Northland police officers who shot at suspects should not have been carrying pistols

Thursday, 20 June 2019

Police officers who shot at alleged offenders should not have been carrying pistols, the police watchdog has ruled.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority found the officers were not justified in carrying Glock pistols when pursuing a vehicle in rural Whangārei about 3am on February 23, 2018.

The people in the car were suspected of being responsible for a spate of burglaries and were known to carry firearms.

When the vehicle failed to stop, officers began pursuit and the suspects rammed the police car three times and threw items at them, including torches, beer bottles, a scissor jack and a gasket.

**READ MORE:

* Police watchdog rules officers who put teenager in a headlock acted lawfully

* Pregnant woman injured by police officer's misuse of road spikes

* Man flung into wall and knocked unconscious by custody officer**

Following the first ramming, a passenger pulled what was believed to be a long-range firearm at police.

One of the officers then got out of the police car and shot at the suspects. They were not injured.

Upon reflection, the officer driving said it was more likely the weapon was a steel pole and not the barrel of a firearm.

Although the officers were wrong to equip themselves with the pistols, IPCA general manager Warren Young said the officer who fired the shot was 'legally justified' in firing his pistol at the man in self-defence.

'The officer believed they were in imminent danger of serious harm or death and the officer responded accordingly.'

Northland district commander superintendent Tony Hill said the incident highlighted the unpredictable nature of policing.

'I am so thankful that no police staff or member of our community was injured during this incident.'

He said officers made split second decisions in often volatile situations to keep the community safe.

'I always back them to make the right decision. In this case, there was no fault found in the decision making of the officers involved.'

The ruling also found the supervisor did not follow correct procedure when the officers informed them they would arm themselves with the pistols.

The car involved was unable to be located and its occupants were not identified.