Eastern District Police Commander Superintendent Joel Lamb said he was proud of police officers for their actions during a 2024 arrest. An IPCA report has found their use of "significant force" to be justified. Photo / Supplied
The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found Gisborne police were justified in using Tasers, a police dog and head strikes to arrest a man, who suffered a severed artery as a result.
The investigation began after police told the authority (IPCA) they used force during the arrest in Tiniroto, between Wairoa and Gisborne.
Gisborne police were called aftera man stole a ute and had what appeared to be a rifle in the vehicle on December 12, 2024.
The man (Mr Z) was tasered multiple times, punched repeatedly in the head, and twice set upon by the police dog during the arrest.
He suffered a dog bite injury, described in the IPCA summary a severed artery, that required emergency first aid and transportation to the hospital via helicopter.
Police did not find a firearm.
Mr Z later made a full recovery and was charged with offences relating to the unlawful taking of the ute, driving offences and resisting arrest.
He pleaded guilty to all charges and was jailed.
IPCA chairman Judge Kenneth Johnston KC, in his 15-page findings released today, said a man in Gisborne, Mr Y, called police at 9.20am and told them his Ford ute had been stolen. He could track it with a phone app.
He found his ute shortly after, approached it and opened the driver’s door. He saw Mr Z inside and what he believed to be the barrel of a rifle tucked between the centre console and the front passenger seat.
Mr Z appeared to reach for it, and Mr Y stepped back. Mr Z quickly drove off, hitting Mr Y with the wing mirror and injuring him. Mr Y updated the police, including about the possible firearm.
Police saw the vehicle several times, but Mr Z drove dangerously to get away. During one of those sightings, an officer saw Mr Z cradling what he suspected was a firearm.
Officers searched a property where he had been parked, but did not find a firearm. Mr Z was then seen at another property handing something to the occupant, potentially a firearm. Police searched that property and found different types of ammunition, but no firearms.
The Police Communications Centre told frontline officers in Gisborne at midday that the driver of the ute was not to be stopped as he “almost certainly has a long-barrelled firearm” in the vehicle.
Police suspected Mr Z was a gang member who had alerts for possessing a firearm and using other weapons.
A small team of Armed Offenders Squad officers, led by Officer A with Officers B and C, and a tactical dog team with a dog handler (Officer D) and supporting officer (Officer E) were readied to locate and arrest him.
About 2.45pm, the officers found Mr Z apparently asleep in the ute, which was parked on the side of the road at Tiniroto.
The officers entered the locked ute by smashing the side windows. They challenged Mr Z to show his hands and not move.
Mr Z resisted during the arrest, which took just over two minutes.
“Two officers tasered him when he did not comply but, despite multiple Taser discharges, the man was able to lean towards the front passenger seat where the officers believed a firearm was located. An officer deployed a police dog into the ute, but the man fought the dog off,” the IPCA summary reads.
One officer punched Mr Z’s head seven times.
“The man was pulled from the ute but continued to fight... The Police dog re-engaged, allowing officers to pull the man away from the ute and secure him with handcuffs.”
Mr Z suffered a severed artery from a dog bite and was flown to hospital.
Mr Z told the IPCA he had taken marijuana and methamphetamine. He claimed he never had a firearm and said that someone must have lied to the police.
Judge Johnston said Officer A had developed an appropriate plan to arrest Mr Z.
“Officer A told us that he assessed Mr Z as posing a risk of serious injury or death to himself, police and the public. He thought Mr Z ‘definitely still had the firearm’ based on the ammunition located and the fact no firearm had been found, despite several possible sightings of Mr Z with a firearm,” the IPCA wrote.
“The fact Mr Z had seemingly hit Mr Y with the ute intentionally and driven dangerously to get away from Police, indicated to Officer A that Mr Z had a ‘total disregard for life’ and was highly motivated to evade police.”
Judge Johnston also found the use of Tasers by officers was justified in defence of themselves and others.
While Judge Johnston said the footage “tends to suggest that the dog was deployed on a person who was no longer posing a threat”, he found on the balance that Officer D was justified in directing the police dog to attack Mr Z as he genuinely believed Mr Z posed a significant risk.
He stood the dog down when it was clear the tactic was not working.
Finally, Judge Johnston found Officers A and E were justified in striking and punching Mr Z in defence of themselves and others, and Officer D was justified in deploying the police dog a second time to drag Mr Z away from the ute.
Officer A said he hit Mr Z’s back with the window-breaking tool to dissuade him from reaching into the footwell.
Footage showed Officer E punching Mr Z repeatedly in the head while attempting to get him out of the vehicle and arrest him. Officer E told the IPCA it was the only option he had to arrest Mr Z and deter him from grabbing the firearm Officer E believed was in the vehicle.
Officer D said that Mr Z was still fighting officers while partially out of the ute, so he commanded his dog to bite him and pulled Mr Z and the dog backwards.
Judge Johnston accepted that all officers believed they faced a volatile, life-threatening situation which they were struggling to control, and believed Mr Z could get a firearm and shoot them at any moment.
“Officer E’s multiple punches to Mr Z’s head caused us some concern when we saw it on the Taser footage, as it looked particularly violent. However, the context is key, and Officer E’s explanation and tactical rationale is persuasive. We accept that the threat was extremely high and urgent, in the circumstances as he perceived them to be, and different tactics were required.
“We also accept that Officer D’s use of the dog to help subdue and remove Mr Z from within reaching distance to the ute’s open door was proportionate and reasonable in light of the risks he perceived,
“The life-threatening injury suffered by Mr Z was unfortunate and prompt medical attention provided by officers avoided a more serious outcome.”
Eastern District Commander Superintendent Joel Lamb said he was proud of the police officers.
”They believed the man posed an imminent threat to them, their fellow officers, and members of the public.
“They took the appropriate steps to control the rapidly evolving situation and made split-second decisions that ensured the safety of everyone within the community.”