Author: MIL OSI Publisher

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found that Police were justified in shooting a man when he pointed a firearm at an officer.

Police were notified that the man had been involved in a domestic incident where he pointed what was suspected to be a firearm at himself before stealing a vehicle from outside his home address. The vehicle was found a short distance away next to the Waitara River. When Police officers approached the vehicle, they saw a length of pipe extending from the vehicle’s exhaust and into the driver’s cabin. The vehicle’s engine was running.

Concerned that the man might need urgent medical assistance, the officers took up positions around the vehicle and alerted him to their presence. He was seen to sit upright in the driver’s cabin, point a gun at his head and pull the trigger. It did not fire. He then pointed his weapon at an officer standing next to the driver’s door, causing officers to fire their weapons at him in response.

Mr X was fatally injured and died at the scene.

“The officers concerned were justified in shooting at the man when he pointed his firearm at one of them. In circumstances where he appeared motivated to take his own life, the man was seen to point a gun at his own head and pull the trigger. Despite his gun failing to fire, it was reasonable for the officers to believe that his weapon was loaded and capable of shooting one or more of them” said Authority Chair, Judge Colin Doherty.

Public Report

On 8 October 2019, the young person was staying at his friend’s house in Cambridge. His friend decided to take his mother’s Volkswagen without her knowledge. At around 1.38am two officers, who had just attended a possible vehicle break-in, saw the young person driving the Volkswagen and thought he may have been involved. They also thought he may have been driving a stolen car as he did not match the registered owner’s description. They signalled the driver to stop and, when he did not, initiated a pursuit. The pursuit lasted for 18 minutes, reached speeds of approximately 150kph in a 100kph zone, and travelled approximately 30 kilometres.

The pursuit ended when the young person drove down a dead-end driveway in a rural area south of Hamilton. He and his friend, who was in the front passenger seat, fled on foot into surrounding farmland. Four other young people who were in the back seat were apprehended almost immediately.

The pursuing officer and a dog handler chased the driver and passenger through some paddocks before the driver was apprehended by a Police dog and bitten. He sustained a serious dog bite to his left calf. He was given medical assistance at the scene and at the station before being taken to Waikato Hospital for treatment.

The Authority also found the initial decision to signal the Volkswagen to stop was justified. Due to the interpretation of Police policy at the time, the initiation of the pursuit was also justified. However, insufficient consideration was given to abandoning the pursuit once the risks increased due to speed, the young person’s manner of driving and the number of occupants in the vehicle.

Police were justified in arresting the young person, and the Authority did not accept his allegation that he was punched, sworn at, and laughed at during his arrest.

“The use of a Police dog to bite the young person was not justified or necessary in the circumstances. While there was no issue with Police using the dog to track him, the offending that he had possibly been involved in was not at a level that warranted a Police dog being deployed to bite him” said Authority Chair, Judge Colin Doherty.

Public Report

The man was a remand prisoner who had escaped from the Waitakere District Court two days earlier where he faced charges, including aggravated robbery (with a firearm), wounding with intent to injure and assaulting Police.

Two Armed Offenders Squad (AOS) officers in a vehicle driving behind at high speed fired separate shots at the man sitting in the front passenger seat of the fleeing car. He suffered minor injuries, and no one else was harmed. Police continued the pursuit, arresting the man and his driver shortly afterward.

The Authority found that the AOS officers were justified in firing shots at the man while attempting to prevent his escape, but only because these officers were part of the Special Tactics Group (STG), had exceptionally high levels of training and experience, and demonstrated a thorough understanding of the risks involved.

“There are substantial dangers involved in Police firing shots on a busy motorway in the middle of the day. We would not usually consider such shooting to be justified, even by AOS officers. However, we are satisfied that shooting at the man was a proportionate and necessary response in this case”, said Authority Chair, Judge Colin Doherty.

In addition, the Authority determined that:

• the AOS officers should have been provided with more background information on the two men;
• overall control of the incident should not have been passed to the AOS Commander; and
• although there were communication issues during this incident, they did not significantly affect the Police response.

The Authority also considered a lack of training and supervision of Police staff in the custody area contributed to the man’s escape from the Waitakere District Court, as Police failed to alert court security and the Court that the man was known to be an escape risk. Police have subsequently addressed these issues.

Public Report

Non-fatal Police shooting on motorway north of Auckland justifed (PDF 600 KBG)

Police had been called to a property where the man was shouting, swearing, and possibly assaulting his partner. The man was drunk and had been smashing his head against a wall. Upon arrival, officers found the man asleep on the driveway, snoring loudly. Once woken, he became aggressive and uncooperative, and officers were told he was possibly under the influence of drugs. They placed the man in handcuffs. The man then attempted to bang his head on a fence and hit his head on the concrete driveway. Police took the man to the custody unit, however, the Authority found they should have taken him directly to hospital.

Once at the custody unit, the man was left in a cell in the prisoner transport truck for 44 minutes while a decision was made whether to receive him into the custody unit or take him to hospital. The Authority considers this to be unacceptable.

The man was eventually placed in a custody unit cell. He was not placed in the recovery position, as he should have been. He was seen by a Police doctor over an hour later. The doctor said the man needed to go to hospital, however, he lay in an unresponsive state in the cell for a further 56 minutes before being taken. This delay was unreasonable.

The Authority also found the custody evaluation did not accurately reflect the man’s condition.

“Police policy says that if a person in their care is only partially responsive, Police should treat it as a medical emergency and the person should be taken to hospital. Police did not do this and failed in their duty of care,” said Authority Chair, Judge Colin Doherty.

Public Report

Unconscious man in Manukau cell (PDF 529 KB)