Posts

Posted on

Custody officer uses unjustified force in Manukau Custody Unit

Source: Independent Police Conduct Authority

Custody officer used unjustified force in Manukau Custody Unit

17 April 2025

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found that a custody officer used unjustified force on a male prisoner in the Counties Manukau Custody Unit.

On 14 November 2023, a 19-year-old man was received into the District Custody Unit at Manukau. While in a holding cell, he began banging his head backwards against a concrete wall. Custody officers told him to stop and warned him that he would otherwise be placed in a restraint chair. However, the man banged his head a further three times.

While a restraint chair was being prepared, Custody Officer A went into the cell alone and pulled the man to his feet. The man resisted and moved into a corner of the cell, where Custody Officer A struck him while attempting to restrain him.

Two other custody officers entered and assisted in removing the man from the cell. As they escorted him towards the door, Custody Officer A punched the man in the face, saying that he believed the man was about to spit at him.

We found that custody officers should have made further attempts to stop the man from banging his head before looking to use a restraint chair, which should only be used as a last resort. Custody officers also failed to seek authority from a supervisor before using the restraint chair, as is required by Police policy.

We found that Custody Officer A should not have intervened on his own as there was no immediate threat to the man’s safety, and that it was unreasonable and unjustified for him to strike the man while in the corner of the cell.

Custody Officer A was justified in using force to stop the man from spitting at him. However, by punching him in the face, he used excessive force to do so.

Police completed their own investigation. They concluded it was not in the public interest to charge Custody Officer A but conducted a disciplinary process regarding his use of excessive force. We agree with this process and outcome.

The Authority completed its investigation in July 2024 but was obliged to wait for Police processes before publishing its report.

Public Report
Posted on

Police actions during the investigation and prosecution of defendants for the murder of Mr Palmiro MacDonald

Source: Independent Police Conduct Authority

The Independent Police Conduct Authority examined complaints regarding the actions of three Police officers, referred to as Officers A, B, and C, involved in the investigation and the subsequent trial of the defendants accused of murdering Mr Palmiro MacDonald on 23 March 2016.

The defendants’ legal representatives raised concerns regarding all these officers.

Officer A interviewed a prisoner, Witness A, who reported that a defendant in the same facility admitted to his involvement in Mr MacDonald’s murder and implicated co-defendants. The defence counsel complained that Officer A did not adequately document his interactions with Witness A or disclose necessary records before the pre-trial hearing.

Officer B, the second in charge of the murder investigation, was responsible for disclosure. The defence counsel complained that he failed to disclose a letter of assistance that Witness A received for cooperating, which was vital for challenging Witness A’s credibility. It was also said that Officer B did not inform the Solicitor-General about this letter when submitting an affidavit supporting the Crown’s application for Witness A’s anonymity, and that he wrongly asserted that Witness A had no reason to be dishonest. The Crown Prosecutor initially dismissed the defence’s concerns about the undisclosed letter. It was only during cross-examination at the pre-trial hearing that the letter was acknowledged and disclosed to the defence.

The application for anonymity was unsuccessful. Following this, Officer C, along with the Crown Prosecutor and his junior, met with Witness A in prison to discuss the situation and ascertain whether he would be willing to give evidence without anonymity. After their meeting, the Crown Prosecutor instructed Officer C not to record his presence or that of his junior in his notebook. Officer C did note their presence in his notebook, but later submitted a job sheet to the Court that omitted this information. The defence counsel expressed concerns that Officer C’s notebook was not disclosed as it should have been and that his actions misled the Court and could potentially constitute an offence of perverting the course of justice.

The Authority has found that:

• Officer A’s notetaking was adequate.

• Officer A’s failure to disclose his interview notes and Witness A’s letters, while not intentional, constituted a breach of his obligations.

• Witness A’s letter of assistance should have been disclosed to the Court.

• The failure to disclose the document was a mistake rather than a deliberate act.

• Officer A should have informed the investigation team that he had uploaded a copy of the letter of assistance into the special case folder he had created.

• Officer B should have followed up with either Officer A or D about the status of this document.

• Officer C should not have omitted to record the presence of the Crown prosecutor and his junior at the meeting in his job sheet.

• Officer C did not mislead or attempt to mislead the Court.

• Officer C’s conduct did not amount to an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

• Officer C did not state that he disclosed all the information he had.

• On the evidence, it is not possible to make a finding on the issue of disclosure of Officer C’s notebook.

