I am alleging anti-Semitic vilification by Victoria Police, in public on a public street for no reason that 'encouraged hatred, serious contempt, revulsion and ridicule' against me by 200+ Victorians who would not make eye contact with me and many would have guessed I was Jewish.

1. When cross-examined about his evidence of what happened, the applicant agreed that no infringement notice was issued to him, that he had seen police intercept other people in this way before, that the interaction between him and the police member lasted about six minutes, that no one approached him or threatened him, and that no one had made eye contact with him.
2. Senior Constable Churchus provided a witness statement dated 17 June 2022.[3] He said he had been performing traffic enforcement duties in the Melbourne area with Constable Christopher Woodhouse on Tuesday 21 April 2020. He said he had no memory of the particular events given the passage of time and the number of such 'intercepts' he carries out. He said heouldd have made additional notes in the electronic record if the Interaction had seemed anything other than a routine traffic stop and he had made no such notes.
3. Senior Constable Churchus agreed on the basis of the electronic record that the applicant was intercepted due to a non-operational brake light they had observed on his car, a preliminary breath test was administered with a negative result, no other defects were observed on the vehicle and no penalty or defect notice was issued and the applicant was advised to fix the brake light and sent on his way. He said Constable Woodhouse was a trainee police member at the time and it is his practice to drive the police vehicle when he is with a trainee.
4. Senior Constable Churchus added that he did not recall checking the applicant's registration, but he usually asks the trainee to do so and the electronic record shows this occurred. He said random registration checks are standard procedure when performing traffic enforcement duties and licence checks are usually carried out at the time of an intercept. He added that he typical leaves the lights of the police vehicle on until the intercept is complete.
5. Senior Constable Churchus said the electronic record showed the intercept was approximately six minutes in duration.
6. He said he would not have sat in the police vehicle with the purpose of watching the applicant. Rather, he said, it was likely he would have spent a few minutes explaining the conduct of the intercept and providing training to the trainee constable in addition to categorising the footage from the body-worn camera and closing off the electronic record. He said leaving the lights on at the time of an intercept is standard practice for safety reasons.
7. Senior Constable Churchus said in his statement that he had no knowledge of the applicant's religion before or during the intercept, and did not recall the applicant mentioning his religion at the time.
8. The applicant's evidence as to the observable external events agrees with that of Senior Constable Churchus. The differences between them are that the applicant says the police member's actions amounted to 'anti-Semitic vilification', that he was treated this way because he is Jewish, and that passers-by looked at him with contempt and revulsion. The police member on the other hand says it was a routine intercept followed by him spending 15 minutes in the car, albeit with lights flashing, completing routine tasks and providing training to the other police member in the car.
9. Many people would sympathise with the applicant's feeling of being publicly humiliated when pulled over by police, even for a minor matter. The person in that position feels as if everyone is looking at them. However, the feeling passes quickly. It is just as likely that passers-by are sympathetic and look away so as not to interfere or make matters worse or increase the self-consciousness of the person detained by the police.
10. While the applicant perceived others as contemptuous and revolted, there was no objective evidence of that.
11. I accept the evidence of Senior Constable Churchus. His explanation of the way he and the other police member acted was perfectly reasonable.

1. A person who claims they have been vilified on the ground of religion can apply to this Tribunal and after hearing the evidence, the Tribunal can decide whether the alleged vilification occurred and either dismiss the application or make orders about redress or compensation (see sections 23, 23A and 23C of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic) (RRT Act).
2. The applicant claims that he was vilified, in breach of section 8 of the RRT Act and that there was serious religious vilification in breach of section 25 of that Act.
3. Both of those provisions, section 8 and section 25 of the RRT Act, require a causal connection between the conduct complained of and the religious belief or activity of the person said to be affected by that conduct.
4. Section 8 relevantly says (with my emphasis added):

8 Religious vilification unlawful

(1) a person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.

1. Section 25 relevantly says (with my emphasis added):

• (1) A person (the offender) must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, intentionally engage in conduct that the offender knows is likely -

(b) to incite hatred against that other person or class of persons; and > > (c) to threaten, or incite others to threaten, physical harm towards that other person or class of persons or the property of that other person or class of persons.

