A Coroner has ruled that police officers who fatally shot a Darfield man were justified in their actions as they had an “honest and reasonable” belief he was a threat to them and other people.
At an inquest into Donald Ineson’s death his wife “questioned” the information the officers who fired the fatal shots were given on the day - claiming there was a “difference” in what she told a 111 call-taker and what was passed on to police who attended.
But Coroner Sue Johnson was satisfied the police “received sufficient information to conclude Ineson posed a threat” and did not act outside the law.
The 56-year-old father-of-two was killed after police responded to reports he was threatening his family with a firearm in November 2018.
His wife Joanne had called 111 to report that he had pointed a shotgun at her during an argument.
As she spoke to the police operator she heard two gunshots and suspected Ineson had taken his own life.
However, minutes later she said he was shooting at the front door of the family home which she had locked.
It later emerged he had not fired shots at the door, rather he used an axe to break in so he could get his car keys.
Two local police officers responded, arming themselves and travelling to the Ineson home.
As they approached the house on foot they saw Ineson readying to leave in his car.
They ordered him to stop but he ignored them, striking and injuring one of the men with his car as he accelerated out of the driveway.
The officers fired 10 shots between them at Ineson’s vehicle as he fled the scene.
He drove about 300m before making a U-turn and heading back towards his property.
When he was 100m away he pulled over and stopped.
Police approached the vehicle and found Ineson dead in the driver’s seat.
Ineson’s death prompted investigations by the police, Independent Police Conduct Authority and Coroner.
Following the police investigation, an opinion was sought from the Crown Solicitor who concluded that the officers " had acted in defence of others” and no charges were laid against them.
In November 2020 the IPCA also cleared the officers of any wrongdoing.
“In the officers’ minds, Mr Ineson was volatile and dangerous, and potentially suicidal,” IPCA chairman Judge Colin Doherty said.
“They feared he would deliberately crash into another vehicle, potentially killing or seriously injuring any occupant of that vehicle.
“They also believed Mr Ineson may still have had the shotgun with him and were concerned he would use it against other police officers in his efforts to escape.”
Coroner Johnson released her findings to the public today, taking a similar view.
“Everything the officers were told or saw built on the things they had previously been told or saw,” she said.
“I am satisfied that the officers received sufficient information to conclude that Mr Ineson posed a threat. Having assessed what they knew, I am satisfied that their belief that Mr Ineson posed a threat to other people, including other motorists, was an honest and reasonable one in the circumstances as they believed them to be.
“On the evidence, I am satisfied that (the officers) were justified in using force against Mr Ineson in defence of other people in Darfield when they shot towards Mr Ineson’s vehicle and killed him.”
She acknowledged his family, saying Ineson was “very much loved by his wife Joanne, their two children, his twin sister and the rest of his family and his friends”.
“Mr Ineson’s death was a tragedy. His death occurred in what can only be considered by his family and friends as highly distressing circumstances. They miss him enormously.
“I extend my condolences to them for their loss. And I acknowledge that their distress and grief has been compounded by the length of time it has taken to conclude this Inquiry.”
The Coroner also acknowledged concerns raised by Joanne Ineson at the inquest.
“Mrs Ineson questioned the information that police received from (the 111 call centre),” she said.
“She stated that there are differences in what she says she told the police call-taker and what the transcript of the call says.
“I find that these do not involve the fundamental information that police received which informed their decision to shoot towards the fleeing Mr Ineson.”
Coroner Johnson outlined Ineson’s life and what led to the tragedy.
After a career in the Royal New Zealand Air Force he farmed - first for himself and then for another farmer.
Ineson had suffered “chronic back pain” for several years and took Voltaren, but it did not stop him from working.
He further injured his back in March 2018 and his life began to spiral soon after.
“Mr Ineson had two weeks off work after his injury, but it did not help his pain or movement,” said the Coroner.
“His GP prescribed him painkillers… When he returned to work, he was unable to do what was needed and was sent home.”
He was then referred to an orthopaedic and spine surgeon, who diagnosed a disc protrusion in his back that was “impinging on the root of a nerve”.
In July - after his father had died and his mother had been moved into a care home - Ineson saw his specialist again and was given an injection to alleviate his back pain.