The Authority is recommending that Police prescribe in policy that interviews conducted for the purpose of taking statements from prison informant witnesses should be audio or video recorded as standard practice.

Posted on

Fatal crash following Police pursuit near Otaki

Source: Independent Police Conduct Authority

Fatal crash following Police pursuit near Ōtaki

15 April 2025

On 26 April 2024, Police began a brief pursuit of a stolen Ford Courier ute traveling south from Levin on State Highway 1, because it had been involved in an aggravated robbery in Ōtaki. The pursuit was abandoned promptly due to the excessive speed.

Subsequently, the ute was observed driving north in the southbound lane of the expressway. The ute ultimately collided head-on with a Toyota Fortuner SUV north of Ōtaki. The driver of the Ute, 16-year-old Reihana Hawea, was pronounced dead at the scene. Another passenger, Tama Whakarau, later succumbed to injuries at the hospital, while a third passenger sustained serious injuries but survived the incident. The four occupants of the Toyota Fortuner sustained injuries ranging from serious to moderate, but all survived.

The Authority conducted an independent investigation, which concluded that, overall, the Police managed the fleeing driver incident appropriately. Notably, the Police considered closing the road to minimise risks to other road users. However, this option was ultimately deemed unfeasible given the circumstances.

We identified some minor breaches of the ‘Fleeing driver’ policy, including:

• Officer B, who was a crew member in the leading pursuit vehicle, should have managed the radio communications;

• Officer D should not have followed the fleeing vehicle with his warning lights activated, as this briefly recommenced the pursuit; and

• Officer A should not have activated his warning lights without first obtaining permission from the pursuit controller.

The Authority is recommending that Police amend their ‘Fleeing driver’ policy to specify that when a Police vehicle is carrying crew members, those crew members are responsible for managing Police communications during pursuits.

Public Report

Fatal crash following Police pursuit near Ōtaki (PDF 625 KB)

Posted on

Police breach policy during fatal fleeing driver incident at Manukau

Source: Independent Police Conduct Authority

10 April 2025

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found that officers at Manukau breached policy when involved in a fleeing driver incident that resulted in a crash and death of a man (Mr Z).

At about 11.42pm on 17 June 2024, a Police unit in the Manukau CBD stopped and briefly spoke to Mr Z due to his car having stolen number plates. Mr Z drove away at speed. Within a minute, another Police unit signalled Mr Z to stop but he failed to do so. Officers in that second unit failed to comply with policy when they did not abandon a pursuit by way of stopping and turning off their emergency lights.

Two other officers were a short distance away on Lambie Drive and heard events on the Police radio. They decided to set up road spikes to try to stop the car. The Authority found that these officers breached policy by not informing Comms of their plan, although we acknowledge the event was fast moving.

When an officer stepped out from behind a signboard to throw the spikes onto the road, Mr Z swerved and lost control of the car, which struck a tree and caught fire. Officers summoned assistance and used fire extinguishers to put out the fire, before assisting Mr Z and his female passenger. Their actions in this respect were commendable.

Mr Z died at the scene and his passenger was seriously injured.

It transpired that the car was stolen (separately from the stolen number plates), Mr Z had methamphetamine in his system, he was breaching a court-imposed curfew, and he was driving dangerously. However, we found that if officers had complied with existing Police policy, this crash might have been avoided.

This case highlights the need for officers to understand the ‘Fleeing Driver’ and ‘Tyre Deflation Devices’ policy requirements and the reasons behind them, which are for their own safety as well as the safety of others. We did not recommend that Police consider charging any of the officers involved with a criminal offence.

The Authority acknowledges this matter involves the death of a man and injury to a woman and we extend our sympathy to those involved.

Public Report

Police breach policy during fatal fleeing driver incident at Manukau (PDF 562 KB)

Posted on

Police officer unjustified in driving into and punching a man in Whitianga

Source: Independent Police Conduct Authority

8 April 2025

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found that a Police officer was unjustified in ramming a man with his patrol car and punching him seven times, after the man used a skateboard to smash the patrol car’s windscreen and window. Both the officer and the man were injured.

The incident occurred on 9 March 2023, when two officers went to an apartment complex in Whitianga to arrest the man for aggravated robbery. One officer drove to the scene while the second approached on foot from another direction. As the first officer drove into the carpark, the man walked towards him, yelling and raising his skateboard before striking the windscreen and the driver’s window.

