Steven Cranston — Death and Police Conduct

Independent examination of the circumstances surrounding the death of Steven Cranston on State Highway 23, 4 September 2024.

Notice of Engagement — Justice Watch New Zealand Inc. has formally commenced structured examination of this matter of public concern. This engagement is conducted in accordance with the Constitution of Justice Watch New Zealand Inc. and within the framework of New Zealand's constitutional and legal system. This Notice records the commencement of review. It does not represent findings or conclusions unless expressly stated.

"The thing is, if we can make a change to save somebody else's life down the track, to me that's what it's all about at this stage." — Fraser Cranston

"Where the State is aware of a person exposed to a clear and immediate risk of death, and has the lawful power to act, the failure to intervene must be examined, answered, and, if unlawful, held to account." — Justice Watch NZ inc.

1. Overview

On 4 September 2024, Steven Cranston died on State Highway 23 near Raglan after being struck by a vehicle undertaking a high-speed overtaking manoeuvre in conditions of reduced visibility.

This matter concerns the circumstances of Steven's death, including the conduct of the driver of the vehicle that struck him, and the adequacy of the New Zealand Police response to multiple reports of a vulnerable person on a live State Highway during a period of approximately 1 hour and 23 minutes prior to the fatal collision.

An independent examination was undertaken by Andrew Major, a member of Justice Watch New Zealand, in conjunction with Fraser Cranston, Steven's father. Fraser Cranston passed away before the inquiry could be completed. Following his passing, the investigation file and associated materials were transferred to Justice Watch New Zealand for continued consideration.

An extensive report was prepared and forwarded to the Waikato Coroner's Office and the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA).

Download the Case Summary (PDF)

2. Nature of Engagement

Investigation — examining police conduct, dangerous driving, and the adequacy of state intervention in response to a foreseeable risk of death.

3. State Authority Engaged

4. Nature of Public Concern

Established Facts

As a result of the investigation, the following facts were established:

On 4 September 2024, Steven took an unplanned day off from his work as a farm manager. He travelled approximately 69 kilometres to Ngarunui Beach, near Raglan, driving his utility vehicle. Steven was accompanied by his large Rhodesian Ridgeback dog, "Hans," who was positioned on the back of the vehicle. Steven's utility vehicle was later located on Ngarunui Beach Road, near a one-lane bridge. The vehicle was found unlocked, out of fuel, and contained Steven's phone and wallet.

Several witnesses observed Steven in the vicinity of his vehicle. One witness observed Steven walking with Hans away from the vehicle and in a westerly direction toward the beach. Steven was walking near the centre of Ngarunui Beach Road. He appeared to be carrying and intently focused on his phone. He did not acknowledge approaching vehicles, which were required to manoeuvre around him.

Steven was later observed by several witnesses walking in a south-west direction away from the beach and back toward Raglan. He had likely revisited his ute and deposited his phone in the vehicle. He walked both on the roadway and on the adjacent footpath. Hans was not restrained and, at times, moved out onto the roadway. Motorists were required to take evasive action to avoid both Steven and the dog.

As Steven approached the one-lane bridge at Raglan, he and Hans were on the roadway, impeding traffic. Vehicles were required to slow or manoeuvre around them. Among the vehicles present at this location was a marked Police vehicle.

State Highway 23

At approximately 4:45pm, Steven and his dog were observed and recorded as walking in the middle of State Highway 23 near the intersection with Manukau Road, as they proceeded out of Raglan.

Further along State Highway 23, near the intersection with Maungatawhiri Road, a marked Police vehicle was observed and recorded travelling toward Raglan, and therefore in the direction of Steven. The distance between the Manukau Road intersection and the Maungatawhiri Road intersection is approximately 3 kilometres. At a travel speed of 80 km/h, this distance would be covered in approximately 2 minutes and 15 seconds. Accordingly, this Police vehicle would have reached the location of Steven Cranston within a short time frame after he was observed walking in the middle of State Highway 23.