1. Setting aside the question of whether the police members' conduct could have incited hatred or threatened harm, I refer to the requirement of a causal connection between conduct and incitement. Each provision requires that the conduct complained of (which I refer to in summary form as incitement to hatred) must be an incitement on the ground of the religious belief or activity of the person.
2. There is no evidence that Senior Constable Churchus or his companion knew of the applicant's religion or formed any view about his likely religious beliefs. Senior Constable Churchus gave evidence that he was not aware of the applicant's religion before the intercept, and it did not become apparent to him during the intercept (see paragraph 20 of his statement and his answers in cross-examination and re-examination).
3. The explanation Senior Constable Churchus gave for the extra time he remained parked next to the applicant, that he was delivering some training to a new police member, was reasonable and I accepted it.
4. The applicant argues that the police treatment of him was 'out of all proportion for a blown globe'[4] and that 'vilification' must be the reason. There was no evidence the actions of Senior Constable Churchus and his colleague were out of proportion. The evidence on both sides was that the applicant did have a broken brake light, there were no harsh words, and the applicant was not charged with any offence. No explanation is needed. The treatment was not out of proportion, so there is nothing to suggest it was done for the purpose of vilifying the applicant.
5. There was no evidence that the conduct of the police members in any way incited hatred, contempt, revulsion or ridicule for a class of persons to which the applicant belongs or that it was likely to do so. Perhaps some passers-by wrongly thought the applicant had committed crime when the police spoke to him, but there is no evidence to indicate they were thereby incited to hate people of the Jewish religion.
6. The applicant also relied on sections 9 and 26 of the RRT Act which provide that motive for the conduct, or an incorrect assumption about religious activity, are not relevant. There is no question of those provisions arising in the present case. No defence of that kind has been mentioned and no defence is needed.
7. The first complaint is dismissed as not proven.

THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 2010 - WHEN DOES IT APPLY TO POLICE

1. The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) (EO Act) prohibits discrimination on the basis of a protected attribute in some areas of public life, but not all areas. The applicant claims in complaints two and three that Victoria Police denied him a service on the basis of his Jewish religion. The attributes of a person which are protected by the EO Act are listed in section 6 of the EO Act. A person's religious belief or activity is one of those protected attributes.
2. The applicant says that the alleged discrimination occurred in the area of provision of goods or services. Section 44 of the EO Act prohibits discrimination in the provision of goods or services. It provides:

44 Discrimination in the provision of goods and services

• (1) A person must not discriminate against another person -

(a) by refusing to provide goods or services to the other person; or > > (b) in the terms on which goods or services are provided to the other person; or > > (c) by subjecting the other person to any other detriment in connection with the provision of goods or services to him or her.

(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the goods or services are provided for payment.

1. However, only some of the activities of the respondent, as police, fall within the definition of services which is set out in section 4 of the EO Act.
2. As the respondent submitted, the cases decided in Victoria and other jurisdictions about 'services' as defined here indicate that only those activities of the respondent which may be said to be a 'helpful or beneficial activity' directed to the applicant and consistent with his interests or welfare, are capable of falling within the definition of a 'service'.[5]
3. The respondent's counsel referred in submission to the summary of authorities by Snaden J in Bickle v State of Victoria (Victoria Police), a case considering the scope of federal provisions which are analogous to those in the EO Act. His Honour said that an initial investigation of a call for assistance includes police acting in a matter which confers benefits on would-be victims. He then went on:

[19] The same is not true in respect of subsequent investigation processes and the decisions that arise therefrom as to what, if any, action should be taken against those accused of criminal conduct. The investigation of alleged wrongdoing and the prosecution (or otherwise) of alleged wrongdoers are not functions that the police undertake so as to benefit alleged victims. They are undertaken because orderly civil society and the proper administration of criminal justice requires that they be undertaken.

