He parked his patrol car behind the Toyota to block it in and the teenager driver then rammed it three times.
“The officer got out of his car and requested the girl to exit the car which she ignored,” said the IPCA’s Judge Kenneth Johnston KC.
“The car door was locked so the officer used his baton to smash the driver’s window.
“Another officer joined him, and they pulled the girl out through the window.
“The girl urinated and soiled herself as police removed her from the Toyota. She also suffered a cut to her head, glass in her right eye and bruises on her body.”
Police arrested the young offender and took her into custody.
Judge Johnston said while officers gave her access to a sink and wipes to clean herself and a change of clothes - they denied her request for a shower.
“We found that the force used by the officers was reasonable, necessary, and proportionate to the force the girl used in resistance by ramming the police car,” he said in his ruling.
“However, we found that by not allowing the girl to shower police breached their policy for managing people in custody and acted inconsistently with the Bill of Rights Act.
“The Authority considers that the degree of vigour in executing the arrest appeared to be justified considering the dynamic circumstances surrounding her arrest.
“However, the Authority found it appalling that she wasn’t given opportunity to shower.”
Judge Johnston said since the incident police have taken proactive steps to ensure they have adequate clothing and “have reminded custody staff of their obligations”.
The teenage girl told the IPCA that she did not mean to ram the police car.
“[She] says that, after finding out where her friends were, she reversed the Toyota and unintentionally hit the police car - which she had not realised was there,” said Judge Johnston.
“She then ‘freaked out’, drove forward and hit the bollard. She tried to move away from the bollard, reversed and hit the police car again.
“She stopped and waited for [the officer] to exit his car, expecting him to knock on her window. She says she put the hood of her jacket down so [he] could see she was a young female, and in the hope that he would ‘not kill her’.
“[She] also recalls putting her hands up to show she was not resisting.”
The officers had a very different version of events.
The officer in the rammed car said when he approached the Toyota the girl “did not engage with him as she was struggling with the car’s gear lever”.
“[He] says he told the driver to get out of the car, advised her she was under arrest and asked to open the car door.
“When the driver did not respond, he tried to open the car door, but it was locked. He extended his baton and used it to smash the driver’s window, hitting it at least twice in the bottom corner before it shattered.
“[She] does not remember [the officer] saying anything to her. She recalls closing her eyes and turning her body away to the left side of the car because glass got in her eye.
“She says she was so frightened when the officer smashed the window that she urinated and soiled herself.
“[The second officer at the scene] says he saw the driver move toward the passenger seat as [the other officer] was about to hit the window with his baton, and thought the driver was trying to escape.”
Judge Johnston said the girl had alleged the officers had hit her while she was on the ground during her arrest but he said there was “insufficient evidence to support” her claim.
The officer who was rammed said he had no idea who the driver was when he approached the car - only that her driving and actions “suggested that she was motivated to avoid the police”.
“We asked [the officer] what other options were available to him, and he explained: ‘given she was using deadly force, the options from there become fairly extreme fairly quickly’,” said Judge Johnston.
“We asked whether he considered using road spikes -placing them behind the vehicle - and he explained that the car park did not offer him cover which limited the element of surprise and therefore would have placed him at a high risk of being injured by the Toyota.”
Police accepted the IPCA findings and said it was “regrettable” she was not afforded the opportunity of a shower in custody.
“And a subsequent police investigation found that her custody evaluation was not completed to a satisfactory level,” said a spokesperson.
“[Custody staff] have been spoken to and have taken onboard learnings from this incident.
“The Christchurch custody suite has also taken steps to ensure they are better able to meet the needs of detainees. As a result, police have addressed the expectations and their obligations to individuals in the custody suite with staff to ensure adequate care is provided.”
