On March 16, 2024, ACT Policing officers took Daniel into a cell, pinned him up against a wall and stripped him naked. He screamed as he was kneed repeatedly and violently in the body, and punched in the head while restrained on the floor. Despite legislation dictating that only officers of the same sex can be present for strip searches and the like, a woman helped to hold down a naked Daniel in his cell. Video captured the incarcerated man then being left to lie without clothes after the ordeal. A few months later, the criminal charges of resisting and assaulting police initially laid against Daniel were dropped before a hearing could take place. A statement of claim filed with the ACT Supreme Court alleges the man, who is referred to using a pseudonym, was arrested in his Gungahlin hotel room without explanation on the morning in question. Face down on the floor and handcuffed, he repeatedly asked why he was being taken into custody and queried: "Why are you hurting me?" He would only be told at the watch house, where video captured a custody sergeant asking Daniel whether he had any thoughts of self-harm. The arrested man responded that he was thinking about killing himself. "Cool, so just to let you know, if you try to self-harm in the watch house, we'll place you in a padded cell," the sergeant said. The officer repeatedly told Daniel to "shut up" and "I don't care" during the intake process. As a result of Daniel's criminal charges being dropped, video footage of his time in custody was never made publicly available through the process of being tendered in court. Evidence of what took place exists because of civil documents that describe the actions of the police officers involved as "demeaning, disgraceful, cowardly" and claim Daniel suffered indignity, hurt and distress. Those proceedings remain before the courts. This series by The Canberra Times delves into policing in the ACT and asks whether the systems of accountability in place for officers who wield enormous power are up to the task. Transparency, impropriety, court criticisms, and the unspoken difficulties of community policing are set to be aired across multiple stories, including by some who criticise and others who defend the territory's police force. This story, the first, shines a light on civil cases concerning claims of police misconduct that would otherwise remain unknown. From a high-profile Civic arrest involving NRL players to broken fingers and a brain injury, these are just a small handful of the serious allegations against police regularly settled using taxpayer money. In all likelihood, NRL stars Jack Wighton and Latrell Mitchell have settled civil action against the Commonwealth of Australia. In November 2023, territory prosecutors dropped public fighting and resisting police charges against the South Sydney Rabbitohs teammates midway through a highly publicised hearing. Outside the ACT Magistrates Court, reporters heard the vindicated pair could sue the government and police officers involved as a result. That appeared to be a foregone conclusion after their violent arrests, captured on graphic body-worn camera footage, were revealed to have been unlawful from the get-go. "Please, please! My name's Latrell Mitchell! ... I'm a black fella ... It's hurting," dramatic arrest footage caught Mr Mitchell crying out while being smothered by numerous officers on the road. Nearly 18 months later, internal investigators revealed the officer in charge of the rugby league players' arrests was found to have breached the Australian Federal Police's code of conduct. However, in that same time period, there has been no breaking news about a civil case or expensive legal resolution to the saga. That is most likely because any action was settled long ago on terms so confidential that no one involved can legally acknowledge the existence of a deed of settlement. While confidentiality surrounding the NRL players' probable civil action would be on the extreme end of the spectrum, many other claims made by regular Canberrans also never see the front page of newspapers. Suits alleging unnecessarily forceful, unlawful and, at times, malicious conduct perpetrated by ACT police officers rarely make it to the bright lights of a courtroom. Like most kinds of civil action, claims against law enforcement are far more often negotiated and settled out of court, away from the media and the uncertainties of public litigation. The government is not required to admit liability when it settles such claims. "I would say probably 90 to 95 per cent of cases settle out of court before a final hearing. There are numerous reasons why that happens," Ken Kush & Associates principal solicitor Sam Tierney said. Another territory lawyer said he had yet to handle a civil case against police that had not ended in a negotiated settlement. Several local practitioners told The Canberra Times their firms each take on about five legitimate, serious and mostly successful civil cases against the Commonwealth and its officers every year. Those same lawyers agreed the vast majority of officers do their job well and, while serious examples of misconduct are outliers, they tarnish the force's reputation as a whole. In November 2010, Henry was leaving Canberra's Foreshore music festival when police claimed they reasonably suspected he had committed an offence inside the grounds. As with all the following cases, he is referred to using a pseudonym. According to court documents, officers set off after Henry. He was tackled from behind and driven head-first into the concrete ground. As a result, the man suffered a