Author: Selwyn Manning

Posted on

Yacht abandoned off the Far North Coast after arrests at sea

Source: Independent Police Conduct Authority

18 December 2025

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found that Police should have sought advice on safeguarding a yacht before arresting its master and abandoning it at sea.

On the afternoon of 2 December 2024, the master of a 52-foot ketch (Mr X) made a mayday call off the Far North Coast of the North Island, reporting that he had been stabbed by his crew mate (Mr Y). In the hours that followed, Police organised their response, locating the yacht shortly after 8pm about ten nautical miles offshore.

Mr X and Mr Y were compliant when Police arrived. However, the Police team leader was concerned about the mental health of both men and the condition of the ketch. For these and other reasons, both men were arrested on existing arrest warrants and returned to shore, leaving the yacht adrift.

Mr X later complained about the decision to abandon his yacht and not allowing him to retrieve some of his property before it was set adrift. He also complained that he and Mr Y were not provided with lifejackets on the trip to shore and that Police failed to deal with them appropriately while in custody at the Whangārei Police Station.

The Authority found that the arrests of Mr X and Mr Y were lawful, but Police should have done more in the planning stages to mitigate the loss of the yacht if it were to be abandoned, and to enhance the chances of its recovery. The Authority also thought more consideration should have been given to allowing Mr X to retrieve some of his property, although we accept the circumstances were hazardous and reboarding the yacht may not have been without risk.

The officers did not provide the men with lifejackets. Police say that in the circumstances, the risks in removing the handcuffs from both men, to fit them with lifejackets, outweighed the risks in not doing so. We disagree with this assessment and find that not fitting the men with life jackets involved unnecessary risk. We also found that Police should have arranged mental health assessments for the men while they were in Police custody and more should have been done to deal with Mr X’s complaint against Mr Y in relation to the alleged assault.

Mr X’s yacht was his home and contained all of his possessions. Although considerable effort was made by Mr X to find his yacht in the days that followed, it has not been located.

Public Report 

Posted on

Police conduct unlawful entry to arrest a man in Hawkes Bay

Source: Independent Police Conduct Authority

11 December 2025

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found that Police in Hawkes Bay unlawfully entered a house to arrest a man for breaching bail.

During the evening of 14 July 2024, seven Police officers went to a house in Flaxmere to arrest a man for breaching his electronically monitored bail. At the front door, officers told the man he was under arrest. The man denied breaching bail and refused to cooperate with the officers, trying to shut the door. Officers then entered the house, relying on a power they believed was available to them under section 7 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012; they considered the man had been arrested and was therefore deemed to be unlawfully at large when he refused to come out of the house.

We found this power was not available in this case, as officers had not effected the arrest of the man as he stood inside the house (police had no lawful power to enter and complete the arrest). Police should have applied for an arrest warrant, under section 37 of the Bail Act, if they suspected entry to the house would be required to complete the arrest.

The issues in this case are not isolated. From other complaints we receive, there is widespread misunderstanding by officers of section 7 of the Search and Surveillance Act, and the powers available when arresting someone for breach of bail or arresting someone while they are inside private property.

In this case we also found that initial force used against the man was unjustified because the first Police entry into the house was unlawful. Later force, and subsequent entry to the house, was lawful and justified because officers believed there was risk to the man’s life.

The Authority recommended Police deliver training on this issue to frontline staff across all districts and to consider how officers can obtain a warrant to arrest when outside of Court hours.

Public Report 

Police conduct unlawful entry to arrest a man in Hawkes Bay (PDF 331 KB)

Posted on

Man suffers serious head injury after Taser use by three officers in Wellington

Source: Independent Police Conduct Authority

27 November 2025

On 9 January 2025, Police were dispatched to an urgent family harm incident on Cockayne Road in Wellington. A man was reportedly armed with a large knife and was chasing a woman who was holding a baby in the street.

Three officers located the man at a nearby bus stop. He was standing at the entrance of the bus shelter, while the woman was sitting on a bench behind him, still holding the baby. The man had half of a hedge-trimming scissor in his hand. An officer attempted to communicate with him, and the man became focused on Police. The woman managed to escape from behind him and began to run away. The man noticed her fleeing and moved purposefully toward her with the weapon in hand.

One officer deployed a Taser against the man, but it was ineffective. At that moment, the man turned around and faced the officers in an aggressive stance. As he started pulling out the Taser wires that had made contact with him, two other officers discharged their Tasers at him in quick succession.

