The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found that the use of a Police dog to bite a young person (14 years old)
following a pursuit was not justified in the circumstances.
On 8 October 2019, the young person was staying at his friend’s house in Cambridge. His friend decided to take his
mother’s Volkswagen without her knowledge. At around 1.38am two officers, who had just attended a possible vehicle
break-in, saw the young person driving the Volkswagen and thought he may have been involved. They also thought he may
have been driving a stolen car as he did not match the registered owner’s description. They signalled the driver to stop
and, when he did not, initiated a pursuit. The pursuit lasted for 18 minutes, reached speeds of approximately 150kph in
a 100kph zone, and travelled approximately 30 kilometres.
The pursuit ended when the young person drove down a dead-end driveway in a rural area south of Hamilton. He and his
friend, who was in the front passenger seat, fled on foot into surrounding farmland. Four other young people who were in
the back seat were apprehended almost immediately.
The pursuing officer and a dog handler chased the driver and passenger through some paddocks before the driver was
apprehended by a Police dog and bitten. He sustained a serious dog bite to his left calf. He was given medical
assistance at the scene and at the station before being taken to Waikato Hospital for treatment.
The Authority also found the initial decision to signal the Volkswagen to stop was justified. Due to the interpretation
of Police policy at the time, the initiation of the pursuit was also justified. However, insufficient consideration was
given to abandoning the pursuit once the risks increased due to speed, the young person’s manner of driving and the
number of occupants in the vehicle.
Police were justified in arresting the young person, and the Authority did not accept his allegation that he was
punched, sworn at, and laughed at during his arrest.
“The use of a Police dog to bite the young person was not justified or necessary in the circumstances. While there was
no issue with Police using the dog to track him, the offending that he had possibly been involved in was not at a level
that warranted a Police dog being deployed to bite him” said Authority Chair, Judge Colin Doherty.