Now Price’s mother Jillian Hana is challenging the police decision in July 2023 not to charge the police officers – referred to as Officer A and B – involved in her son’s shooting.
In his opening remarks, Stevenson said it took police 15 months to decide not to prosecute, sending Hana a two-page letter that summarised the decision in its last sentence.
“Based on an assessment of the circumstances and the law relating [to] self-defence and defence of another (section 48 of the Crimes Act), police have determined there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution of the officers involved in the incident.”
Stevenson said: “We struggle to understand how taking 15 months for a decision, with the facts being relatively straightforward, could be explicable or justified”.
He described the delay as “egregious and without reason”.
The court also heard that deciding not to prosecute, police sought advice from three Crown solicitors, although that advice has never been publicly released after it was deemed legally privileged.
Stevenson said that left an obvious question.
“If police received advice not to prosecute, why would they go out searching for more opinions?”
Stevenson said the decision not to prosecute wasn’t an option for police and breached the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines.
In November 2024, the Independent Police Conduct Authority found the shooting to be unjustified and that excessive force was used.
It also found Officer A’s contention that Price had a weapon when he was fatally shot was “implausible and improbable,” adding that the chance that Price was armed was “remote”.
Hana, who is taking the case on behalf of the whānau, is seeking a declaration from the court that the decision not to prosecute was unlawful and wants it reconsidered.
She is also seeking $50,000 in damages under the NZ Bill of Rights Act (BORA), to vindicate her rights and to mark out the police failings in the case.
NZ police kill at 11 times the rate of the UK, 4 times the rate of Australia
Stevenson began his submissions with statistics about police shootings, telling the court that New Zealand police kill at 11 times the rate of their United Kingdom counterparts and four times the rate of Australia.
Stevenson said most victims were Māori, adding that by any measure, these were “jarring statistics”.
Since 2000, Taranaki police have shot and killed five men, four of whom were Māori.
Stevenson told the court there was clearly a significant build-up and backdrop to Price’s killing, but it was clear that by the time he left his VW car “he was running for his life”.
Price had side-swiped a police dog wagon, which prompted the officer to shoot at Price’s car.
Price’s car came to a stop, and he abandoned it, sprinting up the road in search of a new vehicle.
At this point, it was abundantly clear Price was unarmed, Stevenson said.
Price then approached another car from the driver’s side and offered to give the occupants $500 to get away.
The court heard they didn’t feel threatened by Price, instead describing him as scared, wanting to get away, and looking “terrified”.
Price got into the driver’s seat, pushing the driver over towards his passenger. As Price grabbed the accelerator, the driver put his foot on the brake and pulled the handbrake, immobilising the vehicle.
At this point, Officer A arrived at the car and shot Price point-blank in the chest.
Under questioning from Justice Victoria Heine, Stevenson confirmed six shots were fired, with the final shot proving fatal.
Stevenson told the court that Officer A received “improperly favourable treatment” after the shooting as he was a serving police officer, adding there was a lack of impartiality and independence in the way he was treated.
The officer wasn’t interviewed until almost two weeks after the incident, and during that interview he said the officer was treated as a suspect, not a witness.
During the interview, which wasn’t recorded on video, the officer was referred to as “mate” 14 times.
Officer A brought a handwritten account. Stevenson suggested someone accused of fatal force typically wasn’t allowed to bring handwritten notes to an interview.
Stevenson said during the interview the officer was never appropriately pressed or challenged on his account, contrary to the police code of conduct.
Finally, the interviewing officer was trained in interviewing techniques by the lawyer representing Officer A, which Stevenson submitted wasn’t appropriate.
Stevenson told the court a citizen has a right to life, and that right must be protected.
“We say that the investigation and the resulting decision not to prosecute in respect of the shooting of Mr Price was woefully inadequate and fell short of the right to life standard,” Stevenson said.
Breached NZ Bill of Rights
Hana’s second lawyer, barrister Max Harris, said the team also said the decision not to prosecute the officer breached BORA.
This was because it lacked independence and impartiality, wasn’t prompt, wasn’t effective and credible, and lacked transparency.
He also said the IPCA had failed to follow obvious lines of inquiry concerning the officer’s decision to use a firearm rather than a taser, which was available to him and other police.
“Why was Officer A so confident about the prospect of the use of a firearm in the incident and not about the use of a taser?” Harris asked.
“We say a taser would have been a reasonable use of force and a point-blank shot to the chest was excessive,” Stevenson submitted.
Family remains in the dark: Lawyer
Price’s third lawyer, barrister Julia Spelman, told the court of the frustration and difficulties the family had encountered trying to receive even basic information about the case from police, including the reasons not to prosecute the officers involved, leaving family and counsel “in a vacuum”.
“It does put the applicant in a difficult position where the respondent [police] is withholding information, key reasons, and saying without them the case cannot proceed.
“The respondent had resisted at every turn the applicant’s efforts to obtain that information.
“A failure to give reasons means that the lawfulness of what was done cannot be assessed by the court.”
She told the court the letter the police sent Hana wasn’t reasons, but rather a notification of the decision not to prosecute.
And she submitted that, in failing to provide reasons, the police were in breach of the Victims’ Rights Act.
She said it had taken repeated requests by counsel to state the number of shots fired and the cause of death.
She told the court there were “significant periods of silence” interspersed by the drip-feeding of information to the family before the IPCA’s report in 2024.
“Ms Hana remains in the dark about key reasons for police decision-making,” she said.
She said police had not helped the family, citing one example where the family had wanted to view post-mortem examination photos and been told they could do so at a police station.
Yet the family said they have reason to distrust police and didn’t want to deal with them directly, she said.
She said if the review was successful, any reconsideration as to whether charges should be laid against the officers involved should be left to the new inspectorate of the police, a body that was recommended following the investigation into the former deputy commissioner Jevon McSkimming.
“Ultimately the decision was not made by someone independent and impartial, and for a lawful decision to be made it should have been made by someone independent and impartial,” she said.
The hearing before Justice Heine is set to continue tomorrow, with lawyers from the Attorney-General presenting their case tomorrow.
Catherine Hutton is an Open Justice reporter based in Wellington. She has worked as a journalist at the Waikato Times and RNZ. Most recently she was working as a media adviser at the Ministry of Justice.
Join the NZ Herald’s Open Justice team for Case by Case, a video and podcast series examining the disputes and decisions making headlines across New Zealand.