“Even if we are outraged at his crimes, and willing to condone the unnecessary police violence as just deserts, Tayler Hazell has a good legal claim.” But, says legal columnist HUGH SELBY, it’s unlikely to take him far as he faces at least nine years in the AMC.  

It’s been reported that Tayler Hazell is suing for what police did to him after his arrest in March last year when, while drug-affected, he:

• stole a car- from outside a childcare at Sutton with an eight-year-old child inside (though fortunately, soon let the child out of the car); 
• while driving erratically struck, seriously injuring, two schoolboys near St Edmunds College, Manuka;
• then crashed the car near the Cathedral and was arrested; and,
• while handcuffed and clearly indicating he was not resisting, was the victim of unnecessary, unlawful force by late-arriving police officers (not the arresting officers).

The ABC online article reports that Hazell is seeking damages from the police employer for injuries including pain, fear and embarrassment, as well as aggravated damages for violence and disgrace.

The ABC article includes two photos of his face. Readers with experience of contact sports, paramedics, nurses and doctors can assess the severity, or otherwise, of those cuts and abrasions, noting that he had just crashed the car.

Hazell was sentenced in the ACT Supreme Court on Friday to a non-parole period of nine years.

His civil claim for money compensation is expected to be heard in July.

What’s the law on his claim for compensation? 

One of the reasons for a legal system is to curtail our native instinct for harsh retribution of heinous conduct. Mind you, that’s a recent development. The way in which felons were executed in England until 1814 was barbaric, and it was done in public with a crowd of onlookers.

A likely reaction to Hazell’s claim is: “He’s got to be kidding. If it was my child who was taken, or my child or grandchild who was seriously injured, I’d applaud anyone who took to him with a baseball bat, and not just to his head”.

But, for good reason, neither we nor our police are permitted to take the law into our hands, especially when good camera footage is recording the unlawful violence.

Even if we are outraged at his crimes, and willing to condone the unnecessary police violence as just deserts, Tayler Hazell has a good legal claim.

The ACT law that governs his claim is the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act, 2002. Had he suffered those injuries resisting arrest then he could not claim. But he was handcuffed and non-violent when set upon by police.

The question will be what compensable damage did he suffer?

We should expect this to be an experts’ picnic as medical, psychiatric and psychological reports are obtained to advance or rebut his claims to having suffered injury at police hands.

Given his sentence, any compensation he receives could fund the purchase of the drugs that he craves while serving those nine years in jail. 

And there’s the rub, that phrase, “compensation he receives”.  I doubt he’ll ever receive one cent.

It’s not very likely that a person who is high on drugs and steals a car during working hours has a lot of assets.

It’s therefore likely that his case has been taken on a “no-win, no-fee” basis. This often means that the lawyer is punting on settling the case with the defendant. The lawyer may not want to go to a full hearing because the costs of that make the case unprofitable, especially if any award of damages is not large.

Another twist that will bring a bemused smile

In this case, the liability of the defendant police employer seems clear so there will be money paid to Hazell, or rather to his lawyers.

In a case like this one the lawyers often fund the expert reports and other expenses of preparing for a hearing.

If any offer to settle from the defendants covers all those costs, plus the professional time of the lawyers, then there will be a settlement. The plaintiff, here Hazell, then walks away with what’s left over, which might be not much more than pocket change. 

There’s yet another twist in this case that will bring a bemused smile. Remember Hazell’s two victims, the two boys who were seriously injured?  They have a legal case against Hazell for those injuries.

It’s likely that their lawyers have already used the provisions of the ACT’s Motor Accidents Injuries Act, 2019 to secure compensation from the “Nominal Defendant”. This is the scheme funded by the government, and our “compulsory third party” contributions that we pay annually when registering our vehicles.

If Hazell gets anything other than pocket change then the Nominal Defendant can get those funds from him. He’s left with nothing.

It’s a wonderful world we live in. Two boys seriously injured, a 32-year-old man in jail, where he won’t get the treatment or training that might turn his life around (although the sentencing judge was not optimistic about his rehabilitation prospects), two coppers who were caught on camera doing the wrong thing for which many would thank them, and a Sydney law firm that makes money out of it. Such is life.