A driver knew he was "clearly unwell" from taking "an excessively high dose of medication" for schizophrenia before he veered into police officers, a court has heard.
Hawker man Thomas Matthews, in his early 30s, was initially charged with three counts each of attempted murder and driving a motor vehicle at police to which he pleaded not guilty.
In a previous statement, police alleged Matthews was driving a Ford Laser when he veered off the road and headed directly for a detective leading senior constable and two constables. The officers had pulled over another car at the intersection of Forest Drive and Lady Denman Drive, near the National Arboretum in July 2021.
Matthews fronted the ACT Supreme Court on Wednesday when the prosecution indicated it would drop the initial charges.
Matthews was then arraigned on a fresh indictment and pleaded guilty to two counts of causing grievous bodily harm by a negligent act.
The court heard the original charges were based on an allegation Matthews deliberately drove at police because he supported an Islamic caliphate and this caused him to have a desire to kill officers.
Matthews' lawyer, Tom Taylor, of Hugo Law Group, said that while an agreed statement of facts for the fresh charges had not been finalised, the allegation about the desire to kill and the caliphate would not be included for sentencing purposes.
The defence lawyer cited a forensic psychiatrist's report that stated Matthews' condition was poor as he was diagnosed with schizophrenia two months before the incident.
The court heard his condition was now stable and he was appropriately medicated.
Mr Taylor applied for bail for Matthews, saying "the matter has come a long way" since the initial case statement had been prepared.
"Both parties have obtained expert evidence concerning various factors," he said.
This included a psychopharmacologist's opinion about the medications Matthews was on.
"Mr Matthews had been subjected to inappropriate excessive level of medication following the making of a psychiatric order and was on a combination of medication which impaired his driving," Mr Taylor said.
There was also expert evidence that said Matthews had applied the maximum amount of brake pressure possible before veering left and hitting the officers.
The court heard these factors would be reflected in the agreed facts.
Mr Taylor said the two negligent acts were that Matthews drove despite knowing he was not feeling well from the excessive medication and the manner in which he steered off the road.
Justice Mossop granted Matthews bail and said it was "clear that the nature of the case against him has very substantially changed".
"The different complexion on the facts cast a different light on the appropriateness of a grant of bail," he said.
"I'm told there is evidence that the offender was suffering the effects of an excessively high dose of medication ... he knew he was clearly unwell."
Justice Mossop said the decision to grant bail was also based on Matthews' condition now being stable and as a result, the risk of being charged with more offences before sentencing was low.
He said that prospect was influenced by the support of his parents, who were in the public gallery on Wednesday.
Prosecutor Beth Morrisroe did not oppose bail.
She said the 495 days Matthews had been remanded in custody combined with the resolution of the matter, the psychiatric treatment order, and "the reality that that would continue into the future" led to "the [DPP] office coming to the position of not opposing bail".
She said that position was based on "reasonably strict conditions" being made and that the prospect of Matthews being sentenced to a further full-time jail term was unlikely.
Bail conditions include Matthews living in Hawker, not driving or being in the driver's seat of a motor vehicle, and complying with the terms of a psychiatric treatment order.
Further, he must not approach any Australian Federal Police or Defence Force members without a reasonable excuse.
Justice Mossop ordered a pre-sentence report be prepared, and asked it include an assessment for an intensive corrections order.
The court heard backup charges to the initial charges were also likely to be dismissed when the case returns for sentencing in February.
