A senior officer at Parliament’s anti-mandate protest has been found to have likely kneeled on a woman’s neck and head, contradicting a criminal investigation into the officer which broadly cleared him of wrongdoing.
While police determined the officer’s actions were “in line with current police practice relating to arrest procedures”, the police watchdog found the force was “unnecessary and excessive” and made different factual findings.
The criminal investigation into his actions resulted in police declining to lay charges against its officer.
The officer, whom NZME is not naming, was responsible for excessive force in three separate arrests at Parliament on February 10, according to the IPCA decision released yesterday.
He is currently facing legal action in the High Court, after two protestors launched a civil claim.
The three arrests included a semi-naked woman being held down by an officer with his knee on her neck or shoulders, and a “press up” on the head of two protestors - one aged 17.
The three protestors complained to police, who launched an investigation. NZME obtained the criminal investigation report into the officer, which included summaries of police interviews with the officer, witnesses and experts.
Police ultimately concluded the threshold to lay charges wasn’t met in all three cases.
In the most widely publicised arrest of the occupation, semi-naked woman Laura Cassin was dragged from the crowd after covering herself in coconut oil. The officer in question kneeled on her as other officers handcuffed her - but exactly where he kneeled is a point of contention.
The officer told both the criminal investigation and the IPCA that he kneeled on Cassin’s back and shoulder area, fervently denying his knee was on her neck or head.
The criminal investigation broadly agreed, concluding the officer kneeled on her back and shoulders.
There was no mention of a knee on her neck or head, but the report said it was not conclusive whether or not his shin was on her neck. There was no mention of kneeling on the woman’s head in the investigation’s
summary.
Bu the IPCA took a different view, saying based on the video footage it was likely the officer placed his knee on her neck and head for a short period.
“There was no need for [the officer] to involve himself with this arrest and his use of force was unnecessary and excessive,” the IPCA wrote in its decision.
The criminal investigation report took a less critical view.
“It could be argued that [the officer] had no cause to assist with this arrest, due to Cassin being face down and under control. Even though the officers were in control, [the officer’s] involvement was not unusual or unwelcomed.
“His actions pertaining to kneeling on her shoulder area and his body placement were in line with current police practice relating to arrest procedures.”
The officer was not part of the arresting team, instead serving in a senior oversight role during the operation.
Despite the officer claiming to both the IPCA and the criminal investigator that Cassin was resisting arrest, both investigations found she was not.
Dr Judy Melanik, an internationally respected forensic pathologist, provided her view on the force against Cassin as part of the criminal investigation.
She said covering Cassin’s face with a blanket meant her breathing couldn’t be assessed. As her head was covered, Melinek believed there was no way the officer knew what part of her body he was kneeling on.
She said pressure placed on the head and neck was “potentially life-threatening” had it resulted in injuries, although she said it was impossible to tell how much force was applied.
The officer in question was also responsible for doing a “press up” restraint on two protestors, one who was resisting and one who wasn’t.
One of the detainees was 17-year-old Alexander Lawrence. Both the criminal and IPCA investigations found he wasn’t resisting arrest, despite the officer claiming he was.
Lawrence said he suffered pain in his neck, jaw, back and chest and was taken to hospital.
Again, the IPCA found the use of force was unnecessary and excessive.
The same officer used the restraint in another arrest, although this person was resisting. The IPCA once again found the force was unnecessary and excessive.
Both Cassin and Lawrence have launched a civil claim against the officer in the High Court, alleging their rights were breached by the excessive force. They are seeking damages. A date is yet to be set for the civil claim.
Cassin has already had one legal win, with a District Court judge ordering police to pay $6000 of her legal costs after she was charged with trespass in the aftermath of the occupation.
She went to trial in March but Judge Andrew Nicholls dismissed the case part way through, citing the 14-month wait for the trial and the “serious mistakes” of the police prosecution in not ensuring the officer who used the excessive force was available to give evidence.
Cassin’s lawyer Tudor Clee had repeatedly requested that the officer be made available to give evidence at her trial - but the officer in charge of the case, who had known the officer for 20 years, failed to arrange for him to appear, claiming he narrowly read his emails.
Ethan Griffiths covers crime and justice stories nationwide for Open Justice. He joined NZME in 2020, previously working as a regional reporter in Whanganui and South Taranaki.