1. As Justice Sladen did in that case, I refer to Djime v Kearnes[6] in the Supreme Court of Victoria where Justice Cavanough referred with apparent approval to reasoning adopted by this Tribunal:

Services are not provided when police investigate an alleged offence, question an alleged offender, arrest an alleged offender, deal with a bail application, decide whether or not to lay charges, decide whether or not to prosecute charges and decide how a matter will proceed in court...

Conduct engaged in by police in the process of investigating alleged criminal wrongdoing is not conduct that amounts to the provision of a service, whether at large or to those who claim to have been the victims of particular wrongdoing. The same is true of the decisions that are made - and the conduct in which police engage in consequence of the decisions that are made - about how or if those investigations should proceed to the laying of charges or the prosecution of offenders.

1. In other words, when deciding how or if an investigation should proceed, once the initial stage of providing assistance to the victim has passed, police are not delivering a service to the victim or to any particular person. They are performing their duty as police. No doubt there are relevant laws that apply to how they make those decisions, but it is not the EO Act.
2. Perhaps that should be an end of the applicant's other two complaints. However, it is appropriate to consider the distinction between providing initial assistance (a service) on the one hand and the conduct of an investigation and all that follows, on the other. I will also consider the evidence about whether the respondent's members acted as they did in breach of the EO Act.

