Rinaldi v Scheme Manager, Victim Assist Queensland, Department of Justice and Attorney-General
[2025] QCAT 230
•11 June 2025
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Rinaldi v Scheme Manager, Victim Assist Queensland, Department of Justice and Attorney-General [2025] QCAT 230
PARTIES:
DION RINALDI (applicant)
v
SCHEME MANAGER, VICTIM ASSIST QUEENSLAND, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
GAR575-23
MATTER TYPE:
General administrative review matters
DELIVERED ON:
11 June 2025
HEARING DATE:
20 March 2025
HEARD AT:
Richlands Magistrates Court
DECISION OF:
Member Poteri
ORDERS:
The decision of the Scheme Manager, Victim Assist Queensland, Department of Youth Justice and Victim Support dated 19 May 2023 is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – VICTIMS ASSIST – where a claim has been made under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) – whether the Applicant’s activities was the only reason or the main reason that the alleged act of violence was committed against the Applicant – whether the Applicant was involved in a criminal activity when the alleged act of violence was committed against the Applicant
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 19, s 20, s 24
Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld), s 21, s 23, s 25, s 27, s 78, s 80, Schedule 3
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
Self-represented
Respondent:
Self-represented
REASONS FOR DECISION
BACKGROUND
This review was heard before me in person at the Richlands Magistrates Court on 20 March 2025. The review relates to an application (‘Application’) dated 22 August 2022 filed in the Tribunal on 22 August 2022 by the Applicant, Dion Rinaldi (‘Rinaldi’), for the review of a decision.
The review relates to a formal application (‘Application VA’) lodged on 19 July 2021 for financial assistance pursuant to the provisions of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (‘the Act’). Application VA was made to Victim Assist Queensland (‘VAQ’) which is part of the Department of Justice and Attorney-General. In Application VA Rinaldi alleges that he suffered some injuries resulting from an incident that occurred on 16 November 2020.
VAQ assessed Application VA and on 19 May 2023 decided to refuse Application VA (‘Decision’). Rinaldi requested an internal review of the Decision and on 22 August 2023 VAQ advised Rinaldi that the Decision was confirmed.
The grounds for refusal of the Application VA can be summarised as follows:
(a)There is not sufficient evidence to support Rinaldi’s claim that he suffered an injury as a direct result the alleged act of violence as required under s 25 of the Act. The meaning of an injury is set out in s 27 of the Act.
(b)Notwithstanding the above issue, the activities of Rinaldi were the only reason or the main reason the alleged act of violence was committed against Rinaldi. See s 80 of the Act.
The review of the Decision is being undertaken by way of a fresh hearing on the merits. See s 20 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (‘QCAT Act’). Pursuant to s 19 of the QCAT Act in exercising the review jurisdiction, the Tribunal must decide the review in accordance with the provisions of the QCAT Act and the Act.
The purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision. Pursuant to s 24(1) of the QCAT Act the Tribunal may:
(a) confirm or amend the decision; or
(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.
LEGISLATION
For the perusal of the parties, I outline the relevant provisions of the Act. They are ss 21, 25, 27, 80.
21 Scheme for financial assistance
(1) This chapter establishes a scheme for the payment of financial assistance—
(a)to a victim of an act of violence; or
(b)to a person who incurs, or is reasonably likely to incur, funeral expenses for—
(a)a primary victim of an act of violence; or
(b)an unborn child of a primary victim of an act of violence.
(2) This chapter does not entitle anyone to the payment of financial assistance in relation to an act of violence if—
(a)the person committed or conspired to commit the act; or
(b)for a person claiming assistance as a primary victim of the act—the person’s involvement in a criminal activity is the only reason, or the main reason, the act was committed against the person; or
(c)for a person claiming assistance for the death of a primary victim of the act—the primary victim’s involvement in a criminal activity is the only reason, or the main reason, the act was committed against the primary victim, and the person was or should have been aware of the involvement.
