Nguyen v State of Queensland

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)

Adamson v Queensland Law Society Incorporated [1990] 1 Qd R 498

Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336

Brown v City Venue Management Pty Ltd [2018] QCAT 168

Rejfek v McElroy [1965] HCA 46; (1965) 112 CLR 517

Re Seidler [1986] 1 Qd R 486

[1] The First Respondent (QPS) applied to have the Second Respondent, Kerry Long, removed as a party. The Applicant did not oppose her removal. On the first day of hearing, I ordered that she be removed as a party from the proceedings.

[2] An application was made by Ms Nguyen that her daughter Vanessa be allowed to give evidence in her mother's proceedings. At the time of the incidents the subject of these proceedings Vanessa was nine years of age she is now 13. The Respondent opposed the application. I formed the opinion that it was not appropriate and declined to accept her as a witness.

[3] Vanessa had provided a statement. I admitted that statement into evidence. It is clear from the statement that Vanessa had very limited recall of the events of that day in November 2026 when she attended the police station.

[4] Although under section 9 of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) a child is competent to give evidence under oath or otherwise, I could see no benefit in exposing Vanessa to cross examination on the contentious matters in issue. On the contrary, it could be quite emotionally harmful to her with conflict between loyalty to her mother on the one hand and an obligation to tell the truth on the other, should that arise.

[5] This is an application under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) ("ADA") alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, and an alleged breach of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) ("HRA"). The Applicant, Ms Thi Nguyen, claims she was discriminated against by Ms Kerrie Long, a Station Client Service Officer employed by the Queensland Police Service, during an interaction at the Inala Police Station in November 2021.

[6] Ms Nguyen seeks orders including compensation for loss and damage, an apology, the release of a vehicle she claims is in police possession, and orders requiring the QPS to implement training for its employees on the use of translation services.

[7] QPS deny the allegations and contend that Ms Long provided appropriate assistance to Ms Nguyen, that no discrimination occurred, and that Ms Nguyen's complaint should be dismissed.

[8] Ms Nguyen was born in Vietnam and immigrated to Australia in 2010. She is married to Mr Manh Truong Nguyen. Ms Nguyen's first language is Vietnamese, and while she speaks English, she acknowledges that her English is not as fluent and she sometimes requires the assistance of an interpreter to understand complex or technical English. Ms Nguyen has the protected attribute of 'race' within the meaning of section 7(g) of the ADA, which includes characteristics relating to race such as accent, language and ethnic origin.

[9] The QPS is a public entity within the meaning of section 9(1)(i) of the HRA and provides goods and services within the meaning of section 46 of the ADA.

[10] Ms Kerrie Long is a civilian employee of the QPS. She has been employed by the QPS since 2007 and has worked as a Station Client Service Officer at the Inala Police Station for approximately seven years prior to the incident. Her duties include working at the front counter of the police station to assist members of the public with their enquiries.

[11] On 7 December 2017, Mr Manh Truong Nguyen (Ms Nguyen's husband) was arrested by officers of the QPS while driving a white 2015 Toyota Camry with Queensland registration number 492XJF ("the Vehicle"). The arresting officers took possession of the Vehicle's keys and Mr Nguyen's personal items as part of the arrest. Mr Nguyen was transferred directly from police custody to immigration detention.

[12] Ms Nguyen contends that on 5 November 2021 she attended the Inala Police Station with her daughter to enquire about the Vehicle. QPS and Ms Long contend that the incident occurred on 4 November 2021 and that Ms Nguyen's daughter was not present.

[13] It is common ground that during the interaction, Ms Nguyen enquired about the whereabouts of the Vehicle, that Ms Long assisted with that enquiry, that she conducted searches of police and transport databases, and that the interaction concluded with Ms Nguyen leaving the station without the information she sought.

[14] On 5 November 2021, Ms Nguyen lodged a complaint with the Queensland Human Rights Commission ("QHRC") alleging discrimination on the basis of race under section 141 of the ADA and alleging breaches of her human rights under the HRA. The complaint proceeded to conciliation on 29 August 2022 but was not resolved. On 20 October 2022, the QHRC referred the complaint to the Tribunal for determination.

(a) What occurred during the interaction between Ms Nguyen and Ms Long on 4 November 2021?

(b) Did Ms Long treat Ms Nguyen less favourably than a comparator without Ms Nguyen's protected attribute (direct discrimination)?

(c) Did Ms Long impose a term with which Ms Nguyen could not comply because of her race (indirect discrimination)?

(d) Did Ms Long fail to act compatibly with Ms Nguyen's human rights or fail to give proper consideration to her human rights?

