Independent Police Conduct Authority releases findings on handling of Jevon McSkimming complaints; related research and reports

The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) has released its Review of Police handling of complaints against Jevon McSkimming. The review found significant failings, including serious misconduct undermining the integrity of the organisation as a whole, in the way in which senior Police responded to serious complaints made against Jevon McSkimming in 2023 and early 2024.

The complaints were made by a woman, in the report referred to as Ms Z,  regarding her interactions with former deputy police commissioner Jevon McSkimming, which began when she was 21 and he was in his early 40s. She accused him of multiple sexual offences, including rape and sextortion, and said the relationship between them was never consensual. When she complained to police and the IPCA about McSkimming, neither organisation took action against him, and she was later prosecuted for harassment under the Harmful Digital Communications Act.

Despite the findings of the IPCA report, Ms Z still faces prosecution under the Harmful Digital Communications Act for another set of emails she sent to the detective who investigated the case against her. For an overview of the Harmful Digital Communications Act in relation to the McSkimming case, see Stuff’s coverage.

‍

The IPCA’s report

As detailed in the IPCA press release, police response to Ms Z was characterised by inaction and an unquestioning acceptance of McSkimming’s version of events. It made findings in respect of, among others, the then Commissioner, two Deputy Commissioners and an Assistant Commissioner.

Some of the findings include:

• Ms Z’s complaints were not investigated effectively and there were unacceptable delays
• A report by the joint Police/Health Fixated Threat Assessment Centre in February 2024 recommended that complaints about Mr McSkimming be referred to the Police National Integrity Unit and the IPCA for further investigation; the Deputy Commissioner and Acting Assistant Commissioner (Investigations) took no direct action
• The only investigation launched at that time focused on whether Ms Z behaved in a threatening way while making her complaints and whether this should be prosecuted under the Harmful Digital Communication Act
• After Ms Z was arrested, police prepared a Summary of Facts for the court, which labelled her email allegations as “false”, without evidence
• In October 2024, then-Commissioner Andrew Coster attempted to influence the IPCA investigation into Mr McSkimming, with some suggesting this was to avoid jeopardising McSkimming’s prospects of being appointed the next Commissioner
• Commissioner Coster did not disclose knowledge of McSkimming’s relationship with Ms Z to the Public Service Commission while he was a member of the interview panel for McSkimming’s eventual appointment as Deputy Commissioner

The report makes the following recommendations:

• more specific recognition of who is responsible for the protection of integrity at senior management level;
• a revamp of Police internal policies and programmes to promote positive culture around integrity issues and ethical behaviour;
• changes to the Integrity and Conduct Unit within Police to enable it to play a stronger and more independent role and more effectively to act against poor behaviour when it arises;
• legislative and structural changes to enable more robust criminal and employment processes and outcomes in relation to alleged misconduct by Police officers;
• a strengthening of the IPCA’s oversight role; and
• enhanced Ministerial and Parliamentary oversight.

The report finds failings with the handling of complaints and police conduct but does not make findings about the substance or truth of the allegations.

‍

Victim-survivors and advocates responses

As detailed in the Spinoff, the IPCA report echoes the 2007 report from Commissioner Dame Margaret Bazley in the wake of allegations by Louise Nicholas and Judith Garrett that they were raped by police officers and that their complaints were deliberately undermined or mishandled by police. Dame Bazley’s report found that New Zealand police had “a culture of scepticism in dealing with complaints of sexual assault” and that there were “systemic flaws” in their investigations into police sexual misconduct.

Sexual violence advocate Louise Nicholas told NewstalkZB that Aotearoa should be “extremely grateful” for Ms Z’s actions and bravery speaking out.

Other victim advocates have also responded to the report, highlighting the scale and severity of the issue, and the damage police misconduct does to public trust and safety.

Awatea Mita (Ngāti Pikiao, Ngāti Porou) spoke to Waatea News, saying:

“One of the biggest challenges is that we genuinely do not know how widespread this behaviour is. We don’t know the scale of the problem.”

“I don’t think it’s a trust issue… What we have is a misconduct issue, and a culture within police that protects its own and minimises misconduct and too often prioritise that reputation. Misusing police authority to cover up misconduct in order to protect another officer is an abuse of authority and it erodes public trust at its core.”

Kathryn McPhillips, executive director of HELP Auckland, told 1News:

“That’s what offenders do, they make sure people aren’t believed. The mistakes that have occurred here reflect the dynamics we see every day.”

“These [sexual violence understanding] skills do exist within the police, we work every day with specialist teams who do a great job. Why are these people not making the decisions? Reporting to police can in itself be really intimidating, they hold a position of power. We all need to take a sharper look and understand how these myths serve perpetrators, so we don’t succumb to them.”

“This is a wake-up call for police, and changes need to be made so it doesn’t happen again. We can’t abandon a justice response to sexual violence—these are serious crimes, and people deserve to be safe.”

In an interview with Newsroom, NZ Council for Civil Liberties chair Thomas Beagle commented on the report. His organisation, he said, had long expressed concerns about the quality of police oversight:

“Every time there’s an article saying that the IPCA says someone should be prosecuted … and the police refuse to, I think that severely weakens the ability to trust both the police and the IPCA.”

‍

Related research and reports

An article in Violence Against Women, “The fact that he was a police officer was probably my number 1 challenge”: victim-survivor experiences of officer-involved domestic violence in Australia, explores victim-survivor experiences of officer-involved domestic violence (OIDV) and the unique risks involved. It analyses how domestic violence perpetrated by police officers has a profound impact on victim-survivor safety, access to justice, as well as perpetrator and organisational accountability. It found that gendered experiences of domestic violence, safety or lack thereof, and inequality were compounded for victim-survivors by virtue of their perpetrator's workplace and the unique power afforded to police officers.

A report published by Flat Out as part of the Beyond Survival Project, Harm in the name of safety: Victorian family violence workers’ experiences of family violence policing, details findings from a survey of frontline family violence workers in Victoria, Australia and their practice-based observations of Victoria Police responses to family violence. It identified six key intersecting trends in police harms:

1. police minimising or downplaying the violence and harm done to victim-survivors and increasing the risks of further harm
2. police extending the violence through collusion with people using violence, enabling of systems abuse, and the criminalisation and punishment of victim-survivors
3. police targeting and discriminating against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, migrant and other racialised communities, LGBTIQ+ communities, disabled people, sex workers, drug users and those who have been previously criminalised
4. police ‘misidentifying’, or wrongfully identifying, victim-survivors as perpetrators
5. police perpetrating family violence and institutionally protecting officers who abuse
6. police resisting feedback, avoiding accountability, and preventing access to justice and remedies for victim-survivors who are harmed by police.

In the UK, a five year research project on Powerful Perpetrators is examining sexual misconduct and abuse perpetrated by professionals – high status/high trust groups including doctors, police, and religious leaders – and how regulatory and administrative justice mechanisms investigate and sanction their behaviour. The literature summary, The police and sexual misconduct: a summary of the literature, examines police officers as perpetrators.