(3) Also, this chapter does not entitle anyone to the payment of financial assistance in relation to an act of violence if, in the absence of a reasonable excuse—
(a)the act has not been reported to a person as mentioned in section 81(1)(a); or
(b)for an act that is a crime or a series of related crimes—the person has not given reasonable assistance in the arrest or prosecution of the person who allegedly committed the act.
(4) Further, this chapter does not entitle anyone to the payment of financial assistance in relation to an act of violence to the extent the person has received, or will receive, payment of an amount in relation to the act of violence from another source.
25 Meaning of act of violence
(1) An act of violence is a crime or a series of related crimes, whether committed by 1 or more persons, that—
(a)are committed in Queensland; and
(b)directly result in the death of, or injury to, 1 or more persons, irrespective of where the death or injury happened.
Note—
In general terms, it is intended by this section that assistance may be granted to a person in relation to an act of violence even though the person who committed the act has not been, or can not be, found guilty of the relevant prescribed offence because of a justification, excuse or defence.
On the other hand, it is not intended by this section that assistance be payable for an act done or omission made by a person, for example, a police officer, if the act or omission is lawfully done or made in the course of the person performing duties under an Act.
See, however, sections 26(6), 50(2), 79 and 80.
(2) Also, an act of violence is domestic violence, or a series of related acts of domestic violence, that—
(a)is committed in Queensland; and
(b)directly results in the death of, or injury to, 1 or more persons, irrespective of where the death or injury happened; and
(c)is not an act of violence under subsection (1).
(3) In this chapter, a reference to an act of violence in relation to an application for assistance includes a reference to an alleged act of violence.
27 Meaning of injury
(1) In this chapter, injury means—
(a)bodily injury; or
(b)mental illness or disorder; or
(c)intellectual impairment; or
(d)pregnancy; or
(e)disease; or
(f)for a sexual offence or domestic violence, the totality of the following adverse impacts of the sexual offence or domestic violence suffered by a person—
(i)sense of violation;
(ii)reduced self worth or perception;
(iii)lost or reduced physical immunity;
(iv)lost or reduced physical capacity (including the capacity to have children), whether temporary or permanent;
(v)increased fear or increased feelings of insecurity;
(vi)adverse effect of others reacting adversely to the person;
(vii)adverse impact on lawful sexual relations;
(viii)adverse impact on feelings; or
(g)a combination of matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f).
(2) For this chapter, injury also includes an aggravation of an injury mentioned in subsection (1)(a) to (g), if the aggravation arises as a direct result of an act of violence.
(3) To remove any doubt, it is declared that, for this chapter, an aggravation mentioned in subsection (2) is an injury only to the extent of the effects of the aggravation.
80 No grant to particular persons if primary victim’s activities caused act of violence
(1) The government assessor can not grant assistance to a primary victim of an act of violence if the government assessor is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, the only reason, or the main reason, the act of violence was committed against the primary victim was—
(a)because the victim was involved in a criminal activity when the act of violence happened; or
(b)because of the victim’s previous involvement in a criminal activity, whether or not the victim is currently involved in the criminal activity.
(2) The government assessor can not grant assistance in relation to an act of violence to a person who is not the primary victim of the act if the government assessor is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities—
(a)the only reason, or the main reason, the act of violence was committed against the primary victim of the act was a reason mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b); and
(b)the person was, or ought reasonably to have been, aware of the primary victim’s involvement in the criminal activity.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the person was aware of the primary victim’s involvement in the criminal activity only because the person witnessed the act of violence.
(4) In deciding whether a primary victim of an act of violence was involved in a criminal activity, the government assessor may have regard to the following—
(a)any information, or the contents of any document, about the act of violence obtained under section 65 or 66; and
(b)the circumstances of the offences to which the convictions mentioned in the victim’s criminal history relate, including—
(i)when the offences happened; and
(ii)the seriousness of the offences; and
(iii)the primary victim’s age when the offences happened; and
(iv)the regularity of the offences; and
(c)any other matters the assessor considers relevant for assessing the primary victim’s involvement in a criminal activity.
