Setting a police dog on two young people, which resulted in serious dog bite injuries to one, was unjustified, an investigation by the Independent Police Conduct Authority has found.
NZ Police dog - file photo. Photo: RNZ/ Adriana Weber
The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) carried out a year-long investigation into the arrest, during which an officer set a dog on two young people who had stolen and abandoned a car.
In August 2021, two young people were spotted in a stolen car by a dog handler, who requested authorisation to pursue it. The pursuit was not authorised, and other police officers found the stolen car abandoned a short distance away.
The dog handler was called to track the offenders, and cordons were erected around the area so the pair could not escape. When the dog handler found the two young people, she warned them twice about the dogs and, when they didn't stop, she released the animal.
One of the young people was seriously bitten and taken to the hospital, while the other surrendered without incident.
Authority Chair Judge Colin Doherty said although the law allows the use of animals to detain suspects, the degree of force was disproportionate in this case, and Police already had the area cordoned to prevent escape.
"While the dog was necessary to track the offenders, the dog handler should have retained the dog and let the people be arrested by police on the cordon.
"The theft of motor vehicle in this circumstance, when we've seen it wasn't as serious as other cases. The vehicle has been located and has been taken back into police possession, so it wasn't like the vehicle was lost forever. The decision to set off the dog was disproportional," he said.
According to the Annual Report from IPCA, use of force without a weapon was among the most common types of complaints made about police officers to the agency.
Read the full document: IPCA Annual Report 2020 - 2021
Other top complaints about police conduct were about failure in an investigation, an officer's attitude or use of language or inadequate service.
In the IPCA report into the incident involving the police dog, the young people also complained that the dog handler officer used offensive language and excessive force, and they accused her of "stomping" on the driver's face while arresting him.
Doherty said while it was likely police used derogatory language toward the offenders, the report found the officer did not have any contact with the suspect's face, based on medical records not indicating any form of injury.
He said although most complaints were looked into by the IPCA, not all complaints about use of force go through a full investigation. In some occasions, when the evidence was not enough or the circumstances unlikely to have resulted in unjustifiable use of force, the agency would not proceed with the inquiry.
"We do get complaints from time to time about use of force by police officers and we do investigate them. When we get a complaint, we seek information from the complainer and from the police and we examine that, " he said.
Doherty said he expected the report would help the Police to improve its response to incidents more efficiently.
"In reports like that we let the public know what we think of the use of force, in this case using a dog, and we hope that our independent views will also assist police in their trainings and how they use dogs in particular."
Through a statement, police acknowledged the finding, but disagreed with the IPCA assessment of the situation.
Assistant Commissioner Richard Chambers said the handler considered the circumstances and risks prior to making the decision to deploy the police dog, including the likelihood of the persons not being held accountable for their criminal behaviour and the likelihood they would reoffend.
Chambers said those involved were given ample opportunity to surrender after being challenged by police and failed to do so.
"The young persons were in a stolen vehicle, had failed to stop and were driving dangerously, creating considerable risk to the public," he said.
Chambers believed the dog handler was justified in setting the dogs on the young people given the circumstances.
