Two police officers punched a man in the head while he was resisting arrest then wrestled him to the ground and set a police dog on him.

But following a complaint to the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) about the arrest, the officers have been justified in their actions.

Released today, the report stated that at about 6pm on July 2, 2021, the man, referred to as Mr Z in the findings, drove onto a vacant lot next to the intersection of Ruahine St and Tremaine Ave in Palmerston North, and was partially blocking the footpath after running out of petrol.

Witnesses concerned about his behaviour contacted police, as he was stumbling and yelling, drinking alcohol and damaging his car.

Officers were already trying to locate the man, who was believed to be carrying a knife and had a history of assaulting police, in connection with a domestic incident 30 minutes earlier.

When officers arrived, Mr Z was aggressive and challenging towards them.

A dog handler advised him he was under arrest while another officer, seeing an opportunity to restrain and handcuff him, put his hand on the man’s arm.

Mr Z pushed the officer’s arm away and turned to face him, resulting in the officer believing he was going to be attacked, and he reacted by punching Mr Z.

The pair ended up wrestling on the ground, but the officer was able to break free and the police dog was released to overcome Mr Z’s resistance.

However, while the dog was biting Mr Z’s leg, he started to gouge the dog’s eyes, which led the handler to kick at his arms and then punch him in the head to prevent the dog from being seriously injured.

Mr Z was arrested for disorderly behaviour but later complained to the IPCA, alleging he was assaulted during his arrest and the police dog had been used improperly.

He also claimed he was humiliated in police custody and officers behaved unprofessionally towards him.

Authority chairman Judge Kenneth Johnston KC ruled the officers’ actions were justified but commented that attempts to talk to Mr Z and de-escalate the situation should have been made before telling him he was under arrest.

“Although the man’s push could be considered a low level of resistance, taken in the context of everything the officer knew about the man and how he was behaving, we would not expect the officer to wait to be assaulted further before making a pre-emptive move to take control of the situation”, Judge Johnston said.

While the judge found the force used was reasonable after Mr Z resisted arrest, police policy stated “tactical communication” should be attempted in every incident where action by officers was necessary in response to unco-operative subjects.

“In our judgment, the use of force by the officers was more likely to be required because they did not attempt first to communicate with the man to de-escalate the situation before they proceeded to arrest him.”

Deficiencies in the care provided to Mr Z after his arrest were also identified by the authority, including officers not telling the police doctor he had been punched in the head.

“The police doctor did not have all the information he required to properly assess the nature or extent of Mr Z’s head injuries,” Judge Johnston said.

“Had he been informed that Mr Z had been punched in the head, he could have assessed whether Mr Z might have concussion or broken bones in his face, or require further assessment and treatment in hospital.”

An officer was also found to have used unprofessional language in addressing a witness to the arrest, identified as Mr X, who called 111 to complain about the arrest, as well as behaving unprofessionally towards him after the incident.

He was identified as Officer D and admitted he addressed Mr X in a passing car, using words along the lines of “Look, if you didn’t see what happened just piss off”.

The officer also hung up on Mr X after getting angry with him while making follow-up calls following the arrest.

Judge Johnston found the officer failed to keep an open mind and make impartial inquiries while recording the witnesses’ account, as he had not seen the entire incident and allegations officers may have used excess force during the arrest had been made.

“These matters are significant because they bear upon the community’s trust and confidence in police.”

Central District commander Superintendent Scott Fraser said the incident was fast-moving, involved an individual known to have a history of assaulting police as well as carrying weapons, and who had been involved in a threatening incident earlier that evening.

“The offender was behaving in an aggressive and unpredictable way, and our staff determined it was necessary to take him into custody to keep themselves and the public safe,” Fraser said.

Mr Z was convicted and discharged for disorderly behaviour and convicted and sentenced for resisting police.

Leighton Keith joined NZME as an Open Justice reporter based in Whanganui in 2022. He’s been a journalist for 20 years covering a variety of topics and rounds.