A man being repeatedly Tasered in the back as police officers held him down has been described by a court as "inexplicable ... gratuitous violence".
Distressing video captured the final stun driven into the man's shoulder for several seconds as he appeared completely restrained on the ground with both hands behind his back.
Following an ACT Magistrates Court hearing earlier this year, Chief Magistrate Lorraine Walker found the actions of territory police officers were excessive and unlawful.
Conducted energy weapon shocks delivered "without warning" and as the man screamed in pain, Ms Walker said, were "solely for the purpose of effecting compliance".
"Whether through poor judgement or inexperience", police conduct led to the incident's violent escalation.
The court also found the officers involved in the arrest did not announce their body-worn cameras were recording and did not prioritise de-escalation and negotiation, as required by police guidelines.
As a result, the man, whom The Canberra Times has chosen not to name, was acquitted of resisting a territory public official on Monday.
The Chief Magistrate previously foreshadowed she would send the case to the police's internal investigation Professional Standards unit.
"That referral has been made," Ms Walker said after returning her verdict.
'Incredulous, not violent'
Police were called to a Canberra home in the middle of the night in November last year after a woman phoned triple-zero and said: "Domestic violence."
But the family violence allegations against the man, which prompted his being taken into custody, would be dropped before his August hearing began.
"There was no violence being perpetrated by anyone when police attended," the Chief Magistrate said on Monday.
The hearing, therefore, revolved around the man allegedly resisting a police officer and purposefully trying to obstruct the arrest.
Officers present that night gave evidence from the witness box that the intoxicated man was "overpowering", "argumentative", "defiant", "violent", "resisting", "aggressive", "threatening" and "actively overbearing".
But body-worn camera footage told a different story.
The man was firstly "incredulous, not violent", Ms Walker said, upon being told he was under arrest.
Within 20 seconds, he would be wrestled to the ground in a violent melee.
Within two-and-a-half minutes, he would be Tasered in the shoulder five times as he asked the officers pinning him to the concrete for an explanation.
Evidence versus video
Noting the discrepancies between police officers' hearing evidence and multiple angles from their own video footage, Ms Walker said, "I adopt the latter."
The officer who initiated the arrest, Constable Robert McLoughlin, first told the court the man had pulled away from him and purposefully pushed against a wall to avoid being handcuffed.
But the video proved the officer had, in fact, let him go to attend to a harassing dog.
Constable Jonathan Fangaiuha, in turn, used excessive force to wrestle the man to the ground under the "misapprehension" he had aggressively pulled away from his colleague.
The Chief Magistrate ruled that Constable Fangaiuha contravened police guidelines by jumping straight into the use of force and failing to negotiate.
He was not lawfully exercising his function as a police officer and, therefore, could not be resisted in accordance with the law.
Constable Ben Scott, "embroiled in the control effort", assisted in what was "now an excessive use of force".
Police admissions
Asked to watch body-worn camera footage during the August hearing, the officers walked back parts of their initial evidence under cross-examination.
Most notably, the officer who used her Taser initially disagreed she had used the weapon while the man was restrained with one handcuff on and the other seconds away from locking onto his second wrist.
Constable Jessica Cox also denied discharging the Taser as many times as she did.
But her own video would disprove that evidence and she conceded her actions were "unnecessary and unreasonable".
The officer accepted by the time she delivered the third blow, there was no threat to her colleagues and the man was not overpowering anyone.
Had he been given more time to process his arrest, Constable Cox was asked, could things have played out better?
"Yes," she replied.
Constable McLoughlin also made several concessions from the witness box, chiefly that he had "recalled incorrectly" about the man pulling away from him.
Defence barrister Kieran Ginges, instructed by Kamy Saeedi Law, suggested the officer's recollections aimed to blame the arrested man.
"It does sound like that, yes," Constable McLoughlin responded.
Constable Fangaiuha conceded, "to some extent, yes", video footage of the fifth Taser activation showed conduct amounting to gratuitous violence.
"At the time it seemed reasonable," the officer said about the group's use of force.
Other findings
The Chief Magistrate found the man was told he was under arrest but not that he would be placed in handcuffs. She questioned whether that action was necessary at all.
"No clear communication to [the man] and no time to consider, let alone reject any instructions to allow handcuffs," Ms Walker said.
She also found the already excessive use of force was "significantly aggravated" by the repeated Taser use.
"[Senior Constable Johanna Gossler] did not think it necessary to raise any issue of concern with the attending officers or anyone more senior," Ms Walker said about the highest-ranking police officer on the scene.
Ultimately, the court ruled police actions were "far beyond what could be conceived as reasonable" to effect the arrest and the charge was dismissed.
The matter is now with Professional Standards.
