Judge-alone trial — assaulting constable in the execution of his duty — intentional damage — spitting — right to be treated with humanity and with respect for inherent dignity — admissibility of evidence — Summary Offences Act 1981, ss 10 & 11(1) — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 23 — Evidence Act 2006, s 30 — Mackley v Police [1994] 11 CRNZ 497 — Kelly v Police [2017] NZHC 1611 — Ministry of Transport v Entwisle [1990-92] 1 NZBORR 374 — Falwasser v Attorney-General [2010] NZAR 445 — Attorney-General v Udompun [2005] 3 NZLR 204 — S v Police [2018] NZHC 1582. The defendant faced charges of assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty, and intentional damage. Both charges arose from an incident where police apprehended the defendant for family violence and placed him under arrest. The defendant was intoxicated and aggressive and refused to cooperate with the officers. One of the officers responded by pepper spraying the defendant and handcuffing him. After being pepper-sprayed the defendant began to spit at the officers, who placed a spit hood on him. When transferred to a police car the defendant damaged the car door by repeatedly kicking it. The Court found that given the defendant's aggressive demeanour, the offices' use of pepper spray was justified. Further the Court rejected the defendant's claims that he did not mean to spit at the officers and that he was only spitting to get the pepper spray out of his mouth. The charge of assaulting a constable was proved. Regarding the intentional damage charge, the defendant admitted to kicking the police car door, but said that he had only done so because he was struggling to breathe after being pepper-sprayed and then placed in a spit hood. It was common ground that the officers had in fact breached operational directions by placing a spit hood on the defendant so soon after he had been pepper-sprayed. The Court found that in taking this action, the officers had breached the defendant's right to be treated with humanity and respect, as enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Because of the connection between the violation of the defendant's rights and the alleged offending, it was proper to exclude as inadmissible the evidence of the defendant's damage to the car door. The charge of intentional damage was dismissed. Judgment Date: 28 February 2022