This time, the Taser was effective, causing the man to fall and hit his head on the tarmac road surface. He sustained a serious head injury and was taken to Wellington Hospital.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority conducted an investigation and concluded that the officers were justified in using their Tasers against the man to protect the woman and the baby, as well as to ensure their own safety and that of their colleagues. We also concluded that the Police did not delay medical care for the man and that they appropriately discharged their duty of care toward him.

Public Report 

Man suffers serious head injury after Taser use by three officers in Wellington (PDF 349 KB)

Posted on

Officer’s failure to recognise conflict of interest led to inappropriate use of Police database

Source: Independent Police Conduct Authority

20 November 2025

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found that an officer who was involved in a driving incident while off duty and subsequently used the Police database to obtain information and contact the other driver, failed to recognise that he had a conflict of interest.

On 24 July 2024, an off duty officer was involved in an incident where two cars attempted to merge into the same lane. The officer took note of the other car’s registration and the next day, while on duty, discussed the matter with a senior officer. He believed from that conversation that he was authorised to access the Police database to obtain the other driver’s contact details. He subsequently contacted the other driver to discuss the incident and their manner of driving.

The other driver complained to the Authority that the officer had been aggressive on the telephone and should not have been able to access his personal information. The Authority conducted an independent investigation into the matter.

The Authority accepts the officer was not conscious of his conflict of interest. He believed he had authorisation to obtain information from the Police database. In our assessment, the officer demonstrated poor judgement and decision making, but did not act dishonestly or breach Police policy (because he consulted a senior officer).

Public Report
Posted on

Review of Police handling of complaints against Jevon McSkimming

Source: Independent Police Conduct Authority

In a report released today, the Independent Police Conduct Authority has found significant failings in the way in which senior Police responded to serious complaints made against Jevon McSkimming in 2023 and early 2024.

The complaints, formally referred to the IPCA on 10 October 2024, included allegations of sexual interaction without consent, threats to use an intimate visual recording, and misuse of a Police credit card and Police property to further a sexual relationship. Some of the complaints alleged criminal conduct, while others alleged behaviour constituting a potential breach of the Police Code of Conduct.

The allegations arose from a sexual relationship between the complainant and Mr McSkimming that developed in 2016. The complainant was 21 and Mr McSkimming was 42. Each party gives a markedly different account of the nature of the relationship.

Most of the complaints before October 2024 were made through various emails and other Internet communications to individuals, but they were also made by way of:

  • a comment on a Police LinkedIn announcement that Mr McSkimming had been appointed a statutory Deputy Commissioner in April 2023; and
  • three complaints through the Police 105 on-line reporting portal in April 2024.

The Police response to these complaints was characterised by inaction and an unquestioning acceptance of Mr McSkimming’s narrative of events.

While there was no evidence of collusion between officers in this respect, the IPCA has nevertheless found serious misconduct by a number of very senior officers and other senior Police employees during 2023 and early 2024 that has undermined the integrity of the organisation as a whole.

Those findings are made in respect of, among others, the then Commissioner, two Deputy Commissioners and an Assistant Commissioner. In particular:

  • No effective action was taken to investigate the comment on the LinkedIn announcement.
  • A report by the joint Police/Health Fixated Threat Assessment Centre in February 2024 identified the fact that potential criminal and Police Code of Conduct concerns relating to Mr McSkimming were being alleged in the emails and suggested referral to the Police National Integrity Unit and the IPCA with a view to possible investigation. However, the Deputy Commissioner and the Acting Assistant Commissioner (Investigations) to whom this recommendation was directed took no action. Instead, the only investigation that was launched focused on potential offences by the complainant under the Harmful Digital Communications Act, leading to her prosecution.
  • The complaints to the Police 105 reporting line were not immediately acted on and not notified to the IPCA as is required by statute and by agreed processes between Police and the IPCA. There was an unacceptable delay in initiating an investigation, which effectively did not commence until July 2024. When the complaints were eventually referred for a preliminary investigation, the terms of reference were inappropriately worded and did not comply with Adult Sexual Assault Policy.
  • When Police referred the matter to the IPCA in October 2024 then-Commissioner Coster attempted to influence the nature and extent of the investigation and the timeframe for its completion. Those attempts were perceived by some others within Police as designed to bring the investigation to a rapid and premature conclusion so as not to intersect with the Commissioner appointment process and jeopardise Mr McSkimming’s prospects of being appointed as the next Commissioner of Police, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations being made.
  • In 2023, while a member of the interview panel for the statutory Deputy Commissioner appointment process, Commissioner Coster failed to disclose to the Public Service Commission his knowledge of Deputy McSkimming’s relationship which had subsequently led to the emails alleging misconduct. This failure clearly fell below what a reasonable person would have expected of a person in his position. Subsequently, Commissioner Coster’s disclosure to the Public Service Commission on 8 October 2024, during the interim Commissioner appointment process, also fell well short of what a reasonable person would have expected, given what he knew at the time.

