Asia Pacific AML, Kerry Grass

On 11 November 2025, a 135-page investigation report was publicly released by the New Zealand Independent Police Conduct Authority (the NZ IPCA).  The NZ IPCA Investigation Report is titled – “IPCA Public Report - Review of Police handling of complaints against Jevon McSkimming”. 

The background is that a former police officer, Mr Jevon McSkimming, engaged in an extramarital affair with a lady who was aged 20 years and he 40 years.  The extramarital affair occurred from early 2016 and reported to have ended around May 2018.    Paragraph 18 of the IPCA Report states –

[Paragraph 18 IPCA Report] – We understand that sometime after May 2018 when the relationship had ended, Ms Z began sending emails to Deputy Commissioner McSkimming and others, making accusations about his conduct. 

At some time in all this, Mr McSkimming confessed his sins to his wife and employer and it appears that life continued with Mr McSkimming not being dismissed for entering into an extramarital affair, whilst a NZ Police employee.  

I am sure extramarital affairs are probably quite common in the NZ Police and whether they are a police misconduct that is dealt with through dismissal is a decision by the NZ Police employer.  At the time of this disclosure by Mr McSkimming, the responsibilities for general conduct and management of police employees was former Police Commissioner Mike Bush.  

If the disclosure was made by Mr McSkimming and the information did not reach the desk of the Police Commissioner Mike Bush, then obviously this is the first situation that indicates employment matters relating to breaches of police misconduct are broken.  Or, it may be that the NZ Police operate under a policy that does not require disclosure of extramarital affairs to be a dismissal offence.

If the public or the NZ Police now think that extramarital relationships should result in dismissal, then they need to fix the transparency of that policy so all NZ Police Officers and the NZ Public know what the NZ Police Commissioner, as manager of all NZ Police employees, considers as non-criminal conduct that will result in disengagement.

Sorting out that part of the problem should be fairly easy and certainly not something that the government executive should find difficult to document within NZ Police policy. This will enable public transparency and accountability.

This is what this current case is all about – ensuring the NZ Public can trust and rely on the NZ Police to manage conflicts of interest.  And to have systems in place to manage conflicts of interests well without engaging in an abuse of process and a subsequent abuse of statutory powers.  If the NZ Police cannot provide transparency on how they achieve that, then it is not possible for the public to gain the level of trust that the public require from our NZ Police force.

Has the IPCA Covered All Relevant Issues?

The issues that the IPCA have focused on has missed out the real issues and, it appears that missing out the real issues is not by mistake, or at least, missing out or brushing over the real issues is not by mistake.

Firstly, the IPCA acknowledges on two separate occasions, the first in 2018 and then again in 2023, it was alerted through social media posts of allegations against Mr McSkimming.  On both occasions, the IPCA failed to exercise its powers to follow-up that lead of inquiry.

On page 127 of the IPCA Investigation Report, it sets out in late 2023 and early 2024, Mr McSkimming was receiving a barrage of anonymous emails, including anonymous communications being sent to the IPCA.  On 9 January 2024, the IPCA replied to this ‘anonymous’ complainer and provided advice on how a formal complaint can be submitted. On 10 January 2024, the ‘anonymous’ person replied and confirmed they did not wish to formalise a complaint.

This is obviously clearly a person or persons who had intent on making vexatious complaints against Mr McSkimming, whilst having no intention to formalise their concerns.  Though the IPCA report consistently refers to “anonymous complaint” and that Ms Z (the alleged victim) was behind these anonymous complaints, the IPCA Investigation Report is void of any information to confirm why the IPCA believes these anonymous communications were arising from Ms Z.

Nor is there any consideration in the IPCA Investigation Report that the barrage of anonymous complaints were being made vexatiously and for the purpose of derailing McSkimming from his promotion to Police Commissioner.

How well did Mr McSkimmng’s employer protect Mr McSkimmning from harm that was arising from these large number of anonymous communications?  How well did Mr McSkimming’s employer protect his position to ensure the intent of the maliciously anonymous communicator was not successful in derailing Mr McSkimming from his imminent appointment to the role of Police Commissioner? 

The IPCA Investigation Report does not provide any suggestion that the anonymous large volumes of allegations against Mr McSkimming were arising from within the NZ Police.  The IPCA Investigation Report does not suggest that these complaints were being made by persons with professional jealously towards Mr McSkimming, but at the same time, nor does the IPCA Investigation Report discount this theory. The IPCA report simply does not raise this theory. 

Given the timing of these anonymous complaints, given that the IPCA knew about these allegations in 2018 and again in 2023 and then in 2024 received confirmation that no formal complaint was to proceed – the matter should have ended there.

However, it seems to be the Minister of Police, Mr Mark Mitchell, was adamant that Mr Jevon McSkimming would not be working with him.  Minister Mitchell obviously preferred to work with Mr Richard Chambers – the 2nd in line to the Police Commissioner role. Mr Chambers had less merit than Mr McSkimming.  This was confirmed in the appointment of Deputy Commissioner role in 2023 when Mr Chambers missed out to Mr McSkimming.

That Minister Mitchell disliked Mr Coster and all of Mr Coster’s executives is quite clear from the comments Police Minister Mitchell made to the Q&A television programme on 16 November 2025. 

In that interview, Mr Mitchell slipped his tongue whilst being interviewed by Jack Tame and disclosed his personal views and clear dislike towards Mr Coster.  Though the Minister of Police slipped his tongue and revealed his inner feelings towards Mr Coster, the Police Minister did not substantiate or align the information that would qualify his comments towards Mr Coster.  Most obviously any actions by Police Minister Mitchell towards Mr Coster or Mr McSkimming are likely to be bias.

What was Police Minister Mitchell’s Role In the Jevon McSkimming Saga?

A review of Mark Mitchell’s appointment to Minister of Police in late November 2023 coincides with the timing of the emails of anonymous complaints being sent with regards to Mr McSkimming.  An interesting observation.  A further interesting observation is that Police Minister Mitchell had an unusual style as a Minister of Police and seemed to take pleasure in ridiculing Police Commissioner Coster.  New Zealand’s public may even recall Police Minister Mitchell publishing a letter he wrote to Mr Coster setting out his expectations.

It is therefore of no surprise that Police Minister Mitchell acknowledges that it was him who was driving the narrative that Jevon McSkimming must be dismissed from the police based on these anonymous complaints.  Police. Minister Mitchell took steps to have Jevon McSkimming dismissed by making requests to the Public Services Commission and to the Governor-General.  At this time, it is important to note that the investigations in to the allegations of the extramarital matter was only in its early stage.  Requesting someone be dismissed based on an allegation can be seen as constructive dismissal under employment law.

It was also wrong for the IPCA to commence an investigation exactly at the time Mr McSkimming was about to be appointed to Police Commissioner.  The IPCA commenced the investigation at this time knowing that the matter was 7-8 years historic, the complainant had no formal complaint to give and the IPCA and the Minister of Police had knowledge, without any doubt, that announcing the investigation would destroy Mr McSkimmng’s career and appointment to Police Commissioner.

Did that happen?  Yes of course it did. A review of media publications demonstrates the Minister of Police made sure the media knew that Jevon McSkimming was under investigation for a historic extramarital affair.  This matter later concluded its investigation to find no criminal wrongdoing by Mr McSkimming in this extramarital affair.

This matter is quite clearly demonstrating improper political interference by the Minister of Police in the appointment process of the NZ Police Commissioner.  

Official Information Act requests are being made to the Minister’s office seeking clarification of his announcements, the content of those announcements, the reliability of the allegations and the timeline to those allegations.

More to come.

© Scoop Media