For a claim made under the Act, an applicant must, on the balance of probabilities, satisfy all of the above elements of the legislation. Pursuant to s 78 of the Act, a government assessor in VAQ may only grant assistance to a person if the government assessor is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the person is eligible for the assistance under Part 12 of the Act.
BACKGROUND
The facts relating to the Application occurred on 16 November 2020 when Rinaldi was challenged by traffic controllers at the corner of Charlotte and Albert Streets in Brisbane City.
On 4 February 2021 Rinaldi appeared in Brisbane Magistrates Court on 2 charges:
(a)On 16 November 2020 Rinaldi assaulted Duggan, a person 60 years or more.
(b)On 14 December 2020 Rinaldi assaulted Paul Lewis Bradworth and thereby did him bodily harm.
(c)The incident that occurred on 14 December 2020 is not related to the incident that occurred on 16 November 2020 except that it occurred in or about the same intersection of Charlotte and Albert Streets, Brisbane City.
A summary of the events was set out in the sentencing schedule that was handed to the presiding Magistrate who accepted Rinaldi’s plea of guilty on 4 February 2021. The summary:
(a)This is the location of cross river rail works. Rinaldi, who was on a bicycle, did not obey the directions of Michael Raphael Duggan (‘Duggan’), a 69-year-old traffic controller, who was displaying a “closed road” sign because a tip truck was reversing. Rinaldi disregarded the command of Duggan which was “Hey mate you can’t come in here mate”. Rinaldi then rode up the footpath and did a U-turn and dismounted his bicycle. Rinaldi then went on to strike Duggan without warning. This caused Duggan to stumble. A co-worker came to Duggan’s aid and Duggan attempted to “boot” Rinaldi away, but Rinaldi landed another blow to Duggan who fell heavily to the ground.
(b)Duggan’s name is incorrectly referred to as “Duggin” in the sentencing schedule.
(c)There were several witnesses to the incident, including an off-duty policeman. Rinaldi was subdued by Duggan’s co-worker and other unknown members of the public. Rinaldi was then arrested by the off-duty policeman. Rinaldi alleges that he received injuries whilst he was being subdued.
(d)Other police arrived and Rinaldi was questioned. Rinaldi raised the issue of being assaulted and he received some first aid. Rinaldi did make a complaint to the QPS about being assaulted whilst being questioned by the QPS on 16 November 2020. Rinaldi’s primary concerns were his allegations that Duggan struck him first, grabbing his genitals and he alleged that he had been assaulted six times from where his bicycle stood.
(e)Duggan was transported to the hospital for his injuries.
(f)Rinaldi was transported to the city watchhouse where he declined to be interviewed. CCTV footage was obtained from a café near the scene of the assault. The police report states that the police and Rinaldi reviewed this CCTV footage and Rinaldi stated that this CCTV does not show what he alleges happened to him and other CCTV cameras should be checked. See material filed by VAQ in the Tribunal on 25 January 2024.
(g)The police did not take any further action or prefer any formal charges against anyone regarding Rinaldi’s allegations of assault against him.
I have considered a copy of the transcript of the proceedings in the Magistrates Court on 16 February 2021. I note the following:
(a)Rinaldi was represented by Mr S E McDowell, a lawyer, in the employ of Russo, Lawyers. He pleaded guilty to both charges.
(b)A victim’s impact statement for Duggan was read into the record of the proceedings.
(c)Rinaldi had spent 52 days in custody.
(d)The sentencing schedule was considered by the presiding Magistrate. None of the facts set out in the sentencing schedule were challenged by Rinaldi’s lawyer. The lawyer does make some comments on page 11 of the transcript such as “Now as a result of that scuffle, Mr Rinaldi makes a complaint to police about, effectively, what happened during that scuffle against him. Now, that wasn’t actioned and, …….”