COMPLAINT TWO - ATTENDANCE AT PRAHRAN POLICE STATION ON 27 APRIL 2021

1. In the consolidated complaint filed on 12 October 2022, the applicant set out what he said had occurred to lead to complaint two. His evidence, the reasons why he suspected his neighbour and his comments and the outcomes he seeks are set out in that document.[7]
2. Mr Goldfinger said that in the afternoon of Sunday 11 April 2021, he was getting ready for a holiday. He was in his car, parked outside his garage when without warning the garage door began to open. Mr Goldfinger said the remote control for the door was in the coin holder inside his car at the time. The door opens outward in a wide arc before receding to the ceiling of the garage. Mr Goldfinger said he quickly pressed a button on the remote and the door paused.
3. Then the door began to move again, and this time hit his car. He pressed a button on the remote and the door went down but then came up and hit his car. This happened three more times. Mr Goldfinger got out and held the door still manually for one or two minutes, then pressed the remote for it to go down, which it did. He was then able to move his car away. In all, the door smashed into his car five times during its upward arc.
4. After Mr Goldfinger returned from his holiday, he went to Prahran Police Station on 27 April 2021 and reported the damage which had occurred to his car on 11 April 2021.
5. Mr Goldfinger prefaced his relating of these events in his statement with information about difficulties with parking at his apartment block and with one neighbour in particular. I will refer to that person as 'the neighbour'. Mr Goldfinger said he has since moved from that residence, partly because of the neighbour, who Mr Goldfinger believes was responsible for the car damage.
6. Mr Goldfinger understood from another resident that the neighbour had once owned the unit where Mr Goldfinger was living, and Mr Goldfinger believed the neighbour would have retained a copy of the remote-control device. He added that, in early April, there had been an issue about parking when a tradesman doing work for the neighbour blocked Mr Goldfinger's garage so he could not remove his car. Mr Goldfinger on that occasion had been unable to find the car owner so used his car horn until eventually the person came to remove his truck. He said his door was blocked in this way many times. He added that the neighbour had from the day he moved in been aggressive about observing parking restrictions.
7. Mr Goldfinger related that when he attended Prahran Police Station, he spoke to First Constable Goldsmith and told him 'most of this'. He said Constable Goldsmith said he was an expert in remote control doors and had worked in the industry.
8. He said the constable took down the details, went outside to photograph the damage on the car and said it would take him a week to speak to the neighbour. Later in the statement, he said the Constable told him he would 'attend to it in one week'.
9. Mr Goldfinger said that having a police investigation is integral to making an insurance claim for the repair of the car so the service must be provided to all Victorians.
10. Mr Goldfinger said he had heard no more about the damage to his car. He said he was 'lied to and ignored'[8] and had had no response to his visit to Constable Goldsmith. He considered there should have been a response because of the damage to his car and also because he had reported he believed the neighbour had access to his garage by using a copy of the remote-control device. He said this was a complete denial of service.
11. Further, Mr Goldfinger said, 'Victoria Police is an active enemy of mine' and 'I am alleging this is a multi-decade anti-Semitic set of actions /inactions by Victoria Police against me, protected by Victorian Ministers'. He sought compensation of $250,000 on the ground that he needs to fund a private protective service as Victoria Police do not protect him.
12. Finally, he stated that he had tested the door and it responded properly to the remote and had never needed servicing.
13. Constable Goldsmith provided a witness statement dated 17 June 2022[9]and was cross-examined.
14. In his witness statement, the constable said that he spoke with Mr Goldfinger on 27 April 2021 at Prahran Police station, for about ten minutes. He said he asked Mr Goldfinger how the damage occurred, and Mr Goldfinger said words 'to the effect that he was sitting in his car in his garage and the garage door hit the car four times and did not stop until he physically held the door open'. The Constable added: 'during this exchange, Mr Goldfinger also stated words to the effect that he might have lent on the button on the remote'. He also said that Mr Goldfinger said words to the effect that 'he pushed the button multiple times, and the door went up and down'.
15. Constable Goldsmith agreed that he told Mr Goldfinger he had previously worked installing garage doors. He then sought further details about the door. Mr Goldfinger told him it was an old single panel styled garage door and had not been serviced since he had been living at that address.
16. Constable Goldsmith also said that Mr Goldfinger told him he thought his neighbour had control of a garage door remote and had caused the incident. The constable added, 'he could not tell me why he believed his neighbour would cause any damage to his vehicle'. At the hearing, Mr Goldfinger said he 'would have' told the Constable why he believed the neighbour was responsible.
17. The Constable also said that Mr Goldfinger was unable to supply a contact number for the neighbour and that the constable had said he would not be able to work out who the neighbour was unless he was out and about.
18. Constable Goldsmith also said that Mr Goldfinger had told him the garage door had malfunctioned in the past and he was unaware why it happened. The Constable said he told Mr Goldfinger that based on his experience garage doors require servicing every six months to a year and the motor on them can fault sometimes. He said he told Mr Goldfinger he believed there was a fault with the door, and he should apply to his insurance company, but that at that stage no police report would be taken. The constable produced a copy of the notes he had made at the time.
19. Mr Goldfinger did not agree that the Constable told him there would be no police report.
20. Constable Goldsmith agreed that he and Mr Goldfinger went out and looked at the car and Mr Goldfinger asked him to speak to the neighbour. Constable Goldsmith's evidence was that he told Mr Goldfinger he would think about it. He added that nothing Mr Goldfinger had told him led him to believe a criminal offence had been committed. He did not consider it appropriate for police to be further involved, including contacting Mr Goldfinger's neighbour. Constable Goldsmith said he spoke to a colleague about his view and the colleague agreed so he felt comfortable with that position. He said he had not told Mr Goldfinger that he would get back to him in a week or in any period of time.
21. When Mr Goldfinger asked him about this at the hearing, the Constable again said he did not recall saying he would contact him.
22. Then Constable Goldsmith said he went on leave, night shift and then extended leave and returned to work on 30 September 2021. Then he saw for the first time a number of emails from Mr Goldfinger, beginning on 2 July 2021. The emails were copied to the Premier of Victoria and government Ministers and departments. The emails were attached to the Constable's statement. They sought a police report about Mr Goldfinger's car and said things like 'Are Victorian Jews not entitled to these reports?'
23. Constable Goldsmith said he did not respond to these as he considered them inflammatory and confirmed this approach with his supervisor.
24. Subsequently, after it was clear Mr Goldfinger was still dissatisfied about the matter, Constable Goldsmith contacted the neighbour, who said he had never owned the unit where Mr Goldfinger lived or had access to any garage door remote for the garage attached to that unit.
25. Constable Goldsmith said that when he met Mr Goldfinger on 27 April 2021, he did not know he was Jewish and did not understand that until he read the email dated 2 August 2021. He said he did not treat Mr Goldfinger as he did because of his religion and gave him the same response he would have given to anyone. The reason he did not investigate the complaint about property damage was that he formed the view on 27 April 2021 that no criminal offence had occurred.
26. Mr Goldfinger, when asked about the Constable's statement said that his name and his looks inform people that he is Jewish.

