Officers are ‘people, not robots’ - defence

Police officers on trial for assaulting a wanted man with Tasers and dogs ‘‘are humans, not robots’’ and had been put on ‘‘trial by hindsight’’ their lawyers have said.

The officers, whose names are suppressed, have been on trial in Napier District Court accused of assaulting McPeake, 53, in the early hours of March 13, last year. The Crown claims they used excessive force by using Tasers and dogs. The defence argues they acted appropriately given the information they had at the time. There is no suggestion they caused his death.

Police knew McPeake was a large man who may be drunk and violent, may be armed with a crossbow and could be suicidal.

In her closing address yesterday, one of the lawyers, Susan Hughes QC, said the officers believed McPeake posed a threat to himself or others and they made the right decision at the time.

Unlike police, who had criticised the officers when giving evidence for the Crown, her client was not ‘‘sitting in a cosy office able to watch a video and rewind it back and forward’’ before making his decisions.

‘‘They are people, not robots. They thought a dangerous man was about to escape. It was their duty to prevent that,’’ she said.

Lawyer Jonathan Krebs rubbished the Crown’s suggestion that a weapon had to be seen before it could be considered a threat, and until the officers had found McPeake’s crossbow, or discovered he didn’t have one, they had to consider it a threat.

Defence lawyer Doug Rishworth urged the jury to put themselves in the officers’ position on the night and said the officers’ force was justified to overcome McPeake’s force in resisting arrest.

He said the Crown’s ‘‘trial by hindsight’’.

Earlier, in his closing, Crown prosecutor Ben Vanderkolk said it was clear McPeake had to be arrested, but it had to be done with the minimal force possible.

Vanderkolk told the jury they had heard no justification for the use of dogs and Tasers and he urged them not to be swayed by the officers good character.

They were all fine officers, he said, but prosecutions ‘‘are not conducted on the basis of character’’ and ‘‘on this particular night their judgment led them to commit the offence with which they were charged’’.

He said the Crown’s view was that there was ‘‘a fundamental duty to mitigate and lessen the amount of violence’’ and the officers should have withdrawn, reflected and reassessed.

Judge Phillip Cooper is expected to sum up today. case was