Category: Public Media

Source: Radio New Zealand

A former police commissioner has told RNZ podcast Nark that he’s never seen the letter supposedly sent by him in June 1985, authorising the transfer of a prisoner to a motel in Christchurch.

The prisoner-turned-informant would stay there and in rental accommodation for 18 months, paid for by taxpayers.

Ken Thompson, Police Commissioner from 1983 to 1987, said the details of the investigation into the 1985 murder of Darcy Te Hira uncovered by the RNZ podcast Nark has “an air of Disney about it”.

A prisoner who has permanent name suppression, but is called Ernie in the podcast, claimed to have seen fellow inmate Ross Appelgren murder Te Hira in the kitchen of Mt Eden’s prison in January 1985. Appelgren insisted he wasn’t in the kitchen when Te Hira was attacked.

Ernie agreed to testify in court to what he saw and was moved out of Mt Eden for his own safety; first to New Plymouth prison, then to cells at Takapuna Police Station.

But Ernie described his accommodation in Takapuna as “torture” and pressed police to move him into the Witness Protection Programme and out of prison altogether.

With the agreement of the Department of Justice, police agreed to move Ernie to a $50/night motel on the outskirts of Christchurch, despite him having 18 months of a fraud sentence yet to serve.

Ernie was also promised a cash settlement and relocation overseas. Ernie’s testimony helped convict Appelgren of Te Hira’s murder, but as earlier revealed by Nark, Appelgren’s widow, Julie, is taking his case to the Court of Appeal, claiming Appelgren was innocent.

Nark host Mike Wesley-Smith has reported the motel solution was first proposed in a letter in the name of Thompson, addressed to then-Secretary of Justice, S.J. Callan. It says police were concerned for Ernie’s safety, about the harm being caused by his “solitary confinement in Takapuna”, and that he might refuse to testify.

But when Wesley-Smith approached the now 93-year-old former police commissioner about the letter from his office, Thompson said he knew nothing about it.

“I can recall a lot of things during my time, but certainly not that one… I would really expect to have known of it”.

‘A most unorthodox process’

The guarding of Ernie at a motel under the Witness Protection Programme was called Operation Icing and cost more than $75,000. Thompson said “that fact it was so unusual” and the “shenanigans” of a prisoner being put up in a suburban motel means he should have been briefed.

“I would really expect to have been briefed, even in the broadest terms… It seems like a most unorthodox process to me”.

Other documents sourced in the podcast investigation, including an internal police timeline, back up the suggestion that Thompson wasn’t involved in key decisions involving Ernie and Operation Icing.

The final $30,000 cheque paid to Ernie after he testified was approved by Thompson’s Deputy Commissioner, Mal Churches.

Thompson says he can’t be sure whether or not he would have approved of Operation Icing, but suspects he would have had doubts.

“I don’t like these so-called prison squeaks. They weren’t in my good books”.

He confirmed that, in 1985, police procedure required detectives to first formally record a witness’s account before discussing any deals or benefits for the witness.

Appelgren claimed detectives investigating him for murder did not follow this procedure during their interviews with Ernie.

The latest episode of Nark is out now at rnz.co.nz/nark or wherever you get your podcasts. The series airs 7pm Sundays on RNZ National.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Survivors of abuse in state and faith-based care will mark a National Day of Reflection at more than 60 events around the country on Wednesday.

A year ago Prime Minister Christopher Luxon apologised in Parliament to survivors and victims.

At least 200,000 children, young people and vulnerable persons were abused by the state and churches from 1950 to 1999.

To mark the National Day of Reflection, the government announced $2.7 million for support and services to survivors and memorials for victims.

But a year on from the government’s apology, many survivors feel the actions of the government are in contradiction to its promises for change.

Changes to the redress system were largely a disappointment to the community, while ongoing harm in the care system was also upsetting.

Survivor Tu Chapman said the Day of Reflection brought mixed feelings for survivors.

“There’s celebration, there’s reflection, but I also think there’s still a whole lot of sadness there that the government haven’t really come to the table with anything.”

The day should act as a reminder to all New Zealanders, Chapman said.

“My hope is … it’s taken on board as a day that we won’t forget what has happened – the atrocities of the past, the 200,000 or so tamariki and mokopuna that were abused in state care during the period of 1950 to 1999 – and we hold as a nation those atrocities at the top of our mind and in our hearts, and we remind ourselves constantly how to be better humans.”

