The claims were made on June 24, 2019, by former Dunedin Airport security officer Preetam Prakash Maid (32).
He was jailed for three years in January this year, after planting a fake bomb at the airport on March 17, 2019.
The IPCA did not name Maid in its findings, in which authority chairman Judge Colin Doherty found the officers did not force Maid to provide a statement when interviewed.
Judge Doherty said Maid was arrested and taken to Dunedin Central Police Station on May 3, 2019, where he was interviewed by a police officer (Officer A), but declined to answer questions or directly address matters that were put to him.
Maid alleged Officer A made inappropriate comments about a police station support officer role he had applied for — namely that his application to join the police had ‘‘gone south’’.
Following the comment, a more senior officer (Officer D) entered the interview room and allegedly pointed his fingers at the man in an aggressive manner and threatened him and his family.
Maid said the officer was aggressive and said, ‘‘I’ll see to it that you will suffer financially and your family will suffer financially. We have enough proof against you and it will be an interesting trial’’.
Maid said Officer D also told him not to discuss his job application.
He believed the officers’ behaviour was an attempt to forcefully extract a statement from him, and both he and his family felt vulnerable and scared as a result of the officers’ comments, Maid said.
However, Officer A told the authority he was not threatening Maid when talking about his job application.
He made the comment because Maid was to be charged with a criminal offence and he was ‘‘not suitable to be an employee of the New Zealand Police’’.
Officer D told the authority he had been popping into the monitoring room from time to time, to see how the interview was progressing.
When he did this for a final time, he overheard the man referring to the job application.
He said his actions were in response to his belief Maid was trying to divert attention from the matter under investigation, and imply police had an ulterior motive for arresting him.
He told the authority that he probably did poke his finger at Maid, and said: ‘‘There is no place for comments around that sort of stuff in this environment ... This is a criminal inquiry’’.
Officer D denied his intervention was an attempt to coerce the man into making a statement.
Judge Doherty said the authority found no evidence of malice behind any of the comments the man took issue with.
‘‘It is apparent that his arrest took place after a significant amount of investigative work had been completed, and after an ‘authority to charge’ had been obtained from the Attorney-general.
‘‘Police did not require a statement from him on May 3, 2019, and it is hard to conceive that Officers A and D, both experienced CIB detectives, would contemplate actions likely to jeopardise the successful prosecution of the man.
‘‘The officers’ accounts were consistent and supported by the evidence.
‘‘There was no information that supported the man’s allegations.
‘‘The officers’ comments were relevant in the circumstances that they were made,’’ Judge Doherty said.
Maid was found guilty of a charge laid under the Aviation Crimes Act and sentenced to three years’ prison.