(e)Witnesses state that Rinaldi dismounted from his bicycle and struck Duggan without warning. A co-worker of Duggan then tried to intervene and “shoved” Rinaldi away. Despite this action, when Duggan tried to defend himself, he was struck again by Rinaldi. Then it seems that a scuffle took place between the various parties. It seems that it was during this scuffle that Rinaldi alleges he was assaulted.
(f)As part of his penalty for the various charges against Rinaldi he was ordered to pay compensation to the victims of the assaults. During the hearing of this matter Rinaldi confirmed that this compensation was paid by him.
EVIDENCE
Rinaldi filed Application VA in July 2021 some eight months after the incident.
Rinaldi has provided virtually no evidence of the alleged injuries that resulted from the alleged assault on him. Rinaldi has provided some photographs of some bruising and a reference to visiting a medical practitioner. However no medical reports have been supplied to VAQ or the Tribunal to corroborate Rinaldi’s claim.
No witnesses have been called to provide evidence to support his claim that he was assaulted during the incident. In fact, there are statements from various witnesses in the sentencing schedule which directly contradict Rinaldi’s version of how the incident unfolded.
Rinaldi made a complaint to QPS that he was assaulted. This complaint was investigated and the QPS decided not to take any further action or prefer any charges against any persons. I note the advice dated 10 August 2021 from Detective Jenkinson to Rinaldi where Detective Jenkinson says that he has reviewed the CCTV footage and spoken to the various parties, and he has concluded that the alleged acts of grabbing Rinaldi’s genitals and one male kicking out at Rinaldi were acts of self-defence by Duggan or persons coming to aid Duggan. This advice was filed in the Tribunal on 6 December 2023.
Rinaldi has raised the issue that further CCTV footage will support his version of events. He has made applications for the QPS to produce this further CCTV footage. He has also advised the Tribunal that he is party to other litigation involving the traffic controllers. Rinaldi filed an application to the Tribunal on 21 March 2021 seeking an order for the VAQ to file a schedule of facts (i.e. sentencing schedule) on the CCTV. Rinaldi says in the application that the video files will enable the Tribunal to assess the accuracy of the schedule of facts. This issue was discussed at the hearing. I am not convinced that this will assist Rinaldi’s claim. Rinaldi is attempting to relitigate the accepted facts and circumstances of the incident on 16 November 2020.
As mentioned previously at the sentencing hearing in the Magistrates Court on 11 April 2021, Rinaldi’s lawyer did not challenge the facts as set out in the sentencing schedule except on page 11 of the transcript where the lawyer refers to a complaint made by Rinaldi to the police. Rinaldi claims that some CCTV footage has previously been shown to him, but this footage does not clarify the issue of an assault to Rinaldi as he alleges.
Crucially, the critical issue in this review is whether I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the only reason or the main reason that an alleged act of violence was committed against Rinaldi was at the time of the incident Rinaldi was involved in a criminal activity. See s 80 of the Act.
I also note that Rinaldi raised this issue in paragraphs 20 to 22 of the applicant’s preliminary submissions filed in the Tribunal on 21 April 2024. In these submissions Rinaldi refers to litigation against Duggan’s employer and the disclosure of further CCTV footage. Rinaldi suggests that this footage “shows the Applicant being verbally and physically assaulted…”. If this footage was available to Rinaldi in his other litigation and it assisted his prosecution of this review as he alleges, then it was a matter for Rinaldi to submit this evidence at the hearing.
Further in the submissions filed in the Tribunal on 21 April 2024, Rinaldi appears to be suggesting that he was coerced under duress to plead guilty to the criminal charges in the Magistrates Court on 4 February 202. He also appears to claim that he was not adequately represented by his lawyer and that the disclosure of the further CCTV footage has led to a miscarriage of justice
At the conclusion of the hearing, I made an order on 20 March 2025 allowing Rinaldi to provide submissions on the sentencing schedule handed to the Magistrate at the sentencing hearing on the 4 February 2020. The submissions were filed in the Tribunal on 11 April 2025. The submissions again outline Rinaldi’s request for an order that the QPS provide further CCTV which he says has not been disclosed to him. Rinaldi says that this disclosure is essential to assess the accuracy of the schedule of facts (sentencing schedule) and a complete record of the incident.