Survivor and advocate Ken Clearwater said many survivors would be reflecting on the broken promises of the government.

“We’ve called our [event] Our Day, Our Voice, which is the survivors talking about where they’ve come from, how it’s affected their lives and how the apology affected their lives and how the Royal Commission affected their lives,” he said.

“People just take for granted that the Royal Commission is awesome, the apology is great, but it’s not the words, it’s the actions, and there’s a lot of actions that are missing at the moment.”

The response of politicians to the events had also been disappointing, Clearwater said.

“We’ve got no politicians coming … because none of them have been able to get leave from Parliament,” he said.

“Yeah, they’re holding this day of remembrance, they’re putting up the funding to have the day of reflection and remembrance, and yet they’re not here to represent the government, to be here to listen to the voices of the survivors. So in a lot of ways, that’s a pretty damning thing for a lot of the survivors, saying, ‘why aren’t the politicians coming?’.”

Survivor Eugene Ryder, who co-chairs the board of the Survivor Experiences Service, says he understood the frustration of many in the community, but Wednesday was also an opportunity to reflect on the progress made.

“Ten to 15 years ago there was near nothing for survivors,” he said.

“So what I’ve seen since the Royal Commission of Inquiry is progress and different survivors have different expectations, they want every recommendation to be acted on by our government but the reality is it hasn’t.

“Another reality is that there’s been so much progress in this space for survivors. There’s been the creation of the Crown Response Office. There’s a Survivor Experiences Service. Those didn’t exist prior to the inquiry and now that they do – that’s seen as progress.”

But he acknowledged the progress had not been fast enough for some and Wednesday was an opportunity to remember those survivors who had died.

“Some survivors have since passed away, even since the tabling of the report, and for those that didn’t receive appropriate redress it seems unfair,” Ryder said.

Chapman, Clearwater and Ryder agreed their work would not be done until abuse in care and all settings was ended.

RNZ asked government ministers with responsibility for responding to the Royal Commission of Inquiry as well as party leaders what their intentions were for the National Day of Reflection, as it was a sitting day in Parliament all intended to be in Wellington apart from Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, who was travelling overseas.

Lead Response Minister Erica Stanford would attend an event at the Crown Reponse Office.

“She was invited to a survivor led event in Auckland but is unable to attend due to the requirement of being in Parliament,” a spokesperson said.

“A year ago, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and seven public sector leaders apologised for the abuse and neglect suffered by children, young people and vulnerable adults in care and for the torture of children and young people at the Lake Alice Child and Adolescent Unit,” Stanford said, in a statement.

“While it was meaningful for many, it can never undo the harm inflicted on people who should have been protected and cared for. Instead, they were utterly failed. The experiences of thousands of brave survivors will forever be etched in our history. It is on all New Zealanders to do all we can to ensure abuse that should never have been tolerated, no longer occurs.

“A year on from the apology there continues to be significant work to be done to prevent, identify, and respond to abuse in care. The government remains committed to continuing this work with care to ensure the wrongs of the past are not repeated.”

Mental Health Minister Matt Doocey would attend an event at the Ministry of Health, Social Development Minister Louise Upston would visit her ministry. Others, including Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins, would pay their respects in the House.

Public events are being held throughout New Zealand.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

A damning report by the Independent Police Conduct Authority found serious misconduct at the highest levels of police over how they handled accusations of sexual offending by former Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming. National Crime Correspondent Sam Sherwood reports.

Inside a scathing 135-page report into how police responded to accusations of sexual offending by former Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming lies a quote from one of the country’s most senior adult sexual assault investigators.

The officer, named in the report as Officer D, told the Independent Police Conduct Authority that the handling of the allegations prior to her involvement in the case was “appalling”.

“We have just not followed policy whatsoever and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist… Jevon has tried to get rid of this by making a complaint and … making [Ms Z] the villain, when in actual fact what he perhaps should have done was gone: ‘Can someone look at this and investigate it and get it cleared up? Because I’ve got designs on the future, and I want my integrity intact, so I welcome an investigation. Let’s get it cleared up, get it out of the way’.

“But you know what’s the worst thing – if you make a mistake … the only worse thing that you can do is then cover it up…You can paint all sorts of nice words of this …but to an outsider looking in, and … I mean even me, this looks like a cover-up.”

The woman referred to in the report as Ms Z was charged in May last year with causing harm by posting digital communication in relation to more than 300 emails she allegedly sent to McSkimming’s work email address between December 2023 and April 2024. The emails included abusive and derogatory language directed towards McSkimming and other people.