(e) If discrimination occurred, what orders should the Tribunal make?

[16] Ms Nguyen's case is set out in her Statement of Contentions dated 28 November 2022. According to Ms Nguyen, on Friday 5 November 2021, she attended the Inala Police Station with her daughter to enquire after and to collect the Vehicle.

[17] Ms Nguyen states that she introduced herself to Ms Long and said words to the effect of: "Hi, how are you? I am looking for my husband's car. The plate number is 492XJF. It is a 2015 car. After my husband's sentence his lawyer said to come here to ask about the car. Here is a document for the car."

[18] Ms Nguyen says she handed to Ms Long a Power of Attorney document authorising her to take possession of the Vehicle. She contends Ms Long did not look at the document but instead asked her questions about her husband's arrest, sentence, and why she had waited so long to enquire about the Vehicle.

[19] Ms Nguyen states she answered Ms Long's questions and was told that Ms Long could not help her because she did not know where the Vehicle was. Ms Nguyen says she became distressed and upset, and said to Ms Long that QPS should know where the Vehicle was given that it arose from her husband's arrest.

[20] Ms Nguyen says Ms Long told her not to raise her voice. Ms Nguyen apologised for raising her voice and requested the use of a Vietnamese interpreter because she felt she was not able to fully explain the situation and Ms Long was not fully understanding her. Ms Long told her there were no Vietnamese interpreters available.

[21] Ms Nguyen says she asked whether her daughter or friend could interpret for her, and Ms Long refused to accept either option. Ms Nguyen then complained to Ms Long that she was being treated unfairly and her enquiry was not being taken seriously. Ms Nguyen says Ms Long then pointed at her and her daughter and said in an aggressive voice: "Leave Now."

[22] According to Ms Nguyen, Ms Long then left the counter and refused any further service. When Ms Nguyen pressed a reception bell to regain Ms Long's attention, Ms Long returned, glared at her, and asked unfriendly words to the effect of "What do you want?"

[23] Ms Nguyen says she asked to report Ms Long for her rudeness and requested her name and Police ID Number. Ms Long refused and instead threatened her by saying: "Get out of here. If you press that button one more time then you will be arrested."

[24] Ms Nguyen says that approximately 30 minutes later, a Caucasian man with an Australian accent (the Real Comparator) entered the police station and made enquiries regarding a vehicle at the front counter. Ms Nguyen states Ms Long answered the Real Comparator's questions promptly and politely.

[25] Ms Long's evidence is set out in her affidavit sworn 8 March 2024. Ms Long's evidence differs from Ms Nguyen's account in several material respects.

[26] Ms Long states the incident occurred on 4 November 2021, not 5 November 2021 as claimed by Ms Nguyen. She was rostered to work a shift at the Inala Police Station from 1400 to 2200 hours that day. She recalls Ms Nguyen entering the foyer area in the late afternoon, around dusk, at approximately 1800 hours.

[27] Ms Long states Ms Nguyen approached the counter and stated her English was not good and that she spoke Vietnamese. Ms Long made enquiries to ascertain whether a Police Liaison Officer ("PLO") who spoke Vietnamese was available to assist. She checked the office to her left and the dayroom where PLOs normally sit. No Vietnamese-speaking PLO was available on shift at the relevant time.

[28] Ms Long states she returned to the counter and said words to the effect unfortunately no PLOs were available but that I could send them an email and ask them to call you back when they are available and speak to you about your issue.

[29] Ms Nguyen refused this offer and stated she wanted to talk now. Ms Long says she also suggested Ms Nguyen could return with a friend to assist. Ms Nguyen elected to continue her enquiry with Ms Long in English.

[30] Ms Long states Ms Nguyen said words to the effect of "I am looking for my car". Ms Long asked for more information and Ms Nguyen informed her that her husband had parked the car and now she wanted to know where it was. Ms Long asked when her husband parked the car and Ms Nguyen replied "2017". Ms Long states she was surprised by this answer as she was expecting a much more recent date.

[31] Ms Long states she asked "have you asked your husband where he parked the car?" Ms Nguyen refused to answer and stared at her. Ms Long then asked for the vehicle's registration details and Ms Nguyen's identification.

[32] Ms Nguyen provided her driver's licence and stated a registration number. Ms Long conducted searches of the Queensland Transport computer database via Police systems. The search showed no vehicles currently registered in Queensland with those registration details. Ms Long also searched for any reports involving that registration and found no matches.

