Bold claim: a shaken Canberra scene reveals how a devastating crash linked to a stolen car spirals into questions about police conduct, accountability, and the treatment of suspects. And this is the part most people miss: the post-arrest actions of officers can become a flashpoint for controversy and legal scrutiny. Here’s a clearer, uniquely framed retelling that preserves all key details and the original meaning, with additional context to help readers new to the topic.
A driver allegedly under the influence of meth crashed a stolen Holden Commodore into two schoolboys near St Edmund’s College in Canberra on 28 March 2025, leaving the teens seriously injured. After the crash, the vehicle fled until it stopped in Manuka, where the driver attempted to escape again. A citizen’s arrest by bystanders prevented his flight, and ACT police officers subsequently detained him.
In court submissions ahead of Hazell’s sentencing, lawyers stated that the driver experienced extrajudicial punishment after his arrest at the hands of two Tactical Response Members (TRMs) from the Australian Federal Police (AFP). Hazell’s lawyer, Sam Lynch of the Aboriginal Legal Service, argued that Hazell did not resist during the arrest. He was handcuffed and told to sit with his hands behind his back, with counsel noting that the arrest was already completed and under ACT police control before the TRMs arrived. According to the submissions, Hazell’s body-worn camera footage shows a dramatic exchange: Hazell reportedly said, “I’m done, I’m done,” and an officer responded, “No, you’re f-ing not.” The lawyer contends that one TRM officer wrapped his hands around Hazell’s neck and tackled him, while Hazell was yelled at to stop resisting and told to be quiet. The attorney also points to bodycam audio where an officer can be heard noting, “Guys, guys, bodycam is on,” before walking away as Hazell’s screams continue.
Hazell’s defense maintains that although the arrest was intense, it had concluded before the TRMs arrived and that the later use of force was excessive and unjustified. The defense emphasizes that Hazell sustained injuries during the incident that were not present prior to the TRMs’ involvement.
Prosecutors acknowledge that Hazell suffered unlawful force from AFP Territory Response Group members immediately after his arrest by ACT’s general duties officers. Crown prosecutor Tamzin Lee described the post-arrest conduct as a breach of AFP professional standards and said it has been referred to professional standards and is under ongoing inquiry. She indicated that extrajudicial punishment should be weighed as a mitigating factor in sentencing but warned that, given the severity of Hazell’s overall offending and his level of culpability, extrajudicial punishment should carry little weight in sentencing.
An AFP spokesperson stated that the organisation’s professional standards unit opened an investigation into the matter. They reported findings of conduct in breach of AFP professional standards.
A redacted version of the arrest footage is expected to be released to the media after filing with the Supreme Court. At the time of reporting, Hazell, 32, remained in custody. The two boys hit by the car were hospitalized in critical condition following the collision, with one case described as life-threatening.
Controversy and discussion prompts: Should post-arrest police actions ever justify or justify not justifying excessive force, even when the suspect’s dangerous behavior is acknowledged? How should courts balance the need for immediate officer safety and accountability with safeguarding the rights and medical well-being of a suspect? Do you think the defense’s emphasis on post-arrest force should influence sentencing, or do you see extrajudicial punishment as separate from the offender’s culpability for the initial crime? Share your views in the comments.
