The Authority oversaw a Police investigation into an officer’s use of a Taser against a person fleeing arrest on foot. The person sustained a significant head injury after falling to the ground.
The Police investigation found that the officer was searching for the person late at night, as they were wanted for arrest for a recent driving matter. The officer came across a parked vehicle believed to be used by the person. The officer waited nearby in hope that the person would return. Unbeknownst to the officer, the person unlawfully entered onto the property of their ex-partner nearby. Soon after, the ex-partner was awoken by the person and called Police for assistance. The person then ran from the property, over a fence, through a neighbouring property, down a long driveway and out onto the street, towards where their vehicle was parked.
The officer confronted the person, who ran back towards the direction they had come from. The officer then tasered the person, who fell onto the concrete ground and hit their head. More officers arrived and immediately applied first aid to the person, who was then transported to hospital with a significant head injury.
Both Police and the Authority interviewed the officer, who justified their Taser use in defence of the ex-partner, saying they feared that the person would re-enter the property and harm them. However, the Authority does not accept that the officer genuinely believed that the person posed an imminent risk to the ex-partner. Nonetheless, we do accept that the officer was justified in using the Taser to prevent the person’s escape.
Police policy prohibits the use of a Taser against a fleeing person unless an officer holds a genuine belief that the person poses a risk of imminent physical harm. Despite us concluding the officer was lawfully justified in discharging their Taser, consistent with our views, we also conclude they breached Police policy.
Police likewise concluded that the officer’s use of the Taser was lawfully justified to prevent the escape of the person’s arrest, but a breach of policy.
Additionally, the officer returned a positive drug test result for cannabis when voluntarily tested soon after the incident as part of the investigation. Based on the purpose for which the information from the drug test was collected there were limits as to the extent that evidence could be used in a criminal process. The officer resigned from Police before the investigation was finalised. Had the officer not resigned, Police would have undertaken a review of the case in accordance with its Code of Conduct and disciplinary policy guidelines.
We find that the Police decision was one that was reasonably open to them.
The Authority is satisfied with the Police investigation. Moreover, Police have since proactively initiated a review of their drug testing policy, something which the Authority endorses.
IPCA: 25-30537