The Authority oversaw a Police investigation into an incident in Auckland in December 2023, where force was used to arrest a man who was breaching his curfew conditions. An officer’s unprofessional manner was found to have inflamed the situation.
Members of the man’s family phoned Police at about 11.30pm, saying the intoxicated man had driven to his ex-partner’s house, and that he was breaching his curfew conditions. Upon the officers’ arrival, the man told Officer A to: “Meet me outside for a hoka [fight]” then stood on the lawn in fighting stance. A witness heard the man and Officer A swearing at each other in Tongan. When the man launched towards the officers, Officer B sprayed him in the eyes with pepper spray. The man then ran away.
The officers let the man leave as they initially believed they had no reason to arrest him. However, upon making enquiries, they established that the man was indeed breaching a curfew condition. The officers searched the area in order to arrest the man for the breach but were unable to locate him.
About an hour later, the man returned to his ex-partner’s house. The same officers attended and found the man hiding under the house. After coming out, the man resisted the officers’ attempts to take him into custody. Phone footage captured Officer A making comments such as: “Let’s go let’s do it… are we gonna do it” and “hurry up, no one can see it.” Our interpretation of the footage is that Officer A was enticing the man to fight.
Officer A then punched the man while engaging in a physical altercation behind a fence. Afterwards, the man continued to resist arrest. He moved towards Officer A as if to fight with him, and was tasered. Other officers arrived and helped take him into custody.
Police found that Officer B was justified in using pepper spray to defend herself and others. The use of the Taser was also justified. However, Police found the officers should have immediately detained the man, rather than letting him walk away after their first interaction with him. We agree with these findings.
Policed determined Officer A’s use of force was justified given the man was obstructive, aggressive, and not complying with instructions. However, they noted that the justification for the force used to subdue the man was finely balanced and that other options were available to Officer A. Given the man’s level of resistance, we accept this finding.
Police found Officer A’s language and demeanour inflamed the situation rather than de-escalated it. His actions did not align with the Police Code of Conduct and Values.
Police addressed the actions of Officer A through an employment process. We are satisfied with the outcome of this.
IPCA: 23-20885