Another appalling decision from Waitematā PPC: further proof that the Police do not care about complainants (and that the IPCA are awesome)

If you needed any more proof that Police Professional Conduct (i.e. the sub-department within the Police which deals with complaints about police misconduct) is biased and will not discipline its own officers, check out this article: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/ipca-finds-police-officers-use-of-force-on-woman-who-gave-him-thumbs-down-was-unlawful/ZNM5AU6NCZDZ3M4ZBBT5PVJ5LE/

A woman was driving when she saw a police car driving in the opposite direction. She held her hand out the window and gave him the thumbs down sign. That was the extent of what happened. The officer signalled for her to stop, but instead she drove 800 metres back to her parents’ house. He claimed that he thought she might be under the influence of drugs or alcohol, but the IPCA found (for a whole variety of reasons explained in its report) that giving him the thumbs down was the real reason he told her to stop.

When she arrived at her house, she asked if he was stopping her because of the thumbs down. According to the IPCA, he did not reply and asked instead for her driver’s licence and details. She refused to provide these and turned away. He then told the woman she was under arrest and tried to grab her. In the process, he tore her shirt and left her bra exposed. She ran off and yelled at her parents for help, and accidentally hurt his finger when she closed the door. (The IPCA found it was accidental.)

She changed her top and then came downstairs with her hands up as her mother tended his injured hand, and told him he could arrest her. He responded by pepper spraying her directly in the eyes multiple times and taking her into custody, even though she had her hands up when she was sprayed. She was charged with failing to stop, failing to provide her name and address, and resisting arrest. This would have led to thousands in legal bills.

The IPCA found the officer was unjustified in stopping her vehicle, and in using subsequent force. The IPCA also found that the officer in question did not have a genuine belief that she might have been using drugs or alcohol. Instead, in the IPCA’s view he was reacting to her thumbs down gesture. Accordingly, the IPCA said he had no right to stop her, arrest her, use force when he grabbed her, attempt to enter her house, or pepper spray her.

The IPCA said that disciplinary proceedings against the officer were appropriate. The Police ignored this and said that giving someone the thumbs down can “reasonably indicate driver impediment” and accordingly the officer’s actions were justified, and the Police did not intend to discipline him. This is despite the fact that the IPCA identified multiple aspects of the officer’s evidence which indicated dishonesty.

The takeaway points are as follows: firstly, PPC simply will not discipline its own officers if there is any possible way to avoid it. I have now seen this again and again and again: not just in this case, and not just in my case, but also in Daniel Maxwell’s case and in other IPCA reports I have read. The woman was pepper sprayed in the face for heaven’s sake. Is there nothing that PPC will not explain away in its own officers?

But secondly, the other point to take from this case is that I hope people are noticing a pattern once again of the IPCA making findings against a police officer and the Police ignoring those findings. It shows, as I have been saying for nigh on a year now, that the IPCA truly are independent and do not have a cozy relationship with Police. This case is another testament to their integrity.

The post Another appalling decision from Waitematā PPC: further proof that the Police do not care about complainants (and that the IPCA are awesome) first appeared on Kiwiblog.