What does the evidence show about complaint two?

1. For the most part, Constable Goldsmith and Mr Goldfinger agreed in their account of Mr Goldfinger's visit to the Police Station on 27 April 2021. They both described the interview, said the Constable took notes, gave advice about the door and took photographs of the applicant's car.
2. Constable Goldsmith added that Mr Goldfinger said he may have lent on the remote button. The applicant did not agree he had said that.
3. However, the applicant did say in his own statement[10]that on eight or ten occasions the garage door had mysteriously opened where he could not have accidentally touched the remote control. He thought this was because someone else had a copy of the remote-control device. However, it was also clear that the door was fairly old and that it had not been serviced in the four and a half years[11] since he moved in. Further, it was not disputed that the Constable told Mr Goldfinger he had previously worked with garage doors and that it may need servicing and these doors can fault at times. I accepted the Constable's evidence that this was his view at the time and that he had said this to Mr Goldfinger.
4. Sergeant Hume also gave evidence for the respondent. He had provided a statement dated 19 June 2022.[12]
5. He said that Mr Goldfinger made a complaint on 13 July 2021 about the interaction with Constable Goldsmith, and Sergeant Hume spoke to Mr Goldfinger about this on 14 September 2021. The Sergeant said he told Mr Goldfinger he agreed with the Constable's assessment of the report Mr Goldfinger had made, that is, that no criminal offence was disclosed or could be identified. He added that he was not aware at the time of the call that Mr Goldfinger was Jewish.
6. These reasons given by the two police witnesses for the decision not to proceed with an investigation make sense. Constable Goldfinger confirmed his judgement with a colleague. Sergeant Hume agreed with the decision when he looked into it. There is no need to look for some other explanation.
7. There is no evidence on which I can find that Constable Goldsmith or Sergeant Hume treated Mr Goldfinger unfavourably because of his religion. Rather, the evidence indicates he was treated the same way any person would have been treated in making the report he did.
8. In any case, the decision not to take further action was not part of a service.
9. It is uncontroversial to say that Constable Goldsmith when he spoke with Mr Goldfinger on 27 April 2021 and Sergeant Hume when he spoke to him on 21 September 2021 were each providing a service. The applicant does not say that he was denied a service in these conversations. Further, nothing in the evidence suggests that in these conversations he was treated unfavourably or differently from the way any other person would be treated when reporting an issue or making a complaint.
10. Constable Goldsmith concluded that the applicant's report revealed no criminality and did not warrant further police involvement. However, that conclusion was not a denial of service. The applicant complains that his report was not subsequently investigated and followed up. The decision not to do so does not fall within the definition of service as discussed above. A decision about whether or not to investigate a matter, as here, involves the judgement of the police member about whether any criminal offence has been committed. That is not a service for the benefit of the person who complained; it is an exercise of the duty of the police member.
11. The delay in responding to Mr Goldfinger's complaints about the issue are also explained by the evidence, so that it is clear there was no unfavourable treatment based on the applicant's religion. Constable Goldsmith went on leave. When he returned to find the emails from the applicant, he felt they were inflammatory. He was a First Constable at the time and relatively inexperienced. The emails were attended to by his superiors.
12. Complaint two is dismissed as not proven.

