The Authority oversaw a Police investigation into the use of a Taser on a youth who was fleeing arrest. The incident began when three unidentified individuals were seen driving dangerously in a stolen car that was connected to thefts at petrol stations and shops. The driver fled from Police and avoided multiple road spike deployments. The occupants of the car wore balaclavas and made gun like hand gestures towards members of the public. It was not known whether they were armed.
Police eventually stopped the car in the city centre and arrested two occupants. The third occupant, who was wearing all-black clothing and a balaclava, ran away and ignored a Police officer’s instruction to stop.
The officer ran after the person and discharged his Taser as they ran. Only one probe made contact and no shock was delivered. The individual was successfully detained by another officer after entering an enclosed courtyard, at which point it was established that they were 13 years old.
Police conducted a criminal investigation and determined that the officer was justified in using force against the youth to arrest him and prevent his escape into a busy city centre. The Authority agreed that the force was justified to prevent the young person’s escape and did not consider the force to be excessive.
Police then conducted an employment investigation which determined the officer had breached policy. The Authority was only notified of the outcome after it had concluded, contrary to the oversight process agreed with Police. We were not given an opportunity to provide oversight, input, or participate in the investigation and subsequent decision-making.
The Authority wrote to Police outlining our concerns. In response, Police acknowledged that the appropriate process had not been followed and advised that this was because of a mistaken belief that the matter had been categorised in a way that did not require Authority oversight.
We remain concerned as to how the error occurred. There are clear categorisation and communication processes in place between Police and the Authority including a Memorandum of Understanding, which sets out the agreed expectations and responsibilities of both agencies. We find the lack of communication in this instance to be concerning, particularly as this type of error is not an isolated occurrence.
While the Authority accepts that the employment outcome reached was reasonably open to Police, had there been an opportunity for meaningful engagement in the oversight process, the Authority would likely have raised several matters for Police's consideration.
IPCA: 25-30866