The Authority oversaw a Police investigation following an allegation that an officer slammed their patrol car’s door on a female detainee’s leg.
The woman was arrested for breaching her bail following a traffic stop and placed in the rear of the officer’s car. The officer reportedly attempted to breathalyse the woman on two occasions but was unable to complete the procedure due to her refusal to provide a sample of breath. The woman alleged that it was during this interaction that the officer shut her leg in the patrol car’s door.
A second officer witnessed the incident and provided a formal written statement in which she described her colleague slamming the patrol car door against the woman’s legs.
Police commenced an employment investigation but determined that they could not use the second officer’s statement, as the officer had not consented to it being used for that purpose. We challenged this position and Police sought legal advice, which was still pending when the subject officer was interviewed. When Police did receive legal advice, it supported our view as to the use to which the second officer’s statement could be put.
Accordingly, the second officer’s statement was not referred to during the subject officer’s interview. To compound matters, the second officer was re-interviewed as part of the employment process. Differences in the officer’s two accounts were not explored, with Police simply preferring the second account. Police contend that the differences between the two statements given by the second officer were not material. The Authority disagrees.
We made Police aware of our concerns and recommended that Police reinterview the second officer to address inconsistencies in their evidence, and also reconsider the weight placed on comments the officer made post-interview. These recommendations were acknowledged but not followed. The woman’s complaint was not upheld.
We disagree with the outcome of the Police investigation. Our view is that it is more likely than not that the officer forcefully closed their patrol car door on the woman’s leg on a least two occasions. This, in our view, constituted an unjustified use of force.
IPCA: 23-20750