The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found that officers were not justified in following two stolen cars at speed in wet and dark conditions in Christchurch in 2023. The incident ended with the second car colliding with a train. The 15-year-old driver and sole occupant of the second car was not injured, but the train driver suffered a spinal injury.
The incident began at 4am when an officer observed two cars speed away from him, one of which he recognised as stolen. He turned to follow, accelerating above the road speed limit but not activating lights and siren. The cars drove past bollards, and the officer could not follow.
Another unit sighted the two cars and followed them at a distance on a long straight road in the direction of the CBD. The officer initially drove at the road speed limit without lights and siren activated, intending to observe and provide radio updates to allow other units to respond.
The officer slowed to pass through an intersection against the red traffic lights, activating emergency lights to warn any other traffic. From here on, with emergency lights still activated, the officer accelerated, intending either to respond to any changes (for example, if the cars pulled over and the drivers tried to run away) or, if the Police car drew close enough to do so, signal the vehicles to stop.
Despite accelerating to speeds well above the 60kph road speed limit, the officer did not draw close to the two cars. The two drivers evaded road spikes and continued on towards Lincoln Road. The two drivers crossed a railway crossing against the warning lights, where the collision occurred.
We accept that neither officer intentionally signalled the two drivers to stop, meaning at no time were the officers operating under fleeing driver policy or engaging in a pursuit. However, we do not agree that either officer’s actions were justified in the circumstances. It was unsafe for them to drive at speed in the poor road conditions, at some points without lights and sirens activated.
The facts of the case illustrate concerns we have about officers in effect engaging in a pursuit by following drivers of interest at speed, but not following the pursuit protocol because they have not ‘signalled the driver to stop’. What constitutes a signal to stop is not defined in policy, but is generally interpreted to require the officer to be close enough to ensure the driver hears or sees the signal.
In our view a policy gap exists, and the wider policy framework requires clarification. Police feedback suggested they do not share our view. However, we will be inviting Police to join us in a re-examination of relevant policies.