Have Your Say

This is a revealing read about the conduct of the NZ police. 4 years on and 2 trials. Lots of lies and plenty of evidence, the police are still denying their guilt.
The IPCA needs to be replaced with non police associated people.

Because it’s the Herald, I will put it up.
It’s the sort of good stuff they can do.

I have removed the pics and a video, which you can see here.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/racism-claim-after-good-samaritan-jamie-lawry-charged-and-then-found-not-guilty/7UPFV2VZYBDHRBGIP3WLXS2F5U/

Racism claim after ‘good Samaritan’ Jamie Lawry charged and then found not guilty
Is there racism in our police? Is it systemic? In Northland, many Māori parents raise their children to be cautious when encountering police. But what happens when a young Māori man didn’t grow up in New Zealand and didn’t get “the talk”? David Fisher reports.
Jamie Lawry had never encountered police until he tried to help someone on his way home from a family dinner.
For young Māori men in Northland, encounters with police are all-too common – but Lawry didn’t grow up in New Zealand.
He spent years in Brisbane, Australia, with grandparents, returning to New Zealand in May 2021 hoping to connect with his culture.

And then came that first brush with the law: police pinning him to the ground with a knee to the back of his neck as they handcuffed him. He wonders if it was racism.
That’s because CCTV footage didn’t support the police version of events that led to the forceful arrest, five hours in custody, a list of criminal charges and almost four years in the court system.
Then after all that, Lawry was found not guilty.

One night out in Whangārei
Early Saturday morning on March 12, 2022, in central Whangārei, Jamie Lawry was sitting on a low brick wall chatting to a man we’ll call Burgundy Shirt.

CCTV cameras had captured Burgundy Shirt’s escapades since leaving the Grand Hotel a short way down the road.
He had taken exception to another man in a car park over the road from the pub. The two men had punched each other in the head a few times before throwing their arms around each other and going their separate ways.
Weaving off down Bank St, Burgundy Shirt then saw a couple of the council’s City Safe security staff.
“Watch out for this dude. We’ve had problems with him,” said guard Adam Barclay as Burgundy Shirt approached. The other, Mark Todd, replied: “Oh yeah, he’s the one that charges us.” Their voices were captured on body cameras.
As predicted, CCTV footage shows Burgundy Shirt lunging at the guards.

The man in the burgundy shirt (left) was pursuing City Safe officers until, in the foreground, Jamie Lawry stepped in.
Over a handful of minutes, Burgundy Shirt charges at and menaces the guards while they move to stay out of his way. Barclay calls for police support.
As the CCTV camera ticks over to 12.36am, Jamie Lawry (Ngāti Wai, Ngāpuhi-Nui-tonu, Ngāti Whitikaupeka, Ngāti Tūwharetoa) walks into view. He briefly chats to the guards as Burgundy Shirt turns again to focus on the pair.
Video captures the moment – as described by Todd – that Lawry began “trying to calm” Burgundy Shirt.
“I thought to myself ‘good on him’ for trying to calm [him] down … trying to de-escalate the situation,” Todd said.
Lawry shepherds the man away from the guards, up Bank St. Their heads are close, as if talking. Each time Burgundy Shirt tries to turn back, Lawry steers the man forwards.

Todd later gave a statement saying that he had been so concerned for himself and Barclay he thought they might have been forced to defend themselves.
Jamie Lawry is pushed by the man in the burgundy shirt (at left) as he attempts to calm him.
It’s five minutes since Lawry arrived and his efforts appear to have worked. He sits with Burgundy Shirt on the low brick wall and the CCTV operator breaks away to scan the street.
This footage – and that from the security guards’ body cameras – would be critical to Lawry’s defence. Working for Lawry’s lawyer, private investigator Mike Sabin recovered it after police told the district court it was “too grainy” to be of use.
The footage captured Burgundy Shirt fighting in the car park, and later he and Lawry sitting on the wall. Another angle showed the guards down the road talking to others on a Friday night out.
Todd: “Things seem to calm down and we were just watching from across the road and then the police turned up.”

‘Then the police turned up’
Four officers arrived early that morning in 2022. The Herald has decided not to name them.
The CCTV footage shows the first police car arriving and two officers walking across the road to the two men.
The first officer to cross the road later told the court that when he and his partner pulled up, the City Safe security team had pointed to Burgundy Shirt, seated on the wall, chatting to Lawry.
That officer – Officer A – later told the court he looked across the road and believed the two men were those who had earlier exchanged blows.
He didn’t stop to check then, or later, as the City Safe guards watched the officers arrest Lawry. If he had, he would have learned Lawry was not one of the two men who had been fighting near the Grand Hotel.

