The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found that an officer used excessive force in fatally shooting Kaoss Price near New Plymouth on 16 April 2022. We have not recommended that Police lay criminal charges against the officer.
Just before 9.30pm, Mr Price was driving in convoy with a friend north of New Plymouth. A dog handler and another officer were patrolling in a dog van and stopped the car driven by Mr Price’s friend. Mr Price drove away and then returned and sideswiped the dog van, immobilising his own car. Mr Price ran from his car and attempted to hijack another car.
During this incident, the dog handler fired their pistol at Mr Price a total of six times on three separate occasions:
• as Mr Price drove at speed towards the stationary dog van and sideswiped it;
• after Mr Price climbed out of his immobilised car and started running towards stationary cars; and
• when Mr Price was attempting to hijack a car in which there were two occupants.
We accept on the first and second occasions that the dog handler’s actions were justified as they acted to protect themself or others.
At least on the second of these occasions the dog handler had grounds for thinking that Mr Price might be armed, though in fact he was not.
The dog handler with their dog and the second officer chased Mr Price 145 metres up the road. Mr Price forced his way into a car in which there were two civilians and attempted to gain control of the steering wheel and accelerator. The driver attempted to counter this by applying the brake pedal.
The dog handler arrived and challenged Mr Price to stop. Mr Price would not, and the dog handler shot Mr Price in the chest as Mr Price sat partially on the driver, continuing his attempts to gain control of the car. Within seconds, the second officer arrived and tasered Mr Price, and the Police dog bit Mr Price’s arm. Mr Price died at the scene.
We accept that the dog handler believed that, should Mr Price gain control of the car, there were serious risks for the occupants, both officers (who could be struck) and any other motorists Mr Price might encounter while trying to flee at speed. These risks were sufficiently imminent to justify the use of force to avert them.
However, in our view, the dog handler’s decision to shoot Mr Price created an unacceptably high risk that the driver and passenger of the vehicle would be injured or killed by a miss or ricochet, in circumstances where the dog handler could instead have used their Taser to incapacitate Mr Price.
We have come to this decision by a fine margin, and do not think the evidence is sufficiently compelling to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the dog hander could not rely on section 48 of the Crimes Act 1961 (self-defence) to justify their decision to shoot Mr Price.
Use of excessive force constitutes serious misconduct under the Police Code of Conduct. In such cases we may recommend Police undertake an employment process. In this case, we do not make such a recommendation because of the length of time that has elapsed since the incident, and the fact that the dog handler has already been told by Police this will not occur.