Man sues police officers, claims they illegally entered home and violently arrested him

A man is suing police after alleging officers illegally entered his home and arrested him in a violent struggle, during which he was tasered and placed in a spit hood.

Justin Joseph Glavinic, 39, brought the legal action against the Commonwealth Government and four police officers, arguing the officers acted unlawfully when entering his home and using force when arresting him.

The closing arguments in the hearing for the case were aired in the ACT Supreme Court on Wednesday (12 July).

Mr Glavinic’s barrister, Bede Kelleher SC, claimed the police officers showed “ongoing aggression” to his client during the incident that started after 2 am on 14 July 2018.

He alleged that after entering the home without justification, police officers grabbed his client and he was driven to the ground in a “takedown”.

He claimed the officers used excessive force, including using OC spray at close range, tasering him, kneeing him and striking him to the back of his head – strikes, he argued, that were seen by witnesses and corroborated by photographs.

He also said Mr Glavinic was put in a spit hood because it was claimed that he was spitting at people.

But he noted his client had two bursts of OC spray to the face, was bleeding and would have struggled to breathe with an officer on top of him so may have been spitting on the floor.

Mr Glavinic was left with injuries that were mostly to his face, arms and flanks, he said.

A barrister for the defence, Michael Fordham SC, accepted he had to prove lawful justification and that all the police officers had to have had was a belief that something bad had happened at the home to become involved.

He said the context included two radio calls made before the police officers arrived, in which a person could be heard crying and yelling, “Don’t touch me”.

He said when the officers arrived at the home, a first constable spoke to Mr Glavinic through the partly opened door and told him they needed to come inside and make sure everyone was alright.

However, Mr Fordham claimed Mr Glavinic replied that everything was fine and it was only him and his mother inside so they could leave.

The first constable thought the door was slammed shut, so he started pounding on it.

When Mr Glavinic returned and opened it slightly, the first constable thought he could hear another voice coming from inside, while another officer looked through a window and thought he saw a third person.

This was a person that hadn’t yet been identified, Mr Fordham said. Due to the context, he claimed the first constable had a belief that an offence had been committed.

However, Mr Kelleher disputed whether the door had actually been slammed and said the first constable had stuck his foot in the door when it re-opened.

Also, he argued there was no voice coming from inside, saying the only witness who had given evidence another person had been heard was the first constable.

He also claimed Justice David Mossop should “be wary” of this constable’s credibility.

Mr Fordham said the officers did use force to enter the home, but he argued it was necessary because Mr Glavinic was allegedly behind the door and wouldn’t let them enter.

“The suggestion that police officers should have got to the door and accepted the word of someone who may or may not be involved in a family violence issue and said ‘Sorry to bother you, we’re off’, is ludicrous,” Mr Fordham said.

Mr Fordham claimed the use of force in the ensuing struggle was not unreasonable and said the officers denied the allegations of kicks and punches.

Mr Kelleher said there was medical evidence that Mr Glavinic was likely to be adversely affected by the sudden appearance of police officers in his home late at night.

“There is an explanation for the reason my client acted in the way that he did,” he said.

He did accept that if Justice Mossop found the entry into the home was lawful, then he would have difficulty in establishing that what happened afterwards was not.

Justice Mossop has reserved his decision and will hand it down in the future. He also said he had encouraged attempts to settle the proceedings and the parties could do so up until the time he announces his decision.