[33] Ms Long conducted a search using Ms Nguyen's name and date of birth from her driver's licence. The search revealed no vehicles registered to Ms Nguyen. Ms Long informed Ms Nguyen that no vehicles were registered with that registration number.

[34] Ms Nguyen then said the car was registered in her husband's name only. Ms Long asked for her husband's details, which Ms Nguyen provided (his name and date of birth). Using the husband's details, Ms Long conducted a search of Queensland Transport, which revealed the Vehicle was previously registered to him. The search also revealed the Vehicle's VIN.

[35] Ms Long conducted a separate search using the VIN and found that the Vehicle had been re-registered twice since 2017 to different persons. This indicated to Ms Long that police did not have possession of the Vehicle and had not had possession of it since 2017.

[36] For completeness, Ms Long checked the occurrence record related to the husband's arrest to see if there were any details about the Vehicle in the related property section. There were no details about a vehicle being involved, no tow records, no field property receipts, and no supplementary reports from officers suggesting a car was involved in the occurrence.

[37] Ms Long states she informed Ms Nguyen that the Vehicle was not in police possession, and that if her husband was the last person to know the Vehicle's whereabouts, she should enquire with him. Ms Long states she said words to the effect the vehicle is not now nor ever was in police possession, and if her husband was the last person to know the vehicle's whereabouts then perhaps she should enquire with him to establish where the car may be.

[38] Ms Long states Ms Nguyen began to shout at her, saying "You have my car. I want it back" and pacing back and forth in the foyer area. Ms Long informed her again that her searches showed no vehicle involvements in any police reports. Ms Nguyen did not respond to this and continued shouting "you have my car".

[39] Ms Long states that while she was explaining to Ms Nguyen that police did not have the Vehicle, Ms Nguyen thrust her mobile phone in Ms Long's direction, hitting the plastic barrier screen. Ms Nguyen demanded Ms Long speak to her lawyer on the phone. Ms Long said words to the effect of: "it is not my place to speak to your lawyer, I have already told you police don't have the car."

[40] Ms Long states Ms Nguyen then offered for her to speak to a friend who could assist with interpreting or offered to arrange a PLO to call her back. Ms Long states these offers came after Ms Nguyen had demanded to speak to her lawyer, and after Ms Nguyen had called Ms Long a "racist". At that point, Ms Long states all communication had broken down and she refused on both occasions.

[41] Ms Long states Ms Nguyen became "very belligerent" and shouted words to the effect of "you are a racist" and "tell me your name". Ms Long asked "why do you think I am a racist?" and said "I have done everything I could to try and locate the vehicle". Ms Nguyen did not respond and continued pacing the foyer area.

[42] Ms Long states she said to Ms Nguyen: "if you cannot control yourself and lower your voice then perhaps you should leave the station", as there was nothing further she could do to assist. Ms Nguyen remained at the front doors to the station. Ms Long continued to sit behind the counter at her desk.

[43] Ms Long states Ms Nguyen came over to the assistance button (situated directly to the right of where Ms Long was seated) and pressed the button multiple times. Ms Long advised Ms Nguyen there was nothing else she could help her with. She said words to the effect of: "I will get my supervisor to come and talk to you and you can explain to him why you are being so rude." Ms Long walked back a few paces towards the front doors.

[44] Ms Long states that at this point, the interaction had lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes. Ms Long sought assistance from her shift supervisor, Senior Constable Coert Reinecke, because she felt Ms Nguyen's behaviour was abusive and rude, and she could not do anything further to assist her.

[45] Senior Constable Coert Reinecke provided an affidavit sworn 8 March 2024. Senior Constable Reinecke has been a sworn officer with the QPS since 18 May 2006 and has been stationed at the Inala Police Station for 18 years. On 4 November 2021, he was rostered as the shift supervisor.

[46] Senior Constable Reinecke states that on the afternoon of 4 November 2021, Station Client Service Officer Kerrie Long requested his assistance with a member of the public. Ms Long said words to the effect there is a client at the front counter asking about her husband's vehicle's whereabouts after he was arrested in 2017. Communication has broken down and she wants to talk to a supervisor.

[47] Senior Constable Reinecke attended the front counter area and observed a female who became known to him as Ms Tri Nguyen [sic]. He introduced himself as Acting Sergeant Reinecke from the Inala Police Station and the shift supervisor.

[48] Senior Constable Reinecke said to Ms Nguyen words to the effect: "How can I assist you? Tell me what is happening with your husband's vehicle?" Ms Nguyen ignored his question about the vehicle and said words to the effect: "I want her name". Senior Constable Reinecke understood this to mean Ms Nguyen wanted the details of the client service officer (Ms Long) who she was talking to, because Ms Long was rude to her and she wanted her details.

