Two police officers used excessive force when arresting young people in an 2022 incident in Auckland, the police watchdog has found.
On September 26, 2022 police arrested five young people, aged between 10 and 14, after pursuing and stopping them in a stolen car in southeast Auckland.
The end of the pursuit was recorded by two bystanders, who shared it on social media and prompted some people who saw the footage to complain to the Authority about the officers’ use of force.
The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) today revealed the arrests of the five youths were justified to prevent them from committing further offences, however it found some of the force used in some circumstances was excessive.
The investigation considered the law in relation to use of force, interviewed six officers as well as the five youths, and analysed both Eagle footage and the video footage taken by bystanders.
“The driver and one of the rear seat passengers were detained without significant use of force. However, the video footage of the arrests of the front seat passenger and two youths from the rear seat showed officers using significant force,” the IPCA report said.
The incident
Recorded footage showed officers ran towards the car when it was stopped, at the same time as the young people exited the car. Officers immediately took hold of the driver and passengers, pulled them out of the car and took them down to the ground to handcuff and arrest them.
A 14-year-old, referred to as Youth Z, was in the passenger front seat and was partially out of the car when an officer, referred to as Officer A, pulled him the rest of the way out and down onto the ground.
Video footage showed Officer A striking Youth Z several times to the back of his head and back while he was lying face down on the ground. Officer A subsequently handcuffed Youth Z and took him to a police car.
Video footage showed a second officer, Officer B, pulling a 10-year-old, known as Youth Y, from the rear seat of the car and onto the ground.
Officer D helped Officer B to move Youth Y to an area behind the stolen car, so they would have more space to handcuff him.
The footage appears to show Officer B kicking out at Youth Y while he is on the ground, being held by Officer D.
The officer denied kicking at Youth Y, saying he was concerned Youth Y would pull him down to the ground.
An 11-year-old, referred to as Youth X, was seen on footage to exit from the rear of the car and immediately crouch down next to the rear wheel.
Another officer (Officer C) appeared to grab him by the upper arm and drag him roughly across the road to the kerb where he was handcuffed.
“It does not appear that Youth X was given the opportunity to get up and walk across to the kerb. He appeared compliant up to the point he was grabbed and there was no reason for Officer C to believe that there was a need to pre-empt resistance from him,” the report said.
The outcome
The IPCA said force used to detain the driver and one of the rear seat passengers was reasonable and justified under section 39 of the Crimes Act 1961.
The agency found Officer A used excessive force on Youth Z, however.
“The force used in that instance was unreasonable in the circumstances and unjustified under section 39 of the Crimes Act 1961,” it said.
Officer A admitted using excessive force and was changed with common assault. – a move the IPCA said it agreed with. The officer pleaded guilty and was discharged without conviction.
Officer B’s actions in lifting and dragging Youth Y from the car to a safer location in order to detain him were reasonable in the circumstances.
“However, Officer B subsequently used excessive force on Youth Y. The force used in that instance was unreasonable in the circumstances and unjustified under section 48 of the Crimes Act 1961.”
Officers C’s actions in lifting and dragging Youth X from the road to a safer location in order to detain him were reasonable in the circumstances.
Police respond
In a statement, Counties Manukau District Commander Superintendent Shanan Gray acknowledged the IPCA findings.
“Any situation immediately after fleeing driver incidents are very dynamic and can pose risk to all concerned,” he said.
“Our staff make decisions every day about acting with urgency towards a situation while also keeping the safety of all top of mind.”
Gray said an employment investigation was carried out into the matter, of which the outcomes were confidential given police privacy obligations to employees.
He said both constables, Officer A and B, remain members of police.
