An independent police watchdog has found that officers from New South Wales Police unlawfully arrested a man, applied a dangerous chokehold, and later attempted to delete video evidence of the encounter, raising serious questions about accountability, use of force, and transparency within the state’s largest law enforcement agency.
According to the watchdog’s findings, the incident began when police officers approached the man during a routine interaction. The officers lacked lawful grounds to arrest him, yet proceeded to detain him anyway. The report concluded that the arrest did not meet the legal threshold required under NSW law, rendering the detention unlawful from the outset.
During the arrest, officers were found to have used excessive force, including placing the man in a chokehold. Medical and expert assessments reviewed by the watchdog indicated that the restraint carried a high risk of serious injury or death, particularly if applied for a prolonged period. The man reportedly showed signs of distress while being restrained, yet the officers failed to de-escalate the situation or adjust their use of force.
The watchdog described the use of the chokehold as unjustified and disproportionate to the circumstances. It noted that such techniques are widely recognised as dangerous and should only ever be used in the most extreme situations, if at all. In this case, investigators found no evidence that the man posed a threat that would warrant that level of force.
Compounding the seriousness of the incident, the watchdog found that after the arrest, police attempted to delete or interfere with video footage that captured key moments of the encounter. This footage, which came from police-issued recording devices, was considered crucial evidence in determining what occurred. The attempt to remove or alter it was described as a significant breach of protocol and an apparent effort to obstruct accountability.
Investigators said the handling of the footage undermined public confidence in internal police systems designed to ensure transparency. Body-worn cameras and other recording devices are intended to protect both the public and officers by providing an objective record of events. Any attempt to tamper with such material, the watchdog warned, threatens the integrity of the entire oversight framework.
The man at the centre of the incident was later released without charges related to the arrest. The watchdog found that there was insufficient evidence to justify the police actions and that alternative, less intrusive options were available to officers at the time. The report emphasised that unlawful arrests can have lasting psychological, legal, and social impacts on individuals, even when no charges follow.
In response to the findings, senior police officials acknowledged the seriousness of the watchdog’s conclusions. NSW Police said it would review the report carefully and consider disciplinary action against the officers involved. The force also stated that it remained committed to improving training and reinforcing standards around lawful arrests, appropriate use of force, and evidence management.
Civil liberties groups and legal advocates have seized on the report as further proof of systemic problems within policing in NSW. They argue that the incident reflects broader issues, including overuse of force, insufficient safeguards against misconduct, and a culture that can discourage officers from speaking out against colleagues.
“These findings show why independent oversight is essential,” one legal advocate said. “Without an external body examining police conduct, incidents like this may never come to light, particularly when there are attempts to interfere with evidence.”
The watchdog made several recommendations aimed at preventing similar incidents in the future. These included clearer guidance on arrest powers, stricter limits on high-risk restraint techniques, enhanced training in de-escalation, and stronger controls to prevent tampering with recorded footage. It also called for improved supervision and more consistent disciplinary outcomes when serious misconduct is identified.
The report adds to ongoing public debate about police accountability in Australia, particularly in relation to body-worn cameras and use-of-force policies. While such tools are often promoted as solutions to misconduct, the watchdog warned that technology alone is not enough without a culture of compliance and consequences for wrongdoing.
For the man involved, the findings represent a form of vindication, though advocates note that no report can fully undo the harm caused by an unlawful arrest and dangerous restraint. The case is likely to intensify calls for reform and place renewed pressure on NSW Police to demonstrate that misconduct will be met with meaningful action rather than quiet internal handling.
As the recommendations are considered, the incident stands as a stark reminder of the power entrusted to police and the importance of ensuring that it is exercised lawfully, proportionately, and transparently.