With the release of the report, RNZ takes a look at how police investigated the woman’s complaints and how in the words of Police Commissioner Richard Chambers she was “ignored and badly let down”.

Operation Herb

It wasn’t until about a month after Ms Z, a former unsworn staffer,was charged that former Deputy Commissioner Tania Kura decided police should explore whether any of the allegations in the emails were legitimate.

Kura spoke with Assistant Commissioner A, who was then the Assistant Commissioner of Investigations. The pair agreed to bring in Officer D.

“We involved her because we were concerned that if the allegations or the rantings that she [Ms Z] had put out there were actually true, she couldn’t be pleading guilty to things that came about because she’d actually been a victim of some offences.”

Assistant Commissioner A directed a colleague, officer B to do the first draft of the terms of reference for the investigation.

Officer B told the IPCA both Kura and Assistant Commissioner A urged caution in the way the terms of reference were framed:

“Jevon’s a very senior person in the Police and…if these complaints are made and then what happens is there’s no validity to that complaint, someone’s career is really on the line because someone made a complaint, but there’s no substance. So it was about having the right care”.

Kura told the authority she didn’t approach it as an ordinary sexual assault preliminary investigation because of McSkimming’s rank and the prosecution against Ms Z. She also had concerns about the impact of McSkimming’s career.

“If we overstep here, there’s a risk that [IPCA] will be into me about something else because a person who may have been able to apply for a Commissioner’s role and potentially get it, was denied that opportunity because we didn’t take a measured thoughtful approach to how we would do this. I felt we needed to take stock of what we knew. I felt we were going to have to approach her at some point but needed to be able to demonstrate later that we had taken a measured approach.”

Assistant Commissioner A conceded that the knowledge that McSkimming intended to run for the top job was “a factor in this that was relevant”.

There was also an “awareness” that McSkimming was “financially sound”, and may get lawyers involved if he believed he had lost out on the top job because of the investigation.

Assistant Commissioner A decided the best approach was to do a “stocktake” of what information was already known, before deciding on whether to speak to Ms Z.

Officer D told the IPCA that in her initial conversation with Officer B about looking into the allegations she was given information on the prosecution.

“I was going to be asked to look into…the content of [Ms Z’s] emails and whether or not there was actually anything to them”.

The introduction in the terms of reference for the investigation said a serious allegation “against any politically exposed person has the potential to significantly, and permanently impact an individual’s work and career”.

“It is appropriate to investigate circumstances such as these described below in a cautious manner to ascertain the truth. Accordingly, if there is a valid complaint, that should be dealt with as police would normally deal with a complaint, however to first determine whether a valid complaint exists, this matter should be dealt with in a manner that does not adversely impact the person”.

The terms of reference did not instruct Officer D to speak to Ms Z.

A heading “approach” described Ms Z’s emails as “highly emotive and accusatory”.

The terms of reference also included a number of unconfirmed statements including that it was a “mutually consensual sexual relationship”, that McSkimming ended the relationship because she became “too controlling”, and that Ms Z had not made a complaint to date.

The IPCA said the terms of reference were in “stark contrast” with Police’s adult sexual assault policy and practice.

“[It] had as their foremost consideration the need to protect Deputy Commissioner McSkimming’s career, and which did not envisage that the complainant would necessarily even be spoken to.”

Officer V, the Territorial Detective Superintendent, was shown the terms of reference by

Officer D in his capacity as her supervisor.

He told the IPCA his view was that it was clear Ms Z was a potential sexual assault complainant and should have been treated as such.

Conflicts of interest

Officer D was directed by Assistant Commissioner A to report to him, which is unusual for a criminal investigation. Officer D would usually report to a Territorial Detective Superintendent.

Officer D told the IPCA she felt there was a conflict of interest.

“… really got the sense that [Assistant Commissioner A’s] focus was on getting this out of the way so [Deputy Commissioner McSkimming] could apply for the Commissioner’s role without this hanging over his head”.

Kura confirmed she told McSkimming that Officer D had been appointed to investigate the validity of the emails.

The IPCA questioned Kura about the unusual circumstances of keeping a suspect up to date like that.

“Yes, he’s a suspect in the end of it, but actually there’s a lot of stuff on the table here and that’s just the way it occurred. Normally you wouldn’t do that…but this wasn’t a normal set of circumstances”.

