Defence claim plaintiff ‘changed their position’ admitting ‘there were strikes’ during forceful arrest of Rhys Johns

Police denied their arrest of this drug trafficker was unlawfully forceful – until 20 minutes before his $500,000 lawsuit landed in court.

Police have admitted they repeatedly struck a $30,000 drug trafficker and OC sprayed his dog, but insist their actions were lawful because he was resisting arrest.

The District Court has heard SA Police had “done a complete flip” on Rhys Johns’ $500,000 forceful arrest lawsuit, just 20 minutes before it was due to be heard.

On Tuesday, counsel for Johns asked the District Court to award their client costs, saying SA Police had made them needlessly wait months to progress their claim.

Andrew Carpenter, for Johns, said police had “changed their position” on his client’s alleged assault 20 minutes prior to court.

“We received their new defence papers at 9.25am today – we’ve been asking for them for the past three months,” he said.

“Their first defence was a complete denial, now (in this document) they admit there were strikes, they admit some of the punches.

“It’s a complete flip of what their first position was, a complete change of tune, since the original denial and it’s still inconsistent with the footage … it’s all wasted costs for my client.”

Johns is serving a 5 ½-year prison term for trafficking in $30,000 worth of drugs – some of which he threw onto his roof as police came to arrest him.

He subsequently filed a $500,000 lawsuit, alleging that arrest was needlessly “forceful” and that police used OC spray on his dog.

Rhys Johns will be sentenced in the Adelaide District Court in May after pleading guilty to drug trafficking. Picture: Facebook

Rhys Johns and Jess Pitt. Picture: Facebook

Johns further claims to have suffered permanent eye damage as a result of his arrest – in their original defence papers, police denied any wrongdoing.

In their new defence papers, filed on Tuesday, police concede one of their officers punched Johns several times, to each side of his face, and that he was struck with knees.

They also concede those incidents occurred before he was advised he was under arrest, and for what alleged offence, but argue that was not unreasonable in the circumstances.

“Officers were aware Johns had a history of violence, including violence toward police … they made contact with Johns during the course of a lawful arrest,” the papers claim.

“Officers did not have the luxury of time to inform Johns of the reason for his arrest while he was hindering them in their execution of a lawful search warrant and resisting arrest.”

Johns was, the papers assert, resisting arrest “at all material times” including after he was on the ground.

“Johns had his hands underneath his stomach and hidden from officers while he was on the ground,” they claim.

“He would not comply with directions, from officers, to show his hands … the officers did not know if he was concealing a weapon beneath his body.”

Any OC spray that hit Johns was, they claim, unintentional as the officer’s target was his dog.

On Tuesday, counsel for police conceded their defence had “taken a bit long”, but argued the delay was not so great as to warrant a costs order.

Master Mark Blumberg noted Johns had sought to have police’s original defence struck out, and may seek to do the same with the new defence also.

He said that, under those circumstances, he was not prepared to make a costs order, and adjourned the case for hearing in August.