‘Exceedingly heavy-handed’: ACT police criticised by magistrate for Tasering disabled Aboriginal woman

A magistrate has criticised “exceedingly heavy-handed” ACT police officers who Tasered an Aboriginal woman with an intellectual disability during a routine arrest.The woman, named Emma, pleaded with officers not to use the stun gun on her and told them she was unarmed during the arrest at a Canberra bus stop in January.Police were called because of reports Emma had a knife, but she was only found to have two pairs of scissors, one of which was broken, in a nearby backpack.Guardian Australia is not using Emma’s full name at the request of her lawyer to protect her privacy.The court was shown police body-worn footage of the arrest, in which she is seen raising her hands immediately after officers arrived and pointed a Taser towards her.As she pushed back against an officer who was trying to handcuff her she was pulled to the ground.While two officers held her down another placed a Taser against her back and activated it, in what is known as “drive stun” mode. Seven officers were present at the time.Sign up for the Breaking News Australia email The ACT magistrates court heard in September that officers also threatened to use OC spray against Emma after she appeared to self-harm by deliberately striking her head against a police van during the arrest.A transcript of the hearing was released by the court to Guardian Australia in October.Special magistrate Sean Richter, a former South Australian police officer, said he found the conduct of officers “incredibly” and “exceedingly” heavy-handed, and agreed that they were aware of who Emma was and her vulnerabilities before they arrested her.“I sometimes wonder when we lost the ability to speak to people,” Richter said.“She’s a woman that was putting up no resistance.“She’s sitting on the bench with her arms in the air.”Richter said Emma was involved in a motor vehicle accident when she was 12 and received a traumatic brain injury.He said the ACT civil and administrative tribunal described her as having a mental impairment and a neurocognitive disorder, and said she had been placed on a psychiatric treatment order.Emma was charged with multiple offences by police in relation to the incident, but all of them except possessing a knife without reasonable excuse were withdrawn by the prosecution. She pleaded guilty to that offence, which related to the scissors in her bag, and was convicted. Emma also faced Richter on other matters unrelated to the arrest.“I was shown the video of her arrest on the charge of possess knife without reasonable excuse. I will say this; I consider that the actions of the police in that matter were unwarranted and heavy-handed,” Richter said.“Here was a woman sitting on a park bench putting her arms in the air. She’s clearly known to the police because one of them names her.“It’s blatantly apparent to anyone that deals with this woman that she has a significant cognitive disorder and should be treated as such. I find it amazing that in this day and age the police reacted in the way that they did.”In a statement, ACT policing said it “notes the comments of Special Magistrate Richter in relation to the arrest of a woman in January 2026.“As an associated civil claim is under way in relation to this matter, it would not be appropriate to provide further comment.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn that civil claim filed in July, Emma’s lawyer, Michael Lalor, accused one of the officers involved in the arrest of misfeasance in public office.The officer is accused of making a series of misleading statements or omissions in police evidence that resulted in more serious charges being laid, and Emma spending 28 days in custody before bail was granted after her lawyers viewed the body-worn camera footage of the arrest.The statement of claim alleges the misleading statements include that Emma ignored police commands, that she had “abruptly” bent down towards her bag, that she attempted to strike an officer multiple times in the face, and that she was Tasered because she engaged in a “high level of violence”.Lalor also writes in the civil claim that it would be alleged police provided misleading statements regarding the witness who called officers saying they had seen a woman with a knife.Police said that the civilian witness had “immediately feared for his safety and departed swiftly” after seeing Emma, but the statement of claim said police failed to make clear the man and his partner “were inside a moving vehicle with the doors locked at the relevant time”.That witness also told police, according to the statement of claim, that “I wasn’t particularly scared, I was in a car with the doors locked, so I knew she couldn’t really stab me.”Lalor is also alleging breaches of the Human Rights Act and exemplary damages for assault and battery.Police have not yet been required to file a defence to the claim.ACT police have come under repeated recent scrutiny for their use of force, particularly against Aboriginal people.In August, the commonwealth and ACT ombudsman criticised police for failing to clearly define “racial profiling” after officers in Canberra pulled guns on an Indigenous teenager they mistook for a suspect in an aggravated burglary.In June last year, the ACT ombudsman found that in about a third of cases it reviewed, unprofessional behaviour by officers such as impatience, aggression, foul and abusive language appeared to unnecessarily escalate situations.This led to “use of force in circumstances where a more sensitive and trauma-informed approach to negotiation and de-escalation might have avoided the need to use force or as much force”.As part of that investigation, the ombudsman recommended that police identify and implement measures to better equip its officers with a greater understanding of “mental illness and how it affects a person’s behaviour and ability to comply with directions”, but police did not accept the recommendation.