Officer V told the IPCA that when Officer D spoke to him in September there were several features of the case that struck him as unusual.

This included that no senior reviewing officer had been assigned to the investigation, and that usually an investigation like the one being conducted would have been resourced with about

four other staff but it was only Officer D.

He also said Officer D should not have had a reporting line directly to Assistant Commissioner A, and the police executive should not have had a role in managing it.

The IPCA agreed with Officer V.

“The unusual structure and reporting lines simply reinforce the fact that the matter was not being

treated as a normal adult sexual assault preliminary investigation.

“It also highlights that the senior officers who were acting as decision-makers held an entrenched view that Deputy Commissioner McSkimming was the victim rather than the offender and were unduly preoccupied with ensuring he was not being unfairly disadvantaged in the forthcoming appointments process for the new Commissioner, for which they knew he would be an applicant.”

Officer D told the IPCA that between 24 June and 26 July she was having trouble making progress, but then “worked out that… it actually was the terms of reference that wasn’t right”.

“I was essentially being asked to get a feel for the veracity of the complaint without actually speaking to the complainant. It just didn’t feel right”.

Officer D met with Kura and Assistant Commissioner A in Wellington on 26 July 2024.

She told them she couldn’t continue without speaking to Ms Z and asked for their permission.

She said the meeting was “strange”, and that when she pointed out the investigation fell outside usual policy for such investigations Assistant Commissioner A asked where in policy it said police had to speak to the complainant.

Officer D contrasted the discussion with usual police practice.

“If we get wind of anything, any kind of complaint, that’s what the police do. We would contact someone and go: ‘Hey what’s going on. Is there something that you want to talk about?’ You know we can’t always be waiting for people to come to us, and you know having sat in that adult sexual assault chair for so long we get lots of complaints that actually come through from other people that go: ‘Look you need to talk to my friend. She was raped by so and so’ or whatever… I know that this is our obligation, and look I don’t know that it’s actually written in black and white anywhere, you know that that’s what we do.”

She said Assistant Commissioner A repeated on a number of occasions that McSkimming had applied for the top job and that if things weren’t sorted quickly he wouldn’t get it.

“I personally think it should be very simple in every police officer’s world. Doesn’t matter who the hell you are. We speak to the person, take a complaint and investigate it. It’s all very simple,” Officer D told the IPCA.

Officer D was given permission to speak to Ms Z. She contacted Ms Z’s lawyer on 28 July 2024, but did not hear back for some time. Officer D sent through some generic advice and resources for sexual assault victims.

She contacted the lawyer again on 20 and 28 August. Ms Z replied on 5 September and said she was taking advice.

Later that month, Ms Z emailed to say police had previously referred her to the IPCA “for any complaint involving a police employee”.

“Please could you clarify whether you can act/provide advice/investigate”.

Officer D replied offering advice on ways to raise complaints.

The call to the IPCA

On 10 July last year Officer D called the IPCA and said she had been assigned to investigate Ms Z’s allegations.

The conversation was followed up by an email from the IPCA to Officer M (the director of integrity and conduct) which mentioned the call between the IPCA’s investigations manager and Officer D, and questioned why the IPCA had not been notified.

Officer M forwarded the email to Deputy Commissioner PLC, a member of the Police executive with responsibility for Police Integrity and Conduct, and said the complaints “have not been progressed through our usual complaint process”.

She said it appeared police had “bypassed our usual complaint processes for quite some time…”

Deputy Commissioner PLC replied two days later. He said he’d spoken to Kura and the situation

didn’t appear to be “as it was relayed”. He said he believed the investigation was into the complainant, who had been charged.

Officer M said she had some “concerns”.

“I can’t see and I acknowledge there may be information I am not privy to, that Police has ever conducted an investigation (following ASA guidelines) into the multiple ongoing complaints, which would usually include a preliminary interview, level 3 interview and referral for crisis support as a minimum.”

‘It’s a risk to you as commissioner’

On 16 September last year, Officer M says she received a call from then Police Commissioner Andrew Coster asking if she knew of any “open investigations” into McSkimming. She believed the call was prompted by McSkimming’s application for Commissioner. She told Coster she would check the NZ Police Professional Conduct database.

She told the IPCA she was saw a “huge organisational risk” that there was something “sitting outside our system”.

