Arrest of boy, 17, for breaching bail unlawful - watchdog

It was unlawful of an officer to arrest a 17-year-old boy for breaching his bail conditions and unjustified for him to use a police dog, the police watchdog has ruled.

However, the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) and police do not see eye-to-eye on parts of the arrest in Porirua in October 2020.

The arrest went to the IPCA after a witness who overheard it complained of excessive use of force.

In the wake of an internal review, police see the boy's arrest as lawful.

Wellington District Commander Superintendent Corrie Parnell said the use of force was justified and proportionate.

The incident unfolded after the officer stopped a car full of young people just before 12am on October 4, 2020. Everyone in the car was under 18.

The boy, referred to as Z, was a passenger in the back seat.

He gave the officer a false name, but by law he wasn't required to give his name anyway.

The officer eventually got Z's real name after heading to the driver's mum's house, who knew Z. It was hoped she would give the officer Z's real name, but she just said his false name was correct when he blurted it out.

After searching for links to the other passengers he'd already identified - they all gave their real names in the car - the officer discovered Z's real name.

He found Z was out on bail for an incident two days earlier. Z had attempted to sell an imitation firearm.

The condition of his bail was he was meant to be at home between 7pm and 7am.

The officer also saw Z had alerts for being a gang member, having access to firearms and carrying a knife. He did not note Z's age.

The officer decided to arrest Z for breaching bail, but shouldn't have, as a person can only be arrested for two or more breaches. He also thought Z was "out offending", although there was no evidence of this.

"All the other occupants of the vehicle provided their correct details, including the driver. Officer A did not have any reasonable grounds to suspect Z had committed any offences, was a party to any offences, or was intending to commit an offence," the IPCA noted.

But when the officer went to arrest Z he discovered Z had managed to escape out an upstairs window.

The officer and his police dog went after Z, eventually catching up to him as he went into some bushes.

The dog bit Z on both arms and his yells of pain were overheard by two people nearby.

The way the officer spoke to Z and the witnesses at this time was deemed in an "unprofessional manner". This is where the IPCA and police agree.

A recording confirmed part of what the officer had said to one of the witnesses: "He's not a child, he's a criminal, he's out here victimising people", and that it was "none of [her business]".

Z had been called a "c**t" a few times during the arrest, the IPCA noted.

"The officer's language and attitude during this incident fell well short of NZ Police values and what we expect of our people," Parnell said in a statement.

"This has been addressed by way of an employment investigation and sanction."

Parnell said the internal review had concluded the officer had reasonable grounds to believe it was necessary to arrest Z. Z had breached bail, was involved in a gang, was on bail for serious charges, had provided false details and ran.

"The internal review also concluded that the use of the police dog was necessary to prevent the youth escaping arrest," he said.

"Police reviewed the incident. They found that the arrest was lawful, and the use of force was justified and proportionate. They decided not to charge Officer A with assault. For the reasons outlined ... we disagree with the Police findings," the IPCA, however, concluded.

The IPCA said if Z had not fled and if the officer had been able to discuss the bail breach, things might have turned out differently that night.