Confirmed Vulnerability and Public Concern

At about 5:15pm, Steven and his dog entered the rear garden of a residential property on State Highway 23. Steven appeared confused and disoriented. He told the occupants that he was "just following his dog" and that he did not know why he was there.

Steven then left the address shortly before 5:30pm and continued walking on and about the roadway with his dog, travelling in an easterly direction toward Hamilton.

At about 5:30pm, witnesses reported observing two Police vehicles travelling on State Highway 23 in the general vicinity of where Steven Cranston had been seen. It appears that, at or around the time Steven was at the residential address, Police vehicles may have driven past that location. On the available witness evidence, Steven was not identified by those Police units at that time.

A short time later, Steven had several interactions with concerned members of the public who attempted to offer him assistance. Steven was not confrontational. He again stated that he was following his dog. Witnesses described him as:

Following these interactions, several calls were made to the Police 111 service. Callers expressed concern for Steven's safety. Police acknowledged that they were aware of Steven and were attempting to locate a vehicle to respond.

After these interactions, Steven continued walking east toward Hamilton with Hans loose on the roadway. He arrived at the Maungatawhiri Road intersection. At approximately this time, he was observed sitting on the ground inside a bus stop shelter. He was seated cross-legged on the floor, despite a bench being available. The ground surface was dirty — strewn with dust and litter. While Steven was around the bus stop, a witness spoke with him and offered assistance. Steven declined the offer of help. He stated that he was going to "hunker down for the night." By this time, light conditions were deteriorating, and it was approaching dusk and darkness.

At approximately 6:30pm, Steven and his dog were observed further along State Highway 23. Vehicles were travelling with headlights on. Steven had reached the intersection with Okete Road. He was photographed at this location. Witnesses reported that Steven "looked lost" and appeared agitated.

Steven died on State Highway 23 approximately 500 metres beyond the Okete Road intersection.

Temporal Accountability — Available Time to Intervene (1 hour 23 minutes | 5:27pm–6:50pm)

The adequacy of the Police response must be assessed by reference to the time available to act. On the available evidence, at approximately 5:27pm a witness made an emergency call to Police stating: "you're dispatching someone immediately, right? … because he is walking in the middle of the highway and is going to be killed or someone else is going to be," to which the operator responded, "yes." This exchange evidences recognition of an immediate and foreseeable risk of death, together with an expectation that prompt intervention would occur.

In addition to this call, other witnesses report that they contacted Police regarding Steven's presence on or about the roadway. Those witnesses describe that, during their communications, Police acknowledged that they were aware of Steven's circumstances. Further, on the available evidence, it is possible that Police officers had earlier observed Steven on or about the roadway in the vicinity of the Raglan bridge and on State Highway 23 east of the Manukau Road intersection. Taken together, this material indicates that information concerning Steven's presence and risk on the roadway was conveyed to, and known by, Police through multiple channels and at different points in time.

At approximately 5:30pm, several witnesses observed Police vehicles travelling in the vicinity of State Highway 23 in the general area where Steven had been seen. This places Police units within proximity to the developing risk at or about the time it was being actively reported. It is possible that those Police units were actively attempting to locate Steven. However, at or around that time, Steven had entered a residential property and was, for a short period, off the roadway. In those circumstances, it is conceivable that attending Police units did not observe him and may have formed the view that he was no longer present on the road.

This raises a serious issue of situational awareness, in that information being conveyed to Police regarding Steven's presence and risk on the roadway may not have been adequately recognised or acted upon, with the result that the ongoing danger was not effectively addressed.

From approximately 5:27pm until the time of the collision at approximately 6:50pm, a period of 1 hour and 23 minutes elapsed during which Steven remained on or about the roadway. During this interval, his vulnerability was observed by multiple members of the public, and the risk to his safety was both apparent and ongoing.

