Tribunal rejects any contention that a claim of self-defence by the Applicant precludes the possibility for the making of adverse findings about the conduct of the Applicant for purposes of tow truck driver accreditation under the Tow Truck Act 2023. Mandatory Considerations Under Section 13 [50] Already, at paragraph [21] above, the Tribunal has identified mandatory matters arising under section 13 of the Tow Truck Act 2023 that must be taken into consideration when determining for purposes of section 38(c) whether the Applicant is an appropriate person to continue to hold an accreditation as a tow truck driver. [51] So far as it is relevant, the Tribunal is required to consider the following matters from within subsection 13(1): (a) the Applicant’s criminal history; (b) whether an accreditation held by the Applicant has been previously cancelled or suspended, and if so why; (c) the Applicant’s conduct while carrying out activities under his tow truck driver accreditation. (a) The Applicant’s criminal history: [52] On 11 July 2022, the Applicant was convicted of common assault (domestic violence offence) and assault occasioning bodily harm (domestic violence offence) in the Southport District Court. The Applicant was sentenced to probation and no conviction was recorded. Schedule 3 to the Tow Truck Act 2023 defines ‘convicted’ as meaning ‘found guilty, or having a plea of guilty accepted, by a court whether or not a conviction is recorded’. [53] On 11 October 2023, the Applicant was further convicted in the Beenleigh Magistrates Court on one count of common assault (Criminal Code section 335), referable to Incident One, as now described in these reasons. It is especially relevant to note that this offence was an assault upon another tow truck driver, committed in circumstances in which at the time of the offence the Applicant had been conducting tow truck work, pursuant to his accreditation as a tow truck driver. (b) Whether an accreditation held by the Applicant has been previously cancelled or suspended, and if so why: [54] The Applicant has had his Tow Truck Act 2023 accreditation cancelled on a prior occasion, in consequence of Incident One. This is a matter that is now relevant for purposes of section 13(1)(b). The fact that, subsequently, the Applicant’s tow truck driver accreditation was re-instated35 for a further period is not a matter to which the 35 Section 21(2) material, p 150 (Tender Bundle p. 215). -- 14 of 17 -- 15 Tribunal attaches any particular significance for purposes of the matters mandated for consideration under section 13(1)(b). (c) The Applicant’s conduct while carrying out activities under his tow truck driver accreditation: [55] The Applicant’s conduct in Incident One is clearly relevant conduct for purposes of section 13(1)(c) and section 38(c) of the Tow Truck Act 2023. [56] Notwithstanding that the Queensland Police Service ultimately elected not to proceed with charges against the Applicant referable to Incident Two, such that the charge as originally preferred against the Applicant by the Queensland Police Service referable to Incident Two was dismissed on 30 June 2025 by the Southport Magistrates Court, the underlying conduct of the Applicant on that occasion still remains a relevant consideration for purposes of section 13(1)(c) and section 38(c) of the Tow Truck Act 2023. [57] The Tribunal notes the admission made by the Applicant when giving evidence under oath on 30 March 2026 that the person revealed in the video footage of Incident Two was himself. The Tribunal is satisfied that the conduct of the Applicant revealed in the video footage of Incident Two is not able to be categorised as appropriate conduct at a traffic accident scene for any person who is the holder of an accreditation as a tow truck driver under the Tow Truck Act 2023. Further Grounds for Cancellation [58] In addition to matters arising under sections 13 and 38(c) of the Tow Truck Act 2023, the Chief Executive submits that further grounds under each of sections 38(d) and 38(e) of the Tow Truck Act 2023 also arise as further prospective grounds for cancellation of the Applicant’s accreditation. Section 38(e) - Public safety has been endangered, or is likely to be endangered, because of the conduct of the Applicant: [59] The Tribunal is satisfied that both Incident One and Incident Two - as well as the Applicant’s conduct during the ‘Prelude Incident’ - reveal the Applicant as having a preparedness to act in a manner whilst attending at traffic accident locations that is reasonably ‘likely to endanger public safety’, contrary to section 38(e). [60] Here, the Tribunal notes, in particular, that Incident One transpired at a traffic accident location in the midst of a continuous flow of on-coming traffic, and that an eyewitness reported that ‘when [the victim] stumbled forward after being pushed by [the Applicant] there was a continuous flow of traffic directly in front of him and he could have easily stumbled in front of the vehicles’.36 [61] The Tribunal is also satisfied that on both 8 May 2024 (the Prelude Incident) and on 9 May 2024 (Incident Two) the Applicant again acted in a manner that was reasonably likely to endanger public safety, by reason of the Applicant acting in a manner that increases the risk of persons at traffic accident locations becoming either distracted from, or their unintentionally stumbling into, or stepping in front of, oncoming traffic. 36 Section 21(2) materials, p 79, paragraph 18. -- 15 of 17 -- 16 [62] In all of the circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that grounds for cancellation of the Applicant’s tow truck driver accreditation are established under section 38(e) of the Tow Truck Act 2023. Section 38(d) - it is not in the public interest for the Applicant to continue to hold the accreditation: [63] Pursuant to section 38(d) of the Tow Truck Act 2023, public interest considerations afford further potential grounds for cancellation of tow truck driver accreditation. [64] Section 14(1) of the Tow Truck Act 2023 provides that when deciding whether it is in the public interest for a person to hold or continue to hold an accreditation, particular regard must be had for: (a) The legitimate expectation of members of the public, particularly vulnerable members of the public, that they will not be subject to assault or aggressive, coercive or otherwise inappropriate behaviour from persons involved in the tow truck industry. … [65] The Tribunal considers that the conduct of the Applicant during Incident One and during both the Prelude Incident and Incident Two – and no matter that the Applicant was not ultimately convicted of assault in consequence of Incident Two – minimally amounts to either ‘aggressive’ and/or ‘otherwise inappropriate’ behaviour, that is inconsistent with the legitimate expectations of members of the public who are required to have dealings with participants in the tow truck industry for purposes of section 14(1)(a) in the Tow Truck Act 2023, particularly when the Tribunal has regard for the purposes expressed in sections 3(1)(b) and in section 3(2)(b)(i) & in section 3(2)(b)(iv) of the Tow Truck Act 2023, which provide: 3 Main purposes of Act (1) The main purposes of this Act are- (b) to protect the public by ensuring tow trucks carrying out regulated towing are operated in a safe, competent and professional way and at a reasonable cost to consumers; (2) The main purposes are achieved by— … (b) requiring persons who hold an accreditation to comply with duties, obligations, standards of conduct and other requirements directed at ensuring— (i) the safety of the public, including other persons involved in the carrying out of regulated towing; and … (iv) public confidence in the towing industry. … [66] For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that further grounds for cancellation of the Applicant’s tow truck driver accreditation have been satisfactorily made out under section 38(d) of the Tow Truck Act 2023. -- 16 of 17 -- 17 Orders [67] The Tribunal is satisfied that grounds do exist for cancellation of the Applicant’s accreditation as a tow truck driver pursuant to each of sections 38(c), 38(d) and 38(e)(i) of the Tow Truck Act 2023. [68] Accordingly, pursuant to section 24(1)(a) of the QCAT Act, the Tribunal confirms the decision under review. -- 17 of 17 --