“… It didn’t appear that we’d actually dealt with that at all following our usual process, and that I was now aware that the woman had been arrested, pleaded not guilty and I said ‘look, with…my legal experience…any defence lawyer worth their salt is going to say that…this woman has acted the way she has because she’s been trying to raise these concerns for a significant period of time against Police and no one’s listened to her and no one’s followed usual process’ so I said: ‘That’s all going to come out…That’s a matter of risk to the police, it’s a risk to you as Commissioner”.

Following the call she texted Coster and said there were no “open complaints” that were visible in the database.

“The complaints re the woman that you’ve referenced have not been through our usual complaint processes though, and there is no record of the complaints or what has been done re them. I do see this as a risk to the New Zealand Police and Jevon, particularly if this issue arises again down the track.”

She suggested the information around the complaint and what had been done was provided to either her or the Operations Manager of Integrity and Conduct to record in the database.

“I am conscious with a not guilty plea entered on the charges the woman is facing, the complaints could come to light through the court process as part of the defence disclosure request or the woman may complain again in the future, particularly if Jevon is in the media. It would open up criticism if there is nothing recorded in the usual manner following our complaint processes. IPCA are also asking why this has bypassed our usual complaint processes. They were going to contact Tania directly to discuss.”

Coster replied he understood from Kura’s briefing that the “intent” was to record it as Officer M suggested but was “unsure why this has not yet occurred”.

“To be clear, I don’t think there was ever a complaint. The woman never identified herself to us. However, through Jevon’s transparency on it we knew who she was and proactively approached her. However, there was still no complaint forthcoming to back up her various email allegations sent from a variety of email addresses with made-up names. I appreciate your follow up on that”.

Initial investigation concludes

Operation Herb was closed on 24 September by Assistant Commissioner A.

Officer D told the IPCA such files were “never truly closed”, and that police could take action at any time.

The IPCA found the investigation was “closed prematurely”, but were unable to determine where responsibility lay.

It said the fact both Kura and Assistant Commissioner A raised a concern that if McSkimming missed out on the role of Commissioner because of the investigation police could be criticised by the IPCA was “puzzling, to say the least”.

They said Officer D “displayed moral courage” in questioning her superiors.

Operation Jefferson

Concerned about what was happening, Officer M contacted the IPCA. On 8 October she had a meeting with the authority and expressed the nature of her concerns.

On 9 October the Public Service Commission contacted the IPCA and asked if there were any complaints relating to the applicants for Commissioner.

The following day the IPCA Chair emailed Coster asking that police refer any complaints regarding McSkimming to them.

It was then that Ms Z’s complaint was referred by Officer M. That same day Officer M emailed Deputy Commissioner PLC and said she had opened a file on the database. She had also been informed that Ms Z had contacted Officer D and was considering making a complaint.

The IPCA informed police on 14 October they had categorised the matter as Category A, an independent investigation.

Officer M then got a call from Deputy Commissioner PLC who said Coster was not happy about the IPCA’s involvement.

On 18 October the IPCA met with Ms Z. The authority recommended to Officer M that the National Integrity Unit (NIU) conduct an investigation because of the criminal allegations, with IPCA oversight.

On 22 October, Coster wrote to the chair of the IPCA, expressing concerns about the “chain of events leading up to the commencement of this investigation…”

“My primary concern relates to the Authority’s decision to commence an investigation at such a critical point in the Commissioner appointment process, given all of the circumstances of this case.”

The IPCA said it was “abundantly clear” the version of “facts” that Coster set out were based on what McSkimming told him.

Coster wrote he was concerned the IPCA could “inadvertently significantly increase Jevon’s victimisation from this pattern of harassment and do so in a way that will be irreversible in terms of his career”.

“This is against the backdrop of an issue that has been visible for a very long time and was capable of being resolved long ago – indeed Jevon considered that it had been.”

He said a “standard investigative approach and timeline in this situation risks a very unjust outcome”.

The ‘quasi investigation’

Then, on 30 October, two days before the NIU had their first “forensic interview” of Ms Z, Coster called a meeting. At the meeting was Kura, Deputy Commissioner PLC, the Director, Police Legal Services, Officer M and Officer K of the NIU.

“We understand Commissioner Coster talked at length about the issue of natural justice for Deputy Commissioner McSkimming – that he had already been the victim of harm caused by Ms Z’s harassment and, if the matter was not resolved quickly, that harm would be compounded by denying him the opportunity to apply for the Commissioner role,” the IPCA said.

Attendees said Coster’s view was that following the forensic interview the matter “should be fairly simple to resolve”.

