Man should have been taken to hospital – Crown
Police officers’ trial for manslaughter opens in New Plymouth
Three Taranaki police officers charged with manslaughter after the death of a man in custody made ‘‘no significant or serious attempt’’ to assess his health, the Crown has alleged.
The officers were charged in relation to the death of Allen Ball in custody at the Ha¯ wera police station in the early hours of June 1, 2019, and their trial began in the High Court at New Plymouth yesterday, in front of Justice Susan Thomas.
All three have pleaded not guilty to the charge. They have been granted name suppression for the duration of the trial until verdict.
In her opening address, Crown prosecutor Cherie Clarke told the jury of seven women and five men that Allen Ball had been arrested after a family harm incident and had threatened suicide.
He had drunk a large amount of alcohol, she said, and had started to snore in the back of the police car.
On arrival at the Ha¯wera Police Station, Ball could not be woken and it took six people to lift him into the cell, she said.
His arrival at the station and his time inside the cell was recorded on CCTV, which also captured the officers speaking as they dealt with the situation.
Ball was placed in the recovery position and he continued to snore, but he did not respond to pain compliance techniques in the car or in the station, and he did not wake, Clarke told the court.
The Crown’s position was that Ball was unconscious and at that point he should have been taken to Ha¯ wera Hospital, she said.
No significant or serious attempt was made by any of the three defendants during the following two to two-and-a-half hours to wake Ball to assess his health and wellbeing, Clarke added.
‘‘All three defendants knew that Mr Ball could not be woken in the car or once placed in the recovery position on that floor in cell one.’’
Clarke said when one of the officers closed the cell door he said: ‘‘We’re going to have to put him on constant watch then, aren’t we?’’
Another answered: ‘‘Frequently.’’
When processing Ball, two of the defendants chose to ‘‘blatantly ignore’’ an alert that came up on the computer when they entered his state of responsiveness, Clarke said.
One of the officers ticked a box that said the person had consumed alcohol to an extreme degree, and a pop-up message on the computer warned that consideration should be made about whether hospitalisation was required.
About four past midnight, one of the officers walked back into the cell and their iPhone fell on to Ball’s head by accident, but Ball is not seen to move on CCTV footage, Clarke said.
A comment is made about Ball snoring and one officer says, ‘‘I reckon he is unresponsive.’’
Clarke said the assessment on the police system was changed to ‘‘partially responsive’’ and when the term is entered, a pop-up message said to ‘‘arrange for the person to be taken to hospital’’.
There is then some more discussion and the word ‘‘partially responsive’’ is repeated, Clarke said.
Clarke went on to outline officers doing activities such as paperwork and entering monitoring updates, and discussion about constant or frequent monitoring, including a suggestion of getting ‘‘crucified’’ for not putting Ball on constant watch.
Another monitoring entry was put in at 12.35am but the officer had not seen Ball for half an hour at that point, Clarke said.
Following the lunch break, Clarke continued to outline the officers’ checks of Ball in his cell.
A doctor had reviewed the CCTV footage and listened to the audio, and shortly before 2am, ‘‘in his expert opinion Mr Ball was hyperventilating and probably in respiratory arrest’’.
‘‘At approximately 2.26am [a
defendant] is the officer that finally says ‘Get an ambo, bro’.’’
Three officers, including one not on trial, left the cell and one went and got the defibrillator and CPR was started.
‘‘Ultimately, Mr Ball was pronounced dead at 2.53am by one of the paramedics,’’ Clarke told the court.
The cause of death was codeine, tramadol and alcohol toxicity, but the actions of the officers contributed, Clarke said.
But the Crown was not suggesting that the three officers intended to contribute to Ball’s death.
The jury would also hear from medical professionals, who would say that if Ball had received medical treatment from shortly before midnight to just before 2am, he would not, or probably would not, have died, Clarke said.
Clarke also referred to interviews with the three defendants as part of the police investigation.
One said Ball had kept snoring ‘‘and he just thought it was normal due to the amount of alcohol Mr Ball had consumed’’.
Another said the door to the cell had been left open so they could hear him snoring and he was more visible.
Further attempts were made to wake him, the officer said.
Ball was treated ‘‘just like any other intoxicated person in custody’’, Clarke quoted the officer. ‘‘Intermittent checks indicated he was still asleep and snoring in the recovery position.’’
The defence lawyers, Susan Hughes QC, Andrew Laurenson and Kylie Pascoe, each appearing for one of the defendants, gave their opening statements yesterday afternoon.
Hughes said her client had wrongly believed Ball was asleep.
‘‘We expect a great deal from our police officers,’’ Hughes said, adding: ‘‘We don’t expect them to be faultless.
‘‘[The defendant], like the rest of us, is less than perfect but [they are] not a criminal.’’
Pascoe said the defence was not denying that mistakes were made, but the jury had to consider if it amounted to ‘‘gross negligence’’ of the force’s duty of care.
The first witness of the day was Stacey Whitmore, who had been Ball’s partner from 2006 to the night he died.
She gave details of the family harm incident that led to his arrest, in which she said he had assaulted her.
She said bourbon had been drunk by both her and the deceased.
Ball had threatened to commit suicide, but she did not take him seriously, she said.
Hughes asked whether it was normal for Ball to snore, and Whitmore agreed it was.
The trial, which is expected to last for four weeks, is set to continue today.