15.1 C
Saturday, May 18, 2024

Popular Now

Parliament Protest – IPCA report concludes police ‘served the public of NZ well’

The Independent Police Complaints Authority (IPCA) has released its report into police actions at the Parliament Protest in February-March 2022.

DTNZ staff are currently analysing the 220 page report.

In the meantime we have published the IPCA’s summarising statement below.

Responding to report this morning, Police Commissioner Andrew Coster said, ‘Our people showed great courage and professionalism, given what they faced on that final day. This was an unprecedented event and it will be regarded as one of the most significant policing challenges in decades. Despite that, the Authority found we did many things right, particularly the overall use of force being appropriate in the circumstances.’

Reaction on social media was less positive, with many blaming politicians for failing to engage with the protesters.

On 17 February the leaders of the four major political parties signed a ‘declaration’ promising not to engage in dialogue with the protesters until the protest ‘returned to one within the law.’

‘Not defending the violence (which was 99%from the cops), but this could easily have been avoided with sensible dialogue between politicians and protesters. It’s 100% the fault of the Ardern Govt who let this sore fester, knowing it would eventually boil over.’

‘I witnessed all and was totally disgusted by the Govt & police handling of the situation.
They used sound weapons on innocent people that is a serious crime ignored by a self funded complaints process used to protect themselves.

‘100% Ardern let it fester on purpose so there would be plenty of gaslighting to be had. As for the 1/3 of police who have some level of ptsd – their beef should be with the govt for being used like pawns.’

‘They were NOT itching for a fight at all. If that had been the case, those people wouldn’t have been there peacefully for days & weeks peacefully, NOT itching for a fight, but, waiting for a politician with a backbone to actually listen to people’s concerns. Which they didn’t do.’

‘85% of IPCA complaints about the Wellington protest were made by people who weren’t even at the protest? People obviously didn’t like what they saw on the live streams…’

‘Wellington Protest Feb/ March 2022. IPCA report released Police “they served the public of NZ well. But:

  • Failed to act on intel
  • Planning was inadequate
  • Undersourced in both manpower & equipment.
  • Used staff that where insufficiently trained
  • No capacity for large scale arrests
  • The first attempt to clear the grounds should have been called off sooner.
  • Police internal comms problematic
  • Law is inadequate for public disorder events’

The full public copy of the report can be downloaded here.

IPCA Statement

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has today released its review of the policing of the protest and occupation at Parliament in February and March 2022. Overall, the Authority found that Police served the public of New Zealand well in dealing with this difficult and complex set of events.

“Frontline officers faced extreme provocation and violent behaviour from some of the protesters, and a level of public disorder rarely seen in New Zealand. In the face of that, almost all Police officers involved exercised professionalism and restraint in their dealings with the protesters. It is commendable that Police were able to end the illegal occupation of Parliament grounds on 2 March 2022 with as few injuries and as little damage to property as they did”, said Authority Chair, Judge Colin Doherty.

The review looks at Police’s initial response to the impending protest from the time when they became aware of the likely vehicle convoy from both ends of the country to Parliament, through to the final Police operation on 2 March 2022 to clear the grounds of Parliament, Victoria University campus, St Paul’s Cathedral and surrounding streets.

“The review naturally has a focus on areas where Police practice fell short of the ideal and on lessons that can be learned for the future”, said Judge Doherty. “This should not be interpreted as finding that Police failed in their policing of the protest and occupation. Overall, they served the public of New Zealand well”.

Initial response

The Authority found that Police Intelligence staff provided very good information about the developing protest environment and communicated it to a wide range of Police decision-makers in advance of the protest, which commenced on 8 February 2022.

However, in response to that information Police did not sufficiently consider the particular risks posed by this event, especially in the light of disruption reported from similar recent convoys in Australia and Canada. They should have consulted Wellington City Council well before the arrival of the convoy about whether there was a need for a traffic management plan, and prepared and disseminated a detailed operation plan.

However, doing that would not necessarily have resulted in any additional action (for example, the closing of roads around Parliament). Nor would it necessarily have changed the path of the protest.

