A lawyer for a police officer charged with assaulting a man he was arresting by kicking him five times while he lay on the ground has told a court the officer was following his training by using "distraction kicks".
The police officer, whose identity is suppressed, is on trial in the Port Adelaide Magistrates Court charged with an aggravated count of assault.
The court heard the officer was the first to get to a suspect, Lennard Ware, who had evaded police for nearly 2 hours in a dangerous high-speed car chase in October 2019.
The court heard that after driving into a dead-end street, Mr Ware ran off and hid in a suburban backyard, before police closed in on him.
The prosecution alleges the police officer acted unlawfully in kicking Mr Ware as he lay face down on the ground, alleging it was excessive and unnecessary to effect the arrest.
In her closing submission to the court, the police officer's lawyer, Marie Shaw KC, said her client was dealing with a high-risk offender who had driven through red lights, travelled on the incorrect side of the road and deliberately drove at police who were attempting to stop him.
Mrs Shaw said at the time, police were concerned there could be a siege situation if the offender broke into the house on the property where he was hiding.
She said her client had been trained to use "distraction kicks" in high-risk situations in order to arrest a suspect, and was using that training to try to get Mr Ware to show his hands.
"My client is having to make all of these snap judgements, in the highest setting of danger, because he's on his own and no-one else can get to him, and he's with someone who has shown he has no regard to the safety of anyone — no regard," Mrs Shaw told the court.
"And so his ultimate obligation to the public, and consistent with his oath under the Police Act, is to arrest this man, to stop him further offending, and ensure he doesn't get into that house."
Dispute over suspect's actions
During the trial, footage recorded from the SA Police helicopter known as PolAir, that was assisting in tracking the suspect, was shown repeatedly to the court and to various witnesses.
The footage, taken from an infrared camera, captures the moments when Mr Ware ran from the stolen car and hid in the suburban backyard, then police officers closing in and arresting him, including the kicks which form the subject of the charge.
The prosecution alleges Mr Ware was complying with directions and emerged with his hands up, then lay on the ground voluntarily before the police officer sprayed him with capsicum spray and kicked him five times in quick succession.
Giving evidence in his defence, the police officer said he kicked Mr Ware's arm to get him to show his hands, saying Mr Ware was not complying with his directions and seemed to be reaching for something near his waist.
Mrs Shaw said her client had "screamed at him to show his hands" but Mr Ware did not respond and reached for his waistband.
"Our submission is that in delivering the distraction kicks to Mr Ware, that was consistent with his belief that he was acting in accordance with his role as a police officer … ultimately with the purpose of arresting Mr Ware and to prevent further offending," Mrs Shaw said.
Mrs Shaw said there was a difference between a layperson looking at the video and "analysing and criticising it" and a police officer who was on the ground acting in a "split-second" during a high-risk situation.
Defence says footage does not show full picture
The magistrate hearing the trial — Jayanthi Pandya — has declined the ABC's request to access and publish the footage tendered in court.
Mrs Shaw told the court it was problematic to wholly rely on the footage to establish all aspects of the evidence in the case.
The footage shows the kicks from an aerial view, with the people in the footage depicted as white figures.
"All it is depicting is a heat source," Mrs Shaw told the court.
Mrs Shaw said that, crucially, the footage was not able to show whether Mr Ware's hands were by his waist during the arrest.
She said the absence of any evidence from Mr Ware, who police have been unable to locate for the trial, meant that some aspects of the case could not be determined.
"Without Mr Ware being called, in our respectful submission, it creates a huge hurdle to infer that indeed Mr Ware was not resisting," Mrs Shaw told the court.
Defendant 'quarrelled' during evidence
In his closing address to the court, prosecutor Sam Abbott KC said the PolAir footage showed that the police officer acted unlawfully.
He said the defendant was "quarrelling for quarrelling's sake" during his evidence and his responses were spurious.
"In our respectful submission, Your Honour, the evidence of the defendant given in this court was an attempt to justify his behaviour and to clothe what was really a series of brutal kicks to a defenceless, prone man, who had entirely submitted to police by that time," the prosecutor told the court.
"Such was the gross nature of the measures taken — the kicking — that [the defendant's] contentions that he was acting in self-defence and believed what he was doing to be part of the process of securing the arrest can be rejected beyond reasonable doubt."
Mr Abbott told the court that the defendant's evidence that he delivered "distraction kicks" in order to get Mr Ware to release his hands from his belt area should also be rejected.
He told the court it did not make sense that Mr Ware would keep his hands at his waist during the relevant times, as claimed by the police officer.
"Firstly, nothing of the sort is visible on the video," Mr Abbott said.
"Secondly, it just does not fit with human experience that someone would put his hands on his waistband and elect to fall forward on his face without lying himself down by the use of his arms."
Mr Abbott also said Mr Ware was illuminated by torchlight as the defendant ran directly towards him and the magistrate should reject the defendant's evidence that he did not initially see Mr Ware put his hands up.
Magistrate Pandya will deliver her verdict at a later date.
