"Officers did not have any concerns about the manner in which the vehicle was being driven during the pursuit."
The pursuit ended when the rural gravel road they were travelling on became obstructed preventing them from going any further.
The dog handler watched the driver get out of his vehicle and believed he was attempting to flee into the bush.
"The dog handler believed if he did not arrest the driver, Police would lose evidence of the suspected driving under the influence of alcohol.
"He was also concerned that if the driver was allowed to enter the bush, he might get lost and need rescuing," it says in the decision.
The dog handler assessed that his only available option to apprehend the driver and prevent him fleeing into the bush was to release his dog.
The driver was caught and his leg was bitten. He was given medical treatment at the scene before being taken to hospital for treatment.
The authority found the decision to signal the driver to stop was justified. Due to the interpretation of policy at the time, initiating and continuing the pursuit was also justified.
It found the use of the police dog to apprehend the fleeing driver was unjustified in the circumstances.
"The use of the Police dog was not justified or necessary in the circumstances. The offending the driver had been involved in and was suspected of having been involved in was not at a level that warranted a Police dog being deployed to bite him; the officer had other options" said authority chairman, Judge Colin Doherty.
West Coast area commander Inspector Jacqui Corner acknowledged the findings.
"These are fast-moving and dynamic situations that require situational awareness and an ongoing risk assessment by the officers involved.
"We believe our officer acted appropriately given their risk assessment of the situation. However, we acknowledge the authority's findings and have provided further training on the tactical options our staff have available in relation to the risk posed by offenders and the appropriate use of force."
