NEWS > 06 August 2006

Article sourced from

Stuff.co.nz - Wellington,New Z
06 August 2006

This article appeared in the above title/site.
To view it in its entirity click this link.

I just wanted apology, says po

An innocent man bitten by a police dog says he would not have taken a $40,000 lawsuit to the Court of Appeal if police had simply apologised.

West Aucklander Matini Vaihu has just been given permission to take his claim back to court. The case revolves around whether a police dog's actions can be separated from that of a handler.

Four years ago, Vaihu had an artery in his left arm severed and he lost two litres of blood after being bitten by police dog "Willis" in New Lynn, Auckland. Police had suspected the then 25-year-old of being involved in kicking signs over at a local petrol station.

Vaihu was in fact vomiting in a nearby carpark after suffering stomach cramps induced by pills taken for his kidney problems. He was on dialysis at the time.

"I'm sick of it," Vaihu said yesterday. "I never cared about the money. I cared about the officer - if he came to the hospital and said he was wrong, I would have done nothing about it."

Vaihu said he could hear the police dog's breath while vomiting in the carpark. He had pulled over while on his way home from his girlfriend's house.

"I turned around to get into my car and the dog jumped from the other side, right towards my groin. I pushed it away and he grabbed my arm and took pieces out of my arm."

AdvertisementAdvertisementVaihu's left arm was already weakened because it was where he had a shunt inserted for his regular dialysis sessions. He says it took about 20 seconds before the dog's handler, Constable Chris Taylor, arrived. As soon as he realised it was a police dog, Vaihu said he laid down on the ground. While he tried to explain why he was vomiting in the carpark, Taylor told him he was under arrest

"I tried to explain my condition but it took a long time for them to ask for an ambulance to the hospital."

A St John's report says Vaihu was lying in a pool of blood when ambulance officers arrived. He spent four days in hospital having his arm treated.

Vaihu now reckons his legal aid bill has exceeded $20,000 but he is determined that police should apologise for their actions and should understand the implications of dogs being allowed to attack. He says the compensation is a secondary issue.

A district court ruling found in favour of Vaihu and awarded him $10,000 with Judge Charles Blackie saying the attack was cruel, degrading and unjustified.

"He was found to be bleeding profusely and police realised he was an innocent member of the public."

The attorney-general successfully appealed that decision but in a recent High Court decision, Justice Mark Cooper has said the Court of Appeal should decide the case and weigh up whether a dog's actions could be separated from those of a handler.

In court, Vaihu's lawyer Jeremy Sutton argued the case should go to the Court of Appeal and that establishing whether the handler intended his dog to harm Vaihu was not necessary. The Crown argued intent was relevant. An appeal hearing is likely next year.

EiP Comments:

Why is it there appears to be

* We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper or periodical. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and we will remove the article. The articles republished on this site are provided for the purposes of research , private study, criticism , review, and the reporting of current events' We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper , periodical or other works. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and where necessary we will remove the work concerned.

Other related articles:

Article sourced from

Stuff.co.nz - Wellington,New Z06 August 2006

I just wanted apology, says po

EiP Comments:

Stuff.co.nz - Wellington,New Z
06 August 2006