The surrounding conditions further elevated that risk. The events occurred late in the day as light conditions deteriorated from dusk to darkness. The roadway was a State Highway subject to open road speed limits, with no footpath available for pedestrian use. Visibility was limited by the winding nature of the road, constraining driver line of sight. In such conditions, a pedestrian positioned on or about the roadway was exposed to a clear and foreseeable risk of fatal collision.

In these circumstances, several members of the public attempted to assist Steven, while others have reported that they wished to assist but felt unable to do so given the risks involved. As a result, the practical ability to secure Steven's safety rested with Police, who were uniquely positioned to intervene pursuant to their powers under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

Under that Act, Police are empowered to intervene where a person in a public place appears to be mentally disordered and at risk of serious harm to themselves or others. On the available evidence, Steven's behaviour — including disorientation, impaired awareness, and continued presence in a hazardous roadway environment — together with repeated public reports of imminent danger, provided a clear basis upon which that statutory authority could have been exercised.

In those circumstances, it appears that the threshold for intervention was met, and that a defined window existed within which Police could have located, engaged, and removed Steven from the roadway for his protection. The absence of such intervention, when measured against the time available to act, raises a serious question as to whether the response was sufficient to meet the obligation to prevent a foreseeable risk of death.

5. Evidential Position

The investigation involved:

Key established facts include:

Eyewitness Account of the Fatal Incident

From the outset of Fraser Cranston's investigation, it was determined that the inquiry would proceed to the penultimate point prior to Steven's death, as Police were understood to be conducting their own investigation into the fatal event. Notwithstanding that position, a witness to the fatal incident was later identified who had not been interviewed by Police.

That witness reported observing a vehicle travelling at speed, overtaking and passing approximately four vehicles in succession, and undertaking that manoeuvre over a section of roadway extending approximately 500 metres from the Okete Road intersection.

The witness described that the overtaking vehicle passed four vehicles travelling in convoy. As the vehicle completed the overtaking manoeuvre and returned to its lane, Steven Cranston was struck. Steven was then thrown into a further vehicle before coming to rest on the roadway. He lay still, bleeding heavily; the witness believed Steven to be deceased.

Roadway Analysis

The relevant section of State Highway 23 extends approximately 500 metres from the Okete Road intersection to the point of impact. It proceeds relatively straight and uphill. The first approximately 250 metres is marked with double yellow lines, indicating a no-passing zone.

A witness described the convoy of four vehicles as travelling at approximately 80–90 km/h, with spacing between vehicles of approximately 40–50 metres. Total convoy length (vehicles plus spacing) is estimated at approximately 150–160 metres. At a representative speed of 85 km/h (approximately 23.6 m/s), the time available to complete an overtaking manoeuvre within the 500-metre section is constrained.

Taking the remaining distance from the lead vehicle to the end of the 500-metre section as approximately 347 metres, the time available at 85 km/h is approximately 14.7 seconds. To pass the convoy within that time, the required relative speed gain is approximately 12.8 m/s, requiring a total speed of approximately 36.4 m/s (approximately 131 km/h). When allowing for more realistic safety margins, required speeds increase to approximately 135 km/h or greater.

Across the witness-estimated convoy speeds:

On the available evidence, a vehicle commencing an overtaking manoeuvre at the rear of a four-car convoy at the beginning of this 500-metre section could not complete the manoeuvre at or near the posted speed limit of 100 km/h. Completion of the manoeuvre within that distance would require a speed substantially in excess of both surrounding traffic and the applicable speed limit.

Post-Impact Conduct

During the course of the investigation, anonymous information was received alleging that, following the initial impact, Steven Cranston may have been run over a second time and it was further alleged that the vehicle may have intentionally wheel-spun on his body. Elements of this information have been partially corroborated by a witness.