The time to challenge these facts was in the Magistrates Court in defending the criminal charges. Rinaldi chose not to do so, and he pleaded guilty and accepted the facts set out in the sentencing schedule (with the exception to the complaint to the police).
These are issues which cannot be addressed by the Tribunal as, prima facie, the Tribunal must accept the facts as set out in the sentencing schedule because:
(a)Rinaldi pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court and accepted the facts set out in the sentencing schedule except for the comment made by his lawyer that Rinaldi made a complaint that he was also assaulted. However, this issue was not explored further at the sentencing hearing.
(b)Rinaldi has not presented any evidence that his lawyer did not provide proper advice or that Rinaldi was under duress and coerced by his lawyer to plead guilty to the criminal charges.
(c)No independent evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, was submitted at the hearing of the Application by Rinaldi to contest the facts as set out in the sentencing schedule.
(d)The only evidence presented by Rinaldi was his personal uncorroborated evidence.
(e)Rinaldi alleges that the further CCTV footage is critical to clarifying the facts and circumstances of the incident on 16 November 2020, but Rinaldi has not submitted this further CCTV footage that he alleges was disclosed in the litigation against Duggan’s employer.
FINDINGS
In paragraph 11 of Rinaldi’s submissions filed in the Tribunal on 21 April 2024 Rinaldi submits that VAQ has the burden of proving that Rinaldi is ineligible for a grant of financial assistance pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Act. This is not correct. Rinaldi must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that Application VA (together with any further evidence presented to the Tribunal in these proceedings) complies with the relevant provisions of the Act.
I can accept that because of the incident on 16 November 2020 Rinaldi may have suffered an injury or injuries as set out in s 27 of the Act. Further, this injury or injuries may have occurred because of an act of violence as set out in s 25 of the Act and Rinaldi may be a primary victim of an act of violence as set out in s 23 of the Act.
A grant of assistance to Rinaldi can only be made if I am satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, that Rinaldi is eligible for assistance. See s 78 of the Act.
Pursuant to s 80 of the Act, I cannot grant assistance to a primary victim of an act of violence if I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the only reason, or the main reason, the act of violence was committed against Rinaldi was because Rinaldi was involved in a criminal activity when the act of violence happened.
“Criminal activity” is defined in Schedule 3 to the Act. That is an activity of a criminal nature.
In this case I find the following occurred:
(a)On 16 November 2020 Rinaldi was riding his bicycle near the intersection of Charlotte and Albert Streets, Brisbane City. As a result of some interaction between traffic controllers and Rinaldi at the intersection, Rinaldi dismounted from his bicycle and without provocation struck Duggan. Immediately thereafter a scuffle ensured with Rinaldi, Duggan and other persons. Rinaldi alleges that he was assaulted in this scuffle.
(b)Rinaldi was charged with the criminal offence of unlawfully assaulting Duggan. On 4 February 2021 Rinaldi pleaded guilty to the charge and his lawyer accepted the facts referred to in (a) hereof.
(c)The police investigated Rinaldi’s claim of being assaulted in the scuffle, but no charges were preferred against any person.
(d)Rinaldi was involved in criminal activity as defined in the Act when he assaulted Duggan.
(e)Rinaldi may have been injured because an act of violence may have been committed against Rinaldi in the scuffle. The only or the main reason that this act of violence may have been committed against Rinaldi was because Rinaldi was involved in criminal activity when the act of violence occurred.
Given my findings above, I must conclude that s 80 of the Act applies to Application VA. Therefore, because of the operation of s 80 of the Act, Rinaldi is precluded from making an application for assistance regarding the incident that occurred on 16 November 2020.
The Decision is confirmed.
0
0
2