Rinaldi v Scheme Manager, Victim Assist Queensland, Department of Justice and Attorney-General reopening application
[2025] QCAT 470
•19 November 2025
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Rinaldi v Scheme Manager, Victim Assist Queensland, Department of Justice and Attorney-General reopening application [2025] QCAT 470
PARTIES:
DION RINALDI (applicant)
v
SCHEME MANAGER, VICTIM ASSIST QUEENSLAND, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
REO019-25
MATTER TYPE:
General administrative review matters
DELIVERED ON:
19 November 2025
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
DECISION OF:
Member Poteri
ORDERS:
The application to reopen the proceedings filed by the Applicant on 8 July 2025 is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – VICTIMS ASSIST – where a claim has been made under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) – where a decision was made on 11 June 2025 to dismiss the claim – where the applicant has applied to reopen the proceedings pursuant to s 138 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) alleging that certain CCTV evidence should be considered by the Tribunal in assessing the applicant’s claim – whether the applicant demonstrated that a reopening ground exists for the Tribunal to grant a reopening of the claim
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 138, s 139, Schedule 3
Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld)
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009 (Qld)
REASONS FOR DECISION
BACKGROUND
On 16 November 2020 the applicant, Dion Rinaldi (‘Rinaldi’), was involved in a physical altercation on Mary Street, the City, Brisbane. As a result of this altercation Rinaldi was charged with assault and on 4 February 2021 pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court, Brisbane City, to the assault charge.
Rinaldi alleges that he was also assaulted in the altercation. Accordingly, on 19 July 2022, Rinaldi lodged a claim with Scheme Manager, Victim Assist Queensland (‘VAQ’), Department of Justice and Attorney-General pursuant to the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld).
VAQ refused the claim (‘Decision’) because:
(a)There was insufficient evidence that Rinaldi suffered an injury as a direct result of an alleged act of violence; and
(b)The altercation occurred as a direct result of the activities of Rinaldi.
Rinaldi made an application to the Tribunal on 22 August 2022 for an external review of the Decision. The application was heard before me on 20 March 2025 at Richlands Magistrates Court. Rinaldi appeared in person at the hearing.
On 11 June 2025, I dismissed Rinaldi’s application. A formal decision and reasons for the decision were published.
One of the issues raised at the hearing was the availability of certain CCTV footage which Rinaldi alleges will demonstrate that he was also the victim of an assault in the altercation that occurred on 16 November 2020. I commented on this issue in paragraphs [17] to [24] of my published decision. In summary, I was not convinced that the CCTV footage would clarify/explain the facts and circumstances of the altercation on 16 November 2020. In my decision I found that Rinaldi had pleaded guilty to the assault charge in the Magistrates Court on 4 February 2021 and in making this plea he accepted, without challenge, the facts outlined in the schedule of facts (sentencing schedule) handed to the presiding magistrate. Further the proceedings of the guilty plea in the Magistrates Court on 24 February 2021 are contained in the transcript of the proceedings. In the guilty plea Rinaldi accepted that he assaulted another person without provocation.
On 8 July 2025 Rinaldi filed an application in the Tribunal to reopen the proceedings. In the application Rinaldi says that the CCTV footage was not available or ruled on at the hearing in March 2025 and Rinaldi alleges that this CCTV footage is central to his claim and his application should be reconsidered with all the relevant evidence.
REOPENING SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL
On 15 August 2015 Rinaldi filed submissions in the Tribunal where he raises a number of grounds in support of the application:
(a)Failure to rule on the disclosure application.
(b)Substantial injustice – key evidence was not reasonably available.
(c)Substantial injustice – key evidence was withheld.
(d)Procedural unfairness – acceptance of post-hearing submissions.
(e)Procedural unfairness – refusal to adjourn.
All the above grounds relate to the issue of the CCTV footage and the fact that the Tribunal has not considered the relevant footage of the CCTV. Rinaldi submits that the failure to consider this footage or adjourn the hearing to allow Rinaldi to introduce this footage is an injustice or a failure to provide procedural fairness.
On 21 August 2025 VAQ filed submissions in the Tribunal in response to submissions filed by Rinaldi. In response VAQ say:
(a)VAQ say that Rinaldi had ample opportunity before the hearing to file the CCTV footage as Rinaldi first raised the existence of the CCTV footage in April 2024.
