The police trio had responded to a complaint of two men arguing on a street corner about 2am.
Mr Z and Mr Y had both been drinking while attending a private party at a house with family and friends earlier in the evening.
As Mr Z became aggressive towards police and resisted the attempts of two officers to arrest him, Mr Y ran towards the dog handler in a hostile and threatening manner.
“The dog handler warned this second man to stop, and when the man continued, the dog handler released the dog to bite the man,” the IPCA ruling said.
Mr Y managed to break away and ran off. The IPCA concluded the dog handler’s actions were justified in relation to his incident.
However, the authority didn’t view his decision to release the dog, without warning, a second time as favourably.
The dog was let go on to Mr Z while he was being restrained and arrested by two officers.
Authority chair, Judge Kenneth Johnston KC, said the dog bit the man on the upper arm while two officers used manual force to make the arrest, which was considered appropriate and sufficient.
Judge Johnston said “it was not likely he was about to escape arrest”, and declared the officer’s decision was unwarranted.
“Considering there were two officers already handling Mr Z, and he was on the ground, we consider the use of the police dog to bite Mr Z was excessive.
“Dog bites can cause serious injuries and we believe police could have completed the arrest without inflicting a bite injury.”
During the scuffle, the man fell to the ground along with two officers and suffered a broken ankle.
Judge Johnson said the authority was not able to determine how the injury was sustained.
Police acknowledged the IPCA’s findings.
Central District Commander Superintendent Scott Fraser said it was a fast-moving, dynamic incident where the attending staff felt there was a risk to their safety.
“Every day, our staff are required to make decisions in an instant, with the goal of keeping the public and themselves safe, which was the aim in this instance,” Fraser said.
Following a defended hearing on October 17, 2022, Mr Z was found guilty of disorderly behaviour and resisting arrest but cleared of a charge of possession of offensive weapons, a knife and chisels.
The IPCA said Mr Z shouldn’t have been charged with possessing offensive weapons because he had a “reasonable excuse” for having the knife and chisels which officers failed to ask him about before laying the charge.