[49] Senior Constable Reinecke wrote down Ms Long's name and registration number and handed it to Ms Nguyen. Ms Nguyen then turned around and walked out of the station saying words to the effect of "I am going to make a complaint".

[50] Senior Constable Reinecke states his interaction with Ms Nguyen lasted a total of two to three minutes before she left the station. In his interaction with Ms Nguyen, she was focussed on Ms Long and did not provide him with any information about her reason for attending the police station.

[51] Senior Constable Reinecke states he has no recollection of Ms Nguyen's daughter being present at any stage.

[52] Ms Long made a QPRIME record of her interaction with Ms Nguyen on the same day. The Street Check report (Exhibit KL-03 to Ms Long's affidavit) shows the record was entered at 1825 hours. Ms Long states she made this report within 30 minutes of Ms Nguyen leaving the police station.

[53] Ms Nguyen relies upon the treatment of a "Real Comparator", a Caucasian man with an Australian accent who she says entered the police station approximately 30 minutes after the incident and made enquiries regarding a vehicle. Ms Nguyen says this man was served promptly and politely.

[54] Ms Long's evidence is that while she was completing her searches about Ms Nguyen's enquiry, a man attended the counter area seeking assistance. Ms Long served this man, whose attendance was unremarkable. Ms Long does not recall anything out of the ordinary with the man's enquiry and notes he was not belligerent and did not yell and scream at her while she was assisting him with his enquiry.

[55] Having considered all of the evidence, I make the following findings of fact.

[56] I find that the incident occurred on 4 November 2021, not 5 November 2021 as stated by Ms Nguyen. This finding is supported by the respondents' documentary evidence, including Ms Long's roster showing she was working on 4 November 2021, and the Street Check report (QI2102059780) which was entered into the QPRIME system at 1825 hours on 4 November 2021.

[57] Ms Nguyen contends she attended the police station with her daughter. Both Ms Long and Senior Constable Reinecke state they have no recollection of Ms Nguyen's daughter being present.

[58] It was submitted that I should draw an adverse inference because the absence of CCTV recordings. This was not an issue at the hearing and submissions made on behalf of the QPS are that it was not notified of Ms Nguyen's complaint by the QHRC until 15 July 2022. This was well after the CCTV footage had been overwritten consistent with the ordinary practice of the QPS as to the retention of its CCTV records at the station, and accordingly, was no longer available. Reasonable enquiries have failed to reveal any request made by Ms Nguyen for the CCTV footage prior to this time.

[59] Although both respondent witnesses were consistent in their evidence that they did not recall a daughter being present, and Senior Constable Reinecke's evidence was particularly clear that he had no recollection of the daughter being present during his brief interaction with Ms Nguyen I am not prepared to find that she was not present.

[60] Ms Nguyen contends she handed Ms Long a Power of Attorney document authorising her to take possession of the Vehicle. Ms Long's evidence is that the only document she received from Ms Nguyen was her driver's licence, which she used to conduct searches. The respondents deny that any Power of Attorney or court documents were provided on 4 November 2021. I accept the Ms Long's evidence on this point. There is no corroborating evidence that such a document was provided, and if it had been, it would be reasonable to expect it would have been noted or scanned into the police record.

[61] Ms Nguyen says she requested a Vietnamese interpreter early in the interaction, after apologising for raising her voice, and that her request was refused. She also says she offered for her daughter or friend to interpret, and these offers were also refused.

[62] Ms Long's evidence is that at the very beginning of the interaction, when Ms Nguyen stated her English was not good and that she spoke Vietnamese, Ms Long immediately checked whether a Vietnamese-speaking PLO was available. None was available at that time. Ms Long offered to arrange for a PLO to call Ms Nguyen back, or suggested she could return with a friend to assist. Ms Long states Ms Nguyen refused these offers and elected to continue her enquiry in English.

[63] Ms Long's evidence is that Ms Nguyen's subsequent offers regarding her daughter or friend interpreting, or arranging a PLO, came after she had called Ms Long a "racist" and after communication had completely broken down. By that point, Ms Long refused those offers.

[64] I prefer Ms Long's evidence on this issue. The evidence of Ms Long is more detailed and consistent and is corroborated by the contemporaneous QPRIME record. I find that Ms Long did make enquiries about the availability of a Vietnamese-speaking PLO at the outset of the interaction and none was available. I find that Ms Long offered Ms Nguyen alternatives (a callback from a PLO or returning with a friend) which she declined. I find that Ms Nguyen elected to continue her enquiry in English.