The serious misconduct identified by the Authority in this report should not tarnish the reputation of those Police staff throughout the country who deal with difficult and risky situations every day with restraint, impartiality and fairness. It is also important to note that the report draws attention to a number of staff who acted with integrity and moral courage in their efforts to do the right thing in the face of considerable pressure from more senior colleagues.

Nevertheless, the findings in this report graphically demonstrate that the integrity system needs to be strengthened in order to ensure that it operates with transparency, fairness and independence when conduct issues arise at any level in Police. While Police have made significant advances towards a more positive culture since the Bazley inquiry in 2008, the settings in place to protect and enhance integrity are still not sufficiently robust to enable the public to have confidence that Police will do their job ‘without fear or favour.’ A sustained plan of action is required to effect further substantial change. There ought to be a focus on leadership, but supported by stronger organisational settings that sustain good practice and protect integrity, including even when leadership fails.

To that end, the IPCA has made a number of fundamental recommendations for change. These include:

  • 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 describes complaints and allegations made against Mr McSkimming. It does not make any findings as to the truth of these allegations.

We have assessed Police actions solely on the basis of what the officers concerned knew at the time. The outcome of any investigation into those complaints and allegations is irrelevant to the findings in this report, as are any other allegations relating to Deputy Commissioner McSkimming that have subsequently come to light.

The IPCA will not be making any further comment.

Postscript

Today’s report only concerns the first aspect of the Authority’s investigation: the question of whether Police responded appropriately to the allegations made by the complainant, before the formal investigation into these complaints was launched in November 2024. The Authority is still reviewing the adequacy of that investigation. The IPCA will be reporting on this as soon as practicable.

Public Report 

Posted on

IPCA recommends Police improve investigative interviewing training

Source: Independent Police Conduct Authority

29 May 2025

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has completed a review of the Police’s use of the Complex Investigation Phased Engagement Model (CIPEM) interviewing method and found that, although it was a laudable attempt to enhance officers’ investigative interviewing skills, its implementation fell short in several respects.

The Authority’s review was prompted by criticism that arose after evidence in a murder case was ruled inadmissible in September 2021 and concerns were subsequently raised in the media. We also received several complaints. However, the review ultimately focused on examining the development and use of CIPEM, rather than tangential allegations of misconduct that could not be substantiated.

The Authority found that CIPEM had a heavy focus on engagement skills and building rapport, which is consistent with international best practice. However, the normal processes for quality assurance and implementation of the training were not followed, and the model was not reviewed by an independent expert until about two and a half years after the training began.

We reviewed five cases in which CIPEM-trained interviewers had been brought in to assist investigation teams. In two of the five cases, we found that the questioning itself departed from good practice and failed to comply with the Judges’ Rules on Police Questioning. However, these failures were generally not integral to CIPEM and were due to poor practice and inadequate oversight.

We also found that Police leadership should have done more to support the individual officers impacted by persistent media criticism and proactively correct the perception that CIPEM alone caused the downfall of the case in which evidence was ruled inadmissible.

Police have taken steps to identify and address the problems they are experiencing with interviewing. A recent review has resulted in recommendations for improvement, including creating a new Manager of Investigative Interviewing role.

The Authority recommends that Police proceed with establishing that role, which should focus among other things on improving investigative interviewing and engagement training and making it available to all staff; ensuring that the interviewing trainers have a high level of operational experience and excellent engagement skills; and developing training for interviewing suspects and hostile witnesses.

Public Report

Police Investigative Interviewing and the Complex Investigation Phased Engagement Model (PDF 628 KB)

Posted on

IPCA investigations relating to the conduct of former Deputy Commissioner McSkimming

Source: Independent Police Conduct Authority

15 May 2025

The Independent Police Conduct Authority is investigating allegations of misconduct by former Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming, following a complaint from a member of the public.

This comprises oversight of a Police investigation into whether there has been any criminal wrongdoing by Mr McSkimming and a review of whether there has been any related non-criminal misconduct.

In addition, the Authority is conducting an independent investigation into whether there has been misconduct or neglect of duty by any other Police officer or employee in the course of responding to the allegations.

The Authority will be making no further comment on these investigations until they are concluded. They are being given priority, but no timeframe for their completion date can be given.

Posted on

Police respond to disorderly group in Beachlands

Source: Independent Police Conduct Authority

15 May 2025

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found that Police largely acted within their powers when dealing with a group of young men who were being disorderly in Beachlands on 11 November 2023.

