The Authority oversaw a Police investigation following concerns surrounding uses of a 40mm sponge round launcher by a Northland officer.
The officer fired three sponge rounds during two incidents:
- at the driver of a car who ran from Police following a fleeing driver event;
- at the driver of a car who the officer thought was about to ram the patrol vehicle the officer was standing next to; and
- during the same incident, at the driver’s dog during a subsequent foot chase.
These matters were notified to the Authority by Police, with a complaint also being made by the person involved in the first incident.
The Police investigation concluded that the deployment of the sponge rounds was justified, and the Authority agreed that:
- In the case of the first deployment, the officer was justified in deploying a sponge round to prevent the driver’s escape. Of note, the sponge round missed its target.
- In the case of the second deployment, the sponge round hit the driver’s elbow. The deployment of a sponge round was an appropriate response to a situation the officer reasonably believed posed a risk of death or serious injury.
- In the case of the third deployment, the use of a sponge round was justified to deter an animal that posed a threat to officers and a Police dog.
In their report, Police expressed the view that none of the above matters should have been notified to the Authority, having been assessed and cleared as part of an internal tactical options review process. The Authority strongly disagrees with this position.
It was right that the officer’s actions were subject to scrutiny in circumstances where reliance on a sponge round launcher may not have been lawful or complied with policy. The Authority is concerned that if such incidents are not – routinely – referred, this will undermine its ability to exercise oversight of such matters in the absence of a complaint. Such an approach may also mask any deficiencies in Police’s internal tactical options review process.
IPCA: 24-25492, 25-26469 & 25-27612