Eight officers hoping to join the armed offenders squad were tasered by a trainer after they failed to shoot enough targets on a firing range. Photo / Doug Sherring
Eight officers hoping to join the armed offenders squad were tasered by a trainer after they failed to shoot enough targets on a firing range. Photo / Doug Sherring
When eight police officers hoping to join the Armed Offenders Squad were tasered on the backside by a course instructor, for failing to hit enough targets on the firing range, police brass said there was "insufficient evidence" to lay criminal charges. After appealing a police decision to decline an Official Information Act request, the Herald on Sunday can now report why there was not enough evidence for a prosecution - "almost all" of the eight applicants for the highly contested AOS positions refused to give formal statements.
A senior police officer who tasered armed offenders squad recruits on a training course escaped criminal prosecution because the victimised officers refused to give evidence against him.
The AOS course instructor used a Taser, by way of a stun contact to the backsides of the eight participants, after they failedto hit the required number of targets on the firing range.
Tasers are restricted weapons in New Zealand but are carried as a "non-lethal" tool by frontline police to shock offenders with 50,000 volts of electricity.
Some countries allow police officers to be tasered in training, with consent, although this policy was changed in New Zealand soon after Tasers were rolled out in 2010.
Before the policy was reversed, a number of police staff - including former Police Association president Greg O'Connor - were filmed being tasered to prove their safety.
Police National Headquarters was tight-lipped about the tasering of AOS recruits at the Police College in November 2017, releasing only a summary confirming an issue involving a "trainer and inappropriate use of a Taser".
Some of the victims raised concerns about their treatment and an inquiry was opened.
"Consideration was given as to whether a criminal charge should be filed," said Superintendent Anna Jackson, who was in charge of investigations into police officers for disciplinary matters.
However, Jackson said a decision was made not to proceed with a criminal prosecution because of "the overall circumstances of the matter" without offering any further details.
Instead, the matter became an employment matter and the trainer was disciplined.
"Police carefully considered the overall circumstances and were satisfied that the outcome was sufficient to take into account the seriousness of the conduct and the assurance the conduct would not be repeated," Jackson said at the time.
Sergeant Alan Reece demonstrating the new police two-shot Taser X2 at their national headquarters in Wellington in 2013. Photo / Mark Mitchell
"Police are of the view that in a training environment or in any situation where force is being used, that any conduct in breach of our policies and code of conduct, is simply unacceptable."
But new information has emerged this week, nearly 15 months after the Herald on Sunday complained about the Official Information Act response to the Office of Ombudsman, revealing charges were not laid, in part, because the victimised AOS staff refused to give evidence.
In an email this week, Inspector Donna Laban said police decided to release more summary information to the Herald on Sunday in "an effort to meet your concerns".
She wrote: "The internal investigation of the incident led to a decision that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute on the basis that almost all the employees involved were unwilling to make statements and the evidence obtained was unclear as to consent."
As a result of the employment matter and disciplinary sanction, the AOS trainer was reminded about the values of the New Zealand Police and Code of Conduct including:
• The responsibility to promote and maintain a safe working environment, and its duty of care to trainees.
• To ensure all people in New Zealand are safe and feel safe.
• Policy and procedure applying to deployment of a Taser device.
• Standard expected of supervisors and trainers.
Police sources said it was unsurprising "almost all" of the AOS applicants refused to give a formal statement for the purposes of a criminal prosecution, for fear of jeopardising their chances of joining the AOS or future career prospects.
The "inappropriate use" of a Taser by a senior course instructor was also potentially embarrassing for police hierarchy, given critics claim police abuse the power Tasers give them.
Supporters argue Tasers are a safer alternative - for police and the public - than firearms and although the introduction of Tasers was controversial at the time, the handheld devices are widely accepted as part of the police armoury.
All frontline police officers are now carry Tasers after a nationwide rollout in 2015. Photo / Paul Taylor
In 2015, the Taser programme was expanded for the devices to be carried by frontline staff at all times.
Police officers can lawfully use Tasers when they fear imminent physical harm to themselves or others.
The guidelines say the "necessary, proportionate and reasonable" use is a matter of careful judgment by the officers.