10 February operation

After several hundred protesters had set up tents and structures on Parliament grounds and Victoria University’s Pipitea campus on 8 February 2022, the Speaker closed Parliament grounds and the protesters became trespassers. Police made the decision on the night of 9 February to take action the next day to end the occupation.

The Authority has found that, while this decision was made following a discussion between the Commissioner, the Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Attorney General, there was no undue political interference and the Commissioner reached his own independent view on the matter.

During the Police operation on 10 February, officers tried to remove protesters from Parliament grounds, arresting 108 people in the process. Police failed in their attempt and withdrew at about 4.40pm. The Authority has found that:

  • Police were unprepared (in terms of planning, resourcing, staff, and equipment) for the operation and did not clearly communicate to staff what was intended.
  • Police initially failed to provide all protesters with the required warnings, in the manner required by the Trespass Act 1980, that they must leave the Parliament grounds.
  • The degree of force used to effect the arrests was generally reasonable, but the arrest process and recording of evidence was deficient. Many charges against protesters were later withdrawn for this reason.
  • Police were unprepared to physically deal with so many arrests and people in custody, which meant they were unable to comply with all legal and policy requirements governing the treatment of detainees in custody.
  • The decision to end the operation should have been made earlier in the day when it was apparent that it would not achieve its objective.

Although the operation was unlikely to succeed, that does not mean it was unjustified. It demonstrated that Police were confronted with a difficult situation and that easy options to end the occupation at that time were not available. It therefore bought Police time to plan for the eventual (and successful) operation on 2 March.

Containing the protest 11 February – 1 March

From 11 February 2022, Police aimed to contain the protest and maintain law and order while planning for a larger operation to end the illegal occupation. This was the right approach. It was a major logistical exercise to bring the occupation to an end, and Police had neither the capacity nor the capability to do that quickly; they needed time to plan and to marshal the required resources.

However, the demands of day-to-day policing and staff shortages from COVID-19 made it difficult for Wellington District Police to do the necessary planning, although they received assistance from 15 February when a national operation was established at Police National Headquarters. The Authority has found that a more flexible process for providing support to District should have been in place.

During this time Police were working on developing a strategy for removing protesters’ vehicles that were blocking the streets around Parliament and restoring traffic flow. They did not have the capacity to do this on their own, and their attempts to obtain support from tow operators were largely unsuccessful. They managed to tow only a few vehicles over this period as a result.

But Police did successfully use concrete bollards to contain and then shrink the occupation footprint, which contributed to the success of the 2 March operation.

2 March operation

Police began their final operation to end the occupation on the morning of 2 March 2022. They encountered strong resistance from the protest group, and during the afternoon some protesters started fires among the tents. Substantial and sustained violence was directed at Police. This included throwing a Molotov cocktail, bricks, paving stones, fireworks, poles, bottles, a knife and other projectiles. By late in the day the protest had degenerated into a riot. At about 6pm a car was used to attack a Police line on Lambton Quay.

In the face of this extreme provocation, while there were some isolated incidents of potentially excessive reactive force by Police, they generally acted professionally and with remarkable restraint. The Authority found that all the tactics Police used to defend both themselves and others on 2 March were justified in the circumstances. These included skirmish lines, shields, pushing and striking, pepper spray, batons, weapons of opportunity (fire extinguishers, fire hoses and paving bricks), sponge rounds and deflating vehicle tyres. Police were also justified in carrying firearms (though none were used on the day).

