Introduction
The arrest and subsequent exoneration of National Rugby League (NRL) stars Latrell Mitchell and Jack Wighton in February 2023 serve as a striking illustration of entrenched systemic issues within the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) policing framework. Originating from what the players described as a “harmless wrestle” during Wighton’s 30th birthday celebrations outside a Canberra nightclub, the incident rapidly escalated into serious criminal charges. Mitchell faced allegations of affray, fighting in a public place, and resisting a territory official, while Wighton was charged additionally with failing to comply with an exclusion direction. Both Indigenous Australians and distant cousins, the pair pleaded not guilty. Their ordeal spotlighted profound disparities in how law enforcement interacts with Indigenous communities, raising questions about police conduct, institutional accountability, and ethical governance.
The case collapsed in November 2023 when Sergeant David Power, the lead investigating officer, admitted in court to providing “wildly inaccurate” evidence, prompting the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to drop all charges. This admission not only exonerated Mitchell and Wighton, but ignited broader scrutiny of police conduct, revealing patterns of excessive force, evidence fabrication and racial bias. Such issues are not isolated; they reflect a national crisis where Indigenous Australians, comprising about 3.2% of the population, account for over 35% of the prison population and are ten times more likely to be incarcerated than non-Indigenous individuals. In the ACT specifically, Indigenous people represent 2% of the population but 31% of prisoners, marking the highest per capita rate in Australia.
At the heart of this analysis is Shane Rattenbury, who served as ACT Attorney-General from 2012 to 2024. During his tenure, Rattenbury’s response to the Mitchell-Wighton case was markedly restrained, limited to expressions of concern and endorsement of internal reviews, without leveraging his authority to initiate independent investigations or pursue potential criminal charges against involved officers. This lack of decisive action contrasts sharply with his post-2024 election activities, where, now on the crossbench following the Greens’ shift out of government, he has submitted questions on notice in the ACT Legislative Assembly critiquing policing practices, behaviour that critics label hypocritical given his prior inaction.
This paper expands upon the incident’s details, critically examines Rattenbury’s role and the ethical implications of his conduct, and conducts a comprehensive analysis of ethical problems within ACT policing, particularly concerning Indigenous peoples. Drawing on legal precedents, statistical data, comparative case studies and recent developments up to 2025, it argues that these failures not only undermine individual justice but also perpetuate colonial legacies of marginalisation. Urgent reforms are essential to restore equity and trust in the system.
The Incident: A Timeline of Events and Police Overreach
The events unfolded on the night of February 5, 2023, outside Fiction Nightclub in Canberra’s city centre. Mitchell and Wighton, both prominent NRL figures and Indigenous advocates, were engaged in what they characterised as a “harmless” and playful “wrestle” during Wighton’s birthday celebrations. However, police intervention transformed this into a confrontation with serious legal consequences.
Sergeant David Power testified that he observed Wighton appearing “angry” with “clenched fists,” aggressively grabbing another man’s shirt, which he cited as grounds for issuing an exclusion order under ACT liquor laws. Wighton’s alleged non-compliance led to his arrest, and Mitchell’s subsequent intervention resulted in his own detention. Body-worn camera footage captured a distressing scene: Mitchell, a robust athlete, was subdued with significant force, screaming in pain and reduced to tears, fearing for his life. Notably, he cried out, “I’ve done nothing wrong but be a blackfella in Australia,” a statement that resonated deeply with Indigenous Australians who report feeling targeted based solely on their identity.
Mitchell’s lawyer, Tom Taylor, condemned the police actions as an abuse of power, asserting there was “absolutely no need” for the level of force employed and that Mitchell “could have died” without his exceptional physical resilience. Wighton’s counsel, Steve Boland, dismantled Power’s narrative by presenting compiled CCTV footage that contradicted the officer’s claims entirely. Confronted with this evidence, Power conceded his account was “wildly inaccurate,” apologising directly to Wighton with, “Sorry Jack. If that’s what happened, I apologise mate.” He attributed the discrepancy to a “long-term memory issue,” denying any intent to “stitch up” or frame the accused.
Boland pressed further, accusing Power of fabricating a “total and utter fantasy” to justify the arrests. While Power maintained he “did not dream up anything” and believed his initial observation, the admission led to the DPP withdrawing all charges on November 28, 2023. The fallout included speculation about civil remedies, such as malicious prosecution claims. Under Australian common law, rooted in precedents like Christie v Davey (1893), plaintiffs must prove initiation without reasonable cause and malice, with the latter inferring the former if demonstrated. Reasonable cause requires an objective belief in guilt based on available information, a threshold potentially unmet here due to the fabricated evidence.
