Court ends case against police charged over use of Taser and pepper spray on ‘vulnerable’ First Nations man

Court finds ‘defects’ in investigation of two senior constables charged over 2024 incident at Mareeba watch house in far north Queensland

Two police officers charged with criminal offences over the use of capsicum spray, Tasers and restraints on a “cognitively and emotionally vulnerable” First Nations man in police custody have had the case against them permanently stayed, after a court found “defects” in the subsequent investigation.

Andrew David Couchman, 54, and Ulrich Weiss, 45, both senior constables, were both charged over the incident at the Mareeba watch house in far north Queensland in January 2024.

A district court judgment found that while there was footage of the incident and that the course events inside the watch house “did not appear in dispute”, Couchman and Weiss could not be guaranteed a fair trial because a detective inserted a “false” account into the alleged victim’s statement.

Prosecutors argued the trial should still proceed – that it was in the public interest to protect vulnerable detainees and public confidence in the investigation of police.

District court judge Dean Morzone KC rejected that argument and ruled a fair trial could not proceed.

“Public confidence in this instance has two faces, and they do not both look the same way,” he said.

Morzone’s judgment details events of 20 January 2024, inside the watch house at Mareeba. He said the parties disputed the characterisation of events, but not the sequence.

A First Nations man, who Guardian Australia has chosen not to name due to references to his mental health and cognitive abilities, requested paracetamol from his cell.

The man, who was 23 at the time, was repeatedly described by the court as being vulnerable, and was diagnosed with schizophrenia.

During the course of the interaction, the man was sprayed with capsicum spray through an opening in the cell door; Tasered four separate times and left “in a restrained position” in a “violent detention cell” used for solitary confinement. The judgment says he was “aggressive and non-compliant” and attempted to tried to spit at the police.

The man was later interviewed twice by detectives from the police ethical standards command.

His statement, drafted by the investigating officer Det Sen Sgt. Kim Cavell, included a paragraph that was not drawn from the content of those interviews: that he “did not consent” to being Tasered, sprayed, restrained or left in a cell for over two hours.

The man had not used those words during the interviews. During cross-examination during a committal hearing, it was established he “does not understand what consent means”.