A Gippsland police officer has been found guilty of 10 assault charges after dousing a man in the face with capsicum spray and using his Taser nine times in less than a minute.
Senior Constable Aaron Bowen is the first Victorian police officer to be charged over deployment of a Taser and was found to have used unlawful and excessive force when arresting a man at his Warragul home in May 2024.
Victoria Police now faces a civil claim in the Supreme Court of Victoria over the alleged misconduct of its officer, which caused significant psychological and physical injuries to the victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons.
On Monday, Magistrate Jason Ong issued Bowen with an $11,000 fine and a conviction in the Latrobe Valley Magistrates’ Court, which could jeopardise the 34-year-old officer’s future with the force.
“This offending was not a single action. It was not a spontaneous lashing-out in the heat of the moment. This was persistent and prolonged offending,” Ong said.
“You chose to resort to physical force against the victim a meagre 17 seconds after entering his bedroom and where the victim was making inquiries about his purported arrest.”
Ong described Bowen’s conduct as “unlawful, disproportionate and excessive”.
“The frequency and ferocity of the offending are strong indications of serious and culpable offending,” he said.
On May 19, 2024, Bowen and a colleague had attended the Warragul property in response to a report of family violence.
Footage provided to The Age from body-worn cameras fitted to the two officers reveals them entering a bedroom, where the complainant is lying on a bed, reading his phone and dressed only in underpants.
The complainant, who was later found guilty of one assault charge against his former partner, appears confused and initially refuses to comply with Bowen’s directions.
After blasting the man’s face with OC spray from close range, Bowen then uses his Taser to the complainant’s neck and back on nine occasions within 46 seconds.
The man, whose identity was suppressed by the court, repeatedly pleads with Bowen to stop, according to the body-worn camera footage.
The court was told officers are not trained to deploy Tasers on people offering passive resistance, which includes those refusing to move or comply with police instructions.
Following the violent interaction, the complainant was taken to West Gippsland Hospital with heart palpitations and a head wound.
However, the complainant claimed the psychological damage caused by the arrest was more extensive than his physical injuries, according to a victim impact statement read to the court.
“What happened to me was not just an assault but an abuse of power by someone sworn to protect the public,” the complainant said.
“I no longer feel protected by those that are meant to enforce the law,” he added.
Barrister Geoffrey Steward, acting for Bowen, had argued at a previous hearing that his client acted in self-defence and had been instructed before the arrest that the family violence report involved a “drunk and a potentially aggressive man who had just engaged in an assault of his partner”.
“Police are not robots, they are human beings who react to the circumstances,” Steward told the court on May 12.
He insisted Bowen was a “wonderful policeman and a thoroughly decent human being” who had acted appropriately and in accordance with his powers as an officer.
Steward said Bowen was the recipient of a commendation from the force in June 2020, after rendering life-saving assistance to a person who had stopped breathing.
Slater and Gordon public liability lawyer Meliza Ludowyke confirmed the firm had already launched proceedings in the Supreme Court.
“Our client alleges he was subjected to unreasonable and disproportionate force during the incident and that he suffered significant physical and psychological impacts as a result,” Ludowyke said.
“The case raises serious questions about police powers and highlights the importance of technology such as body-worn cameras in protecting the public and holding officers to account. As the matter is now before the Supreme Court of Victoria, it would be inappropriate to comment further.”
Get the day’s breaking news, entertainment ideas and a long read to enjoy. Sign up to receive our Evening Edition newsletter.
From our partners
Read the full article here
