The IPCA’s latest report raises questions about police dealing with family harm, writes Madeleine Chapman in today’s excerpt from The Bulletin.

To receive The Bulletin in full each weekday, sign up here.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) has found police were unjustified in issuing a Police Safety Order (PSO) against a woman, meaning she and her children couldn’t access their own home for 24 hours. The PSO was issued after the woman called police three times about her ex partner being at the house despite having a Temporary Protection Order (TPO) against him, reports Charlotte Cook for RNZ.

When police arrived, the woman was crying and “quite panicked”, according to the officers. She showed them the email from the courts, with a judge’s signature, confirming the TPO against her ex partner, but they couldn’t find it in the police system. They instead issued a PSO against the woman so that the man, who was “quite calm” and “reasonable to deal with”, could collect belongings from the house.

The IPCA ruled that one of the officers, as well as his off-site supervisor “failed to follow the family harm policy” and their issuing of a PSO against the woman was unjustified. It also found that an internal review conducted by police, which found that the officers behaved appropriately as “not providing [ex partner] with reasonable access to the property could be viewed as psychological abuse”, was incorrect.

What is a PSO?

The Family Violence Act 2018 allows a qualified constable to issue a PSO against a person in a relationship if they believe it could prevent harm to the partner. Previously, a court order would have to be made to separate parties, but PSOs can be dished out by an officer on-site and require the recipient to vacate the property (typically the home) immediately for a set period. 

“The police might therefore be said to be exercising a quasi-judicial function when it comes to the issuing of PSOs,” notes the IPCA report. “There is no judicial oversight on police’s discretion to issue a PSO and no right of appeal against it.” 

Note: The full report is a svelte 20 pages and can be read here.

When speaking to the IPCA, the officer said he issued the woman with a PSO to prevent her from returning to the property so that the man “could get in and start organising property or looking at property that needed to be separate”. The IPCA noted that the purpose of PSOs are explicitly to prevent harm to a person most, not to facilitate the gathering of belongings.

It concluded that had the officers considered the situation in its entirety, made further inquiries about the TPO and thought about the children’s welfare, they “would have concluded that [she] was more likely at risk of family violence from [him]. Had they reached that view, then no doubt [he] would have been issued with a PSO.”

Police’s changing approach to family harm

In 2024, police announced a “managed withdrawal” from family harm callouts, with a triage system implemented, due to stretched capacity. At the time, law professor at the University of Auckland, Julia Tolmie, told The Spinoff that the new approach would keep hidden the bigger picture that is crucial in family violence situations. “If you decide – based on the immediate incident that is reported – that it is not a criminal matter, then you miss getting information about the larger pattern of harm that may be taking place,” she said.

The police’s family harm policy includes the guiding principle to “view the situation as a whole with eyes wide open, be able to recognise family harm dynamics, the context of the harmful behaviour and the circumstances, and get a greater understanding of what is really going on”.

When asked by the IPCA why he didn’t inquire further about the protection order the woman had shown him, the officer said: “we weren’t going to deal with the TPO, we were just dealing with the interactions between the two in front of us”.

Are police capable of dealing with family harm?

Writing on The Spinoff this morning, Michelle Duff wonders whether New Zealand police officers are fundamentally incapable of protecting women from harm. “I occasionally like to give cops the benefit of the doubt, like when they say Jevon McSkimming was an anomaly and there’s great work being done on the front line, or when former top cop Andrew Coster uses the word “hysterical” to describe McSkimming’s accuser in an interview. Maybe these things aren’t indicative of the criminal justice system, I think, hopefully.

“This IPCA report puts paid to that. It shows an absolute lack of fundamental knowledge about the dynamics of family violence among those tasked with keeping us safe.”

Postscript: The IPCA is keeping busy. After its comprehensive and damning review of the police handling of complaints against former deputy commissioner Jevon McSkimming, the Herald’s Michael Morrah​ reports the authority is now overseeing an investigation into historic allegations of a sexual nature against current commissioner Richard Chambers. The commissioner has strongly rejected the claims.