Revealed: What police say happened the night of Kiri Allan’s crash arrest

Wednesday, 9 July 2025

Police allege former Justice Minister Kiri Allan was “verbally abusive”, told officers that charging her was a “political stunt” and demanded a court summons “disappear”, while under arrest for suspected drink-driving, The Post can reveal.

They also allege Allan said words to the effect that “she wrote the law”, while being transported to the police station after crashing into a parked truck in suburban Wellington on the evening of July 23, 2023.

Allan’s subsequent arrest led to her resignation and put a dent in Labour’s election run.

She blew over the legal limit for breath alcohol and was given an infringement notice.

At a later court hearing, Allan was fined $300 on a careless driving charge, ordered to pay reparation of $5296, and convicted and discharged on a charge of refusing to accompany.

It has taken more than a year ‒ and the Ombudsman’s intervention ‒ for this to become public after The Post requested from police details of Allan’s arrest and detention.

Much of what happened on that career-ending night had until now remained behind black police redaction ink.

In a response to The Post on Tuesday, Wellington area district commander Corrie Parnell said police accepted there was a “public interest in favour of disclosing further information”.

None of these allegations were tested in court. It is not known whether Allen would have challenged the police version of events or called evidence that contradicted them.

The released “additional summary information” notes show police attended the crash scene and located Allan on Oriental Parade. She told officers she was not the driver of the crashed car.

Police required her to undergo a breath screening test at 9.22pm (times are approximate, according to the OIA notes). She did not blow through the mouthpiece on her first attempt. On her second attempt at 9.32pm, she produced a reading of more than 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath ‒ the legal limit.

“Allan repeatedly asked to speak to a lawyer. Ms Allan was repeatedly warned and provided opportunity to accompany police officers for the purposes of evidential testing procedures. She did not comply with police officers’ requests to walk to the patrol vehicle,” the notes say.

Police arrested Allan about 9.42pm for refusing to accompany them and handcuffed her. She was “verbally abusive” towards officers.

“[Allan] became physically inactive and physically resistant, and grabbed hold of shrubbery to avoid being moved to the patrol vehicle,” the notes say.

“Once moved to the patrol vehicle, Ms Allan initially refused to get into the passenger seat.”

When finally seated, she was driven to Wellington Central police station.

“A police officer noted that during the drive, Ms Allan said words to the effect that she wrote the law and wanted to know if the police officer bothered reading the law or had learnt the law.”

When at the station, Allan refused to exit the patrol vehicle until a senior police officer arrived, the notes say. After speaking to a senior police officer, she agreed to accompany officers to the excess breath alcohol suite, according to the notes.

Allan said she would not commence the evidential breath test without her lawyer present, the notes say. Her lawyer arrived at about 11.06pm and the breath test took place six minutes later.

“She used her phone several times during the evidential breath test procedure and the police officer conducting the procedure told her to put her phone away. Ms Allan consulted with her lawyer on two occasions during the procedure.”

The breath test was completed at 11.43pm, with a reading of 335 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.

“When Ms Allan was served the court summons, she became argumentative and yelled at police officers. She demanded to speak to senior police officers and Police National Headquarters and said that she would not leave the police station until the court summons ‘disappeared’.

“Ms Allan told police officers that they were making ‘undercutting moves’ and that the charging decision was a ‘political stunt’. She refused to accept the court summons document served on her.”

Allan and her lawyer have been contacted for comment.

In February, she told Woman’s Weekly: “We all experience challenges in some way, shape or form, mine just played out in the public domain.”

“Whilst challenging at the time, I don’t have any negative feelings towards that period. I’m really proud of my political career.”