After attending a couple of parties, the young men were moving around the central area of Beachlands in a disruptive manner. At around 3:00am, a resident called Police to complain a group of intoxicated men were tipping over rubbish bins and being verbally abusive.

Three officers initially responded, with nine other officers arriving to assist during the hour-long incident. Officers described the young men as being extremely intoxicated, fighting amongst themselves, and being belligerent towards Police. Officers used a variety of tactics to attempt to control and defuse the situation. Five of the young men were arrested; one was charged with fighting in a public place and assaulting Police, and the other four were given formal warnings.

The Authority conducted an independent investigation into the matter and is satisfied that Police acted within their powers and used reasonable and justified force to take the young men into custody.

One of the officers kicked a young man in the vicinity of his head while he was handcuffed and lying on the ground. The Authority was not convinced the officer gave a complete account of his recollection of the incident. However, on the evidence, we could not conclude that the kick was intentional. The officer has since resigned from NZ Police.

Officers failed to follow the correct process when issuing the formal warnings. Therefore, the formal warnings were invalid. As a result of the shortcomings regarding this process, the formal warnings were set aside and messaging was disseminated to Police staff to ensure compliance with policy.

Public Report 

Police respond to disorderly group in Beachlands (PDF 385 KB)

Posted on

Wellington Police seize property for non-payment of fines in manner contrary to law

Source: Independent Police Conduct Authority

8 May 2025

The Independent Police Conduct Authority received four complaints concerning Wellington Police officers obtaining a warrant and seizing vehicles for unpaid fines in 2022 and 2023. Upon review, the Authority found common themes arose which continue to be relevant to current Police practice.

The complaints arose following the commencement of ‘Operation Cobalt’. As part of this operation, Police used their legal power to apply for warrants to seize property for unpaid fines, specifically for the purpose of disrupting gang activity. The practice then transitioned into general policing, where the seizures did not always relate to gang activity. However, outside of Operation Cobalt, Police had no policy or instructions regarding the execution of the warrants for unpaid fines.

In three of the four cases we reviewed, officers lacked understanding of what is required when executing the warrants and they neglected to demand payment prior to seizing the vehicle. In doing so, they failed to comply with the requirements stipulated in the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, thereby making the vehicle seizures unlawful.

In early 2024, after our investigation commenced, Police updated policy to include the necessary guidance. Officers are now required to have bailiffs present unless there is urgency and/or good reason for Police to execute the warrant as part of a major event operation or criminal investigation.

The Authority recommends that, if Police wish to execute warrants to seize property for unpaid fines without the presence of bailiffs as part of major event operations or criminal investigations, Police should provide officers with specific training in the legal requirements for executing warrants and ensure that these are adhered to.

The Authority also found that it was unnecessary and unreasonable for an officer to execute one of the warrants for unpaid fines during the early hours of the morning.

Public Report
Posted on

Custody officer uses unjustified force in Manukau Custody Unit

Source: Independent Police Conduct Authority

Custody officer used unjustified force in Manukau Custody Unit

17 April 2025

The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found that a custody officer used unjustified force on a male prisoner in the Counties Manukau Custody Unit.

On 14 November 2023, a 19-year-old man was received into the District Custody Unit at Manukau. While in a holding cell, he began banging his head backwards against a concrete wall. Custody officers told him to stop and warned him that he would otherwise be placed in a restraint chair. However, the man banged his head a further three times.

While a restraint chair was being prepared, Custody Officer A went into the cell alone and pulled the man to his feet. The man resisted and moved into a corner of the cell, where Custody Officer A struck him while attempting to restrain him.

Two other custody officers entered and assisted in removing the man from the cell. As they escorted him towards the door, Custody Officer A punched the man in the face, saying that he believed the man was about to spit at him.

We found that custody officers should have made further attempts to stop the man from banging his head before looking to use a restraint chair, which should only be used as a last resort. Custody officers also failed to seek authority from a supervisor before using the restraint chair, as is required by Police policy.

We found that Custody Officer A should not have intervened on his own as there was no immediate threat to the man’s safety, and that it was unreasonable and unjustified for him to strike the man while in the corner of the cell.

Custody Officer A was justified in using force to stop the man from spitting at him. However, by punching him in the face, he used excessive force to do so.

Police completed their own investigation. They concluded it was not in the public interest to charge Custody Officer A but conducted a disciplinary process regarding his use of excessive force. We agree with this process and outcome.

The Authority completed its investigation in July 2024 but was obliged to wait for Police processes before publishing its report.

Public Report