Latrell Mitchell's barrister believes no meaningful change will come from a police review into the failed case against his NRL star client.
"I have not the slightest faith that any internal police investigation will identify or root out the problems with ACT Policing which the Mitchell and [Jack] Wighton case has highlighted," barrister Jack Pappas said.
It's understood the case against Mr Mitchell and Mr Wighton was last week referred to the AFP's Professional Standards team, which can investigate serious misconduct and corruption matters.
Charges relating to a Civic scuffle earlier this year were dismissed after evidence given by the officer overseeing the NRL players' arrests was contradicted by CCTV footage.
ACT Policing confirmed the senior officer, Sergeant David Power, was on leave this week and had not been stood down during the review.
Mr Pappas said problems were highlighted in this case, more than in others, because of the players' profiles.
The seasoned barrister said he had been exposing police failings for decades but "I have yet to witness any attempt at systemic reform or cure."
"It is unclear to me why journalists and others simply accept, like trusting children, the tut-tutting and there-thereing of the police and largely uninformed and ignorant members of parliament, when these things are exposed from time to time," he said.
ACT Policing provided no comment about the specifics of the review or which officers were being investigated.
Mr Mitchell's solicitor, Tom Taylor, shared Mr Pappas' skepticism for internal investigations, which he said were not transparent.
"They're done behind closed doors, and the process and the ultimate findings are sometimes heavily redacted or not released," Mr Taylor said.
"It troubles me when police review police and there are some broader issues at play in this case that call for an independent review."
Mr Pappas shed light on another case involving Sergeant Power during the police officer's cross-examination last week.
That case was never subject to an internal investigation despite a magistrate's concerns about police actions.
In a decision published in 2018, magistrate Glenn Theakston said he was not satisfied the force used by Sergeant Power and another officer during an arrest was "necessary and reasonable".
Sergeant Power, then a senior constable, and Constable Daniel Thackeray arrested a man celebrating his 26th birthday in Civic after he was given an exclusion direction and asked multiple times to leave the area.
The magistrate found the arrest was lawful due to a threat the man made towards police as he was placed in a taxi to go home.
However, as captured on CCTV, the two officers began "heaving" the man out of the taxi by grabbing his leg before capsicum spray was used on him without warning by a third officer.
The man was then "hauled through the air and onto the ground", where he "did not struggle to any significant degree" but was hit with capsicum spray, again without warning, by Constable Thackeray.
"In the instant case, there was no such necessity to subdue the defendant. He was merely sitting in a taxi," Mr Theakston said in his decision.
While a number of officers had suggested the man was "acting aggressively" before his arrest, Mr Theakston said evidence and CCTV showed "the defendant, at most, could be described as being indifferent to police".
The magistrate observed "there were key and significant inconsistencies between the CCTV footage, police perceptions and the use of force report".
Mr Theakston directed the court registrar to draw the inconsistencies to the chief police officer's attention by providing her with his reasons, a transcript of the proceedings and relevant evidence.
Mr Pappas said Sergeant Power had made it "perfectly plain" he was "never subjected to any re-education, nor any disciplinary action" following the referral in 2018.
"Nobody ever asked you to explain yourself?" Mr Pappas asked Sergeant Power last week.
"No," the officer responded.
