The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found that police were not justified in using a police dog to detain one of two youths arrested on August 3 last year.

A dog handler spotted a car known to have been stolen and requested to pursue it.

The pursuit was not authorised, but other attending officers located the car abandoned a short distance away, says the IPCA's ruling, which was released this week.

They called the dog handler to track the youths from the car while other police staff formed cordons around the area to block potential escape routes.

When the dog handler found the two youths, she warned them twice that she was a police dog handler and could let her dog go, says the IPCA.

When they did not stop, she released her dog which bit one of them.

The other youth was challenged again by the dog handler and came back without incident. The youth who was bitten was taken to hospital to receive treatment. That youth also said that when the officer arrested him, she used her boot on his face and swore at him.

The Authority found that the use of force when the dog was released and bit the youth was not justified because the use of the dog to detain the youth was not proportionate to the seriousness of stealing and abandoning a car (which was recovered) in circumstances when Police had the area cordoned to prevent escape.

'It was appropriate for Officer A to track the offenders to identify their location so as to apprehend them for the offence of unlawfully taking a motor vehicle,” says authority chair Judge Colin Doherty.

'However, the decision to release the police dog, with the inevitable consequence that one of the offenders was bitten, was disproportionate.”

The authority also found that the officer did not have any contact with the driver's face, however, she likely used derogatory language during the arrest.

Police have acknowledged the findings of the IPCA, says assistance commissioner Richard Chambers.

'In August 2021, a police dog assisted with the apprehension of a young person following a fleeing driver incident involving a stolen vehicle.

'The stolen vehicle was abandoned so police staff, including a dog handler deployed to the area in an effort to locate those responsible.

The young person was located but ignored repeated requests by the handler to surrender and continued to run from police, says Richard.

A police dog was deployed, resulting in the arrest of the young person.

The IPCA found the use of a police dog was unjustified.

'Police acknowledge the finding, however disagree with the authority's assessment of the overall situation.

'The handler considered the circumstances and risks prior to making the decision to deploy the Police dog, including the likelihood of the persons not being held accountable for their criminal behaviour and the likelihood they would reoffend.

'Those involved were given ample opportunity to surrender after being challenged by police and failed to do so.

'The young persons were in a stolen vehicle, had failed to stop and were driving dangerously, creating considerable risk to the public,” says Richard.

'Police believe the dog handler was justified in deploying the police dog given the circumstances.

'The IPCA's report also found the dog handler likely used derogatory language towards one of the young people, which police accept.

'For privacy reasons, police are unable to comment further on where the incident occurred.”