The players suffered tangible harms: reputational damage from widespread media coverage portraying them as aggressors, financial losses from legal fees and missed opportunities, and physical trauma for Mitchell. Taylor suggested grounds for compensation, noting that defamatory overtones, amplified by public scrutiny, could substantiate reputational injury. This case’s mishandling exemplifies broader overreach, where Indigenous individuals are disproportionately subjected to force – statistics indicate they experience police use of force at rates up to five times higher than non-Indigenous counterparts. In the ACT, this pattern contributes to community distrust, exacerbating cycles of non-reporting and escalation.
Following the exoneration, ACT Policing committed to an internal review with the DPP to examine “processes and procedures.” However, by mid-2025, public updates remain scant, fuelling perceptions of opacity. Comparative incidents, such as the 2004 allegations against AFP Constable now Acting Commander Rowena Penfold for evidence manipulation and racist remarks toward an Indigenous official (which remain unresolved as at 21 July, 2025), underscore recurring themes of unaddressed misconduct. These elements highlight how police overreach not only inflicts immediate harm but also entrenches systemic inequities.
Shane Rattenbury’s Role, Lack of Action, and Post-Tenure Hypocrisy
Shane Rattenbury’s tenure as ACT Attorney-General spanned over a decade, during which he oversaw critical portfolios including justice and human rights. As a Greens leader, his platform emphasised progressive reforms, yet his handling of the Mitchell-Wighton case revealed a disconnect between rhetoric and action.
Empowered by legislation such as the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1990 (ACT), Rattenbury could have directed inquiries, referred matters to the ACT Integrity Commission, or instructed the DPP to probe potential criminality by officers. Power’s false evidence raised perjury concerns under section 333 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), while the force used suggested possible assault (sections 26-28) or perverting justice (section 713). Despite these avenues, Rattenbury exhibited a clear lack of interest in pursuing rigorous investigation.
His public statements were perfunctory: labelling the incident “really concerning” and acknowledging a “mistake,” he endorsed the internal review but stopped short of independent oversight or criminal referrals. No parliamentary motions or directives from his office pushed for accountability, even as Indigenous advocates decried the case as emblematic of systemic bias. This inertia may stem from the ACT’s unique policing arrangement – contracted via the Australian Federal Police (AFP) – or coalition pressures with Labor, but it effectively shielded officers from scrutiny, perpetuating impunity.
By 2024, the ACT election reshaped dynamics: Labor formed a minority government, relegating the Greens to the crossbench. Freed from ministerial constraints, Rattenbury has since engaged more assertively, submitting questions on notice that scrutinise policing – ironically, issues rooted in his era. For instance, Question on Notice No. 467, asked on May 15, 2025, to the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, queried ACT Policing’s pursuit policies after a high-risk chase, probing safety considerations and risks to public and occupants. Similarly, Question No. 87, submitted in December 2024 and answered in January 2025, sought data on policing resources and crime trends in suburbs like Hawker, Page, and Scullin, indirectly addressing allocation inequities that could exacerbate over-policing in Indigenous areas.
While these inquiries do not explicitly reference Mitchell-Wighton, they critique systemic flaws – excessive pursuits and resource mismanagement – that mirror the case’s overreach. Rattenbury’s 2025 media statements, accusing the government of failing “community safety nets” in budgets, further amplify this shift. This post-tenure activism contrasts sharply with his inaction when empowered, inviting charges of hypocrisy. Critics argue it prioritises political positioning over principle, especially given the Greens’ social justice ethos. In a 2025 context where Indigenous justice remains a flashpoint, this behaviour delays reform and erodes credibility.
Ethically, Rattenbury’s conduct violates norms of consistency and integrity. From a deontological perspective, public officials have a duty to act on evident injustices; consequentially, his inaction prolonged harm, while current critiques appear opportunistic. For Indigenous communities, this exemplifies how leaders fail to bridge rhetoric and remedy, undermining trust in political processes.
Critical Analysis of Ethical Problems in ACT Policing, Particularly with Indigenous People
Ethical lapses in ACT policing manifest in bias, accountability gaps, and cultural disconnects, disproportionately impacting Indigenous peoples. The Mitchell-Wighton case exemplifies these, but a deeper examination reveals structural flaws.
