The police watchdog says an officer should be charged with a criminal offence after kicking and punching a man during his arrest last year.
Police maintains its stance that the officer should not be charged. However, it accepts the officer did not handle the situation "appropriately".
The victim had fled police after they attended a family harm incident before surrendering himself to arrest by laying on the ground with his hands on his head.
Before he was handcuffed and arrested, an officer was captured on CCTV firmly placing a foot on his head, kicking him several times and also punching his head.
Police found the officer's use of force was excessive but decided not to charge him with a criminal offence, citing it was not in the public interest to do so.
However, the Independent Police Conduct Authority does not agree, announcing today it believes the officer should be charged with a criminal offence.
The incident took place on February 10, 2019, after police were called to a family harm incident.
The suspect attempted to flee the scene by driving towards officers in a vehicle, narrowly missing them, before fleeing the scene.
Police pursued the man for about 90 seconds until the chase ended when the suspect hit a barrier and the vehicle stopped.
The suspect subsequently got out of the vehicle and laid on the ground - the violent arrest then took place.
Following the incident, Police carried out a criminal investigation into the officer's actions, it said in a statement today.
"A thorough and balanced investigation was undertaken and a legal opinion was sought. The decision was made not to charge the officer with any criminal offence," it said.
Police also says the views of the offender were also taken into account when making their decision not to charge the officer.
Any decision around whether to charge police officers was taken seriously and made with careful consideration in accordance with the Solicitor General's prosecution guidelines.
Police concluded the likelihood of a conviction was low and therefore decided the public interest test under the Solicitor General's guidelines was not met.
"This was a fast-paced, unpredictable and dangerous situation where our attending officers were dealing with an offender who moments ago attempted to run them over before fleeing the scene," Superintendent Karyn Malthus said.
"As the IPCA acknowledges, it was apparent the officer involved was in a heightened state of emotion after taking evasive action to avoid being hit by the offender's vehicle, which undoubtedly impaired their judgement and affected their decision-making when effecting the arrest.
"While the IPCA's view is the officer was acting in retaliation after almost being run over, Police accept the officer's explanation that they believed the risk posed by the offender remained high.
"Having reviewed this incident and hearing the explanations of the officers involved, I believe there was no intent by the officer to cause harm on the offender, who was not injured, and instead the officer's actions were designed to achieve compliance by the offender so he could be handcuffed."
Malthus said the officer acted inappropriately and made a number of tactical errors and exercised poor judgement during the arrest.
"On this occasion their decision-making was flawed. Lessons were learnt from this incident for the officers involved around their decision-making process," Malthus said.
"The arresting officer was held to account and their actions dealt with appropriately through a confidential employment process. Training and support was also provided to the other officer involved."