6. Legal Framework

Police Powers — Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 Police may intervene where a person in a public place appears to be mentally disordered and at risk of serious harm. On the available evidence, Steven Cranston's behaviour gave rise to a reasonable belief that he may have been mentally disordered and at risk, and that the police were aware of this. Steven's behaviour — including disorientation, impaired awareness, and continued presence on a hazardous roadway — provided a clear basis upon which that statutory authority could have been exercised. Accordingly, it appears that the statutory threshold for intervention may have been met.

Police Powers — Policing Act 2008 Police are required to maintain public safety, prevent harm, and provide community support. Police may close a road where danger exists or may reasonably be expected. A situation existed in which a person was present on the roadway in a hazardous manner over a prolonged period, creating risk to themselves and to other road users. Police awareness of the situation is also evidenced. Accordingly, it appears that the statutory conditions for exercising this power may have been engaged.

Principles and Functions of Policing — Policing Act 2008 Under the Policing Act 2008, Police are required to maintain public safety, prevent harm, and provide community support. The adequacy and timing of any Police response are matters that appear to fall within the scope of the coroner and relevant oversight bodies such as the IPCA. This would include both the police response to reports of Steven being in danger on the roadway before his death and the police subsequent investigation of his death.

Role of the Coroner — Coroners Act 2006 Under the Coroners Act 2006, the coroner must determine the causes and circumstances of death.

Dangerous Driving Causing Death — Land Transport Act 1998, s 36AA(1)(b) It is an offence to drive in a manner that is or might be dangerous and cause the death of another person. On the available evidence: the vehicle undertook an overtaking manoeuvre involving multiple vehicles; the manoeuvre occurred in a restricted passing zone; the speed required to complete the manoeuvre was likely in excess of the speed limit and may have been in the order of approximately 130–135 km/h or greater; and the manoeuvre occurred in conditions of reduced visibility.

It is also noted that Steven Cranston was present on the roadway in a manner that created a hazard to approaching traffic, which is a relevant circumstance in assessing the events. However, that circumstance is not of itself capable of excusing driving that may be considered dangerous, particularly where the manner and speed of driving materially affect the ability to perceive and respond to hazards on the roadway.

Accordingly, it appears that the manner of driving described may fall within the conduct contemplated by s 36AA(1)(b) Dangerous Driving Causing Death.

Misconduct in Respect of Human Remains — Crimes Act 1961, s 150(b) Under the Crimes Act 1961, it is an offence to improperly interfere with human remains. If the alleged post-impact conduct were established, it may fall within the scope of this provision.

Solicitor-General's Prosecution Guidelines Under the Solicitor-General's Prosecution Guidelines, a prosecution may only proceed where two conditions are satisfied: first, that the available evidence is sufficient to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction (the evidential test); and second, that the public interest requires that a prosecution be brought (the public interest test). Both conditions must be met before a prosecution can properly proceed.

In cases involving the death of a person, the public interest in prosecution will ordinarily be significant.

It is not known on the face of the material available in this report how the evidential test under the Solicitor-General's Prosecution Guidelines was assessed or applied in this case.

Causation and Observations

On the available evidence:

In addition, there is a credible basis to consider that the death of Steven may have been avoided had Police responded adequately to public reports of a person on the roadway, by exercising their lawful authority to intervene and remove him from the road for the purpose of mental health assessment and protection from harm.

7. Current Status

The investigation file and extensive report have been forwarded to the Waikato Coroner's Office and the Independent Police Conduct Authority for their consideration.

New Zealand Police advised Fraser Cranston, approximately one week before his passing, that no person would be charged in relation to the death of Steven. The rationale for that decision has not been disclosed.

This investigation was not conducted as a formal investigation of Justice Watch New Zealand. The work was undertaken independently by Andrew Major, who is a member of Justice Watch New Zealand, in conjunction with Fraser Cranston. Following Fraser Cranston's passing, the investigation file and associated materials were transferred to Justice Watch New Zealand for continued consideration and appropriate use.

Justice Watch New Zealand continues to hold this matter on record and will publish further material as appropriate.