[65] The accounts of the interaction given by Ms Nguyen and Ms Long differ materially in many respects. In assessing the competing versions of events, I have given weight to the following factors:

(a) Ms Long's evidence is supported by her contemporaneous QPRIME record made within 30 minutes of the incident;

(b) Ms Long's evidence is partially corroborated by Senior Constable Reinecke's evidence;

(c) Ms Long is an experienced Station Client Service Officer who regularly assists people from non-English speaking backgrounds;

(d) Ms Nguyen's evidence contains internal inconsistencies, including about the date of attendance and the length of time she was at the station;

(e) Ms Nguyen's most contemporaneous record (her QHRC complaint lodged the day after the incident) is "spartan in detail" and does not raise many of the factual matters now said to constitute discriminatory conduct; and

(f) on Ms Nguyen's own case, Ms Long's attitude allegedly changed only after learning about her husband's criminal background, which bears no relationship to Ms Nguyen's race.

[66] The accounts of the interaction given by Ms Nguyen and Ms Long differ materially in many respects. Having carefully considered the evidence, I make the following findings about the conduct of the interaction:

(a) Ms Long did assist Ms Nguyen with her enquiry about the Vehicle.

(b) Ms Long conducted multiple searches of police and Queensland Transport databases using information provided by Ms Nguyen.

(c) The searches revealed that police did not have possession of the Vehicle and had not had possession of it since 2017, and that the Vehicle had been re-registered twice to different persons since 2017.

(d) Ms Long communicated these search results to Ms Nguyen.

(e) Ms Nguyen became agitated during the interaction, raised her voice, and accused Ms Long of being a racist.

(f) Ms Long asked Ms Nguyen to lower her voice and, when she continued to behave in an agitated manner, suggested she should leave the station.

(g) Ms Long sought assistance from her shift supervisor, Senior Constable Reinecke.

(h) Senior Constable Reinecke provided Ms Long's name and registration number to Ms Nguyen at her request.

(i) The interaction lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes.

[67] I do not accept Ms Nguyen's contention that Ms Long threatened to arrest her. Ms Long is a civilian employee of the QPS and does not have the power to arrest members of the public. I accept Ms Long's evidence that she did not threaten to arrest Ms Nguyen or make any statement to that effect.

[68] Ms Nguyen submits that Ms Long's "refusal to provide her name and badge number" constituted "procedural unfairness" and "obstructed Ms Nguyen's right to lodge a complaint". However, the evidence establishes that Ms Long did provide her employee identification number to Ms Nguyen. Ms Long's evidence is that she provided it three times. Senior Constable Reinecke subsequently provided both Ms Long's name and registration number when Ms Nguyen requested it. Ms Nguyen left the station saying she was going to make a complaint, which she did that same evening. Ms Nguyen was not prevented from making a complaint, as evidenced by these proceedings.

[69] Ms Nguyen also submits that being told to "leave" the station was discriminatory and that Ms Long "widened her eyes, pointed directly at her and her daughter, and told them to 'leave' the station." Ms Nguyen characterizes this as creating "fear" in her daughter who "believed that the police might arrest her or her mother".

[70] Moreover, the evidence establishes that Ms Long only suggested Ms Nguyen should leave after the interaction had broken down, Ms Nguyen had become agitated and was shouting, and had accused Ms Long of being a racist. In those circumstances, it was not unreasonable for Ms Long to suggest Ms Nguyen should leave, particularly as there was nothing further Ms Long could do to assist her.

[71] Ms Long's evidence regarding the man who attended the counter area (the Real Comparator) is that his attendance was unremarkable and that he was not belligerent and did not yell and scream at her while she was assisting him with his enquiry.

[72] I find that the circumstances of the Real Comparator's interaction with Ms Long were materially different from Ms Nguyen's interaction. The Real Comparator presented with a straightforward enquiry, behaved in an ordinary manner, and did not behave in an agitated or aggressive manner towards Ms Long. Ms Nguyen, by contrast, became agitated, raised her voice, accused Ms Long of racism, and pressed the assistance button multiple times.

[73] Section 10(1) of the ADA provides that direct discrimination on the basis of an attribute happens if a person treats, or proposes to treat, a person with an attribute less favourably than another person without the attribute is or would be treated in circumstances that are the same or not materially different.

[74] The comparison required by s 10 involves asking whether the treatment of the complainant was less favourable than the treatment that was or would be accorded to a comparator who does not have the relevant attribute but whose circumstances are otherwise the same or not materially different: Purvis v New South Wales [2003] HCA 62; (2003) 217 CLR 92.