The Authority has therefore found that the Police operation on 2 March 2022 to clear the grounds of Parliament, the Victoria University campus, the Cathedral and the surrounding streets was conducted professionally and successfully. However, the Authority did identify a number of deficiencies:

  • While Police’s decision not to allow officers to wear hard body armour from the start of the operation was reasonably open to them, it should have been accompanied by a communication to staff about when and how that decision could be varied in the light of changing circumstances. Because it was not, a number of officers were exposed to unnecessary risk when objects were thrown at them. By at least mid-morning, all officers should have had access to the protective equipment to the extent it was available.
  • Police did not have a sufficient inventory of hard body armour.
  • Newly graduated officers who were used to boost numbers for the operation had not been adequately prepared or equipped for a role in the operation.
  • It was undesirable that recruits who had not yet graduated from the Police College were also required to attend Parliament towards the conclusion of the operation to help secure the ground Police had reclaimed. The need for this arose because of inadequate prior planning.
  • Although Police had identified problems with their mass arrest process on 10 February and tried to address them, issues with evidence collection remained and resulted in the withdrawal of some charges laid in respect of protester actions on 2 March.
  • With the exception of a Vehicle Extraction Plan, Police lacked a detailed plan for dealing with property left behind on the Parliament grounds and the surrounding streets and properties.

The protest and occupation exposed the ineffectiveness of some current laws. The Authority identified a number of areas where the current law is not fit-for-purpose for the mass public disorder situation that confronted Police on 10 February and on 2 March. These include:

  • the law of trespass;
  • the law governing how arrests may be lawfully effected; and
  • the law governing how property left behind by trespassers should be handled.

The Authority has made a number of recommendations to help Police improve public order policing, which are attached. These include that Police:

  • propose to Government that there be a multi-agency review of the laws governing a public order event such as this;
  • urgently purchase more hard body armour;
  • develop their operating model for public order policing as a matter of priority, and ensure that it addresses the lessons learned from this event; and
  • develop standard operating procedures for policing the Parliamentary precincts, including scenario planning with partner agencies.

The Authority received 1,905 complaints, over 85% from people who were not physically present at the protest. The vast majority of issues raised by these complaints are addressed in this report. We are completing independent investigations of 19 complaints and will report the outcome to each complainant. We will also provide a summary of our findings on these matters on our website when all investigations have been completed.

Promoted Content

No login required to comment. Name, email and web site fields are optional. Please keep comments respectful, civil and constructive. Moderation times can vary from a few minutes to a few hours. Comments may also be scanned periodically by Artificial Intelligence to eliminate trolls and spam.


  1. I watched the Police live on TV and they were plainly not law abiding. Police Officers walked along and chose people, nodded and other Police launched at the victims legs and brought them down out of the crowd. More Police then grabbed the victim and pulled them out on their backs. They were kicking being generally brutal to someone who was just standing inoffensively in the crowd lines.

    More the TV showed that the tent fire was probably caused by the Police!
    I expect Counter Spin Media still has the footage of these brutal attacks.

  2. A total whitewash .. the political criminals stay in their positions. Nothing will change, hope no one votes for the 4 major parties in the comming election.

  3. “On 17 February the leaders of the four major political parties signed a ‘declaration’ promising not to engage in dialogue with the protesters until the protest ‘returned to one within the law.’”
    So the gutless opposition partes were complicit in not wanting to see a peaceful resolution.
    The police should be apolitical. Coster and Chambers should be gone. They showed that they were influenced by the political parties” agreement to not engage.
    The police first aim should have been to defuse the situation by engaging in dialogue, not to instigate violence as they did. Why did police conceal their ID numbers? Because they planned on unlawful acts. How many of the protest group were agents provocateur inserted by the police.
    Who pays the IPCA? How can it be anything but biased. What a complete and utter crock.

  4. I asked one of the cops manning a barricade how he passed the time all day. He said he played a game trying to spot the undercover police and military personnel in the occupation. They were very easy to pick out and when asked to leave, didn’t say a word, just grabbed their gear and walked out.

    • Yep exactly, very obvious government-sponsored agent provocateurs up to no good. These are the same government lackey nut-ball psychos who torched the tents and the kids playground.

  5. On the plus side, it’s good to know that the ‘Independent’ Police Complaints Authority (IPCA) are immoral corrupt unethical fascist cowards.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here




Daily Life


few clouds
12.3 ° C
13.4 °
11 °
82 %
20 %
13 °
13 °
13 °
14 °
12 °
-- Free Ads --spot_img