Coster then proposed a “special national assessment team” to look into the appropriate investigative pathway in relation to Ms Z’s complaint. He suggested the team consist of himself and Kura.

Coster told the IPCA the discussion “was entirely appropriate”.

“We would have been open to considerable criticism had I blindly proceeded with a standard approach, which would leave officers junior to the officer in question having to take a decision that might place their own careers in jeopardy.”

The director of police legal services said it was not appropriate, given the conflicts of interest, for Coster and Kura to be involved in decisions on criminality.

One staffer made notes which said: “Time is of the essence. A week’s delay isn’t basically acceptable”.

The staffer told the IPCA, “…so at that point there was a lot of pressure to complete a criminal investigation…within a week.”

Another staffer told the IPCA, “…it was quite clear that he was very invested in Jevon becoming the next Commissioner.”

Officer M said she told the director of police legal services after the meeting: “…we can’t and should never be dictated by a suspect’s needs, the fact that he’s applying to be Commissioner is irrelevant in terms of the criminal investigation… we’ve basically been asked to do an adult sexual assault investigation in a week, including interviewing the suspect.”

Officer K said they also left the meeting with concerns.

“I really thought that the idea of rushing through some sort of quasi-investigation was fraught with risk, particularly given the position that, you know, there were sort of two aspects to it, particularly given the position that Jevon McSkimming was applying for and how that might later play out and the Commissioner talked about natural justice for him and my first thought at that point well, if there’s any substance to what [Ms Z] is saying, how about justice for her.”

They said given Coster was a “sharp man”, a former detective and Crown prosecutor they were “gobsmacked at the idea that he wanted to take some sort of shortcut to a resolution”.

There was another meeting on 4 November, after Ms Z’s interview.

According to attendees Kura questioned how long it would take.

“You know, is it like two weeks… how do we keep momentum going here? It’s been eight years for goodness sake.”

Coster denied placing a one-week time limit on the investigation when spoken to by the IPCA.

The IPCA concluded that once a decision was made in October 2024 to launch a proper investigation senior officers, including Coster, “attempted to shape its approach so as to bring it to a rapid and premature conclusion”.

They did not find any “collusion”, rather a “consistent pattern of behaviour driven by a common mindset and perspective”.

This, the IPCA says, was concerns that it could end with “unjustified victimisation of the Deputy Commissioner”.

“The belief appears to be based on the proposition that Police are justified in not undertaking, or in curtailing, an investigation into a sexual assault allegation if it would jeopardise a suspect’s work or promotion prospects – an argument that, in any other context, would be regarded as untenable.”

The IPCA found significant failings in the way in which senior police responded to the complaints.

“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.”

In September, Police announced McSkimming would not be charged in relation to the allegations of sexual misconduct.

Assistant Commissioner Mike Johnson said Police had completed its investigation into allegations against a former senior police member.

“The investigation concluded that the evidential test for prosecution had not been met, therefore no charges will be laid.”

Johnson said the investigation and decision not to charge were independently reviewed by a King’s Counsel and peer reviewed by a Crown Law appointed barrister.

“The investigation was thorough and led by a Detective Superintendent. It had independent engagement throughout from the IPCA and a Crown Law appointed barrister.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

It’s not something many of us are born with, being okay with uncertainty.

Climate scientist Dr Tamsin Edwards has made it her day job.

She’s listed among hundreds of authors from all over the world on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report, and is about to begin work on the seventh. She’s given climate change talks at Glastonbury, and appears on the BBC Radio 4 podcast “39 Ways to Save the Planet”.

That, she says, is one of the things she’s most proud of – giving people tangible solutions to help the planet, and ease that sense of dread.

She’s in New Zealand this month to give this year’s S.T. Lee Lecture, on the topic of uncertainty around sea-level rise in Antarctica.

“How do we figure out what our error bars are on our predictions? If we’re trying to think about the future, what’s the range of different possible futures that we might face?”

Despite New Zealanders’ affinity with the great white continent, Edwards explains scientists now think far-off places like Greenland are more likely to affect sea-level rise around our shores.

“When you lose ice from Antarctica, the local sea level right around Antarctica actually goes down because it’s no longer pulled up by the sort of gravitational attraction of the ice sheet,” Edwards says.

“Instead, when that water goes into the global oceans and gets spread around, it affects maybe the northern hemisphere more. So [New Zealand] would be affected by Greenland more.”

