Steven James Wallace fatally wounded at Waitara
Sunday 30 April 2000 - Report
Detective Inspector BR Pearce, June 2000
Conclusions
The following conclusions have been compiled following a detailed
investigation into the circumstances leading up to and particularly immediately
prior to, Steven WALLACE being shot by Police.
These conclusions follow a careful examination of the principal scene
including forensics, ballistics and toxicological examinations. The testimony
of a number of key witnesses has significantly contributed to the formulation
of the conclusions.
That in the 15-20 minutes which immediately preceded his being shot
by Police, Steven WALLACE was acting in an irrational, destructive,
threatening and dangerous manner in various public places within the
Waitara township.
That during that period he embarked on a rampage of destruction
directed at various buildings in Waitara including the Police Station,
Fire Station, New World Supermarket and other businesses situated in
McLean Street, Waitara.
That within that 15-20 minute period he attacked and damaged with a
golf club, an occupied taxi and Police patrol, drove dangerously and at
speed narrowly avoiding at least two collisions with a motorist and a
cyclist.
That Steven WALLACE threatened to attack an occupied motor
vehicle owned and driven by Witness 16.
That after Constables A and B had independently observed
WALLACE's violent activities they, without collaboration, quite
correctly concluded the need to arm themselves with firearms for selfdefence
purposes.
That in initially approaching WALLACE from a safe distance,
Constables A and B did nothing to provoke WALLACE, other than by
their presence.
That only after initially approaching WALLACE and realising he had
armed himself with a golf club and baseball bat did Constable B draw
his pistol and identify himself as an armed Police Officer.
That Constable A kept his pistol holstered until WALLACE threw a golf
club at him.
That Constables A and B immediately adopted a defensive,
conciliatory retreating response in direct contrast to WALLACE's
offensive and threatening advance.
That Constable A repeatedly, as he retreated, endeavoured to
communicate and negotiate with WALLACE, calling on him to desist
while advising that he was armed.
That Constables A and B retreated over a distance of 60 metres
during which time WALLACE significantly reduced the distance
between himself and Constable A from approximately 20 metres to
approximately 5-6 metres.
That the firing of a warning shot by Constable A was appropriate in the
circumstances but did nothing to deter WALLACE's advance.
That having drawn his firearm in self-defence, Constable A had no
opportunity to adopt a less violent means even had he considered that
to be an option.
That in the face of what appeared to be an imminent physical attack
involving a baseball bat, Constable A had to take a positive action or
risk losing control of his own weapon and serious injury to himself.
That Constable A genuinely feared for his own life and shot WALLACE
in an act of self-defence.
That Constable B also genuinely feared for Constable A's life and
seriously contemplated shooting WALLACE in self-defence of
Constable A and himself.
That in the circumstances they found themselves in, Constables A and
B could not reasonably have adopted a less violent means in self-defence.
23.18 That Constables A and B conformed with Police General Instructions
and relevant sections of the Crimes Act 1961 relating to the carriage
and use of firearms. General Instructions F60, F61 and F64 and S48
(self-defence) Crimes Act 1961.
That on the facts Constable A is not culpable for the death of Steven
WALLACE. Neither is Constable B as a party, ie Section 66 Crimes
Act 1961.
That while issues of fact are more properly the domain of a jury, it is
considered that no jury properly directed could, beyond reasonable
doubt, find that Constable A shot Steven WALLACE other than in selfdefence.
That Steven WALLACE died as a direct result of an unsurvivable
gunshot wound to his liver and that no act or omission by any person
to render first aid or other emergency treatment could have saved his
life.
Top
24 Recommendations
That no criminal charges be preferred as a consequence of Steven
WALLACE's death.
That this report and the investigation file be submitted for an
independent legal opinion.
That if the above recommendation (24.1) is upheld, an early pragmatic
response to the WALLACE family's request for full disclosure be
acceded to.
That in the public interest the New Plymouth Coroner be encouraged
to conduct a comprehensive hearing into the death of Steven
WALLACE , so that the facts relating to this death are established in
an open transparent manner.
Top
Table of contents
1 INTRODUCTION
2 INCIDENT SUMMARY
3 INVESTIGATION STRUCTURE & METHODOLOGY
4 STEVEN JAMES WALLACE : PROFILE
5 SCENES
6 INITIAL POLICE RESPONSE
7 POLICE SHOOTERS' GROUP : PROFILES AND INTERVIEWS
8 KEY WITNESES
9 PRINCIPAL SCENE
10 EXHIBITS
11 BALLISTICS EXAMINATIONS
12 POST MORTEM EXAMINATIONS
13 FORENSICS AND TOXICOLOGY EXAMINATIONS
14 GENERAL ENQUIRIES
15 OPERATIONAL AND COMMUNICATION LOGS
16 CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
17 POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE USE OF POTENTIALLY LETHAL FORCE
18 FIREARMS TRAINING
19 WAS ANOTHER LESS VIOLENT MEANS AVAILABLE
Police Dogs
Capsicum Spray
Batons
20 WITNESS TWO
21 VICTIM FAMILY
22 CRIMINAL LIABILITY
23 CONCLUSIONS
24 RECOMMENDATIONS
Top
Download full report
