In a Wellington courtroom, a mother named Jillian Hana has brought the weight of her grief before a judge, asking whether the state fulfilled its most fundamental obligation: to account, with honesty and rigor, for the life it took. Her son Kaoss Price, 22 and unarmed, was shot point-blank by a police officer in 2021; fifteen months of investigation concluded in a two-page letter, its final sentence declining to prosecute. The case now asks not only whether one decision was lawful, but whether the systems meant to guard against impunity are themselves capable of impartiality.
Mother challenges police decision not to prosecute in Kaoss Price fatal shooting
Kaoss Price, 22, was fatally shot in the chest by police officer at point-blank range after a vehicle pursuit; he was unarmed at the time of shooting.
He was running for his life, unarmed and terrified.
Mark
Why did it take police 15 months to make this decision? That seems like an unusually long time.
Mimi
The source doesn't explain the delay itself—just that it happened. But the legal team argues the delay was "egregious and without reasons," which suggests there was no good justification for it. The facts of what happened were relatively straightforward.
Luke
Right, but we don't actually know what was taking so long. Was it the investigation? The legal advice process? The source mentions police sought advice from three Crown solicitors, but that advice is legally privileged and hasn't been released. So we can't see what was actually being debated.
Mark
The officer wasn't interviewed until two weeks after the shooting. That seems like a long gap too.
Mimi
Yes, and when he was interviewed, there were problems with how it was conducted. No video recording, he was called "mate" 14 times, he brought handwritten notes, and the person interviewing him had been trained by the officer's own lawyer. The legal team says this shows he got special treatment because he was a police officer.
Luke
Those are real procedural concerns. But we should be careful about what they prove. The IPCA found the shooting unjustified and excessive—that's an independent authority's conclusion. But the prosecution decision is a separate legal question. The source doesn't explain what the Crown solicitors actually advised or why police ultimately decided there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute under self-defence law.
Mark
So the court will have to decide whether the investigation was adequate?
Mimi
Yes. Hana's team is arguing the investigation was "woefully inadequate" and breached her son's right to life. They're also saying the decision-making process itself was unlawful because it lacked independence and transparency.
Luke
The IPCA's findings are powerful—they found Price was almost certainly unarmed and that excessive force was used. But a judicial review isn't about whether the shooting was justified; it's about whether the decision-making process was lawful. Those are different questions.
Mark
What happens if the judge agrees with Hana?
Mimi
She's asking for a declaration that the decision was unlawful and for it to be reconsidered. She's also seeking damages under the Bill of Rights Act.
Luke
The hearing is only two days, and we haven't heard the Attorney-General's arguments yet. There's a lot still unknown about what the Crown solicitors advised and why the prosecution decision was made the way it was.
Der Puls
- A mother watches from the gallery as lawyers argue that the investigation into her son's death was shaped more by institutional loyalty than by the pursuit of truth.
- The officer who fired six shots at an unarmed 22-year-old was not interviewed until nearly two weeks after the killing, and when he was, the session was unrecorded and conducted by someone trained by his own defence lawyer.
- The Independent Police Conduct Authority has already ruled the shooting unjustified and excessive, calling the officer's claim that Price was armed 'implausible and improbable' — yet the prosecution decision has not moved.
- New Zealand Police kill at eleven times the rate of their UK counterparts, and the dead are disproportionately Māori; Price's case arrives inside a pattern that Hana's legal team insists the court cannot ignore.
- Hana is asking Justice Victoria Heine to declare the non-prosecution decision unlawful, force its reconsideration, and award damages for breaches of her son's right to life under the Bill of Rights Act.
In a Wellington courtroom, a mother named Jillian Hana has brought the weight of her grief before a judge, asking whether the state fulfilled its most fundamental obligation: to account, with honesty and rigor, for the life it took. Her son Kaoss Price, 22 and unarmed, was shot point-blank by a police officer in 2021; fifteen months of investigation concluded in a two-page letter, its final sentence declining to prosecute. The case now asks not only whether one decision was lawful, but whether the systems meant to guard against impunity are themselves capable of impartiality.
Jillian Hana arrived at the Wellington High Court with her mother, sister, and friends beside her, seeking something the police investigation had not given her: a reckoning. In July 2023, more than two years after her son Kaoss Price was fatally shot by a police officer, authorities had decided not to prosecute — communicating that conclusion in the final sentence of a two-page letter. Hana's legal team called the process egregious. The court was now being asked to call it unlawful.
The facts of Price's death were not in serious dispute. The 22-year-old had sideswiped a police vehicle during a pursuit, fled on foot, and climbed into a stranger's car, offering the occupants $500 to drive away. They described him as scared, not threatening. When the driver immobilized the vehicle, Officer A arrived and shot Price in the chest at point-blank range. Six shots were fired. Price was unarmed. The Independent Police Conduct Authority later found the shooting unjustified and excessive, and Officer A's claim that Price had a weapon 'implausible and improbable.'