It did not work.
In late August Ineson stopped work altogether and on October 9 he underwent back surgery.
Coroner Johnson said his expectation was that “his pain would be relieved and he would go back to work”.
“But this was not to be. Following surgery, Mr Ineson’s nerve pain was worse,” she said.
“Evidence from his medical notes shows that following his surgery, Mr Ineson was a lot more inactive compared to before his operation. He reported that he could not walk without limping and his pain was constant, but he walked every day to stay mobile.
“As well, he and Mrs Ineson were under a lot of pressure. They had money issues. There were tensions between them. They argued a lot. They lived apart for a short time.
“By 25 November Mr Ineson was a man debilitated by pain, grief and disappointment.
Coroner Johnson said by the day he died, Ineson was “unwell”.
“He had had a very painful back for a long time. It prevented him working,” she said.
“He had agreed to very recent surgery believing it would stop the pain. It did not. It made it worse.
“He was tired. Mr Ineson was a man at the end of his tether.”
It was against that background that the fatal incident unfolded.
The Coroner heard from a witness who lived across the street from the Ineson family.
He said he’d heard shots come from the property and then saw Ineson walking outside the house carrying a shotgun.
He called 111 and stayed on the phone with the call-taker for some time.
He saw Ineson drive off and told the call-taker “he’s just hit a policeman and run him over. … The policeman flew over the top of the car… The policeman’s fired a lot of shots at the car and the car has gone.”
In his evidence at the inquest, the witness said “he was obviously in a hurry to get out there so he just floored it”.
Through the inquest process, Coroner Johnson sought to establish whether Ineson’s death could have been prevented.
“The evidence of both officers is that they fired shots at the fleeing car to disable it, preferably so that it would be unable to be driven, and therefore Mr Ineson would not escape and harm someone else,” she said.
“They knew, however, that there was a risk that Mr Ineson would be shot. They did not know that Mr Ineson did not have his shotgun in the car.
“The officers believed that he had two weapons: the shotgun and his car… he was an active armed offender.
“It was about 18 minutes after the officers fired towards the Ford Falcon, that the decision to approach it was made.
“This is a long time to wait to be sure that Mr Ineson was not a threat to anyone before checking to if he was still alive and whether he was injured or not and provide treatment if he was.
“However, I am satisfied on the evidence that (police) were justifiably cautious.”
The Coroner said police were waiting for backup and while they knew they had to provide assistance to Ineson if he was injured, they could not be sure he was not “biding his time before harming anyone who approached him”.
“I am satisfied on the evidence… that even though there was a significant time in making that approach between Mr Ineson’s vehicle stopping after it did a U-turn, and (police) approaching the vehicle, that (their) caution was justified in the circumstances as he believed them to be.”
Coroner Johnson said when Ineson was shot he “was clearly not going to stop”.
“With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that Mr Ineson did not have his shotgun with him in the car, or at any time after he locked it in the gun cabinet,” she said.
“But nobody knew that.
“What the police knew was what Mrs Ineson told them. That he pointed his shotgun at her and he fired shots at the door. Then, they believed that he deliberately hit (the police officer as he fled).
“But even if Mr Ineson had not intended to hit (the officer) he nonetheless failed to stop after doing so. This is an offence. He was a man who at that point had broken the law. Twice.”
Coroner Johnson said it was “very unlikely” Ineson “planned or intended any of what happened that day when he woke up that morning”.
“But I am satisfied on the evidence that the picture the police had of him, painted by his actions that day, was a very different one to the picture his family had, of Don the gentle giant.”
“I find that the officers did not make an operational error of judgment in believing that Mr Ineson was armed.
“They believed that he still had the shotgun with him when he left his property. There was no evidence at the time, to contradict their belief that he had it with him.”
The Coroner said Ineson’s family had told her his actions were totally out of character.
“Mrs Ineson described him as being kind. He loved his wife and children,” she said.
“He would do things for others and he was unassuming about it.
“He was honest.”
The Coroner said there was no need to make any comments or recommendations.
Alleged thief entered before 1pm and then fled the scene in a vehicle after the robbery.