A police roadblock set up near the scene of Donald Ineson's death on 25 November 2018. Photo: RNZ
A coroner has found a Canterbury man was justifiably shot by police in November 2018.
Donald Ineson, who was 56, threatened his wife with a shotgun at their Darfield property on the afternoon of 25 November.
His wife told police during her 111 call she had heard shots outside the house and believed her husband might have shot himself.
Ineson had instead fired the gun into the air, before locking it away in the garage.
He then used an axe to smash through the glass of the locked front door to put the gun safe keys away.
Ineson then left, hitting a police officer with his car as he drove down the driveway.
Officers fired shots at the car when he failed to stop after striking the policeman, who suffered a serious leg injury.
Ineson then did a U-turn and pulled over about 100m from his house, with his hazard lights on and was found unresponsive in the driver's seat by police.
In findings released today, coroner Sue Johnson found Ineson died from a gunshot to the back, fired by one of the officers.
The shooting was justified, she said.
"While it is clear that Mr Ineson was not armed, Officers A and B did not know this.
"There was no information that suggests they could have known. The information they had was that he had pointed a shotgun at his wife. He had shot at the door.
"A neighbour heard shots and saw Mr Ineson with his shotgun. Neither his wife nor any police knew until much later that day that he had locked away his shotgun," Johnson said.
Those close to him described Ineson as "a gentle giant", she said.
"His sister-in -law referred to him as "Don the gentle giant" on account of his height (1.97m). His family describe him as having a calm, slightly reserved, kind, and quiet demeanour and a good sense of humour, with a strong work ethic... And that he went out of his way to help others and was humble about doing so."
However, that day he was struggling to manage a back injury, his father's death and money problems, the coroner said.
"He was unwell. He had had a very painful back for a long time. It prevented him working. He had agreed to very recent surgery believing it would stop the pain. It did not. It made it worse. There were financial difficulties. There were rows over money. He was tired. Mr Ineson was a man at the end of his tether."
Coroner's report challenged
But, in a statement, Mrs Ineson said she did not agree with the coroner's findings into her husband's death, believing the report to be incorrect.
She believed her husband had not meant to strike the officer with his car and said he had yelled to the two policemen in the driveway to move before starting the car.
"Due to medical reasons, Ineson struggled to walk and get around and had not driven the car for some time."
This would have left ample time for police to communicate with him through a hedge and while he opened the gates to the property, her statement said.
"Why he hit Officer B with his car we will never know for sure," the coroner said.
Mrs Ineson also questioned why her family had to give statements immediately, but the police officers involved did not.
"As a family we were provided [with] all sorts of inaccurate ever changing information by police before being forced to give statements on the worst day of our lives. Even after these statements were given we were still supplied more inaccurate information."
This included the record of her 111 call to police, which she believed had been edited.