1. During the COVID-19 pandemic, at a time when there were lockdown rules in place governing matters such as cleaners visiting private homes, the applicant became concerned about the cleaners visiting his apartment block.[13] After making some enquiries with police and with another cleaning service, the applicant spoke to the cleaners at his apartment block and asked if they needed a permit. On that occasion, 18 August 2020, Mr Goldfinger said the cleaners left.
2. Then on 25 August 2020, the applicant heard the cleaners and again approached them to ask how they were allowed to be working there. At that point, another resident, an owner-occupier, appeared, according to Mr Goldfinger's account and was 'highly agitated/violent/aggressive' to Mr Goldfinger.
3. Attached to Mr Goldfinger's statement about these events were 42 photographs he had taken at the time. Mr Goldfinger said that the owner-occupier became increasingly hostile, at one point physically charging at him and then Mr Goldfinger lost his balance and fell down.
4. During this encounter, Mr Goldfinger twice phoned Malvern Police Station. First at 7:44am for around four minutes, and then again at 7:50am for around 9 minutes. During those calls, Mr Goldfinger said he was reporting to the police member what was happening.
5. Mr Goldfinger's complaint about this was that there was no response by police to his calls, even though he was in danger from the 'owner-occupier' and even though (as he saw it) two cleaners were attending his apartment block in breach of the lockdown rules and possibly causing him to be infected with COVID-19.
6. Mr Goldfinger said[14] (he was pushed over, chested and charged at by the owner-occupier while he was on the phone to the police and the Sergeant he was speaking to was giggling during the two calls he made.
7. In relation to this alleged denial of service, the applicant seeks $500,000 compensation for the post-traumatic stress he says he suffered as a result of a 'near fatal' attack as Victoria Police 'looked on'. He said he needs the money to help cover the cost of private security in future because he knows 'Victoria Police will never help me'.
8. The respondent's position was that they did respond to Mr Goldfinger's two telephone calls and accordingly that there was no denial of service. Further, the respondent submitted that even if there was a denial of service (which they denied) there was no evidence to indicate that the applicant was treated unfavourably because of his religion.
9. At the hearing, Senior Constable Steer gave oral evidence (by leave, as no witness statement had been filed for him). Also, Senior Constable Mills gave evidence that she and Constable Manson attended at the applicant's residence on 25 August 2020.
10. There was a dispute about whether Senior Constable Steer had correctly logged the applicant's phone call. Senior Constable Steer produced a note he had made in his daybook which recorded the applicant's details and said, 'dispute with neighbour' and the neighbours' first name and apartment number.
11. Senior Constable Steer had no independent recollection of the phone call from Mr Goldfinger. However, he said his usual practice was to take the call, find out what the concern is and then log the job with the Emergency Services Telecommunications Agency (ESTA). Usually, the person who received the call would then telephone ESTA to pass on the information received.
12. As Senior Constable Mills witness statement indicated,[15] the information received by ESTA was logged in an event report.
13. At the hearing, Mr Goldfinger said the ESTA note did not reflect his report made to Malvern Police Station. He objected to the note: 'NIL VTHREATS', saying that he had reported the neighbour was making violent threats. He added that the police member who took his call was 'giggling'.
14. Senior Constable Steer said that he takes his job seriously and would not have giggled during the call. He said he must have taken the call seriously as he immediately called the job through to ESTA (noting that the call from Mr Goldfinger ended at approximately 7:59am and ESTA had logged the job by 8:03am).[16] He added that he would have sent a unit immediately if he had been told that violence was actually occurring.
15. On considering Mr Goldfinger's evidence carefully, it is open to me to find that he did not clarify in the phone call that there was violence occurring. He does not report his exact words. What is clear from his report is that he was agitated and took a lot of photographs. It is not clear that he reported violence was occurring. I accept Senior Constable Steer recorded accurately what was said to him. Even if I am wrong about that, there was no evidence to suggest Senior Constable Steer acted as he did because of Mr Goldsmith's religion or even knew he is Jewish.
16. ESTA then provided the task to Senior Constable Mills and Constable Manson to attend at the applicant's residential address. Senior Constable Mills said in her statement that she and the other Constable were also given two other jobs which had been allocated a higher priority by ESTA due to the immediate safety risk they imposed,[17] so they prioritised those jobs.
17. It was 11:23am when Senior Constable Mills and Constable Manson attended at the applicant's address. They went to his apartment, apartment 4, knocked on the door and received no answer.
18. Senior Constable Mills then telephoned the person she believed to be the housing manager for the apartment block, to investigate a possible breach of the public health directions in respect of cleaners at the building. She said she understood the person was the housing manager as her details including phone number were listed in a communal area of the building.
19. This person told Senior Constable Mills that the cleaners had a worker permit and were authorised to clean the building. While Senior Constable Mills did not actually see the permit for the cleaners (who were no longer at the site) she was satisfied based on her knowledge of the Chief Health Officer public health directions in place at that time that there would have been no breach of the Chief Health Officer public health directions. The person Senior Constable Mills spoke with (whose name I have not included here) undertook to tell Mr Goldfinger about the permit.
20. Senior Constable Steer, Senior Constable Mills and Constable Manson responded to Mr Goldfinger's phone calls. To the extent this can be regarded as a service within the definition of the EO Act, there is no evidence the service was denied. The call was logged with ESTA very soon after it took place. This indicates Mr Goldfinger's report was treated seriously. A police unit was dispatched in response to Mr Goldfinger's call. I accept Senior Constable Mills explanation about why Mr Goldfinger was not at the top of the list of tasks, namely that there were two more urgent jobs to do first.
21. Mr Goldfinger may not agree with the way Senior Constable Mills dealt with the situation once she attended at his apartment block. However, her decisions about whether and how to investigate the report are not part of a 'service'. The EO Act does not apply to those decisions or actions.
22. To the extent that the response to Mr Goldfinger's telephone calls can be regarded as a service, that service was provided. I accept the evidence of Senior Constable Steers and Senor Constable Mills that they responded reasonably to the calls.
23. There was no evidence that any of the police involved knew Mr Goldfinger was Jewish or acted as they did because of that. Mr Goldfinger suggested his name would inform them of his religion, but the evidence does not support this suggestion.
24. Complaint three is dismissed as not proven.

