ACT Supreme Court hears closing remarks in Justin Glavinic civil case

Justin Glavinic, 39, denied police entry to his home, tried to grab an officer's gun and "at no time stopped resisting" until sedated, lawyer for the police claimed on Wednesday.

Mr Glavinic is suing the Commonwealth government and four police officers, who argue they entered his home lawfully and used appropriate force when they Tasered and pepper-sprayed him.

The officers are Constable Alexander Tutt, First Constable David Edwards, Constable Simon Hill and Senior Constable Caleb Boxx.

Mr Glavinic claims the officers trespassed into his home on July 14, 2018, used excessive force, and falsely imprisoned him.

It is alleged those "wrongful acts" caused severe and substantial physical and psychiatric injury to Mr Glavinic, and psychiatric injury to two witnesses present at the time.

All three are now seeking damages and compensation.

Michael Fordham SC, who represents the police officers and the Commonwealth, described the "chaotic" altercation as a "melee at high speed" during closing remarks to the ACT Supreme Court on Wednesday.

On the date in question, police attended Mr Glavinic's home in Forde about 2.15am after receiving a call about a disturbance.

First Constable Edwards wedged his foot inside the doorframe and forced entry.

It is alleged the four police officers then unlawfully beat Mr Glavinic, sprayed capsicum spray in his mouth, Tasered him, and placed a spit hood over his head.

Mr Glavinic previously told the court the allegedly "violent" attack was akin to torture.

On Wednesday, Mr Fordham said the officers had lawfully entered the home after Mr Glavinic was "trying to prevent police from entering the premises".

He told the court First Constable Edwards heard another voice coming from inside the home, which prompted him to use force to enter.

"The suggestion that police officers should have got to the door and trusted the word of a person who may or may not be involved in [a violent situation] is ludicrous," Mr Fordham said.

"The idea the officers had to check on the welfare of whoever was in the house is correct."

However, counsel for the plaintiffs, Bede Kelleher SC, argued "there was no voice".

"The only person who's giving evidence that a voice was heard is First Constable Edwards," Mr Kelleher said.

"[The claim] was a contrivance to justify getting his foot in the door, knowing he didn't have the statutory power at that time."

Mr Fordham argued that, during the melee, Mr Glavinic had tried to grab an officer's gun, and that at "no time did [he] stop resisting" until sedated.

"There is something like 350kg to 400kg of police officer wrestling with Mr Glavinic without much success which continued right through."

The court heard Mr Glavinic suffered multiple injuries from the altercation, including a dislocated shoulder preventing him from returning to work as a painter.

Mr Kelleher described events as a "violent takedown" and "an extended, prolonged, over the top series of use of force that is not justified".

READ ALSO:

"This gun story was a confection designed to justify," Mr Kelleher said.

"[The officers] had to work out how they could explain the injuries."

Mr Kelleher told the court the officers did not decontaminate, that is pour water over Mr Glavinic's face after being sprayed, which was "inhumane" in circumstances "which would restrict breathing".

However, Mr Fordham argued the use of the spit hood was justified because officers were "concerned about blood, saliva and infectious diseases".

Justice David Mossop reserved his decision and will hand it down at a later date.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: