Nearly 50 police staff were interviewed as part of an independent investigation, painting a fuzzy picture of the disgraced cop and his workplace reputation.

On Tuesday, the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) published a damning 135-page review into the police handling of complaints against former deputy commissioner Jevon McSkimming. The report covers the findings of an independent investigation into police conduct regarding a series of complaints from a woman, Ms Z, with whom McSkimming had previously had a sexual relationship.

The report is the first of three components in the investigation – the other two being “whether a subsequent police investigation into the allegations of sexual misconduct since October 2024 has been robust and appropriate” and “whether the police investigation into the possession of objectionable images by deputy commissioner McSkimming has been adequate”.

The third of these – the police investigation into the possession of objectionable images by McSkimming that led to charges being laid against him, a guilty plea and an upcoming sentencing – has been reported widely. 

But what the 135 pages of IPCA investigations into Ms Z’s complaints achieve is a write-around profile of sorts, whereby McSkimming (prior to his arrest for possession of objectionable material) was gunning for the top job of police commissioner, if he could just move past the saga of Ms Z’s harassing emails. Interviews with former commissioner Andrew Coster, former deputy commissioner Tania Kura and 44 other police staff members give enough hints at McSkimming’s reputation within police and among his colleagues to paint a portrait of the hugely ambitious man with a trail of trouble behind him.

‘A values driven leader’

In September of 2024, the Public Service Commission (PSC) was interviewing applicants for the highest job in police: commissioner. Andrew Coster had announced his resignation and would be leaving the role in November. McSkimming was a candidate for the job.

Before Coster’s replacement was finalised, an interim commissioner needed to be appointed, and Coster had expressed preference for that to be McSkimming. During that appointment process, in October Coster was asked about McSkimming, particularly anything “that has the potential to bring Mr McSkimming, the role of Interim Police Commissioner, or New Zealand Police into disrepute?”

According to PSC’s note, Coster replied: “‘In a general sense, no.’ He described Mr McSkimming as a ‘values driven leader’ and said he had ‘no concerns about his leadership’ or ability to create followership in the organisation.”

An adulterer

What is established very quickly in the report is that a number of police staff, and certainly all those at the executive level, were made aware that McSkimming had, between 2016 and 2018, engaged in an extramarital affair. As the report notes, “the matter of an affair would not, of itself, be remarkable” but certain details were:

• In 2016, Ms Z was 21 and McSkimming was 40
• In 2016, McSkimming was promoted to assistant commissioner, a very senior and powerful position within police
• McSkimming put forward Ms Z’s name for consideration when police were hiring casual employees, and personally requested she be based out of Wellington Central Police Station, which was closer to his own place of work

It is understood that a few of McSkimming’s colleagues may have been aware of the affair as it was happening, but more were made aware in quick succession in 2018, when the relationship ended.

McSkimming disclosed his affair to his supervisor, who escalated it within police, as McSkimming said he was now receiving threatening emails and was worried Ms Z would start harassing his wife (he had “disclosed” the relationship to his wife after Ms Z sent an email to her work about it). Two senior police staff members spoke with McSkimming and asked him if his affair had been with a police employee, to which he responded no. 

The IPCA found that those who were told of the affair in 2018 acted appropriately, given the recency of the relationship disclosed and McSkimming’s framing of it as an affair that ended badly. “However,” the report continues, “it was over that period that Deputy Commissioner McSkimming started to form a particular narrative – that he had been in a consensual extramarital affair and that, when he ended it, the female began a campaign of emails and threats in order to convince him to return to her. That narrative then formed the basis for much of the subsequent response by a number of senior officers.”

Over the next five years, this “affair that ended badly” would be raised a number of times (and also omitted at various points) during recruitment for top jobs, but always in relation to the subsequent “harassing” emails sent by Ms Z to McSkimming, which McSkimming consistently framed as her wanting to get back together. (IPCA notes that having read the many emails, there is zero suggestion of that from Ms Z.)

Then commissioner Coster was made aware of the affair in 2020, soon after his appointment. He was told by McSkimming that the woman was in her 20s and that she was still wanting to resume the relationship. Coster’s assessment of it was “It’s incredibly poor judgement, but there was nothing in what he said that gave me a sense of a work connection.” Coster confirmed that “some time later”, McSkimming told him Ms Z had been a police employee. 

It does not appear that any senior police staff or recruitment officers viewed the fact of an assistant police commissioner in his 40s entering into an extramarital sexual relationship with a 21-year-old as a red flag in regards to police integrity, sound judgment or trust. McSkimming was ultimately promoted to deputy commissioner in October 2020. 

A God-fearing man

McSkimming was known to be a regular attendee at Connect Church in Kāpiti, where he lives. Connect is part of the Pentecostal Christian New Life Churches network. In his disclosure to Coster, McSkimming also revealed that he had told both “his wife and his church” about the affair following emails sent by Ms Z to his wife’s work. It is later noted that emails were also sent to McSkimming’s church as early as 2018 containing allegations of inappropriate and illegal behaviour.

It is understood that McSkimming continued to attend Connect until 2024, when details of his charges for possession of objectionable material were made public. The church subsequently denounced his actions and stated that his “in-person attendance” would not be permitted.

A victim

Throughout the report, it is made clear that between 2018 and late 2024, the only victim, in the police’s eyes, was McSkimming. Numerous references from staff were made to his “unfortunate” relationship and subsequent emails.

In January 2024, Coster emailed deputy commissioner Kura about Ms Z’s communications which, again, contained numerous allegations of criminal behaviour from McSkimming. Coster’s request was regarding possible action against Ms Z.

“Whilst it’s probable they’ve reached the threshold for action under the Harassment Act, there may also be other options that team would advise, including mental health support for the writer.

“It’s clearly not appropriate for Jevon to have any role in directing this activity and he should be updated only in the way we would any victim of this sort of behaviour.”

The “activity” was the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC) assessing the emails and providing analysis (with the assumption of McSkimming being the victim of Ms Z’s fixation). Officer O, however felt compelled to raise that there were “a couple” of accusations that “could have crossed the line legally”, as well as “multiple other accusations made towards him that would definitely not fit within the police code of conduct. Based on what we know directly, some of these accusations are certainly plausible and are in line with the information that we already have”. 

Officer O’s analysis was the first indication from a police staff member that some of the alleged behaviour in the emails was plausible and potentially criminal and/or contrary to the police code of conduct. It was also, apparently, the first time an officer had actually fully read the emails that were being sent to a number of police staff for years.

From the report: “FTAC were provided the emails for the purpose of determining whether they could, or should, have a role in safeguarding McSkimming, not for the purpose of identifying any alleged wrongdoing by McSkimming himself. Yet a detective read the emails and was sufficiently concerned by the allegations made in them, that he immediately raised the issue with his supervisor and suggested notification to Police Integrity and Conduct and/or the IPCA.”

Rather than being used to form the basis of an investigation into the allegations against McSkimming, the FATC analysis was sent to deputy commissioner Kura, who then sent it on to Officer B, acting assistant commissioner of investigations. It was then “used solely as the foundation for a criminal investigation into Ms Z”.

The report concludes of Coster, who was commissioner at the time: “We cannot escape the conclusion that his preconception of Deputy Commissioner McSkimming as a victim clouded his decision-making.” 

In May 2024, Officer M emailed her superior raising concerns about the recent arrest of Ms Z. She later told the IPCA: “It was clear to me that [Ms Z] had never been spoken to as a potential victim given the emails and the concerns she was mentioning….”

Ms Z was charged with offences under the Harmful Digital Communications Act in May 2024, with McSkimming the victim of her alleged offences. The report notes: “no one conducted any enquiries, including trying to contact Ms Z, to establish the veracity of the allegations prior to her being charged.” Three 105 reports made by Ms Z against McSkimming were not filed as complaints or potential victim reports and instead were labelled as “False 105 Report” and used against her by police as evidence of further “harassing” communication towards McSkimming.

In the summary of facts, Officer B (acting assistant commissioner of investigation) inserted the word “false” to describe Ms Z’s allegations against McSkimming, and, despite being made aware of a separate investigation into the allegations, put forward that Ms Z would need to state that the allegations were false in order to receive a discharge without conviction. Ms Z refused. 

