When a police officer is found guilty of assault.

What the courts found.

On the reporting, the incident happened at Blacktown Hospital in late 2023. Paramedics were wheeling a man into the emergency department. He was not under arrest. He was strapped to a gurney. According to the account before the courts, the officer took a vape from him, the man threw a water bottle, and the officer struck him to the side of the head. The officer later charged the man with assaulting police. The officer himself was then charged with assault for the blow.

A Local Court judge found the officer guilty. He appealed to the District Court, which reheard the matter and again found him guilty of assault. The District Court judge dealt with him without recording a conviction and imposed a 12-month good behaviour bond. NSW Police said he remains on the force, subject to management action that includes loss of rank, two years of restricted duties, and retraining. Everything in this note about the case is drawn from the report of those proceedings, and the officer is entitled to whatever appeal rights remain open to him.

Can a police officer be charged with assault?

Yes, and this case is a plain reminder of it. A police officer has no general licence to hit people. Police are authorised to use force, but only force that is reasonably necessary to carry out a lawful function, such as making a lawful arrest or preventing an escape. That authority comes with limits. Under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), the force must be reasonable. Force that goes past what is reasonably necessary is not policing. It is an assault, and it is prosecuted as one. Common assault under section 61 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) applies to an officer exactly as it applies to anyone else.

There is a sharp point in the facts. The man was strapped to a stretcher and was not under arrest. A person in that position is not a threat that needs to be subdued. The law asks whether the force used was reasonably necessary, and a court has now answered that question twice.

The self-defence claim, and why it did not succeed.

The officer maintained that he acted in self-defence. He said he felt something strike him, believed he was being assaulted, and turned and struck the man to stop it. Self-defence is a real and important defence, and it is open to a police officer just as it is to a member of the public. It is set out in section 418 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The question has two parts. Did the person believe the conduct was necessary to defend themselves. And was the conduct a reasonable response in the circumstances as they perceived them. Once self-defence is raised, the prosecution must disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.

A finding of guilt means the courts were satisfied that self-defence did not apply. On the reasonableness limb, striking a restrained man in the head after a thrown water bottle is a long way from a proportionate response. That is my reading of why the defence failed, and it is consistent with two courts reaching the same result. Self-defence protects a genuine and proportionate reaction to a real threat. It does not protect retaliation.

What 'no conviction recorded' means.

This is the part that has drawn the most comment, and it needs to be understood accurately. A court can find a person guilty and still decide not to record a conviction. In NSW that is usually done by a conditional release order without conviction under section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), the modern form of what many people still call a section 10 bond. The finding of guilt stands. The good behaviour bond sets conditions for a period, here 12 months. But no conviction is entered on the record.

The discretion is real and it is used every day, often for first offenders of prior good character. In deciding whether to record a conviction the court weighs the person's character and history, the nature of the offence, and the effect a conviction would have, including on employment. Many people reading this will have received the same benefit for a first mistake, and would rightly defend it. So the outcome is lawful and, in isolation, unremarkable. Whether it sits comfortably here is a fair question, and it is a question about consistency, which I come to next.

A defence lawyer's view on accountability.

I act for accused people, including people accused of assaulting police. That is the vantage point I write from. Two things can be true at once. The first is that the system worked in an important respect. An officer was charged, prosecuted, and found guilty by two courts. Police are not above the law, and this case shows they can be held to account in the ordinary courts. The independent oversight of police conduct, through the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission and the prosecution itself, matters, and it produced a result.

The second is that the outcome invites a fair question about consistency. In my experience, an ordinary person who struck someone restrained on a stretcher, then charged them with assaulting police, would not always expect to walk away without a conviction. The sentencing discretion is the same for everyone, but public confidence depends on it looking the same for everyone. When the person who used the force is the person the public trusts to use it lawfully, the bar for accountability is higher, not lower, because the trust that is broken is greater.

On the employment question, a criminal court and a police force are answering different questions. The court decided the sentence. The force decided the officer could keep his job under a management plan. Those are separate decisions, and reasonable people will weigh them differently. My view is that transparency is what keeps confidence intact. The public learned the detail of this case because footage was obtained and published, not because the process itself was open. A system that relies on leaked vision to bring these matters to light is a system with a gap in it.

Why this matters beyond one case.

For anyone who has been on the other side of a use-of-force incident, the lesson is practical. Body-worn and CCTV footage is now central to these cases, and it cuts both ways. It can support an officer's account, and it can contradict it. If you are charged with assaulting police, or with resisting or hindering police, the footage is the first thing to obtain and examine. The lawfulness of what the police were doing at the time matters too, because a person is entitled to resist force that is not authorised. Our notes on assaulting a police officer in the execution of duty and on when police can detain you without arrest set out the framework. If you are facing that kind of charge, get advice early and get the footage.

Frequently asked.

Can a police officer be charged with assault?

Yes. An officer has no general immunity. Police may use force that is reasonably necessary to exercise a lawful function, but force beyond that can be a criminal assault, and an officer can be charged and convicted like anyone else.

What is self-defence under NSW law?

Under section 418 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), a person is not criminally responsible if they believed their conduct was necessary to defend themselves and it was a reasonable response in the circumstances as they perceived them. Once raised, the prosecution must disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.

What does 'no conviction recorded' mean?

A court can find a person guilty but decline to record a conviction, often by a conditional release order without conviction under section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The finding of guilt stands, but no conviction is entered.

Who investigates police misconduct in NSW?

The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission oversees serious police misconduct in NSW. Criminal conduct can also be prosecuted in the ordinary courts, and the force can take internal management action such as loss of rank, restricted duties and retraining.

To speak to a criminal defence lawyer, call Aaron Kernaghan on 0421 717 019.

This article is written by Aaron Kernaghan, criminal defence lawyer at Brady & Associates Lawyers, as at 10 September 2026. It is commentary and opinion on a matter of public interest, and a fair report of proceedings in the Local Court and the District Court of NSW in which the officer was found guilty of assault and dealt with by a good behaviour bond without a conviction being recorded. The opinions are the author's own, are honestly held, and are based on the facts stated. Nothing here is legal advice, and nothing here asserts any wrongdoing beyond the findings of the courts referred to. The officer maintained that he acted in self-defence. Any person who considers anything in this article inaccurate is invited to contact the firm so it can be corrected. For advice on a specific matter, contact Aaron Kernaghan on 0421 717 019 or contact the firm.

More criminal-law commentary by Aaron Kernaghan.

← Back to all news