Judge Tini Clark, before she made her ruling, quizzed MacKenzie on her apparent lack of remorse and why she came across as “cold”.
MacKenzie assured the court she felt “horrible” about the injuries she had caused her colleague.
Pursuit ends in a crash
The court heard the officers were pursuing a stolen vehicle through Hamilton at 12.15am on July 16 last year.
MacKenzie was driving with the car’s lights activated as they travelled along Victoria St towards the Fairfield Bridge.
According to the summary of facts, she reached speeds of “at least” 146km/h.
Her colleague was not wearing his seatbelt and reached around to grab road spikes from the back seat as they drove.
The road was wet and, as they neared the bridge, MacKenzie braked with enough force to activate the anti-lock braking system.
As she then tried to navigate a sharp left turn, the vehicle continued straight, slowing to about 85km/h.
Nicola Rose MacKenzie appeared in Hamilton District Court on a driving charge. Photo / Maryana Garcia
It crossed the centre line at about 55km/h, mounted the kerb, and crashed through a metal barrier and into the concrete wall of the bridge.
It was embedded in the concrete wall with the front driver’s side partially sticking out.
At the time of impact, the car, which was written off, was going 45km/h.
MacKenzie, who now works as a tactical trainer at police college, was initially charged with dangerous driving causing injury but that was downgraded to aggravated careless driving causing injury.
‘Mentally, this is destroying me’
The 32-year-old passenger spent 48 weeks recovering, undergoing medical and physio appointments and surgeries.
He also faced side effects from the concussion, was unable to dress or clean himself, and suffered PTSD and nightmares from the crash.
“Mentally, this is destroying me,” he told the court.
Nicola MacKenzie lost control of a patrol car during a pursuit as she turned left, at speed, on to Fairfield Bridge and crashed. Photo / NZME
He was also aggrieved by the lack of contact from MacKenzie and his former colleagues.
“I have been sitting on the outskirts while the others are enjoying themselves.
“I do not wish badly [for MacKenzie]. I just hope she can understand and empathise.”
‘Nearly 100km/h over the speed limit’
Crown prosecutor Leo Lai told the judge that “the speed” was an aggravating factor of the offending.
“Just being how fast she is going … this was nearly 100km over the speed limit.”
However, Lai said it was mitigated by MacKenzie being an officer who was executing her duty at the time, so the Crown sought only reparation and disqualification of her licence.
He opposed MacKenzie’s application for final name suppression and discharge without conviction.
He cited her speed as the reason why police opposed the discharge application.
“They put on their uniforms, they’re putting their lives into each other’s hands.
“The victim got into that vehicle trusting that the defendant would have his back.”
He said the victim felt there was “a complete lack of remorse” from MacKenzie.
‘Why is it so difficult to say sorry?’
It was something Judge Clark also picked up on.
“I was interested in any absence of contrition or regret, even as far as the impact on the victim,” she said.
Defence lawyer Russell Boot said MacKenzie had offered emotional harm reparation of $2000.
She also faced a serious misconduct hearing with her employer, after criminal proceedings were complete.
The judge said there appeared to have been a “souring” of the relationship between the two colleagues.
“I think the criticism was that she didn’t appear to be remorseful, and that struck me when I read through the documents.”
Boot said his client was remorseful for causing the injuries and added the pair were not friends before the crash, but work colleagues.
“I don’t really understand why it is so difficult to say sorry … to express herself,” the judge said. “What is the problem with it?”
‘I feel absolutely horrible’
She then took the unusual step of suggesting that Boot’s client stand in the witness box and answer a few questions, adding it would be to the defendant’s credit when it came to determining the discharge application.
MacKenzie agreed.
“What I have been quite surprised by is the fact I haven’t really seen any expression from you about how you feel about what has occurred,” the judge said to MacKenzie.
“Because at the moment, the way [it’s coming across] is possibly just a bit cold.”
“I feel absolutely horrible,” MacKenzie replied.
“I know there are no words that I can say that will change the fact as to what’s happened.
“Knowing that [the victim] was hurt, my first thought was that he needed help and that was my main focus that night.”
There were several phone calls to her bosses and she was told she wasn’t allowed to speak to him.
“Which I really struggled with,” she said.
“There was a huge lapse in judgment on my behalf, but none of that was intentional in hurting him.”
‘This can never happen again’
Judge Clark said the urgency of the situation did not warrant the speed at which MacKenzie was driving.
She had some initial public safety concerns about MacKenzie being on the road but was reassured after being told the officer would have to start her police driver licensing from scratch.
Hamilton city area commander Inspector Andrea McBeth says officers must be able to justify their manner of driving. Photo / Jason Dorday
“In these circumstances, she may have overestimated her abilities and underestimated the conditions.
“This can never happen again. That’s the short point.”
The judge granted the discharge application but warned that she “certainly wasn’t” sending a message to suggest police were “exempt from obeying the usual rules and their own protocols when dealing with driving situations”.
She declined name suppression, saying it was a “high threshold and one which has not been reached”.
MacKenzie was ordered to pay $2000 in emotional harm reparation.
‘Risk assessment is required’
When contacted for comment, Inspector Andrea McBeth, Hamilton City area commander said she couldn’t comment specifically on MacKenzie’s case as it was still subject to an employment process.
However, in response to questions about police heading to urgent jobs, McBeth said there were clear guidelines, “which stipulate that officers must be able to justify their manner of driving, considering all circumstances that existed at the time”.
“When police staff are undertaking urgent driving duty, a continuous risk assessment is required.
“The safety of both police staff and the public is prioritised.
“Factors such as the environment, weather conditions and the seriousness of the incident are all considered.”
Belinda Feek is an Open Justice reporter based in Waikato. She has worked at NZME for 10 years and has been a journalist for 21.