[75] The comparator may be an actual person (a "real comparator") or a hypothetical person (a "hypothetical comparator"). The critical question is whether the complainant's treatment was on the basis of, or by reason of, the protected attribute: IW v City of Perth [1997] HCA 30; (1997) 191 CLR 1 at 22-23.

[76] In Brown v City Venue Management Pty Ltd [2018] QCAT 168, a case involving a direct discrimination claim on the basis of an alleged impairment, Member Roney QC observed at [8] that it is 'well-established that proceedings of discriminatory conduct [of this] nature such as the present, albeit civil proceedings, with the requisite civil standard of proof applying, are required to meet the standards of the so-called Briginshaw test', citing Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336; Rejfek v McElroy [1965] HCA 46; (1965) 112 CLR 517; Adamson v Queensland Law Society Incorporated [1990] 1 Qd R 498; and Re Seidler [1986] 1 Qd R 486.

[77] Section 11 of the ADA provides that indirect discrimination on the basis of an attribute happens if a person imposes, or proposes to impose, a term with which a person with an attribute does not or is not able to comply, and with which a higher proportion of people without the attribute comply or are able to comply, and the term is not reasonable.

Human Rights Act

[78] Section 58(1) of the HRA provides that it is unlawful for a public entity: (a) to act or make a decision in a way that is not compatible with human rights; or (b) in making a decision, to fail to give proper consideration to a human right relevant to the decision.

[79] A human right may be subject to reasonable limitations under section 13 of the HRA, which requires consideration of factors including the nature of the human right, the nature of the purpose of the limitation, and whether there are any less restrictive and reasonably available ways to achieve the purpose.

[80] Ms Nguyen alleges she was treated less favourably than the Real Comparator (the Caucasian man with an Australian accent) and/or a Hypothetical Comparator (a person who speaks English as a first language without a Vietnamese accent and who does not require the assistance of a translator). Ms Nguyen says she was treated less favourably by: (i) being spoken to in a rude and aggressive tone; (ii) Ms Long refusing to assist with her enquiry; (iii) Ms Long failing to take reasonable steps to understand her enquiry; (iv) Ms Long rejecting her offers to have her daughter or friend interpret; and (v) Ms Long threatening to arrest her.

[81] For the reasons set out in my findings of fact above, I do not accept that Ms Nguyen was spoken to in a rude or aggressive tone, that Ms Long refused to assist with her enquiry, or that Ms Long threatened to arrest her. The evidence establishes that Ms Long did assist Ms Nguyen with her enquiry, conducted extensive searches, and communicated the results of those searches to Ms Nguyen.

[82] Ms Nguyen submits that her "ability to answer simple questions was improperly used to suggest full English proficiency" and that "her repeated requests for interpreting assistance prove that she was unable to understand legal/police terminology". However, the evidence does not identify any specific instance where Ms Long used "complex", "technical" or "legal/police terminology" that was beyond Ms Nguyen's comprehension. Ms Long's evidence is that Ms Nguyen "was proficient enough to understand my questions and provide me with the information I required to conduct my searches", and Ms Nguyen's own evidence is that she "answered all questions Ms Long asked of me". The breakdown in communication occurred not because of language barriers, but because Ms Nguyen was dissatisfied with the search results showing that police did not have the vehicle.

[83] I noted during the hearing, that despite having an interpreter, Ms Nguyen, on occasions, was able to answer a question directly without requiring a translation. I also had little difficulty in understanding her.

[84] In relation to the interpreter issue, I have found that Ms Long made enquiries about the availability of a Vietnamese-speaking PLO at the outset of the interaction, that none was available, that Ms Long offered alternatives which Ms Nguyen declined, and that Ms Nguyen elected to continue her enquiry in English. The subsequent offers by Ms Nguyen came after she had called Ms Long a "racist" and after communication had broken down. In those circumstances, it was not unreasonable for Ms Long to decline those offers.

[85] Turning to the comparison with the Real Comparator, I have found that the circumstances of the Real Comparator's interaction were materially different from Ms Nguyen's interaction. The Real Comparator was not agitated, did not raise his voice, did not accuse Ms Long of racism, and did not press the assistance button multiple times. The comparison required by s 10 of the ADA requires that the circumstances be the same or not materially different. The circumstances here were materially different.

