It was justified for an officer to slap, punch and kick an "aggressive" 17-year-old boy during his arrest in Christchurch, the police watchdog has ruled.
Police were called to a family harm incident in the morning of November 8, 2020, involving the 17-year-old, referred to as Mr Z, and his 16-year-old former partner, referred to as Ms Y.
Staying in a caravan over the road from his aunt's house - Ms X - himself and his former partner had been heard arguing by her mum after a pocket dial.
The couple's three-month-old baby could be heard crying in the background.
It was alleged Ms Y had been slapped in the face and kicked in the ribs and chest by her former partner at the time. It was also alleged Ms Y hit him too.
The night before, police had served him with a Final Protection Order and a Public Safety Order. It was alleged he had put his hands around Ms Y's neck as if to strangle her.
It was also alleged Mr Z's partner had been wanting to catch a flight home with the baby.
Concerned for her daughter's safety after the pocket dial, police were called.
However, Mr Z tried to resist arrest and both Ms Y and Ms X tried to interfere, shoving and punching one of the other officers - Officer B. She had also been kicked in the leg by the boy earlier.
The officer trying to arrest Mr Z - Officer A - slapped and punched his head in four to five "distraction strikes" to try and get him to release his arms which were tucked by his side and under his body.
The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) ruling noted on the way to the incident the officers had reviewed police intelligence alerts which said the Mr Z had threatened to stab the next officer he dealt with.
The alerts also contained warnings about the Mr Z's past use of violence, carrying weapons and having been tasered.
After eventually getting Mr Z into handcuffs with the help of a third officer, the ruling noted how one of them was kicked in the mouth as they tried to get him into a patrol car.
The police station was only a 10 minute drive away, but lights and sirens were used due to Mr Z's "assaultive behaviour".
Officer B drove and Officer A was in the back with Mr Z, who hissed, blew and spat at the others.
On the journey he also bit and repeatedly kicked Officer A, including in the face, and the interior of the car, and also kicking out at Officer B.
In an attempt to try and protect himself and Officer B, Officer A punched and kicked Mr Z - who did not stop.
"[It was] like he couldn't feel pain ... yeah it was weird ... once again there was just nothing," Officer A told the IPCA.
One of Mr Z's kicks had also hit his hand, bending his finger back at an odd angle. It was later found it had caused ligament damage and required medical treatment.
The IPCA noted Mr Z caused "significant damage to the car's interior.
"Despite being handcuffed, it is evident from photographs of the damage to the patrol car that Mr Z had successfully used significant force against police from the confined area of the back seat."
It apparently took five officers to remove the Mr Z from the car at the station and he was carried in to the custody unit by his arms and legs after some more resisting.
Mr Z was strip searched and placed into his own CCTV-monitored cell.
The IPCA noted that he was released into the care of his family two hours after he had arrived at the station.
Mr Z had numerous minor abrasions and bruises to his face and body following the incident.
"We believe the injuries were most likely a direct consequence of Mr Z's own actions while physically resisting police," the IPCA said.
The police watchdog concluded the level of force used by officers, largely by Officer A, was "proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances".
"We are of the view that any strike to the head region should be only used in extreme circumstances. However, we find the officer was justified in using them to arrest the youth given circumstances in this incident."
Mr Z's aunt had complained to the IPCA about the police's use of force, claiming he had been compliant.
"We were unable to find evidence that Mr Z was compliant in his dealings with police, up until being placed in the cell, or that Mr Z was assaulted or humiliated. In fact, his behaviour was quite the contrary; Mr Z was uncooperative, aggressive and violent to an extreme," the IPCA remarked.
"We believe the officers acted professionally and showed commendable restraint."
Mr Z was later charged with assaulting police.
Police have accepted the IPCA's findings.
Canterbury District Commander, Superintendent John Price, said the incident demonstrates the aggressive behaviour officers face on the job every day.
"I'm extremely proud of the officers involved and totally support their decision-making and actions," he said.
"These officers demonstrated courage and restraint in dealing with a very serious family violence offender who had been ferocious toward his former partner, had previously threatened violence to police, and was determined and focused on resisting arrest.
"His behaviour and actions were stopped and further violent actions prevented through the professional tactical response of the police officers, who secured and restored order."
SHARE ME