The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found the fatal police shooting of Taranaki man Kaoss Price in 2022 was “unjustified”, but has not recommended police lay criminal charges against the officer.
The report found that the officer was justified in arming himself but that he could have used a taser in the final confrontation.
The officer was justified in shooting at Price on two earlier occasions.
Price, 22, was fatally shot by police on the evening of April 16, 2022. Before the shooting, he was driving in convoy with another vehicle along State Highway 3 between New Plymouth and Waitara in Taranaki.
A police unit conducted a vehicle stop on Price’s associate. While police were speaking to the driver of the first vehicle, Price “sped past in his vehicle with the headlights off”, then-Police Assistant Commissioner Sandra Venables said at the time.
“He has [then] turned around and driven at high speed toward police, before crossing the centre line and narrowly missing the stationary police car,” she continued.
John Campbell reports from Taranaki following the release of the IPCA report into the fatal police shooting of Kaoss Price. (Source: 1News)
“He continued down the road before making a second u-turn and driving back toward police, this time ramming the police car at speed. The force of the impact shunted the police car off the road.”
Venables said Price, who was not armed, then attempted to commandeer “a number of vehicles from members of the public”, and he was shot “while attempting to take control of one of these vehicles”.
In August 2023, police released the results of its Critical Incident Investigation, which found the fatal police shooting was justified – but Price’s family said in response that “this much loved son, sibling, and father did not need to be killed”.
Today’s IPCA report said a police dog handler fired their pistol at Price six times on three separate occasions – as Price drove at speed towards the stationary dog van and sideswiped it; after Price climbed out of his immobilised car and started running towards stationary cars; when Price was attempting to hijack a car in which there were two occupants.
The IPCA accepted on the first and second occasions the dog handler’s actions were justified to protect themselves or others.
“At least on the second of these occasions the dog handler had grounds for thinking that Mr Price might be armed, though in fact he was not.”
“The dog handler with their dog and the second officer chased Mr Price 145 metres up the road. Mr Price forced his way into a car in which there were two civilians and attempted to gain control of the steering wheel and accelerator. The driver attempted to counter this by applying the brake pedal.
“The dog handler arrived and challenged Mr Price to stop. Mr Price would not, and the dog handler shot Mr Price in the chest as Mr Price sat partially on the driver, continuing his attempts to gain control of the car. Within seconds, the second officer arrived and tasered Mr Price, and the Police dog bit Mr Price’s arm. Mr Price died at the scene.
“We accept that the dog handler believed that, should Mr Price gain control of the car, there were serious risks for the occupants, both officers (who could be struck) and any other motorists Mr Price might encounter while trying to flee at speed. These risks were sufficiently imminent to justify the use of force to avert them.
“However, in our view, the dog handler’s decision to shoot Mr Price created an unacceptably high risk that the driver and passenger of the vehicle would be injured or killed by a miss or ricochet, in circumstances where the dog handler could instead have used their Taser to incapacitate Mr Price.”
The IPCA said it came to the decision by a fine margin, and did not think “the evidence is sufficiently compelling to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the dog handler could not rely on section 48 of the Crimes Act 1961 (self-defence) to justify their decision to shoot Mr Price”.
It also found that two officers had failed to inform police communications or their supervisor that they were carrying their firearms, as is police policy.
‘They had to make split second decisions under extreme stress’
Police said in a statement they acknowledged the findings of the IPCA report.
Central District Commander Superintendent Dion Bennett said the staff involved took “swift action” to keep themselves and the public safe.
“They had to make split second decisions under extreme stress and I’m confident they acted with professionalism, in the best interests of public safety.
“No officer wants to use lethal force and our thoughts remain with the Price family as they too process these findings.”
Police also acknowledged that officers failed to advise police communications or their supervisor that they were armed.
‘Relieved but angry’ – Price’s whānau on report
Price’s family said they were “relieved but angry” about the IPCA’s report.
Kaoss’ grandmother Margaret Kennard welcomed the ruling of the shooting as “unjustified” but felt the lack of charges was “not good enough”.
“So what am I supposed to think? IPCA said police weren’t justified in killing my boy, but nobody is being held accountable for gunning down an unarmed 22-year-old? Kaoss is dead. If it had been anybody else, not from the police, who killed him, they’d be in court for this. Why are the police allowed to kill?”
She admitted Kaoss was “no angel” but that he did not deserve to die like this.
“We’re supposed to trust the police to uphold and enforce the law. They are not above it.”
1News’ chief correspondent John Campbell interviewed the family of Kaoss Price for TVNZ’s Sunday in 2022, watch or read the complete story.
