Police in New Zealand owe no duty to investigate complaints of unlawful detention and serious assault, a High Court judge has ruled. The decision means individuals cannot sue the state for damages when police choose not to pursue a criminal case.

Colin McIntyre filed a lawsuit in 2024 against the Attorney-General, representing the police force. He claimed they breached his civil rights and caused him distress after failing to act on complaints about an assault in Christchurch.

The complaint dates back to 2011. McIntyre alleged he had been unlawfully detained and seriously assaulted at an address. He later made a second complaint in 2013, but the police did not pursue either matter.

His legal team argued that the police had ignored their statutory obligations under the Policing Act 2008. Section 9 of the Act requires police to maintain public safety, enforce the law, and prevent crime. McIntyre claimed the police failed to act in accordance with these duties by refusing to investigate his allegations.

He sought a declaration that the police had failed to investigate and prosecute his complaint, along with an order for costs.

Related: Courts minister backs community magistrates on category 2 offences

Statutory duties do not create a legal cause of action

The Attorney-General applied to strike out the proceedings. The court documents state that while police have a general duty to the public to enforce the criminal law, they owe no duty of care in relation to the conduct of investigations or the suppression of crime.

Exceptions exist only in rare circumstances, such as when a special relationship is formed or when the police have assumed responsibility. The judge noted that courts are reluctant to interfere with police decisions unless there is evidence of bad faith, dishonesty, or irresponsibility.

Applicable law from the Court of Appeal and previous High Court judgments indicates that sections 8 and 9 of the Policing Act do not impose particular duties upon police. The judge ruled that the cause of action relied on by McIntyre is not recognised by law.

Consequently, the second amended statement of claim was struck out. This means the case cannot proceed to trial. The ruling effectively closes the door on lawsuits seeking damages for police inaction on criminal matters, unless exceptional circumstances are proven.

For someone who has been assaulted or unlawfully detained, the practical reality of this decision is stark. The law recognises the police’s role in enforcing the law, but it does not extend to guaranteeing a response to every citizen’s complaint. Without a legal duty of care, the courts are barred from reviewing the police’s choices, leaving victims to bear the consequences of inaction on their own.