Police officer's dismissal 'justified'

CAROLINE KING
Last updated 11:24 31/01/2013

Relevant offers

National

Multinational Medtronic uses sick Kiwis in PR campaign to win taxpayer-funded blood clot prevention contracts from Pharmac Doug Healey: The man who learned to walk again Lion Man Craig Busch shown on camera capturing baby giraffe Kiwi mums offered hope after in utero spina bifida surgery breakthrough Jonathan Milne: Our athletes who trained so hard are the losers in these disintegrating Olympic Games Stroke victim 'ignored' by doctor has lost most of his vision in one eye First Crossfit Nationals hosted in New Zealand Faces of Innocents: Children's teams - the ambulance at the top of a precarious cliff Arrests made after robbery of Palmerston North tobacconist and dairy Digger rescued from surf on Kapiti Coast

A Canterbury police officer was justifiably sacked after placing a young woman in a "choker hold" when she grabbed his hat, an employment tribunal has ruled.

The "small young woman", referred to as V, laid a complaint against the long-serving senior constable, who can only be identified as Q, in relation to the incident which occurred in May 2010.

She accused the officer of placing her in a "head lock" or "choker hold", then dragging her outside the nightclub and yelling at her. She was then arrested.

But the police officer argued he used a "moderate degree of force" including an "approved technique" to restrain and remove her from the premises.

However, an independent police investigation found he used "excessive force" and he was dismissed on October 14, 2011.

The Employment Relations Authority agreed with the decision in a determination released yesterday, rejecting his claims of unjustified dismissal.

Authority member Rosemary Monaghan said the authority was told such pranks were not uncommon, and that tolerance was the best approach.

"However Q took the matter seriously, and sought to speak to V about it outside the club. He considered the hold he used to be necessary and appropriate, when it is best doubtful that the hold he used was the minimum restraint necessary in the circumstances. He believed it was necessary to show anger in order to control V, but that was a poor exercise of judgement.

"Q's attitude to her was disparaging and belittling. She and her friends were not causing trouble, beyond embarking on their prank," she said.

The police officer said his case was prejudiced by not being notified of the complaint sooner. He said the delay meant he was unable to obtain any CCTV footage which he argued would have cleared him of any wrong-doing.

Seven months following the incident Q was also issued with a formal written warning for being insubordinate to a senior officer. He was removed from his specialist unit and placed on ordinary police duties.

The authority also dismissed his grievance to the formal warning and restricted duties.

Costs were reserved.

Ad Feedback

- The Press

Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content