Sea level rise is “a very complicated area of science”, she says. “It’s lots of different disciplines working together.”

Communicating all of the different aspects of the public, even to other scientists, can be quite complicated. Small changes in averages – average sea level rise, average global temperature – can translate into huge changes in extreme weather and coastal flooding.

“If you increase sea levels globally by perhaps half a metre, that doesn’t sound much, right? You just think, oh, half a metre, that’s knee level – you wouldn’t think that would be too bad.

“But the knock-on effect on coastal flooding can make it hundreds of times more likely to flood. A one-in-100 year event suddenly becomes something that could happen every year.”

She says she feels a responsibility to communicate uncertainty. Science is not a book of facts but a living body of knowledge, constantly evolving.

“I think it’s really important to say, ‘Well, look, we can’t know everything, some things are hard to pin down, but here’s the stuff we are confident about’.

“Maybe we know the direction of travel, but we don’t always know how quickly we’re going to get there.”

The Paris Agreement set a target to limit warming to 1.5 degrees – does Edwards think that’s still possible?

“I think it was always going to be really difficult,” she says – but she urges people not to think of it as a cliff-edge.

“It’s not something where we say, okay, if we get to 1.6 degrees of warming, everything is burning, everything is extinct,” she says. “But at the same time, we’re already seeing effects on our weather at 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 degrees. So it’s important to limit warming.”

With 15 years of science communication up her sleeve, she’s discovered most people aren’t motivated by fear – they need to know they can still make change.

The early days of discourse concerning climate change were “scary”, she says, punctuated by verbal attacks on twitter, gendered abuse, and public disagreements between scientists: “Should we be talking about uncertainty or should we be focusing just on certainties?”

“The conversation has really moved away from that,” Edwards says. “Climate science and the need to act on climate change is mainstream.”

“It almost feels like if you were pushing on a door really, really hard and then suddenly someone opens it and you kind of fall in the room,” she laughs.

When it comes to making change, she says people should never underestimate the value of pester power. “Think about how you can push on the levers of other people who are more powerful than you.”

She’s expecting work on the seventh IPCC report to be intense, just as it was with the sixth, published in 2023.

“And what people probably don’t realise is that when we work on the IPCC reports, it’s completely voluntary,” she says. “There were times I was doing maybe a 50 hour week of teaching and 20 hours on the IPCC over the weekend.”

Each chapter could have thousands of review comments, and everything needed to be considered, answered, and potentially included in the copy.

“It was quite a spreadsheet,” Edwards says.

The seventh report is due out in 2029, and work is already underway to engage hundreds of experts and divide their collective knowledge neatly into chapters, in one of the biggest collaboration efforts in science.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Taranaki Regional Council says New Plymouth’s Lake Rotomanu will be closed to motorised boats from tomorrow after the discovery of an invasive fresh water clam.

It’s the first time the clam, Corbicula fluminea, has been found outside of the Waikato River and Lake Taupō Aqua Park.

Taranaki Regional Council’s Environment Services Manager Steve Ellis said it was unknown how the clams got into the lake, but the focus now was making sure they did not spread to other Taranaki lakes or rivers.

“We are working closely with local partners and Biosecurity New Zealand, and we will have robust plans in place to deal with this Corbicula incursion,” he said.

New Plymouth District Council will close the lake to motorised boats, which are at the highest risk of spreading clams, from Wednesday.

Other’s on the lake will be required to thoroughly check, clean and dry all gear before leaving the lake shore, and additional signage will be put up by the weekend.

Staff will be at the lake to ensure the rules are followed and to advise people how to correctly clean their gear.

“The initial closure of Lake Rotomanu allows us time to gather all the information, while managing the risk from motorised boats,” Ellis said.

He was urging those who had been on Lake Rotomanu or other waterways to check, clean and dry everything that had been in contact with the water before moving between waterways.

“We appreciate it is coming into summer, and the lake is a favourite spot for many boaties. But they will understand how important it is we act quickly – Corbicula can take over a waterway and have long-term effects on not just recreation, but also the environment.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

New figures from ACC show 11 claims for babies or toddlers with carrier related injuries in 2024, more than twice the number than the year before.

There has also been eight claims so far this year, however there are no specific details of the incidents.

It has prompted renewed calls for the government to introduce official safety standards for baby carriers, wraps and slings.

It also follows a rise in social media videos often showing babies snuggly strapped to an adults fronts, in some cases with their faces and airways obscured.