Four police officers arrive to speak with Jamie Lawry and the man in the burgundy shirt. Lawry was found not guilty of resisting arrest, disorderly behaviour and assault almost four years later.
Officer A: “As I approached [Lawry] I formed the belief that they were making up, they were resolving, and [Lawry] was … a little bit unstable on his feet.”
Lawry has disputed this, along with much of what police claim. He says he only had a few drinks over the course of his evening at a family gathering.
Two other police officers arrived. The City Safe staff crossed the street to watch as the officers quizzed Lawry and Burgundy Shirt.
One of the officers asked Lawry for his name and address.
“Tahemi,” Lawry replied, according to his statement and a later interview with the Herald. He says he then asked: “Why do I need to provide you my address?”
Under New Zealand law, no one needs to tell police who they are or where they live unless an officer demands it by citing an Act of Parliament – as is common when stopped by police for speeding.
Officer A’s evidence regarding Lawry was different. “He exhibited signs of belligerency … he didn’t want to give us his details, and he was argumentative.
“He started to swear at me after I made suggestions about taking him home … I believe he told me to ‘f*** off’ and called me an ‘f***ing liar’ … he clenched his fists, his facial expressions changed.”
The police version of events differed from Lawry’s – and the two witnesses who were not police officers.
Todd’s statement said: “… I didn’t hear the young guy saying anything abusive to police – yelling at them, swearing or sparking up – in any way at all.

“I could hear the young guy sort of saying to the police that [Burgundy Shirt] is okay and that he was just a bit intoxicated.”
Barclay, too, later told the court he heard no swearing, aggression, or threats from Lawry.

Officer A, though, had decided to arrest both men.
For Lawry, there would be two trials. The first in 2024 was aborted for logistical reasons – then there was a full trial in October 2025. At the first trial, Officer A testified he had arrested Lawry for not providing his details. In the second trial, he claimed to have arrested Lawry for disorderly conduct.
As seen in the CCTV footage, he reached out and grabbed Lawry’s arm to put him in handcuffs. “I went to pull him up and he actively resisted by pulling away from me.”
This led to Lawry being charged for resisting arrest.
Officer A: “We stood him on his feet and took him to the ground … he was actively resisting and we believed he was involved in a fight.”
CCTV video shows three officers pulling Lawry from where he is sitting. Two officers hold his upper body while another lifts his legs. Lawry’s head swings close to the ground as he is forced onto the footpath.
Former police senior sergeant Darcy Forrester – a 25-year veteran whose former roles include teaching officers about use of force – analysed the footage for Mike Sabin, the former police detective who was investigating the case.
Sabin was initially hired by Lawry’s lawyer through legal aid funding, which ran out quickly. He then felt “compelled” to continue without payment, he says, out of concern over Lawry’s arrest and police actions.

Forrester’s analysis found “no obvious” reason for the officers to pull Lawry from the wall. He also noted the body language of the officers – none appeared under threat, or had prepared pepper spray or handcuffs.
He said lifting Lawry’s legs created a dangerous situation for him because the officers at the top of his body didn’t have enough control to stop him from “hitting the pavement”.
Lawry is handcuffed as one officer bends his heels towards his backside while another appears to drop a knee across his neck.

Forrester also noted body camera audio in which Lawry can be heard saying: “I will, I will.” This was presented at trial as evidence of his compliance.
He said it was unclear how much – if any – weight was being applied to Lawry’s neck and head but described the position as one that could lead to suffocation.
He noted there was no apparent reason for using the “leg lock” to immobilise Lawry, given the technique was known to be painful.
Officers either side of Lawry then used his restrained arms to lift him to his feet. Forrester said the fact Lawry’s feet left the ground meant “the entire weight of his body is being leveraged from his shoulders”.
Lawry was then marched across the street, arms lifted painfully high behind his back.
Throughout, Forrester said, there was no sign of the officers seeking Lawry’s co-operation.
In contrast, a single officer cuffed Burgundy Shirt and walked him normally to a waiting police car.

Forrester reflected on the various tactical options police are trained in.
“It is my opinion that Mr Lawry has not committed any offence alleged,” he said, adding that he could have been allowed to leave.
“Mr Lawry could also have been left where he was seated to continue with his night as he posed no threat to his own or public safety.”
Instead, Lawry was placed in the back seat of a police car. He told the Herald: “I had just sat down when [an officer] kneed me straight in the head and things went pretty hazy from there.”
CCTV footage was shown in court, and Lawry’s defence lawyer said it showed a sharp movement on the part of the officer.
Officer A told the October 2025 trial that he had struck Lawry with a “significant or powerful” knee to the leg or buttocks – not head – after the handcuffed man had grabbed at his belt.

The court hearing was the first occasion in which Officer A mentioned the alleged grab at his belt and his use of a knee – events not recorded in his notebook or statement.
Defence lawyer Matthew Ridgley: “What I suggest to you [Officer A] is you’ve deliberately left out that detail because it doesn’t look good. What do you say to that?
Officer A: “No.”

‘The talk’ – how to deal with police
In the United States, they call it “the talk”. A documentary by that name came out a month after George Floyd’s death and the surge in the Black Lives Matter movement – black parents teaching their children how to behave in response to police interest so as to avoid becoming victims.

The talk happens here, too.
Martin Kaipo is chief executive of health and social services agency Te Hau Awhiowhio o Otangarei Trust, based in Northland, where Māori make up around 40% of the population. He says those conversations are common and necessary.
“[Young people] are trusting in the system until they become victims of the system. A lot of fathers and mothers are saying ‘be wary of police’. It’s not just Pākehā but Māori police. It’s the system.”
In 2024, Understanding Police Delivery (UPD) – a major report into unconscious bias among the police commissioned by former police commissioner Andrew Coster – found that being Māori increased the chance of being prosecuted by 11% compared with Pākehā.
Māori also made up 42% of people tasered during the review period, despite comprising 17.8% of the population.
While it was being researched, a national review was launched into police taking illegal photos of rangatahi without their consent. An investigation highlighted that rangatahi Māori were disproportionately represented in the photos.
?auth=75f5c58a18aab83408d37d69fdf197bf71229cc58580270ab8250620fd011ce6&width=1440&height=810&quality=70&smart=trueThe death of George Floyd sparked protests around the world.
Last year, the new police commissioner Richard Chambers and police minister Mark Mitchell denied systemic racism in police.
The UPD final report put forward around 50 recommendations, saying: “We would expect to see significant measurable change within five years if the recommendations are implemented.”
But when Chambers took over, focus moved to “core policing” and frontline delivery and just a handful of the report’s recommendations were progressed.
The Herald asked police about the current data skew against Māori and the finding of “systemic bias”.

Rakesh Naidoo, Acting Assistant Commissioner Iwi Community and Partnership, said it was accepted by police its data – and that of the wider justice system – “shows Māori are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system both as offenders and victims”.
He said the skew “doesn’t reflect race‑based decision‑making by officers“ and there is more work to do to “reduce unjustified disparity” through evidence‑based decisions, stronger supervision, critical decision training and learning.
When force is required, he said “police deal with everyone the same … based on the threat presented”.

Lawry, the search and the cell
It’s 12.48am when the police patrol car containing Jamie Lawry pulls into the processing area at Whangārei’s central police station.
Cameras show Lawry marched from the police car by two officers and “towards a wall and had his head banged into the wall”, Forrester says. “This would be forceful enough to cause an injury.”
The two officers pinning him to the wall are joined by a third as Lawry is searched.
Handcuffs are removed. Forrester describes Lawry as standing and steady on his feet. “He is not aggressive in any way.”
Lawry had nose piercings he had never removed. He says he told the officers he didn’t know how to remove them. CCTV footage shows three officers taking Lawry to the ground.
Sabin says the officers then used pliers to cut the piercings free while another removed Lawry’s boots. The police wouldn’t comment, but the court hearing was told removal of jewellery considered to pose a threat is generally carried out before someone is placed in the cells.
Then, the pounamu worn around Lawry’s neck was removed. Clasping his hand to it while speaking to the Herald, he says: “There’s a lot of mana that this holds with me. It’s been through everything since I received it. I’ve never removed it.”

Lawry is walked through a metal detector, which flashes red each time he passes. Repeated pat-downs and a wand detector fail to reveal anything further.
Four police officers look on as he loosens his belt and drops his jeans then removes his T-shirt.
“So, at this point, I’m in my underwear and my socks,” he told the Herald. “The officer then pointed to my socks and he said, ‘Can you also take your socks off?’