The officer was covered in shattered glass which got into his eyes. He said he feared for his life. Although he initially started driving away, he decided to turn back. He says he did this out of concern that the man would attack the second officer. Upon seeing the man again walking towards him holding the skateboard, the officer rammed him with the patrol car. The man became airborne before landing between the car and a fence. The officer then got out of his car and punched the man seven times in the head area before the second officer arrived and handcuffed the man. The incident was captured on CCTV.

Police charged the man with intentional damage and intentionally injuring the officer. On 12 June 2023, the man was convicted on both charges.

Police also charged the officer with common assault and assault with intent to injure. The case was tried before a judge and jury on 16 May 2024, and the officer was acquitted.

While the Authority accepts that the officer acted in defence of himself and the second officer when ramming the man with his car, we found that the officer’s response was a disproportionate and unjustified use of force, considering that the slightest miscalculation or loss of control could have resulted in a fatality.

In respect of the punches, the Authority did not accept that the officer genuinely believed the man still posed a threat. This use of force was, therefore, also unjustified.

Public Report 

Use of Police vehicle as a weapon and punching in Whitianga unjustified (PDF 408 KB)

Posted on

Stats NZ information release: Employment indicators: March 2025

Source: Statistics New Zealand

Employment indicators: March 2025 – 29 April 2025 – Employment indicators provide an early indication of changes in the labour market.

Key facts
Changes in the seasonally adjusted filled jobs for the March 2025 month (compared with the February 2025 month) were:

  • all industries – up 0.2 percent (3,548 jobs) to 2.36 million filled jobs
  • primary industries – up 0.4 percent (462 jobs)
  • goods-producing industries – up 0.1 percent (453 jobs)
  • service industries – up 0.2 percent (2,762 jobs).

Files:

Posted on

Health – Alcohol and mental health symposium at Parliament – 5 May 2025

Source: Alcohol Healthwatch

Alcohol Healthwatch are excited to be joining E Tipu E Rea Whānau Services, Takanga A Fohe, Le Va, Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka | University of Otago, Health New Zealand | Te Whatu Ora, and the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and Other Drugs (APSAD) deliver a symposium on alcohol and mental health.
This symposium will take place at the Grand Hall in Parliament, and aims to:
– Hear from and build on promising practice in prevention, early intervention, and research.
– Facilitate meaningful relationships supporting the collective goal of taking action on the intersection between alcohol and mental health challenges.
– Produce an attendee-informed consensus statement reflecting people’s experiences to guide future efforts in this space.
Boasting a 150 strong audience of health and policy professionals, mental health and alcohol NGOs and importantly, individuals bringing lived experience, the symposium will be an opportunity to identify key action areas for prevention and early intervention in this important area.
Hosted by Aotearoa New Zealand’s first-ever Minister for Mental Health, Hon. Matt Doocey, the time to act has never been better. We will be bringing a range of people together including those with lived experience, young people, professionals, and community champions from the wide range of sectors impacted by alcohol and mental health challenges.
Posted on

Master Plumbers welcomes Cabinet approval of self-certification for plumbers and drainlayers

Source: Master Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers

Master Plumbers is pleased the Government is progressing with a self-certification scheme that makes plumbers accountable for their work, rather than relying on council inspectors.
“We have been advocating for years that plumbers and drainlayers should be able to self-certify, just as gasfitters – who are also plumbers in most instances – and electricians can,” Master Plumbers Chief Executive Greg Wallace says.
Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk announced today that the Government has agreed on a new self-certification scheme for plumbers and drainlayers allowing them to sign off on their own work.
The new scheme does come with some caveats: it will be opt-in and limited to plumbers and drainlayers carrying out work on simple residential dwellings. Trades that are currently able to self-certify are not required to opt-in or be restricted to a specific category of work.
“For plumbers and drainlayers to be competitive, we believe all of the industry should opt-in,” Mr Wallace says. “While the Minister has limited the scheme to simple residential dwellings, we hope this is the first phase and that, in future, it will expand to all work.”
“Ultimately, we want the same system as electricians and gasfitters, but we understand this may be a staged approach.”
Mr Wallace says there’s a common misconception that liability moves to Building Consent Authorities (BCAs) once an inspection has been completed. “The reality is that tradespeople are still accountable for their workmanship. Under the Plumbers, Gasfitters & Drainlayers Act, qualified plumbers and drainlayers are responsible for all work – including large-scale industry installations.”
Plumbers, gasfitters and drainlayers are overseen by an independent regulatory board, the PGDB. Consumers can have confidence that certified plumbing professionals are highly skilled and their work completed to a professional standard. It takes seven years to obtain the qualification of a Certifying Plumber and two years for a Certifying Drainlayer.
In addition, Master Plumbers members are subject to a rigorous quality assurance process and carry a guarantee for their work.
Master Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers NZ Inc (Master Plumbers) is the national membership organisation for plumbing, gasfitting and drainlaying businesses, with 18 regional Associations and Branches across New Zealand. Companies go through a Quality Assurance programme in order to become a member. We provide members with a wide range of resources and training opportunities to support them in staying up with the latest technologies, products and compliance requirements. We advocate on behalf of our members and our industry.
Masterlink, a group training scheme owned by Master Plumbers, provides managed mentored apprenticeships across New Zealand, with Regional Managers supporting the apprentices and the businesses who host them during their training.
NZ Plumber is the award-winning, bi-monthly magazine for New Zealand’s plumbers, gasfitters and drainlayers. It is owned by Master Plumbers.
Posted on

