A Mornington man who abused his neighbour has been ordered to pay $21,000 in compensation for the sexist and racially discriminatory attack.
James Price was found to have breached the Anti-Discrimination Act by verbally abusing his Quarry Road neighbour Evelyn Baco and calling her a “cheap Asian prostitute”.
The dispute between Baco and Price had escalated over time, but took a “significant turn for the worse” through 2019-21, resulting in restraining orders against Price in December 2021, Civil and Administrative Tribunal member Robert Winter said.
In May 2022, during a harsh outburst, Price yelled derogatory insults at Baco and her husband while they were outside their home.
According to Baco’s complaint, Price called her a “f***ing wh***,” a “dirty little woman checking out men at school – five-dollar, five dollar mate” and accused her of “f***ing other men” behind her husband’s back.
Baco also alleged that Price threw rocks on her roof and had previously intimidated her.
Winter said “the complainant advised that she was in no doubt that the respondent’s conduct towards her on 1 May 2022 amounted to discrimination on the basis of her race and gender, and also was of a sexually harassing nature and otherwise intimidatory towards her.”
“The complainant gave evidence that as a consequence of the respondent’s behaviours towards her on 1 May, she had been forced to take time off work and had suffered other consequences such as distress, significant anxiety, and trouble sleeping. She no longer resided at her premises.”
The Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal found Price guilty of breaching the Anti-Discrimination Act and ordered him to pay a total of $21,576.16 in compensation – made up of $18,567.15 for lost income and superannuation, plus an additional $3,000.00 for distress and humiliation.
Price had previously pleaded guilty to 11 breaches of a restraint order in a separate incident where he called Baco derogatory names.
Despite attempting to have his previous sentence excluded from consideration, Price’s previous actions were taken into account in the tribunal’s decision.