He stripped naked after repeatedly setting of a metal detector.
“So I complied. I took my socks off and I thought at that point, ‘you’ve already taken everything else you may as well have it all’.”
Lawry strips completely and walks naked through the scanner, setting it off again. He then pulls his underwear on and stands facing police.
Forrester’s account of the video continues to describe Lawry as showing no aggression at the point three officers move to lift him – briefly assisted by a fourth officer who lifts Lawry’s legs – into a holding cell.
Watching the CCTV footage, there appears a brief moment of struggle as the officers lay hands on him. Lawry says he had asked if he could use the toilet and was refused. Police did not respond to Herald questions about this.
He was placed in a cell that had no toilet and urinated on the floor – an act he said he couldn’t avoid. Police said it was further evidence of his non-compliance.
Finally alone, Lawry says he searched inside himself for calm and found it elusive. He decided to carry out a haka.
Years later, at trial, Lawry was quizzed about the haka and the suggestion it threatened violence towards police. One officer’s evidence stated Lawry’s “behaviour worsened”, describing him stripping off his clothes, starting a haka, and “speaking in native tongue”.

Lawry to the Herald: “I said ‘kia ora’ to them. I told them my name was Tahemi, which is Jamie in Māori … I think we know that it’s te reo Māori, not ‘native tongue’.”
While in the cells, Lawry was again asked for his name and address. The request at this stage later became important at trial. At the first trial – which was stopped – the arresting officer gave evidence that Lawry was charged for not providing his details when quizzed on the street. But at the second trial, the charge of not providing details was pegged to this request in the cells.
It was established in the trial that police had already searched Lawry’s belongings and found his driving licence, so they knew who he was and where he lived – meaning police already had the details Lawry was charged for not providing.
About 3.20am, police say they intended to take Lawry home. The cell door opens and officers move on Lawry again, handcuffing him and bundling him into a police car.
Sabin queries why Lawry is handcuffed at this point. If, as police say, he was being taken home without charge, then he was a free man – with no need for handcuffs.

Lawry’s testimony was that he was handcuffed on the concrete floor of the police station then picked up and put in the back seat of the waiting police car.
“By that stage I was very exhausted so I was kind of hanging out of the car. I then saw [Officer D] came up to the door and grab it and slam the door, which looked like as hard as he could, but luckily I saw it and I was able to move my head out of the door.”
It’s a fresh serious allegation from Lawry – one which he was accused in court of inventing. What happened in that police car also led to a fresh serious allegation – of headbutting – against Lawry.
But seven important minutes of footage – from 3.22am to 3.29am in which both incidents are claimed to have happened – was unavailable.
Police initially said there was no footage because Lawry was transferred to the police car outside the station.

After police notebooks references recording this were sought, police then acknowledged the transfer did happen inside – but the CCTV footage had been overwritten.
Officer D, the one alleged to have slammed the car door, had been the one responsible for securing the footage.
In a police job sheet, Inspector Wayne Ewers wrote: “There is no obvious reason for these missing time periods, and it simply appears to be the incompetence of the staff using the system.”
Lawry was returned to police cells and slept until 6am. He claims that’s when he was told his rights for the first time. Police claim this, and the chance to contact a lawyer, happened earlier in the night.
Lawry also says he was refused the chance to call a lawyer for advice about the bail bond he was given to sign. He says he was told to sign or be transferred to Ngawha prison until Monday morning.
“Because I had things to do and I really didn’t want to be held in prison over the weekend, I just signed the paper, just to get it done so I could be released.”
He refused a ride home and walked out of the station. It would take almost four years before the case was resolved.

Lawry – ‘I was assaulted that night’
The morning Lawry was released, he visited his grandmother at Matapouri on the coast where his wider family collectively own land. She photographed visible injuries and packed him off to White Cross.
eJamie Lawry the morning he was released from Whangārei police station.
There he was found to have a suspected concussion, abrasions to his forehead and left shoulder, sore and swollen wrists, significant pain in his hips – and a sore neck which has needed ongoing treatment.
Lawry found a lawyer, turned up at court and pleaded not guilty to failing to provide his details to police, disorderly behaviour and resisting arrest.

He was also charged with assault on police – which requires the prosecution to show the officer assaulted was attacked in the lawful execution of their duty.
Lawry’s defence probed whether police were actually lawfully carrying out their duties at the point he was arrested. And so the charge changed as the case progressed. It went from assault on police, to assault, to assault with intent to injure, eventually rising to such seriousness that a conviction could have seen Lawry imprisoned for up to seven years.
amie Lawry stood trial and was found not guilty at Whangārei District Court.
According to Lawry, that changed each time he rejected police offers to agree to a plea deal.
If he would admit to a minor charge, the rest would be dropped and he’d get diversion – meaning no conviction. But Lawry said that didn’t feel right.
“To me it was really a no-brainer. If you’re not guilty for something, you’re not going to plead guilty for it.”
The first trial in 2024 was derailed requiring a new trial to be held in October 2025.
During the second trial, Officer A explained how he had assumed Lawry and Burgundy Shirt were the two men reported fighting. CCTV footage at the trial showed Lawry was not one of those men.
Officer A was also challenged over his arrest of Lawry. In the first trial he had said Lawry was arrested for failing to provide details. By the second trial, he said Lawry was arrested for disorderly behaviour.
Asked why his evidence had changed, Officer A said it was because he had now seen his notes.
But the 2024 trial transcript showed Officer A had consulted his notebook before testifying then.

