A Muslim prisoner has lost his discrimination claim over the right to access a toaster free from pork products.
On 5 September, Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Member Stilgoe found that Raymond Ali was not discriminated against by Queensland Corrective Services when it did not provide him with the means to make toast at breakfast time.
Member Stilgoe’s decision overturned the tribunal’s 2023 determination that QCS indirectly discriminated against Mr Ali by imposing the term that if a prisoner in the secure protection unit wished to use the grill at breakfast time it would have to be the grill shared by other prisoners.
QCS appealed that decision on the grounds that QCAT erred in assessing the reasonableness of the cleaning regime against a later available alternative, and that it failed to consider adequately the requirements of s 319H of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), (CSA) which deals with indirect discrimination.
Member Stilgoe pointed to a third issue that impacted her consideration of the two propositions: that the tribunal did not adequately consider the QCS evidence.
She said prison officers had given evidence that a portable toaster:
(a) could be used to light tobacco or other contraband;
(b) could be used to make weapons or to be used as a weapon;
(c) posed the risk that a prisoner will be stood over to surrender its use;
(d) could be stolen;
(e) could be used to heat up a door handle to injure a prison officer; and/or
(f) could (possibly) cause a circuit overload.
She said the centre general manager had given evidence on the decision-making process that led to the cleaning offer.
“After consulting with other correctional centres, he ultimately determined that providing a separate toaster to be locked in an officer’s station would interfere with the security and good order of the facility and impose an unreasonable cost and administrative burden,” she said.
“In response to a question from the member, (the manager) also outlined the prison officers’ duties and their difficulty in monitoring the use of a portable toaster.”
During cross-examination, Mr Ali had asserted he would have his “head kicked in” if he tried to clean the grill, but Member Stilgoe said evidence from prison officers contradicted this assertion.
That evidence included that his status as a senior prisoner would have allowed him to clean the grill if he told other prisoners that he wanted to.
QCS did later supply a separate toaster – after Mr Ali left the prison.
“The question is not whether a better solution was ultimately found by QCS, it is whether the term was reasonable in the circumstances. The circumstances include the relevant provisions of the CSA,” Member Stilgoe said.
“I accept the unchallenged evidence of (the manager) that the provision of a separate toaster which would be locked in an officer’s station would interfere with the security and good order of the facility and impose an unreasonable cost and administrative burden.
“The term of cleaning the grill may not have been to Mr Ali’s liking, but his concerns do not mean that the term was not reasonable in the circumstances.
“The QCS did not indirectly discriminate against Mr Ali by imposing the term that if a prisoner in the secure protection unit wished to use the grill at breakfast time it would have to be the grill shared by other prisoners.”
Member Stilgoe allowed the appeal, set aside the tribunal’s decision, and dismissed Mr Ali’s application.
Mr Ali, who was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in 2000, was released in 2017.
Read the decision here.
Share this article