29/04/2025
QUEENSLAND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION COMPLAINT
(Formal Statement of Complaint)
Respondents:
1. Officer Sarah Cruickshank (Queensland Police Service)
2. Queensland Police Service
3. The Cracow Pub (3 Third Avenue, Cracow QLD 4719) and its owners
4. Aeris Resources Limited (ABN 30 147 131 977)
---
1. Introduction
This is a formal complaint brought pursuant to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) and the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).
The complaint concerns serious breaches of my human rights, including unlawful discrimination, religious vilification, victimisation, harassment, intimidation, abuse of public office, and violations of rights to equality, privacy, security, and freedom of belief.
2. Background
At the time of these events, I was residing elsewhere and had never previously set foot in Cracow, Queensland.
I had purchased a residential property in Cracow for a former partner, with no initial intention to personally occupy or manage it on-site.
Following escalating reports of criminal and anti-social behaviour in the town — particularly involving patrons of the Cracow Pub and employees of Aeris Resources Limited — I was compelled to intervene to protect the property and safeguard community interests.
Due to the seriousness of the situation, including threats against female residents, property destruction, and widespread intimidation by intoxicated miners and the publicans, I was forced to significantly alter my personal circumstances.
Specifically, I was required to sell my yacht, a valuable personal asset, because the unfolding situation made it impossible for me to properly maintain or safeguard it unattended. The sale was distress-driven and resulted in a loss of both personal enjoyment and financial value.
I travelled to Cracow to personally address the worsening environment.
Upon arrival, I lawfully made it clear that such criminal behaviour would not be tolerated.
As a direct result, I became the target of sustained harassment, intimidation, and retaliatory conduct from the Cracow Pub owners, Aeris Resources' miners, and members of the Queensland Police Service.
3. Conduct of the Respondents
(a) Officer Sarah Cruickshank and Queensland Police Service
From the moment Officer Cruickshank arrived at the property, her conduct was noticeably hostile, dismissive, and adversarial. She approached the matter with a clear and preconceived bias against me, demonstrated by her aggressive tone, unwillingness to objectively assess the situation, and her apparent determination to escalate matters without justification.
Her behaviour suggested she had formed adverse conclusions prior to any proper inquiry, and her actions throughout the encounter were consistent with an intention to intimidate, discredit, and cause detriment to me rather than to fairly and impartially perform her duties as a police officer.
Officer Cruickshank observed a sign displayed on my fence containing religious text central to my sincerely held beliefs.
Rather than respecting my right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, Officer Cruickshank mocked the religious content, conducted a Google search on it, and made derogatory and discriminatory remarks.
The following day, Officer Cruickshank arrested me on retaliatory charges brought by pub.
When questioned on a recorded phone conversation, Officer Cruickshank deliberately and falsely denied making discriminatory remarks in relation to my religious sign, and further asserted that her body-worn camera had been deactivated during the relevant interactions.
However, subsequent disclosure revealed that the camera had remained active, and that key body cam footage — including evidence of her discriminatory conduct — had been deliberately and materially edited or withheld.
Upon my request for unedited footage and engagement with oversight bodies (Crime and Corruption Commission and Ethical Standards Command), the Queensland Police Service withdrew all charges.
Investigations by the CCC and ESC upheld findings of misconduct against Officer Cruickshank.
Breaches:
Section 15 (Right to equality before the law)
Section 20 (Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief)
Section 25 (Right to privacy and reputation)
Section 58 (Obligation on public entities to act compatibly with human rights)
---
(b) The Cracow Pub and Its Owners
The owners of the Cracow Pub engaged in a deliberate and sustained campaign of harassment and intimidation after I raised concerns about criminal behaviour linked to their establishment.
This included public defamation and abuse, notably yelling abusive remarks at me in the presence of a prospective buyer, causing the collapse of a property sale.
The pub owners engaged in unlawful surveillance, filming me without consent and stalking me throughout the town.
Numerous independent statements from female residents confirm a consistent pattern of stalking, intimidation, and filming by the pub owners against residents who engaged in petty disputes or grievances.
One of the Cracow Pub owners is a convicted criminal who has served a significant term of imprisonment for serious offences. This criminal background heightened the legitimate fear and distress experienced by myself and other community members subjected to their conduct.
The Cracow Pub owners have demonstrated a total disregard for the right of lawful ratepayers and property owners to the quiet enjoyment of their properties, fostering an environment of hostility, fear, and intimidation.
Breaches:
Victimisation under Section 130 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld);
Public nuisance;
Interference with right to privacy and security;
Breach of implied rights of quiet enjoyment by lawful property owners.
---
(c) Aeris Resources Limited
Employees and/or contractors of Aeris Resources Limited were routinely intoxicated at the Cracow Pub and engaged in violent, threatening behaviour towards residents.
This included direct threats of r**e against women living alone, and admissions regarding the destruction of property (burning down the Holden dealership).
Aeris Resources Limited failed to control, discipline, or otherwise address the conduct of its workforce despite knowledge of the risks posed to the local community.
The company’s inaction enabled and encouraged a toxic and dangerous environment within Cracow.
Breaches:
Negligence in failing to ensure employee conduct did not endanger public safety;
Vicarious liability for employees' discriminatory and threatening conduct;
Public nuisance and intimidation.
---
4. Harm Suffered
As a direct result of the Respondents' conduct, I have suffered:
Severe psychological and emotional distress;
Financial losses, including:
Sale of my yacht under distress and inability to maintain it due to hostile developments;
Significant legal expenses;
Forced sale of my property at a substantial loss;
Damage to personal and professional reputation;
Loss of faith and trust in public institutions and community safety.
---
5. Relief Sought
The Complainant respectfully seeks:
A formal written apology from each Respondent;
Financial compensation for emotional distress, financial losses, and reputational harm;
An undertaking by each Respondent to undergo human rights and anti-discrimination training;
Any other orders or remedies the Queensland Human Rights Commission deems appropriate.