Over-Policing and Racial Bias
Over-policing of Indigenous Australians is pervasive, characterised by selective enforcement that amplifies minor infractions. In the ACT, Indigenous incarceration rates increased by 25% from 2023 to 2025, driven primarily by arrests for public order offences. Research from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare highlights that Indigenous people face higher rates of police contact and violence; nationally, 16% of police-related deaths involve Indigenous individuals despite their demographic minority status.
In the Mitchell-Wighton case, the baseless exclusion order and fabricated evidence suggest racial bias. This aligns with studies demonstrating that Indigenous encounters involve force more frequently than those of non-Indigenous persons. Ethical breaches include violations of the AFP Code of Conduct principles, particularly impartiality and respect. The Penfold case, involving racist remarks and evidence manipulation, underscores a culture where racism may be normalised within policing ranks.
Opponents might argue that police officers operate under high-pressure conditions and must make rapid decisions to maintain public order. From this perspective, individual errors do not necessarily reflect systemic bias but rather human fallibility. However, the consistent pattern of disproportionate Indigenous targeting suggests institutional rather than isolated failings.
Accountability and Internal Processes
Self-regulated reviews, such as the post-Mitchell internal inquiry, lack independence and transparency, contravening Royal Commission (1991) recommendations for external oversight of police misconduct. The 2023-24 Justice and Community Safety Directorate Annual Report acknowledged the importance of Indigenous respect, but failed to outline specific reforms addressing systemic bias or officer misconduct. This opacity breaches ethical principles of transparency and accountability, allowing misconduct to persist unchallenged.
From a consequentialist standpoint, unaccountability heightens community harm, perpetuating distrust and reinforcing colonial enforcement legacies. Deontologically, police officers owe an unbiased duty of care to all citizens; failure to enforce this duty erodes the moral legitimacy of law enforcement.
Critics of calls for external oversight often cite concerns about undermining police morale and operational effectiveness. They argue that internal mechanisms are better suited to understand policing contexts. While internal knowledge is valuable, evidence suggests that without independent scrutiny, misconduct remains unaddressed, damaging public confidence.
Cultural Insensitivity and Non-Disclosure
Low reporting of police misconduct by Indigenous Australians stems from trauma and fears of retaliation. Simultaneously, under-policing of Indigenous victim crimes contrasts with over-policing of Indigenous suspects. This duality reflects cultural insensitivity and systemic neglect.
Ethical equity demands protection and respect for all community members. However, the ACT lags behind jurisdictions such as the Northern Territory, which has implemented liaison programs and Indigenous policing units with demonstrable success in building trust and improving outcomes.
Opponents may argue resource constraints limit such initiatives. Nonetheless, prioritising culturally informed policing aligns with both ethical imperatives and pragmatic crime reduction strategies.
Broader Implications and the Need for Reform
The cumulative impact of these ethical failings includes community distrust, mental health crises, and entrenched crime cycles. Reforms are essential: comprehensive bias training, establishment of independent oversight bodies, and enhanced data transparency must be prioritised. Legally, raising prosecution thresholds for police misconduct and perjury would deter evidence fabrication. Politically, collaboration between federal and territory governments is critical to address systemic inequities.
International parallels further underscore the urgency of reform. In Canada, Indigenous deaths in police custody and similar patterns of systemic racism have prompted nationwide inquiries and restorative justice initiatives. The ACT can learn from these models to foster reconciliation and improve policing legitimacy.
Philosophically, utilitarian reforms aim to maximise societal welfare by reducing harm and enhancing trust. Virtue ethics emphasises cultivating empathy and integrity within policing cultures, essential for equitable law enforcement.
Conclusion
The Mitchell-Wighton case indicts ACT policing’s ethical failings, amplified by Shane Rattenbury’s inaction and subsequent post-tenure critique. His failure to leverage authority to investigate and hold officers accountable, juxtaposed with later parliamentary scrutiny, reveals inconsistency detrimental to justice and Indigenous communities. Ethical issues of racial bias, accountability deficits, and cultural insensitivity demand urgent re-evaluation. Without comprehensive reforms – legal, institutional, and cultural – the cycle of marginalisation and mistrust will persist, undermining the rule of law and social cohesion in the ACT.
