Dog handler’s decision to release dog on woman was ‘unjustified and excessive’ - IPCA

The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) released its findings in relation to the incident on Thursday, calling the officer’s actions 'excessive'. Photo / Dean Purcell

A dog handler has been criticised for setting his dog on a woman who was hiding behind a hedge following a police pursuit.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) released its findings in relation to the incident on Thursday, calling the officer’s actions “excessive”.

The IPCA said a man and woman were wanted by police following a series of burglaries across the South Island, targeting cigarettes. Police believed the couple may be carrying firearms.

On the evening of February 13, the dog handler found the couple in a stolen Mazda, driven by the man.

“A pursuit was initiated and abandoned less than two minutes later. Police then used road spikes to try to stop the Mazda,” the IPCA said.

“The Mazda drove into a cul-de-sac. The dog handler followed in his police car, and a short time later reported the man had rammed him. The Mazda then drove into a side street and the couple fled on foot.”

The police dog led the handler and another officer to a hedge, which indicated one of the couple was behind it.

“The dog handler says he did not see who was behind the hedge before he sent the dog in to apprehend the person. The hiding woman received a serious dog bite injury to her leg.”

The IPCA found the pursuit was an “inappropriate tactic”, and that the Southern Emergency Communications Centre correctly applied policy when asking for it be abandoned. The use of road spikes was reasonable.

Police initially charged the man for driving into the officer’s police car. However, they later realised the damage to the cars was not consistent with the collision as described by the handler, so the charges were withdrawn.

“We believe the dog handler deliberately drove into Mr Y’s car, in breach of policy, and his subsequent statements were false,” the IPCA said.

“There were conflicting accounts of what occurred at the time the woman was bitten by the dog.”

The IPCA found the woman had “no real means of escape”.

“It is unreasonable to set a dog on an unknown person, who is neither escaping nor using force to resist arrest, for no other reason than that they may have a firearm, when there is no good cause to suspect that they actually do,” IPCA chair Judge Colin Doherty said.

The use of the dog was “unjustified and excessive”.

The IPCA said police acted reasonably in taking the woman immediately to a doctor rather than providing first aid at the scene.

“The Authority found the investigating officer failed to adequately investigate the collision between the Police car and fleeing car. He also submitted a Traffic Crash Report which was factually incorrect and supported charging the man with offences he did not commit.”

Relieving Canterbury district commander Superintendent Karyn Malthus said police acknowledged the findings and noted the threat of firearms was something she expect officers to treat “extremely seriously”.

Police accepted there were errors made during the investigation into the crash.

“There are learnings from this incident and the officer who carried out the investigation has had this addressed with them.”

“Since this incident occurred Canterbury Police has implemented changes around how we investigate Police crashes.

“This ensures independence and timeliness of investigations into Police driving matters such as this type of incident.”