(b)VAQ raises the issue that the CCTV footage was available in another matter before the Tribunal. That is ADL036-21.
(c)Errors of fact and law are better dealt with in the appeal process.
(d)Rinaldi was aware of the CCTV footage, and it was reasonably available to Rinaldi, and he did not take reasonable steps to produce it.
(e)VAQ say that Rinaldi’s submissions regarding the post-hearing submissions are misconceived and has wrongly quoted s 138(1)(b) of Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’).
(f)The refusal to agree to an adjournment did not deny Rinaldi a reasonable opportunity to provide evidence in the application as there was already sufficient evidence before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal matter ADL036-21 involving Rinaldi was mentioned in the above submissions by Rinaldi and VAQ. Accordingly, I issued directions on 2 October 2025 for Rinaldi to provide further submissions to the Tribunal about the ADL036-21 matter. Rinaldi provided submissions and copies of material from file ADL036-21 to the Tribunal dated 27 October 2025. I make the following comments about these submissions:
(a)ADL036-21 was an action commenced in the Tribunal against the traffic controller’s employer, Atlus Pty Ltd, regarding the altercation that occurred on 16 November 2020. The CCTV footage that Rinaldi is requesting the Tribunal to consider in these proceedings is the same footage that was disclosed in ADL036-21.
(b)Rinaldi viewed this footage in ADL036-21 at the Tribunal on March 2022. No copies were made available to the parties.
(c)Rinaldi is alleging that this footage demonstrates that the facts and circumstances of the altercation differ from the facts and circumstances that were alleged and accepted by Rinaldi when he was sentenced in the Magistrates Court in February 2021.
(d)Rinaldi now appears to be challenging the fact that the assault occurred without provocation. He is now challenging the description by the police prosecutor in the Magistrates Court, including phrases such as “no provocation whatsoever” and “gratuitous assaults”.
(e)Rinaldi says that if the footage was available before the guilty plea in the Magistrates Court there may have been a different outcome. It should be noted that Rinaldi was represented by lawyers in the Magistrates Court and all the facts as alleged by the police prosecutor were accepted by Rinaldi in his plea of guilty.
(f)The Tribunal records show that the file ADL036-21 was finalised on or about 8 November 2023.
(g)Rinaldi says that outcome in ADL036-21 was resolved in his favour. The file ADL036-21 shows that the allegations by Rinaldi were initially contested by the respondent, Atlus Pty Ltd, but a compromise was reached with Rinaldi on the basis that Atlus Pty Ltd did not admit any liability to Rinaldi. See paragraph C of the introduction to the deed of compromise.
(h)Rinaldi also says that the CCTV footage in file ADL036-21 was not in a form, such as a USB stick, to provide a copy to the Tribunal or VAQ. It should also be noted that Rinaldi did not mention the file ADL036-21 or the existence of the CCTV footage in file ADL036-21 during the hearing of the application on 20 March 2025.
To reopen a proceeding a “reopening ground” must exist and the ground can be effectively and conveniently dealt with by reopening the proceeding: see s 139(4) of the QCAT Act.
Reopening grounds are defined in the dictionary which is set out in Schedule 3 of the QCAT Act. The ground that is applicable to this application for reopening by Rinaldi is outlined in subsection (b) of the definition which is:
(b) the party would suffer a substantial injustice if the proceeding was not reopened because significant new evidence has arisen and that evidence was not reasonably available when the proceeding was heard and decided.
In this matter the following applies:
(a)The CCTV footage was available to Rinaldi in Tribunal file ADL036-21 from 2022. Rinaldi could have submitted this fact to the Tribunal on 20 March 2025.
(b)Rinaldi is once again challenging the facts and circumstances of the altercation that he accepted without challenge when he pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court in February 2021.
(c)Rinaldi has not adduced any significant new evidence since the hearing on 20 March 2025.
(d)Rinaldi has not adduced any new evidence or made any submissions in this application which convince me that he would suffer a substantial injustice if this application is not reopened for the consideration of this CCTV footage by the parties and the Tribunal.
I agree with the submissions made by VAQ.
Accordingly, the application to reopen this review is dismissed.
0
0
0