severe traumatic brain injury, among other life-changing injuries. Henry was placed in an induced coma and was totally incapacitated for approximately two months. He did not return to full-time work for about a year, when he was forced to change roles due to his ongoing disabilities. While the Commonwealth initially defended Henry's civil suit, claiming the officer involved used lawful and reasonable force, the case was negotiated and confidentially settled out of court. Three years later, only a few kilometres away, Benjamin was arranging a way home from Civic in the early hours of the morning when he was approached by multiple police officers. According to Federal Court documents, they directed Benjamin to hand over his identification without explanation. Shortly after, he was placed under arrest for breach of the peace. "Within approximately two seconds" of taking hold of the man's arm, police pepper-sprayed him in the face and knocked him down by kicking out his leg. While he was pinned on the ground face-first, the documents detail, police sprayed Benjamin in the face again, struck him in the back with a baton, punched him in the ribs and handcuffed him. Parties reached a negotiated settlement out of court. Fast forward a decade to 2023, only a few more blocks away, police demanded to see Lucas' identification and told him to leave the Civic area. According to a suit filed in the Supreme Court, Lucas was arrested after he jumped back in response to an officer placing his hand on a holstered weapon. "Stop f---ing around or you'll be Tased," another told Lucas during the arrest. The man was taken to the ground by four officers before being Tasered in the back. Lawyers allege that in the course of handcuffing their client, officers broke two of Lucas' fingers. In its defence, the Commonwealth conceded officers maneuvered the man's hands and fingers, but only because he resisted handcuffs. It did not admit to causing the alleged injuries as a result. The government has admitted officers later placed pressure on Lucas's same hand, and squeezed and forcibly spread his fingers for fingerprinting purposes. However, it denies those actions amounted to battery. The matter remains before the court. In the ACT, an alleged victim of unlawful police violence - among other examples of wrongdoing by a territory official - must file a civil claim against the Commonwealth within six months of the incident. Why does a time limit described by territory lawyers as "unjust, arbitrary and draconian" exist at all? Because of section 435 of the ACT Crimes Act 1900. "In my view, and certainly that of the Bar Association and the Law Society, there is no cogent or rational explanation for the continued existence or operation of that provision," defence barrister Anthony Williamson SC said. "It is a source of demonstrable unfairness." Concerns highlighted by practitioners include that an alleged victim may typically be fighting criminal charges, such as resisting police, alongside possible civil action in the months following an incident. "In bringing a claim in the six-month period, the person will effectively have to forego their right to silence and put all their cards on the table to bring the claim," Mr Williamson, formerly the ACT's top prosecutor, said. "Were 435 to be repealed, there would be a far greater number of claims that could be brought. But at the moment, we often have to tell a client that they are statute-barred." Civil lawyer Michael Lalor is not the only local solicitor who claims the provision is in direct conflict with the ACT's Human Rights Act. "This is an ACT anomaly that typically disadvantages socially and economically disadvantaged people and, particularly in my caseload, Aboriginal people." "Why is the AFP a protected species to such an extent that they are a unique category of defendant? "Particularly in matters where it is alleged that there have been intentional actions such as assault and battery?" The ACT Bar Association has directly appealed to the territory government to repeal the provision and its half-year window for action. "Its continued existence in the statute book is simply a result of oversight and inadvertence by the ACT Legislative Assembly," Hugo Law Group's Tom Taylor wrote in a letter to several politicians in 2024. "To give the section continued force is, in my view, unconscionable." A spokesperson said the ACT government was aware of the concerns raised about the provision and was taking them seriously. "Careful consideration must be given to appropriate alternatives to section 435 to ensure that public liability protections are in place which support the performance of ACT Policing powers." "Any legislative reform related to section 435 will also need to consider the outcomes of an appeal currently on foot which may have bearing on the provision." Territory Attorney-General Tara Cheyne referred to the same appeal case while facing the Legislative Assembly's standing committee on legal affairs earlier in 2025. "Depending on the outcome of the appeal, I am prepared to consider it further," she said in February. The 2023 case being appealed involved allegations that four police officers used excessive force when they unlawfully entered a man's home, and beat, pepper-sprayed and Tasered him, before placing a spit hood over his head. Glavinic v Commonwealth of Australia notably brought the legislation to light after the civil action failed because it was filed too late and therefore "statute-barred by s 435". In the meantime, the calls for the law to be repealed, as its NSW equivalent was decades ago, continue.