On April 11, a man, identified as Mr X in the IPCA report, attended a resolution meeting at the Kaitāia Police Station regarding an incident his son had been involved in.
During the meeting, the man became aggressive towards an officer (officer A) and left the meeting room.
The same officer escorted him out of the station and on the way stopped at a staircase where an altercation took place and subsequently both parties had fallen down the stairs.
“The officer arrested the man for disorderly behaviour. Police charged Mr X with assaulting the officer. Mr X complained to us about the force used against him, saying that: He pushed the officer because the officer first tried to push him down the stairs. The officer punched him in the face, causing him to fall down the stairs and dislocate his shoulder,” the report read.
The man then wanted to file a complaint and was told by another officer (officer B) that he was unable to take his statement, “because he had a conflict of interest”. However, the same officer then investigated the case against Mr X for assaulting officer A.
The IPCA said in their assessment they found it was unnecessary and unwise, given the situation, for officer A to escort Mr X out of the station and that he should have had a colleague assist him escort the man out.
“The fact that Mr X was angry at a meeting, and with officer A in particular, does not mean that Mr X would confront people in the corridor who had nothing to do with the meeting. Officer A acknowledged that there could have been an opportunity to de-escalate the situation by asking another staff member to accompany Mr X out of the police station, but said he did not see anyone in the corridor who could assist at the time … Our view is that officer A should have disengaged and asked someone else to accompany Mr X out of the station, which may have made any confrontation less likely.”
In its conclusions, the IPCA made several findings in relation to the officer’s actions at the time and the subsequent investigation.
The authority’s findings:
Officer A should have arranged for someone else to accompany Mr X out of the station.
Officer A inadvertently pushed Mr X at the top of the stairs.
Officer A did not punch Mr X.
The arrest of Mr X for disorderly behaviour was unlawful, therefore the force used to effect the arrest was not justified.
Even if officer A tackled Mr X in self-defence, the use of force at the top of the stairs was disproportionate and unjustified.
The authority does not recommend that police lay criminal charges against officer A.
Police did not appropriately manage officer B’s conflict of interest.
The decision to charge Mr X for assault was misguided.
Officer B should not have given Mr X a summons to appear in court.
Northland district commander Superintendent Matt Srhoj says alongside the authority’s independent investigation, police also carried out an investigation into the complaint.
Northland district commander Superintendent Matt Srhoj.
“Our investigation’s findings determined that the decision to charge him for assault was premature.
“We acknowledge further investigation was necessary and ultimately we withdrew the court summons.”
Srhoj says police also acknowledge the IPCA’s findings concerning officer B, who investigated the complaint into the matter.
“Police can always learn from situations like this, and we will continue to do so, to ensure our people and the wider community, are kept safe.”