1. Mr Goldfinger suggested that constant denial of service (as he sees it) is in itself evidence of discrimination. I do not accept that submission. He said he could mention many more instances such as those described in his claim, but there was no evidence about them.
2. This is not a situation where the same individual police member treated the applicant unfavourably a number of times or where there is no reasonable explanation for what occurred. Each of the three complaints involved different members who each have given entirely reasonable explanations for how they treated Mr Goldfinger. Moreover, as the respondent submitted, the decisions which police make about whether and how to investigate a report are not part of a 'service' and therefore are not subject to assessment under the EO Act.
3. The amounts of compensation sought in this application indicate that the applicant has unrealistic expectations of the outcomes he could achieve in relation to his allegations. In this case, it is unfortunate that he did not obtain some advice before proceeding as his expectations of the outcome would then have been more realistic.
4. I have carefully considered all the evidence and submissions, including the large amount of material submitted by Mr Goldfinger. I understand Mr Goldfinger is quite convinced he is right in his allegations. However, the evidence does not support any finding that he has been vilified or treated unfavourably because of his religion. Accordingly, his application is entirely dismissed.

[1] 'Tribunal Book' (TB), consolidated complaint 12 October 2022, 12.

[5] IW v City of Perth (1997) 191CLR 1 at 15; Rainsford v Victoria [2007] FCA 1059; (2007) 167 FCR 1 [73]; VPZ v Victoria Police [2017] VCAT 1398 [34]; Bickle v State of Victoria (Victoria Police) [2020] FCA. 166 [18] - [22]; Van Niekerk v State of Victoria (Victoria Police) and Anor [2022] VCAT 1267 [72] - [73].

[6] [2019] VSC 117 [130].

[13] The complaint is set out in the applicant's consolidated complaint of 12 October 2022, and the relevant material for complaint 3 appears in that document at pages 28 - 43 of the Tribunal Book.

[14] At paragraph 149 of his consolidated complaint.

[15] Witness statement of Senior Constable Varri Mills dated 20 June 2022 TB 204, attachment VM 1 TB 207.

[16] See Mr Goldfinger's complaint at 154 and 155 in TB 32 and attachment VM 1 to Senior Constable Mills' statement.

[17] Senior Constable Mills' statement at [9].