Six instances of excessive force by police during 23-day occupation of Parliament in 2022, IPCA finds

Police used force against protesters that was at times unlawful, excessive or unreasonable during the 23-day occupation of Parliament in 2022, the Independent Police Conduct Authority has found.

Those included two occasions on February 10, the first day police tried to clear Parliament grounds, two times between February 21 and 23, and twice on March 2, the day of the operation involving 600 officers to clear the protest site.

The IPCA findings, by chairman Judge Kenneth Johnston KC and released today, followed an examination of 21 specific complaints that warranted further investigation. All other uses of force were justified or reasonable, except for two other occasions in which the IPCA could not make a finding.

Police have accepted the findings, saying the “overwhelming majority” did an “exemplary job”, and put processes in place to prevent them happening again.

“There were a very small number of incidents where we didn’t get it right, and where that occurred, we have acknowledged that and, where appropriate, taken steps to address it,” Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming said in a statement.

It follows a separate IPCA report, released in April, into more than 1900 complaints which found that police overall acted appropriately throughout the 23-day occupation, and that police tactics on the final day of the occupation were justified, although officers did not have enough protective gear.

People at the original convoy occupation tend to injured fellow protesters on Molesworth St outside Parliament on March 2, 2022. Photo / John Weekes

The six instances are:

• A man was sitting on a wall in the middle of a calm scene. An officer grabbed a man, who had his hands by his sides, around the back of his neck and pulled him to the ground. This was an unlawful use of force as the man wasn’t resisting arrest.
• An officer restrained the heads of three people using a technique that are not taught in any police training; he took a wide stance and pressed down on their heads in a press-up position for about 10 seconds. The three were lying on the ground and were already restrained by other officers. The force used was unnecessary and excessive.
• An officer punched a woman in the face twice after she had reached inside his body armour; this was judged unreasonable as he could have struck her arm to remove her hand from underneath his armour.
• An officer reached through a line of police and punched a man in the head, and then stuck his thumb into the man’s eye socket. The man was not being aggressive, so these were both an unlawful use of force. The man then lunged at the officer, and the officer punched the man in the stomach several times - which was deemed reasonable and proportionate.
• An officer knocked a phone from a woman’s hand and then pushed her to the ground when she went to retrieve her phone. This was “gratuitous, unnecessary and unlawful”, given she wasn’t obstructing police in any way. The officer then twice punched an elderly man, who came to help the woman, in the face, which was an excessive use of force. A second officer, who has not been identified, used a shield to keep the woman on the ground, which was also deemed “gratuitous, unnecessary and unlawful”.
• An officer sprayed a fire extinguisher at people who had turned their backs to police and were trying to climb down a column on Parliament grounds.

Police were also admonished for smashing the windows of a car they later impounded, and then refused to let the owner access her vehicle to retrieve her belongings. Smashing the windows was “wilful damage and unlawful”, and refusing her access was unreasonable.

“Police should also have assessed on proper grounds whether the car could be released to the woman ... and provided an explanation for their decision. Their failure to do so was unreasonable. Police should have made further attempts to contact the woman, including by text, before putting the car out on a public road,” the IPCA report said.

Police apologised to the car’s owner.

The two matters where the IPCA could not make a finding included a man who said an officer kicked him in the groin while he was linking arms with other protesters, and the officer then put his hands around the man’s neck in an attempt to choke him. The officer said he had repeatedly lifted his boot sideways in an attempt to get the complainant up, but denied intentionally kneeing or kicking the complainant or putting his hands on the complainant’s throat.

The IPCA said there was no independent evidence to judge the reasonableness of the officer’s actions.

The other was a complaint from a man who said, on the morning of March 2, he was bashed in the face and kicked in the back after asking police officers in riot shields and carrying batons what they were doing. The IPCA said the video footage from that morning had poor visibility and no specific incident involving the man could be identified.

Police operation to clear protesters from Parliament in Wellington New Zealand Herald on March 2, 2022. Photo / Mike Scott

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said police should be proud of the way it has responded to the IPCA report, including prioritising a review of defensive tactics training and looking into creating an advisory committee to ensure best practice and consistency of such training.

“The police, I think, handled a very difficult situation incredibly well,” Luxon said.

“They took the six complaints very seriously where there was excessive force used, and importantly they’ve taken action to make sure that head collisions in particular are actually built into better defense training as a result.

“The way they’ve responded to the report has been outstanding.”

Deputy Commissioner McSkimming said the protest was an unprecedented event in New Zealand and presented one of the most significant policing challenges in decades.

“Hundreds of police officers were deployed across the duration of the protest and occupation and I am incredibly proud of the work that they did. They were faced with a level of violence and vitriol that we have never before experienced in New Zealand,” he said.

“They exercised an extraordinary amount of restraint throughout the protest and occupation, including on 2 March when many officers had a genuine and warranted fear for the safety of themselves and their colleagues.

“Despite the provocation and violent behaviour exhibited by some protesters over the duration of this event, the overwhelming majority of our officers did an exemplary job.”

April’s IPCA report into the actions of police during last year’s three-week demonstration-turned-riot at Parliament found almost all actions of officers were justified and the public was well-served.

But issues around a lack of planning and protective equipment for officers have been established, leading to 14 recommendations around procedure and safety.

“We’re lucky someone didn’t get killed,” one person told the IPCA.

“Staff were not adequately equipped to respond to the threat posed by protesters. This was foreseeable and avoidable. The equipment side of it was absolutely shambolic, to put it politely.”

Derek Cheng is a senior journalist who started at the Herald in 2004. He has worked several stints in the press gallery and is a former deputy political editor.