Police officer speeding at 182km/h with no lights or sirens said it was a ‘tactical approach’

A police officer who drove at 182km/h in a patrol car without using his lights or sirens was not charged for speeding as his explanation was “extremely hard to disprove”, an internal report says.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) was critical of the police’s investigation and said the officer’s speed, whether he was urgent duty driving or not, was “dangerous and unjustified”.

Police released copies of the criminal investigation into the incident as well as the professional conduct manager’s final report to the Herald under the Official Information Act.

Tasman District police’s professional conduct manager Inspector Steve Collins reviewed the criminal investigation conducted by Senior Sergeant Brent Cook.

Collins’ review, dated April 4, 2022, said the Senior Constable was recorded driving at 182km/h in a marked police car without using lights and sirens near Kumara on the West Coast on August 10, 2021.

The officer’s speed was recorded by staff who were undergoing a driving assessment in the area at the time.

The other vehicle the Senior Constable was following was recorded at 106km/h just prior to his speed being recorded.

A criminal investigation was commenced into the potential traffic offending of the officer following a meeting of the Tasman Crash Panel and a categorisation meeting.

“The crash panel believed that due to road and weather conditions and the number of vehicles on the road that the speed was not in itself dangerous enough to warrant a dangerous driving charge.”

However, the panel did think the threshold was met for driving with excess speed over 100km/h.

A criminal investigation was then undertaken by Cook, who found that given the officer’s explanation provided there would be “sufficient reasonable doubt to make a conviction highly unlikely at the standard required”.

“Effectively [the] Senior Constable stated he had been urgent duty driving to catch up with a vehicle he believed was speeding. He cited a tactical approach in relation to his lack of lights and sirens, which is specifically mentioned in policy in regard to speeding enforcement.

“He also stated that he had needed to create a marked difference in speed between the police vehicle and the speeding vehicle to establish the speed, which is also an accepted and established practice, although clearly not to the speed that he reached.”

Although the officer did not go on to stop the speeding driver, he provided an explanation that “regardless of veracity, would be extremely hard to disprove”.

It was believed the officer’s defence of “permitted urgent duty driving” would have been successful in relation to a criminal charge of excess speed and he was not charged.

Collins agreed with Cook’s findings and recommendations, but said his report “could have been more comprehensive”.

An employment process found the officer’s speed was “inappropriate” and the situation in attempting to catch a speeding driver did not warrant it. The officer had committed misconduct against the police code of conduct which was accepted and acknowledged by the officer.

The IPCA was critical of the adequacy of the police investigation that “failed to explore” in detail the circumstances of the incident leading to the excessive speed.

“Unfortunately, this matter was not notified to the Authority until after the police investigation was completed, thus denying the Authority the opportunity to oversee the investigation as part of its statutory function under the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988.”

As part of his review, Collins said it appeared the police professional conduct system had “fallen down here”, as he had not flagged the incident for notification.

“This author has certainly learned to request that any future incidents are reported to the IPCA as a matter of course to prevent this in future.”