Two officers who arrived saw two suspects running down the street. They ran after them and caught them. One of the suspects, described in the report as Mr X, ignored instructions to put his hands behind his back and resisted arrest.
Three other officers arrived to help and Mr X ended up lying face down on the ground with his arms beneath him. He ignored requests to put his arms where the officers could see him, the IPCA said.
At that point a fourth officer arrived and, without prior knowledge of the situation, yelled at Mr X and "put his boot down forcefully on Mr X's head on at least two occasions", the report said. Mr X gave up and was handcuffed and arrested.
The three officers who were first at the scene raised concerns about the actions of the fourth with their supervisors. They described them as "stomping" on Mr X's head multiple times and being "quite aggressive" and "excessive".
The officer claimed he believed the offender may have been armed and his actions were an attempt to prevent Mr X from harming himself by thrashing his head around.
IPCA chairman Judge Sir David Carruthers said although there were variations in the descriptions of how the fourth officer acted, at a minimum, it involved the violent application of force.
"The authority has found that the officer's justifications for his actions are untenable. In the authority's view the officer was using the force complained of simply in order to gain compliance. There were other less violent ways in which that could have been achieved. His actions therefore constituted excessive force, were not justified in the circumstances and were contrary to law," Sir David said.
The Auckland City District Police commander said he acknowledged the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) finding that an officer trying to effect the arrest of a suspected burglar in December 2014 used excessive force.
Superintendent Richard Chambers says he was satisfied that, although the alleged burglar who repeatedly resisted several officers' attempts to arrest him declined to provide a statement to the Authority, its finding is consistent with the concerns expressed by other attending officers.
"While it's disappointing that one of my staff has been judged by the Authority to have used excessive force during an attempted arrest, I accept that, in all probability, he could have used a less forceful option to ensure the offender complied with the instructions of all officers at the December 29 incident."
Mr Chambers said he noted the Authority's conclusion was reached on the civil standard of the 'balance of probabilities' which had a lower threshold for proof than that required to establish criminal liability.
The spokeswoman said the outcome of the employment investigation was confidential and she couldn't say why the man had not been charged.
However, Mr Chambers said in a statement that the conclusion reached by the IPCA was based on a balance of probabilities, rather than the criminal standard of proof.
Police Association president Greg O'Connor said he thinks a "good proportion" of New Zealanders would not come to the same conclusion as the IPCA if they read the report.
"I think most experienced police officers... could empathise with the police officer involved, but could understand [the IPCA's decision].
"I encourage everyone to read this whole report because it is a good example of how people perceive a situation from where they are viewing it," he said.
Police come to conclusions based on whether they could get a successful prosecution, but the Authority weigh up the situation as many different people report it, Mr O'Connor said.
