State Admits Police Battery and False Imprisonment of Hannah Thomas
The state of New South Wales has acknowledged that a police officer punched Hannah Thomas in the eye while holding a torch during a pro-Palestine protest and has offered to cover her medical expenses.
Court documents reviewed by Australia reveal that the state has admitted to false imprisonment and battery in its defence against a civil lawsuit filed by the former Greens candidate in October. However, NSW denies allegations of malicious prosecution and malfeasance in public office.
Thomas was arrested and charged alongside four others at a pro-Palestine protest attended by approximately 60 people at SEC Plating. Three months later, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) dropped all charges against Thomas and three other protesters.
Following the incident, the then 36-year-old was hospitalized after being punched and underwent three surgeries on her right eye. The statement of claim indicates she weighed 45kg and was 156cm tall at the time of the battery.
Details of the Incident and Legal Claims
In her claim filed in the NSW Supreme Court in October, Thomas’s lawyers stated:
“Senior Constable [Christopher] Davis punched the plaintiff’s right eye with his right hand … causing the plaintiff to scream, as well as causing immediate bleeding and swelling in and from the plaintiff’s right eye. At the time of the punch, Senior Constable Davis was holding a torch in his right hand.”
The state has admitted this conduct by Davis “as pleaded” and acknowledged that the use of force constituted a battery. It also admitted in its statement of defence, filed in April, that the punch caused harm and general damages.
Thomas’s legal representatives from O’Brien Criminal and Civil Solicitors reported that the punch ruptured her eyeball and fractured her eye socket.
In its defence, NSW stated:
“The state has offered to pay the plaintiff’s reasonable expenses connected with the injuries admitted by this pleading.”
Thomas’s lawyers have sought aggravated and exemplary damages, alleging that Davis’s conduct was “manifestly excessive” and represented a “grave departure” from police powers. The state has denied these claims.
Davis is scheduled to face trial in February after pleading not guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and recklessly causing grievous bodily harm.
The defence notes that the protest outside SEC Plating was organised by the group Weapons Out the West, which was reportedly concerned with manufacturing companies, such as SEC Plating, supplying components for weapons allegedly used by Israel in the Gaza conflict. SEC Plating has denied these allegations.
Other Admissions by the State
The state also admitted to another battery following Thomas’s claim that Senior Constable Pir Ali Noohpoto grabbed her before the punch, causing her to shout in pain. The state acknowledged that Noohpoto “took hold of the plaintiff’s upper body” and that this use of force constituted a battery.
Additionally, the state admitted that the same officer took hold of Thomas’s arms in an attempt to remove her from a group of other protesters, who the state claimed were pulling her back into their group.
The defence argued that other officers used “reasonable force to suppress a breach of the peace” and that their actions were “lawful and carried out in self-defence.”
Thomas’s statement of claim includes slight variations to the state’s admissions.
The state agreed that after Thomas was punched and lay on the ground, officers discussed the fact that she had been punched. It also admitted that Thomas was not permitted to leave after being directed to remain seated or standing near the incident for a period, and that her “eye remained closed and appeared to be injured.”
Claims of Malicious Prosecution and Public Office Malfeasance
Alongside claims of battery and false imprisonment, Thomas alleged that the state engaged in malicious prosecution and malfeasance in public office.
The state has denied these allegations. Thomas claimed that an officer “falsified the narrative of events” and charged her for an “improper purpose.”
Initially, Thomas was charged with resisting police and refusing or failing to comply with a direction to disperse.
It was later revealed that Thomas’s arrest documents included a second charge introduced following the 2005 Cronulla riots.
NSW Police withdrew that charge in July and announced Thomas would face an additional charge of refusing or failing to comply with a direction alongside resisting police. The DPP withdrew all charges in September.
Police Response and Upcoming Proceedings
The assistant police commissioner stated on 30 June 2025:
“There is no doubt that the injuries sustained during the course of her arrest, that’s not in dispute, and we’re now looking to understand the full circumstances as to how that took place.”
He also noted that a preliminary examination of some body-worn video footage did not show “any misconduct by any police officers.”
NSW Police issued a statement on Wednesday:
“As the matter is currently litigated in the courts, it is inappropriate to respond at this time.”
The next hearing of the civil claim is scheduled for early September.