In 2019 in Australia a three week old baby suffocated in a cloth sling, where he was completely cocooned in fabric, carried by his mum as she waited for his check-up at health clinic.

Louise Tanguay, founder of The Sleep Store and community organisation Babywearing Aotearoa believes there are many people wearing carriers incorrectly.

She told Checkpoint it is concerning to see these carriers used in an unsafe way.

“They’re choosing carriers that are too big for the size of the baby, or they’re wearing the carrier low on their body, so when they lift up the front of it, it goes right over the baby’s head.”

“The carrier is not an unsafe carrier, but the way it’s being worn is unsafe and potentially covering baby’s airways.”

However Tanguay said she was also concerned about the lack of standards to prevent unsafe carriers being sold.

She said this included models imported from overseas, as well as knock off carriers being sold in New Zealand.

“It is very common in New Zealand for people to look at Facebook marketplace for cheap carriers, they’re on a tight budget and they want a name brand carrier,”

“If the price looks too good to be true, then it’s too good to be true – most of the ERGO baby carriers that we’ve seen bought on marketplace are fake and potentially quite unsafe… the fabric can be toxic, the buckles are not tested, they don’t come with proper instructions.”

Many overseas models have also been found to be unsafe, with some determined to be potentially fatal.

While using a carrier is great for calming newborns, bonding and being able to carry on with everyday life, Tanguay said many parents are being caught out by not knowing how to use the carrier, or not following instructions.

“Often we see now too on social media, there’s people of influence or just other content creators showing carriers worn in a way that’s unsafe.”

“There is this inconsistent message of what safe carrying looks like because of people not taking the time to check that their baby’s airways are clear and that the carrier is below the baby’s neck leaving fresh air for baby to breathe.”

She said the best way to use a carrier was by putting the baby where you would when holding them in your arms, high up on the chest.

“Hold baby high on the chest, hold baby close enough to kiss… against the firm part, not down in the soft, squishy part of your chest,”

“Then put the carrier on nice and high and then tighten it so babies held securely and do a good check that your baby’s face is clear of all fabric – fabric from your clothing, fabric from the carrier not putting the carrier over the baby’s head, that’s a really good place to start.”

The baby’s nose and mouth should be visible at all times.

Tanguay believes there is a lack of safety information provided to families about how to safely carry their baby.

“People do childbirth education classes or see a midwife or see a well child provider and there’s either inconsistent or no safe baby wearing advice provided in a lot of those spaces.”

She said there should be some sort of official safety standard around carriers, however it doesn’t need to be unique to New Zealand.

“We’re not asking for New Zealand to have a ridiculous specific standard just to New Zealand because that just adds crazy compliance costs to businesses and pushes the price of products up, or makes them unavailable.”

“I would just like to see those international standards recognised here so when a family goes to a shop or orders a carrier online, they at least have the basic safety checks covered that the buckles have been tested, that it has good instructions, that it comes with the mandatory warning label.”

“Then it also gives the government agencies the ability to stop the importing of unsafe carriers that we do see coming into New Zealand.”

There is no plan by the Government to introduce regulations for baby carriers.

Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson urges people to follow manufacturers’ instructions on safe use, and said retailers, online sellers and manufacturers are responsible for making sure the products they supply are safe.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand

Source: Radio New Zealand

Far-right US influencer Candace Owens’ Auckland event next year has been cancelled, after the commentator was earlier denied entry into Australia.

Owens lost her bid to enter Australia after the country’s highest court backed the government’s decision to deny her a visa over concerns she could “incite discord” in the community.

The NZ event’s venue Trusts Arena confirmed the event was cancelled some months ago, due to its controversial nature.

Trusts Arena chief executive Marcus Reynolds said the event had no ongoing association with the venue.

“We’ve reached out to the promoter and asked for The Trusts Arena details to be removed for their event page,” he said.

Owens, who is known for controversial views including downplaying the holocaust and claiming Muslims started slavery, was denied entry to Australia in October 2024 after she announced the speaking tour.

Groups, including Young Labour, urged the government to also ban her from New Zealand.

She had an application for an Entertainers Work Visa denied in November 2024, and had requested ministerial intervention.

At the time, Associate Immigration Minister Chris Penk said the decision to overturn New Zealand’s ban was made after considering representations made to him, including the importance of free speech.

Promoters Rocksman told RNZ that Owens was “very keen” to come to New Zealand and continue her tour.

“This will likely be mid-year 2026.”

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand