Officers were justified in the shooting of Slovakian man Daniel Cerven in a central Auckland park in 2015, the Independent Police Conduct Association has found.
However, the two officers should have approached him differently.
Cerven died after he was shot by officers in Myers Park on August 2, 2015.
In a decision released this morning, the IPCA has stated the two officers who shot and killed Cerven were justified.
"However, the actions of the officers, in deciding to immediately approach and challenge Mr Cerven while he was engaged with other unarmed officers, precipitated Mr Cerven's response," said authority chair Judge Sir David Carruthers in his decision.
The decision stated that 25 minutes before he was shot, Cerven called police asking them to meet him in Myers Park to talk about three aggravated robberies he was suspected of committing.
The first four officers who went to the park did not have firearms.
They began talking to Cerven, who did not comply with their requests to come down from a hill he was on, show his hands or lie on the ground.
A short time later Cerven told them he had a gun, the decision said.
"Two armed officers entered the park with their firearms ready to use, quickly approaching Mr Cerven and yelling at him to get on the ground.
"Mr Cerven did not comply.
"Instead, he took his hands out of his pockets and appeared to clasp them together, making it look like he had a firearm in his hands. Both officers simultaneously fired a number of shots at Mr Cerven, who died at the scene."
The shooting was therefore justified, ruled Sir David.
"The Authority accepts that the two officers believed Mr Cerven had a gun, feared for their lives and in the circumstances, according to law and Police policy, were justified in shooting him.
"However, the Authority is also of the view that the focus of the two officers was on the risk Mr Cerven posed to the unarmed officers at the scene and not on a complete assessment of the situation.
"In acting as they did, the two officers did not give sufficient weight to the risk members of the public were exposed to, or whether it was necessary to immediately engage Mr Cerven."
There was four main points the officers did not do:
• Moving closer to Cerven and covering the unarmed officers while they continued to talk to him and tried to negotiate his surrender;
• Taking over negotiations from the unarmed officers;
• Delaying the arrest of Cerven by continuing with negotiations until the park could be properly cordoned and Cerven contained;
• Finding out whether AOS was going to be, or had been, called.
Furthermore, Sir David ruled that the two officers did not advise the communications centre of their intended approach.
"Their failure to do so meant that neither the communications centre nor the four officers present in the park were aware of their plan and it was not approved by the dispatcher, who at that time had control of the incident. As the four other officers were unaware of the plan, they had limited time to retreat and take cover."
Sir David Carruthers said: "The public must have confidence that police follow law and policy at all times - particularly where lethal force is involved. In this case, the Authority accepts that the officers were justified in shooting Mr Cerven, but has found that some of their actions leading up to the shooting were wanting - to the extent they precipitated the response that led to his death."
Police communications centre staff responded appropriately to Cerven's 111 call, the ruling said.
"Once Mr Cerven told police he had a gun, the dispatcher acted correctly in attempting to cordon as many park entrances as possible and in ensuring armed officers were sent to the scene. It also finds Mr Cerven received all reasonable assistance from police after he was shot."