[86] However, Ms Nguyen's characterisation of this comparator goes beyond what she could reasonably observe during what Ms Long describes as a brief interaction while Ms Nguyen was distracted on her phone. The alleged racial or ethnic origin of this person is an assertion Ms Nguyen could not reliably make from brief observation. More importantly, Ms Long's evidence is that this person's interaction was "unremarkable" and he was "not belligerent and did not yell and scream" at her. This is the critical distinction from Ms Nguyen's own admitted behaviour.

[87] As the Queensland Court of Appeal observed in Woodforth v State of Queensland:

Section 10 requires a comparison between a person with an attribute and a person without that attribute. The comparison is to be made by reference to a certain set of circumstances. In the case of the person with the attribute, that is the set of circumstances in which that person has been treated or the circumstances in which it is proposed to treat that person. In the case of the person without the attribute, who is commonly called in this context "the comparator", they are hypothetical circumstances which are assumed to be the same or not materially different from those in which the person with an attribute has been or will be treated. In the present case, those circumstances included the context of a complaint by a person to police of criminal offending against her.[1]

[88] Considering a hypothetical comparator, a person without Ms Nguyen's racial characteristics who attended the police station with the same enquiry and behaved in the same agitated manner as Ms Nguyen, I am not satisfied that such a person would have been treated more favourably than Ms Nguyen. The evidence establishes that Ms Long's responses to Ms Nguyen were directed at her behaviour (raising her voice, becoming agitated, accusing Ms Long of racism) rather than her race or racial characteristics.

[89] I am not satisfied that Ms Nguyen has established that she was treated less favourably than a comparator, or that any difference in treatment was on the basis of her race.

[90] Accordingly, the claim of direct discrimination under section 10 of the ADA is not established.

[91] Ms Nguyen alleges Ms Long imposed the following terms: (a) members of the public must speak clear, unaccented English in an Australian accent to receive assistance or service; and (b) members of the public must be able to communicate their enquiry without the assistance of a translator to receive assistance or service, notwithstanding that reasonable adjustments are available.

[92] I do not accept that any such terms were imposed. The evidence establishes that Ms Long:

(a) immediately enquired about the availability of a Vietnamese-speaking PLO when Ms Nguyen indicated her English was not good;

(b) offered Ms Nguyen alternatives (a callback from a PLO or returning with a friend);

(c) assisted Ms Nguyen with her enquiry when Ms Nguyen elected to continue in English;

(d) conducted extensive database searches using information provided by Ms Nguyen in English; and

(e) communicated the results of those searches to Ms Nguyen.

[93] The evidence does not support the existence of any requirement that members of the public speak "clear, unaccented English" to receive assistance. The Inala police station is situated in a suburb where many of the residents do not have English as their first language. Ms Long was very experienced in assisting and interacting with people whose first language was not English. I do not accept that her alleged behaviour (which I do not accept) was provoked on any racial basis. One could understand an initial enquiry about collecting a car might be met with some incomprehension when it is revealed that the car was last seen four years earlier and the enquirer is insisting that the police still have it.

[94] Ms Long assisted Ms Nguyen notwithstanding her limited English proficiency. The breakdown in communication occurred not because of the Ms Nguyen's language difficulties, but because of her agitated behaviour and her refusal to accept the results of the searches.

[95] Accordingly, the claim of indirect discrimination under section 11 of the ADA is not established.

Human Rights Act

[96] Ms Nguyen alleges that the respondents breached the HRA by: (a) failing to act or make decisions in a way that was compatible with Ms Nguyen's human rights under section 58(1)(a); and (b) failing to give proper consideration to Ms Nguyen's human rights in making decisions under section 58(1)(b). Ms Nguyen alleges her rights under sections 15 (recognition and equality before the law), 17 (protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment), 24 (property rights), 27 (cultural rights), and 29 (right to liberty and security of person) were limited.

[97] As Martin J observed in Owen-D'Arcy v Chief Executive, Queensland Corrective Services,[2] the obligation in section 58(1)(a) requires that there be an "act" or "decision" by the public entity that is incompatible with a human right. The obligation in section 58(1)(b) requires that the public entity "give proper consideration" to a human right "relevant to the decision".

[98] In this case, I have found that Ms Long did assist Ms Nguyen with her enquiry, made enquiries about interpreter services, offered alternatives, and conducted extensive searches. Ms Long's decisions during the interaction (including the decision to suggest she leave after communication had broken down) were made in the context of her agitated behaviour, not by reason of her race or cultural background.

[99] I am not satisfied that Ms Nguyen's right to recognition and equality before the law under section 15 was limited. She was not treated unequally by reason of her race. Ms Nguyen was assisted with her enquiry in the same manner that any member of the public would have been assisted.