The IPCA found it “inexplicable that Officer B thought it appropriate to insert the word “false” into the original Summary of Facts, because he thought that was what the victim (Deputy Commissioner McSkimming) would want, without having taken a single step to investigate whether they were, in fact, false or otherwise.”

An unusual suspect

After the criminal investigation into Ms Z began in early 2024 and more than six years since the first emailed allegations of misconduct, Operation Herb was launched to investigate Ms Z’s complaints. Officer D was assigned to investigate. Deputy commissioner Kura informed McSkimming that Officer D would be investigating the veracity of the emails. The IPCA noted that updating a suspect on the investigation into them is unusual. Her response:

“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 D would soon after raise concerns regarding the terms of reference for the investigation (which did not include a direction to speak to Ms Z) and the motivations behind it. “…[I] 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.”

In the terms of reference supplied to Officer D, the “background” section appeared to have been lifted from Ms Z’s prosecution, meaning McSkimming, as the suspect in Officer D’s investigation, was referred to throughout as the “victim”.

Following two months of investigation and a lack of forthright engagement from Ms Z, Operation Herb was closed (prematurely, the IPCA determined).

In September, Coster stated his preference for McSkimming to be his successor, and personally made calls to Officer D to confirm that she would be resolving her investigation into McSkimming. After hearing Officer M’s concerns about the failure to properly investigate Ms Z’s complaints, Coster reassured the PSC that there were “no current complaints relating to Jevon, both with our professional conduct unit and IPCA”. 

Officer M re-engaged with IPCA to raise concerns about the lack of process in dealing with complaints against McSkimming and the lack of records kept on those complaints.

The IPCA received a call from the Public Service Commission in October asking if it held “any complaints relating to the applicants for the commissioner position”. That call, coupled with Officer M’s voiced concerns, prompted IPCA to launch an independent investigation and to recommend that the National Integrity Unit (NIU) launch its own criminal investigation.

On October 22, Coster wrote to Judge Johnston KC, the chair of IPCA, to “…formally express my concern about the chain of events leading up to the commencement of this investigation and its potential impact [on] Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming’s career. 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.”

Despite his protests, the NIU began conducting forensic interviews with Ms Z and the investigation was under way, this time with Ms Z as the complainant and McSkimming as the suspect. Coster called a meeting of senior staff and requested that the investigation be wrapped up quickly, in as little as a week, so as not to interfere with McSkimming’s commissioner prospects. 

As the report noted on a number of occasions, Coster’s actions and responses to questioning suggest he operated entirely on the belief that McSkimming’s version of events was true. He expressed much concern about what an investigation would mean for McSkimming’s career prospects, with little concern for what was actually being investigated or who was under investigation.

A man with means and a potential axe to grind

McSkimming had strong allies in Coster and Kura, as well as Officer B (who inserted the word “false” into Ms Z’s summary of facts). All acted in a way that suggests utmost concern for their colleague’s wellbeing and career. 

However, another factor in their decision-making was raised on two occasions. McSkimming was presumed to be someone who would take legal action against the police if he felt he was unfairly passed over for the commissioner role. 

When assessing the complexities of an early investigation into Ms Z’s claim, Assistant Commissioner A listed a number of factors, including natural justice, McSkimming’s intention to apply for the commissioner role, and “awareness that deputy commissioner McSkimming was financially sound, and would be willing and able to engage lawyers if he perceived he had lost the opportunity to apply for the commissioner’s role because of the investigation process”.

Speaking to the IPCA, Coster echoed this concern as a factor in wanting the investigation to be wrapped up quickly. “I was fairly confident that… Jevon would have been happy to have a go legally at anyone he could, if he was that way disadvantaged, and we needed to do the right thing.”

In summary

Across 135 pages of findings and interviews with nearly 50 police staff, a fuzzy image of Jevon McSkimming as a senior police colleague emerges.

A church-going married man who many in the top brass knew to have engaged in a sexual relationship with a 21-year-old woman, who spoke candidly of her subsequent attempts to “blackmail” him and who commissioners assumed would be litigious if an investigation into years of emailed complaints meant he was unable to apply for or be selected to the most powerful police position in the country.