Lawry’s lawyer Ridgley said: “What I suggest to you [Officer A] is since that first trial and this trial, you’ve changed your evidence because you’re now aware that it’s not an offence to not provide details in that situation. What do you say to that?”
Officer A: “No.”
The police case faced other difficulties, and the jury returned a “not guilty” verdict on all charges except for that alleging Lawry had refused to provide his details while in police custody at the station. That charge was dismissed.
Claims Lawry was abusive and swearing contrasted with CitySafe bodycam footage shot from just metres away showing no sign of that.
The security guards told the court they didn’t hear raised voices or swearing – the justification Officer A had claimed for the disorderly behaviour arrest.
The officers present testified that Lawry was told he was under arrest for disorderly behaviour. The body camera footage did not capture those words.

Lawry’s family had gathered in support through the trial and was there to see him cleared.
“When the verdict came out that it was not guilty, it was like a sudden release of all these emotions and feelings that I’ve had for the last three-and-a-half years,” Lawry told the Herald.
“It wasn’t just clarity for me. It was clarity for everybody in the room that day.
After Lawry’s night in the cells, others told him they’d agreed to plea deals then instantly regretted it, saying it was just to get it “over and done with”.

Asked why he was arrested, Lawry says: “To be honest, I think I was stereotyped. You know, young Māori boy out in town causing trouble. Maybe that’s all I looked like to them.”
The police didn’t comment when asked about this by the Herald.
But it’s the reason why Lawry complained to the IPCA.
“If you make a mistake you own up to it and you make it right, you fix that mistake. I don’t want that ever to happen to anybody else again. They should be held accountable and make things right throughout New Zealand.”
Last month, the IPCA rejected Lawry’s request to investigate.
It acknowledged “subsequent inquiries confirmed that Jamie did not charge at the City Safe staffer”, despite that allegation forming part of the reason for his arrest. It also agreed Lawry “was not obliged to provide his name in the circumstances”.
And while Officer A gave conflicting evidence under oath at the two trials, that in itself was not evidence of perjury – a crime for which there is a high bar for evidence.
It said police had told it that the discrepancies were “due to confusion and the passage of time”.
The watchdog said police could still lawfully arrest someone if officers believed an offence had occurred at the time. “This does not render the initial arrest, subsequent detention or any reasonable force used unlawful in retrospect.”
It said it had “not identified any misconduct in respect of the decision to arrest Jamie”.

There would also be no investigation into allegations by Lawry that the force used was excessive. The “limited quality of the footage and dark conditions” make it difficult to see what has happened. Police were also entitled to use force to remove jewellery that could be used to harm or effect an escape.
And even though Lawry started raising complaints about his arrest in April 2023, the IPCA said another reason it would not investigate was the length of time that had passed since his arrest. Any charges the officers could be prosecuted over could not proceed because the allowed time period had passed.
The issues raised, the IPCA said, could have been – or were – raised in court.
“We will not be taking any further action on your complaint and your case will be closed.”
District commander for Northland Superintendent Matt Srhoj said the officers involved in Lawry’s arrest did not realise when they responded to threats of a disturbance that “the instigator involved in the initial event had already left the scene”.
He said officers were “dealing with an individual who was highly intoxicated” – which Lawry denies – who “refused to comply with directions given to provide details”.
“Despite being advised of the consequences, he continued to refuse to provide details and was subsequently arrested. Had details been provided at the station, he would have been taken home and that would have been the end of the matter.”
Srhoj said police “do acknowledge some human error handling CCTV software which resulted in some footage being misplaced” which was “regrettable”.
He said many of the issues raised had been addressed by the court process which had not made adverse findings against police.
Lawry is appealing the IPCA decision. He struggles to accept almost four years of his life – and his faith in police – can be hijacked by an attempt to help while out in Whangārei.

“I was assaulted that night. It was an eye-opener that’s still very raw. I didn’t like to think that we had racism here in Whangārei but that to me it’s still very prominent.”