Crown defends police decision not to prosecute officer in Kaoss Price fatal shooting

Jillian Hana sat in the High Court at Wellington this week, challenging a decision made three years ago that still defines her grief. In July 2023, police chose not to charge the officers involved in her son's death. Now she wants the court to declare that decision unlawful, and she is seeking $50,000 in damages under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—not just for compensation, but to mark what she believes were failures in how the case was handled.

Kaoss Price died on a rural road at night, shot in the chest at close range. The Crown's account, presented by counsel Peter Gunn, frames the shooting as a split-second decision made under extreme pressure. Price was known to police. He had convictions for theft, car conversion, assault, burglary, and driving offences. Released from prison a month before his death, he had quickly resumed offending. By April, police had flagged him as a risk—someone who might be carrying knives or firearms, someone who might try to escape custody.

On the evening in question, two officers were parked on the roadside after reports of a suspected drunk driver. A BMW passed, followed closely by a VW associated with Price. The officers believed the vehicles were travelling together and began following them—not pursuing, they said, but watching. The VW cut its lights, overtook the BMW, and vanished. Police pulled over the BMW instead. While one officer spoke to the driver, they heard tyres screeching and an engine revving. The VW was speeding toward them. It came so close the police vehicle shuddered, then U-turned and sideswiped the marked car. Officer A fired twice through the window before the VW stopped. Price climbed out and appeared to be concealing something. Given what police knew about him, they feared he was armed.

Price ran. Officer A fired several shots that missed. He was 150 to 200 metres ahead, his right arm still not visible to the officers. He tried several parked cars before reaching a Hyundai. The officers feared he would drive away, potentially taking innocent people with him. The occupants of that vehicle later told investigators they didn't feel threatened—they described Price as scared, wanting to escape, looking terrified. But Officer A couldn't see into the car. When he arrived at the scene, he ordered Price to stop and get out. Price ignored him. Officer A shot him in the chest. From the moment the BMW was pulled over to the moment Price died, three and a half minutes had passed.

Gunn told the court that although the decision was made in a fraction of a second, Officer A had considered alternatives. A taser was ruled out as too slow and risky—it might not incapacitate Price quickly enough, and the car could surge forward. A police dog was rejected for the same reason: it might bite the driver, whose foot was on the brake. Opening the door risked exposing the officer to a weapon. Pepper spray was unlikely to work. The road was rural, unlit, dark.

Hana's legal team, led by Christopher Stevenson KC, challenged multiple aspects of the case. They questioned why the investigation took 15 months to reach a decision when the facts seemed straightforward. They objected to the interview with Officer A not being recorded on video. They noted that the officer was called "mate" 14 times during questioning. They pointed out that the letter informing the family of the non-prosecution decision buried its reasoning in the final paragraph, offering only a bare conclusion: insufficient evidence to support criminal prosecution under the self-defence provisions of the Crimes Act.

Gunn defended each point. The investigation was conducted by officers from outside the district, with the lead investigator arriving two days after Price's death. The decision was made by the investigating officer and endorsed by an independent panel. The Independent Police Conduct Authority reached the same conclusion. The interview was voluntary—the officer was under no compulsion to participate, just as police cannot compel any defendant. The informal tone reflected interview techniques designed to build rapport rather than aggression, Gunn said, and experienced interviewers from outside the region had been brought in. As for the letter, Crown counsel Peter Marshall argued it was unfair to call it conclusionary. Reasons were given, he said, even if they didn't satisfy the family's need for fuller answers.

The Attorney-General extended its sympathies to Hana and her whānau. But the Crown's position remained firm: the officers' actions were reasonable and defensible in law. Justice Victoria Heine will decide whether that position can stand. The case turns on whether a split-second decision, made in darkness on a rural road by officers who believed they faced an armed and dangerous man, can be squared with the law—and whether the process that followed, the investigation and the decision not to prosecute, met the standards the law demands.