[100] Ms Nguyen's allegation that her right under section 17 (protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment) was engaged is not made out. The evidence does not support any finding that Ms Long's conduct amounted to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The interaction, while clearly frustrating for Ms Nguyen, does not approach the threshold required for section 17 to be engaged.

[101] In relation to property rights under section 24, Ms Nguyen's complaint relates to the Vehicle. However, the evidence establishes that the Vehicle was not in police possession at the time of the interaction and had not been in police possession since 2017. The respondents did not deprive Ms Nguyen of property. Any limitation on Ms Nguyen's property rights (if any existed) was not caused by the conduct of the respondents.

[102] I am not satisfied that the cultural rights under section 27 or the right to liberty and security under section 29 were engaged in the circumstances of this case.

[103] Accordingly, the claims under the HRA are not established.

[104] Ms Nguyen seeks compensation in the amount of $40,000, comprising: (i) $20,000 for non-economic loss (humiliation, loss of dignity, emotional distress, psychological injury); (ii) $600 for out-of-pocket psychological expenses; (iii) $15,000 for consequential financial loss (the vehicle); and (iv) $4,400 for recognition of child impact.

[105] In summary, even if I had found discrimination established (which I have not), the quantum evidence does not support an award of damages in any amount. Having reviewed this evidence, I give it minimal weight for the following reasons.

[106] Ms Nguyen purports to extend her discrimination claim to include impairment discrimination based on "language limitation". This is a new claim raised for the first time in closing submissions. The alleged impairment of "language limitation" does not satisfy the definition of impairment in section 4 of the ADA in any event. Section 4 defines impairment to include intellectual, psychiatric, physical, sensory and neurological impairments. Speaking English as a second language is not an impairment within the meaning of the Act.

[107] Regarding the claim for harm to Ms Nguyen's daughter, Ms Nguyen correctly submits that the daughter is not a party to this proceeding and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award compensation on her behalf. While a parent may in some circumstances recover for distress caused by witnessing harm to their child, or where the harm to the child forms part of the parent's own distress, Ms Nguyen does not claim her own distress at seeing her daughter distressed - rather, she claims directly for the child's harm. This is not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction in these proceedings.

[108] In relation to the vehicle loss, Ms Nguyen claims $15,000 for consequential financial loss, arguing that her "trauma-induced inability to return to the station" prevented her from inquiring about the vehicle within the statutory recovery period. This claim fails for two reasons:

(a) the evidence establishes that the vehicle was not in police possession and had been re-registered to other persons since 2017, so there was no vehicle to recover; and

(b) even if there had been a vehicle to recover, Ms Nguyen has not established that any trauma she experienced was caused by unlawful conduct.

[109] At the commencement of the resumed hearing on 24 November 2025, Ms Nguyen produced for the first time a bundle of documents relating to the alleged psychological, emotional, and financial impacts resulting from the incident. QPS objected to the admission of this late evidence, but I admitted it subject to weight.

[110] Receipts for psychological treatment relate to consultations which occurred more than 12 months after the alleged incident and total approximately $280, not the claimed $600. There is insufficient evidence to establish that these consultations were causally connected to the incident rather than to other events in Ms Nguyen's life.

[111] Ms Nguyen submits that QCAT does not require a formal psychological diagnosis to establish emotional or psychological harm, and that harm may be inferred from contemporaneous reporting, GP consultation notes, medication history, observable behavioural changes, and therapy referrals. While this is correct as a general proposition, the difficulty in this case is that Ms Nguyen has not established the underlying discriminatory conduct upon which such harm could be based.

[112] Apart from the bare assertions made by Ms Nguyen in what the QPS refer to as her "Late Evidence Statement", the medical records do not establish a causal connection between the alleged discriminatory conduct on 4 November 2021 and the medical events or attendances documented in the records. The records are hearsay evidence. In the absence of direct evidence from the relevant medical practitioners who authored the documents, the relevance and causation cannot be properly established.

[113] For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied that Ms Nguyen has established that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race, whether directly or indirectly, contrary to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). I am also not satisfied that the respondents breached the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

[114] The evidence establishes that Ms Long made genuine efforts to assist Ms Nguyen with her enquiry, including enquiring about interpreter services, offering alternatives, conducting multiple database searches, and communicating the results. The breakdown in communication occurred as a result of Ms Nguyen's agitated behaviour and her refusal to accept the search results, not because of her race or racial characteristics.

[1] [2017] QCA 100; [2018] 1 Qd R 289, [29].

[2] [2021] QSC 273.