It took persistent questioning and graphic video evidence for a territory police officer to admit Tasering a man five times in efforts to handcuff him was "unnecessary and unreasonable".
"Looking at it now, yes," Constable Jessica Cox said from an ACT Magistrates Court witness box last week.
Like her colleagues involved in the violent arrest, Constable Cox's initial sworn evidence appeared not to always match the body-worn camera footage they each recorded in the early hours of November 18, 2023.
The man they arrested, whom The Canberra Times has chosen not to name, is now awaiting a decision after fighting a charge of resisting a territory public official during a multi-day hearing.
On Thursday, Chief Magistrate Lorraine Walker reserved her decision in the case but foreshadowed what was to come and the care with which she intended to articulate her remarks.
"The answer in this matter is quite clear to me. I will have no difficulty in reaching my conclusion," she said.
Ms Walker also told parties she would be making a referral to the territory's chief police officer and recommending the case go before the internal investigation Professional Standards team.
'Can't use a Taser for compliance'
Police were called to a Canberra home last year after a woman phoned triple-zero and reportedly said: "Domestic violence."
But family violence allegations against the man and another man both present at the property, which prompted the pair being taken into custody, would be dropped before the hearing began last week.
In multi-angled footage of his late-night arrest, the accused man is heard repeatedly screaming in pain on the ground after the crackling sound of Constable Cox's Taser.
The court heard, against police guidelines, the officer activated her conducted energy weapon five times without a clear oral warning or giving the man on the receiving end the chance to comply.
"Stop resisting," police can be heard saying as the man questions why he's being arrested, tries to lift himself up, holds onto a grate, and shouts "get the f--- off me".
His defence team argued these actions did not amount to resisting, as is the prosecution case, and the arrest was unlawful.
"That conduct .. in particular holding onto the grate, is one that's intentional," a prosecutor said.
But the aim of Tasering the man, the court heard, was for compliance and in clear breach of police guidelines. Body-worn camera shows one activation appearing to help force his arm behind his back.
"You can't use a Taser for compliance," Constable Robert McLoughlin later said in his evidence.
The final drive-stun into the man's shoulder, lasting several seconds, was delivered with one handcuff on and the other seconds second away from locking onto his second wrist.
He appears well and truly restrained by this point.
'Gratuitous violence'
Before seeing it on video, Constable Cox denied delivering that final blow or using her weapon as many times as she did.
"I would submit that was gratuitous violence," defence barrister Kieran Ginges, instructed by Kamy Saeedi Law, said about an action no police officer giving evidence in the hearing recalled happening.
That is, despite all their cameras being pointed at it.
Asked about video of the Tasering, Constable Ben Scott, who helped pin down the man during the arrest, said: "I believe at the time the constable that deployed the Taser thought there was a threat of violence."
"I don't think that would have been my use of force choice given this scenario," he followed up.
In her evidence, Senior Constable Johanna Gossler, the highest ranking police officer on scene at the time, conceded that "after he's controlled, yes", Tasering the man was inappropriate.
But she did not think excessive force had been used from the moment the "violent" man was taken control of.
And asked if she should have held serious concerns over the necessity of Tasering a man in the back five times, the supervising officer responded: "I don't know how to answer that, I'm sorry."
Sworn evidence under fire
Mr Ginges cross-examined five police officers involved in the man's arrest on their version of events before showing them body-worn camera footage and citing statements written soon after the incident.
"The officers were quite stumped when they came to see in the cold light of day how they conducted themselves," the barrister said.
Constable Scott described the arrested man in evidence as "very combative", "overpowering", intimidating, and placing officers at risk.
But Mr Ginges argued footage showed those characterisations were inaccurate and not put as strongly in the officer's original reporting.
"Nowhere in your statement do you refer to him actively resisting, do you?" the defence barrister asked.
The officer responded: "I don't think so."
Constable Cox described being fearful while the man was overpowering the group of police officers as part of her reasoning for using the Taser.
"Who is he overpowering?" Mr Ginges asked her as footage played in court.
She replied: "I'll accept that." She also admitted by the third Tasering, there was no threat.
Constable McLoughlin, who initiated the arrest, is told on video to "relax, it's all good bro" after he screamed in the face of the already restrained man to place his hands together.
According to the officer's evidence, the "argumentative" and "overbearing" man pulled away from him and purposefully pushed against the wall of the house to initially avoid being handcuffed.
"I lost control of his wrist because he used his strength against me to pull that wrist away," Constable McLoughlin said.
But under cross-examination, the officer was forced to admit he made a "mistake" because he had in fact let the man go after turning around to attend to a dog biting his leg.
Mr Ginges put to Constable McLoughlin he had reconstructed events in a way that didn't occur.
"For that particular thing, yeah sure," the officer replied. "It seems as though I've recalled incorrectly."
The barrister then suggested the officer's recollection had aimed to blame the arrested man.
"It does sound like that, yes," Constable McLoughlin responded.
Guilty finding would 'condone police conduct'
In his closing remarks, Mr Ginges noted Constable Jonathan Fangaiuha, who wrestled the man to the ground, gave evidence in court about his aggressiveness.
"He didn't use that word at all in his statement when it was fresh in his mind," the barrister said.
Not one of the five cross-examined police officers could explain why they hadn't announced their body-worn cameras were recording during the incident, despite police guidelines to do so.
The court also heard none were counselled or spoken to following the arrest about the use of force.
To find his client guilty, Mr Ginges said, "would serve to condone in essence the police conduct which has not elsewhere been counselled, reviewed, or dealt with internally".
The Chief Magistrate has reserved her decision until an unknown date later in the year.