Awards – Master Plumbers welcomes Cabinet approval of self-certification for plumbers and drainlayers

Source: Master Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers

Master Plumbers is pleased the Government is progressing with a self-certification scheme that makes plumbers accountable for their work, rather than relying on council inspectors.
“We have been advocating for years that plumbers and drainlayers should be able to self-certify, just as gasfitters – who are also plumbers in most instances – and electricians can,” Master Plumbers Chief Executive Greg Wallace says.
Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk announced today that the Government has agreed on a new self-certification scheme for plumbers and drainlayers allowing them to sign off on their own work.
The new scheme does come with some caveats: it will be opt-in and limited to plumbers and drainlayers carrying out work on simple residential dwellings. Trades that are currently able to self-certify are not required to opt-in or be restricted to a specific category of work.
“For plumbers and drainlayers to be competitive, we believe all of the industry should opt-in,” Mr Wallace says. “While the Minister has limited the scheme to simple residential dwellings, we hope this is the first phase and that, in future, it will expand to all work.”
“Ultimately, we want the same system as electricians and gasfitters, but we understand this may be a staged approach.”
Mr Wallace says there’s a common misconception that liability moves to Building Consent Authorities (BCAs) once an inspection has been completed. “The reality is that tradespeople are still accountable for their workmanship. Under the Plumbers, Gasfitters & Drainlayers Act, qualified plumbers and drainlayers are responsible for all work – including large-scale industry installations.”
Plumbers, gasfitters and drainlayers are overseen by an independent regulatory board, the PGDB. Consumers can have confidence that certified plumbing professionals are highly skilled and their work completed to a professional standard. It takes seven years to obtain the qualification of a Certifying Plumber and two years for a Certifying Drainlayer.
In addition, Master Plumbers members are subject to a rigorous quality assurance process and carry a guarantee for their work.
Posted on

Unions launch campaign to ban engineered stone – CTU

Source: New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi

The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi has today launched a campaign to ban the import, supply, and use of engineered stone in Aotearoa New Zealand.

“We are urging the Government to do the right thing and save workers’ lives by banning engineered stone, an extremely dangerous product that causes the fatal lung disease silicosis”, said NZCTU President Richard Wagstaff.

“Engineered stone is the asbestos of our times. It is not an essential product and there are many safe alternatives already in the market.

“Silicosis is a debilitating disease that cannot be cured. The evidence is clear that the only solution is to stop workers from being required to process engineered stone, which exposes them to the dangerous silica dust.

“Brooke van Velden has the power to save workers’ lives. All she needs to do is follow Australia’s example and implement a total ban.

“There is broad support for this campaign. Last year the CTU joined with 18 other organisations, including public health experts and health and safety specialists, and called on the Minister to act.

“Aotearoa has a terrible record when it comes to work-associated deaths. The Government has the opportunity to help turn that around by banning engineered stone. It’s time they stepped up on behalf of Kiwi workers,” said Wagstaff.

The NZCTU have today launched a public petition calling on the Minister to implement a full ban on the import, supply, and use of engineered stone. https://link.nzctu.org.nz/click/RHWCpAYxy9dO.1IjInuH_AUC6.nqb8dQq_J8r/1S8E5I-Z/3s/www.together.org.nz/ban_engineered_stone