12.9 C
Thursday, May 23, 2024

Popular Now

Police accept IPCA findings in relation to officer who used ‘excessive force’

Police accept the IPCA’s findings into two incidents in the Bay of Plenty in 2018 and 2019 involving the same officer.

IPCA Bay of Plenty findings news

The officer is referred to as Officer A in both of the authority’s findings.

In the first case, in September 2018, an allegation of excessive force was made against Officer A following an incident where an intoxicated man was arrested in Tauranga CBD.

In the second case, in March 2019, another allegation of excessive force was made against Officer A following the arrest of a 14-year-old male at a Tauranga internet cafe.

Police investigated complaints about both events, and charges were laid against the officer.

In the first case the officer pleaded guilty to injuring with reckless disregard, and received nine months’ supervision and was ordered to pay $1000 reparation to the victim.

In the second case charges were withdrawn by the Crown.

Bay of Plenty District Commander Superintendent Andy McGregor says Police expect a high standard of professionalism from staff and the officer involved in this instance had fallen short of that expectation.

“Our staff come to work every day with the goal of keeping the community safe from harm. This officer’s actions did not align with that collective goal.

“On both of these occasions a thorough Police investigation was carried out and appropriate action taken when we found the officer’s use of force to be unjustifiable.”

The officer resigned from NZ Police in May 2021, before court proceedings concluded and before any employment-related action commenced.

Promoted Content

Source:NZ Police

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. Normally name suppression is given to protect the vulnerable. I cannot see why the former officer of the law should be given any special privilege. Further I do not like the term 14 year old male. The term should be 14-year-old boy.

    • Quite right. He was found guilty therefore he’s not enttiled to name suppression.

      And yes, he was a 14 year old boy, a minor at the time and also if he has XY chromosomes, a boy.

  2. He’s probably just fattening up the CV, getting ready to apply for a job in Victoria.

    Birds of a feather and all that…


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here




Daily Life


broken clouds
10 ° C
10.8 °
8.8 °
89 %
75 %
11 °
12 °
11 °
12 °
10 °
-- Free Ads --spot_img