What troubled Hana's counsel as much as the shooting itself was the investigation that followed. Officer A was not interviewed for nearly two weeks. When he was, the session went unrecorded, the interviewing officer addressed him as 'mate' fourteen times, and Officer A arrived with handwritten notes — an irregularity, the court heard, for someone accused of using fatal force. The interviewer had also received training from the very lawyer representing Officer A, raising questions about impartiality before the inquiry had properly begun. Police then sought opinions from three Crown solicitors; when those advisors apparently counseled against prosecution, the search for further opinions continued.
Hana's legal team placed the case inside a wider pattern. New Zealand Police kill at eleven times the rate of their British counterparts and four times the rate of Australian police. In Taranaki alone, five men had been shot dead by police since 2000; four were Māori. Price was among them. The argument before Justice Victoria Heine was that a point-blank shot, when a taser was available, represented excessive force — and that the investigation which followed gave a serving officer treatment it would not have extended to an ordinary citizen.
Hana is seeking a court declaration that the non-prosecution decision was unlawful, a requirement that it be reconsidered, and damages under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act for breaches of her son's right to life. The Attorney-General's lawyers were yet to present their response. At the heart of the hearing lay a question that extended well beyond one family's loss: whether fifteen months of investigation, ending in a two-sentence dismissal, can ever be considered adequate to the gravity of a young man's death.
Jillian Hana sat in the Wellington High Court gallery surrounded by her family—her mother, sister, and friends—watching the judicial review of the decision that shaped the rest of her life. In July 2023, police had chosen not to prosecute the officers involved in shooting her 22-year-old son, Kaoss Price. Now, more than two years later, she was asking a judge to declare that decision unlawful.
The investigation itself had taken 15 months. When it concluded, police summarized their reasoning in a two-page letter, burying the actual decision in the final sentence: there was insufficient evidence to prosecute under the self-defence provisions of the Crimes Act. Hana's legal team called the delay "egregious and without reasons." The officer accused of firing the fatal shot—referred to in court as Officer A—wasn't even interviewed until nearly two weeks after Price died. When that interview finally happened, it wasn't recorded on video. The interviewing officer called him "mate" 14 times. Officer A brought handwritten notes to the interview, something Stevenson, Hana's counsel, said was highly irregular for someone accused of using fatal force. The interviewer had also been trained in interview techniques by the lawyer representing Officer A—a detail that raised questions about impartiality before the investigation had even properly begun.
The sequence of events that led to Price's death was straightforward enough. He had side-swiped a police dog wagon during what became a pursuit. When his car stopped, he fled on foot, desperate to escape. He approached a parked vehicle and offered the occupants $500 to drive away. They didn't feel threatened by him; they described him as scared, terrified, wanting to get away. Price got into the driver's seat and reached for the accelerator, but the driver braked and pulled the handbrake, immobilizing the car. At that moment, Officer A arrived and shot Price point-blank in the chest. Six shots were fired in total. The final one was fatal. Price was unarmed.
In November 2024, the Independent Police Conduct Authority reached its own conclusion: the shooting was unjustified and excessive. The authority found Officer A's claim that Price had a weapon to be "implausible and improbable." The chances Price was armed were "remote." Yet despite this finding, the prosecution decision stood. Hana's legal team argued that Officer A had received "improperly favourable treatment" because he was a serving police officer—that the investigation lacked the impartiality and independence required by law. They also questioned why police had sought advice from three Crown solicitors, then continued searching for more opinions when those initial advisors apparently counseled against prosecution. If the legal advice was clear, why keep asking?
Stevenson opened his submissions with statistics that framed the broader context. New Zealand Police kill at 11 times the rate of their UK counterparts and four times the rate of Australian police. Most victims are Māori. In Taranaki alone, police had shot and killed five men since 2000; four were Māori. Price was one of them. The legal team argued that a point-blank shot to the chest was excessive force, especially when Officer A had access to a taser—a less lethal option that was available at the scene. Why, they asked, was the officer so confident about using a firearm and not about using the taser instead?
Hana was seeking two things: a declaration that the decision not to prosecute was unlawful and a reconsideration of that decision. She was also claiming damages under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, arguing that the investigation breached her son's right to life and that the process lacked the independence, transparency, and effectiveness required by law. The hearing before Justice Victoria Heine was set for two days, with the Attorney-General's lawyers expected to present their case next. What remained to be seen was whether a court would agree that 15 months of investigation, culminating in a two-sentence dismissal, was adequate to the gravity of a young man's death.
Bemerkenswerte Zitate
Based on an assessment of the events and the law relating to self defence and defence of another, police have determined there is insufficient evidence to support a civil prosecution of the officers involved in the incident.— Police decision letter, as read in court
We struggle to understand how taking 15 months for a decision, with the facts being relatively straightforward, could be explicable or justified.— Stevenson, Hana's counsel, in opening submissions
Möchten Sie die ganze Geschichte?
Das Original lesen bei The New Zealand Herald ↗
Crime & Justice