That's the decision an ACT Supreme Court judge must make in the coming weeks.

Luke Marsh received a $35,000 payout after he was wrongly accused of throwing his bike at a police officer during a foot chase.

Magistrate Bernadette Boss - who heard the matter in the ACT Magistrates Court - earlier this year slammed the police handling of the case and said the arresting officer had "embellished" the allegations against Mr Marsh.

The magistrate awarded Mr Marsh $20,000 in aggravated damages, $5000 in exemplary damages for the malicious prosecution and $10,000 for the unlawful arrest.

But the Commonwealth has appealed that decision in the Supreme Court on numerous grounds, including the magistrate had erred in finding malice against the officer.

Dr Boss's orders were stayed until the higher court could hand down its decision.

Mr Marsh had been on bail and banned from drinking alcohol when he blew positive to a breath test at Civic police station in December 2012.

CCTV footage of the incident shows Mr Marsh bolt through the front doors of the station, pursued on foot by Senior Constable Paul Yates.

The vision shows Mr Marsh bend down to pick up his bike but then let go of it, causing the officer's legs to get tangled in it before continuing the chase.

The magistrates court heard the officer suffered cuts and grazes to his legs as a result.

Mr Marsh was arrested soon after and charged with causing harm to a Commonwealth law enforcement officer and assault causing actual bodily harm.

However, the case never made it to court because prosecutors dropped the charges after viewing the footage.

Mr Marsh's legal team, from Ken Cush & Associates, launched a lawsuit seeking damages under the Human Rights Act.

During the hearing - held over three days last December - Mr Marsh admitted he'd had a drink on Christmas night but denied he intended to drop the bike in the police officer's path to thwart him.

Senior Constable Yates said Mr Marsh threw the bike at him to aid his escape.

He told the court he had formed the view that Mr Marsh, who was known to officers, was "anti-police, quite violent and often violent when intoxicated".

But the officer denied he disliked Mr Marsh.

In a decision handed down in April, Dr Boss said the police officer's attitude towards Mr Marsh "appeared to be contemptuous and dismissive".

She said Senior Constable Yates did not genuinely believe Mr Marsh had looked at him and thrown the bike down, as alleged, and she was "satisfied that these were embellishments inserted into the account to make out the charge".

Dr Boss found Mr Marsh's treatment amounted to malicious prosecution.

"In this matter I am satisfied that Senior Constable Yates was primarily motivated by his dislike of Mr Marsh, it was his dominant purpose."

She said the matter could have been dealt with as a bail breach and ruled the arrest was improper and unlawful.

The Commonwealth appealed against the decision and the magistrates' orders on six grounds.

Court papers, filed by the Commonwealth, argued Dr Boss had erred by finding Senior Constable Yates had been motivated by his dislike of Mr Marsh; by failing to give adequate reasons for her findings; erred in finding an absence of reasonable and probable cause on the basis the officer did not genuinely believe he had been assaulted; applied the incorrect legal test for the absence of reasonable and probable cause; and should not have awarded damages.

The Commonwealth case also argues Dr Boss erred by failing to provide Senior Constable Yates procedural fairness by not giving him a chance to be heard concerning the findings.

The matter will return to court on Thursday.