Author: MIL OSI Publisher

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)