Allen Ball was 55 years old when he died of a lethal cocktail of codeine, tramadol and alcohol but three officers' actions are alleged to have contributed to him dying. Photo / Supplied
Allen Ball was 55 years old when he died of a lethal cocktail of codeine, tramadol and alcohol but three officers' actions are alleged to have contributed to him dying. Photo / Supplied
A jury has begun its deliberations into the verdicts for three Hawera police officers charged with manslaughter.
The jury was sent out by Justice Susan Thomas in the High Court at New Plymouth just before 1.40pm today.
The case is precedent setting and if found guilty, will be the first time that has happened to a New Zealand police officer.
The three officers all have name suppression after being charged with the manslaughter of 55-year-old Allen Ball on June 1, 2019, by failing to provide the necessaries of life after he died in one of their cells.
Ball was arrested after being called to a family harm incident where he was alleged to have assaulted his then partner, Stacey Whitmore.
After being able to get himself in the patrol car, he shortly after fell asleep. He was then carried into the back of the station by six officers, including the three accused, due to his unresponsive state shortly before midnight.
He then had his wet pants taken off him and covered with a blanket as he lay on his side in the recovery position on the concrete floor.
He was checked nine times by various officers before being found by Officer C, who sparked concerns and an ambulance was called and first aid commenced.
Defence counsel Kylie Pascoe issued her closing statement this morning, followed by Justice Thomas who delivered her summing up to a second day in a row of a packed public gallery of friends, family and colleagues of the accused as well Ball's family - including his siblings who have flown over from Australia.
Justice Thomas told the jury there was no simple formula to arriving at a verdict; rather they had to rely on their "collective and robust common sense working with evidence you can rely on".
She said the police systems and training were relevant to the case.
"Hindsight is a wonderful thing but you must understand what they knew at the time and the systems and training in place at the time."
She explained that finding somebody guilty beyond reasonable doubt was a high standard; not probably guilty or likely guilty.
Allen Ball was 55 years old when he died of a lethal cocktail of codeine, tramadol and alcohol but three officers' actions are alleged to have contributed to him dying. Photo / Supplied
"Reasonable doubt is an honest and reasonable uncertainty left in your mind after you have given careful and impartial consideration to all of the evidence."
She also reminded the jury that police officers were also human, not perfect, and going about their job that night "not giving a perfect performance because they knew they were on camera".
"Remember what they deal with on a daily basis"
She also pointed out that officers also used "black humour" at times to deal with stressful situations, sighting the language used by the officers after putting him in the cell.
Justice Thomas also worked through the seven questions they needed to work through to reach their verdicts.
The first question – not disputed by Officers A and B – was whether the accused had actual care of Ball. Andrew Laurenson, counsel for Officer C, says his client accepted he was there when Ball was arrested and processed, but he was not actively involved in decision making.
They also include whether the officers omitted to discharge their duty to provide medical care, and whether that was a substantial and operational cause of Ball's death.
The jury also had to decide whether the standard of care expected of a reasonable police officer was to obtain medical assistance of Ball in the circumstances at the time.
Importantly, if they got that far, they had to decide whether each of them was "grossly negligent" to find them guilty.
The spectrum ranged from mere inadvertence to deliberate recklessness.
The crown didn't have to prove recklessness, but behaviour that was deliberately breaching their duty and showed indifference or foresight to the risk.
Their actions had to be a major departure from that of a reasonably competent police officer.
Justice Susan Thomas summed up the case for the jury this morning before sending them out to begin their deliberations. Photo / Pool
She noted that an update to the NIA system in 2015 was sent to district managers who then forwarded to senior members of other staff, including Officer A. The email was not forwarded to staff at Hawera station, the judge said.
The jury could take into account the movements of each of the accused that night, when, their involvement in using NIA and the pop-up alerts.
When building context, they had to decide whether each of their actions fell below the standard of a reasonably competent officer in the circumstances at the time in a major way.
As for Ball's intoxication, the crown submitted it was simply not a sufficient answer to say the defendants thought Ball was an intoxicated and sleeping drunk that night.
The defence, however, submitted that Ball was coherent but unsteady on his feet when arrested and in the context of events, a reasonably competent officer would have reacted as they did that night.
She told the jury they could bear some weight on the defendant's character, summed up by Senior Sergeant Kyle Davie who described the team as the most high performing in south Taranaki.
The accused didn't have any obligation to give evidence as it was for the crown to prove guilt, not for the defendants to prove their innocence.
'NZ Police should foot blame due to inadequate training'
Earlier this morning, defence counsel Kylie Pascoe put the blame at the feet of New Zealand Police who provided inadequate training for its recruits and staff before they were sent out on the job.
Pascoe said Officer B was not grossly negligent that night, "his omission to obtain medical care in this circumstance was not so bad as to justify criminal sanction".
"The failure to obtain medical assistance of Mr Ball was the result of systemic failures, not the gross negligence of [Officer B].
The three accused Hawera police officers. Photo / Belinda Feek
"The systemic failure of New Zealand Police to implement adequate recruit training that protected its staff from the circumstances the night Mr Ball died."
As for first aid training, Pascoe accepted her client had been trained however the jury was being asked to accept her client knew the risks around snoring.
"Snoring is important because it's Mr Ball's snoring that appears to inform [Officer A's] decision-making regarding the status of Mr Ball."
