why a public inquiry into the police should be next
- Written by: Anna Marie Brennan, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Waikato
The sentencing of former deputy police commissioner Jevon McSkimming represents not just the downfall of a senior officer, but a cloud over the system that enabled him to rise almost to the top.
Once considered a frontrunner[1] for police commissioner, McSkimming pleaded guilty to possessing[2] child exploitation and bestiality material and was sentenced[3] to nine months home detention.
The crimes only came to light because complaints about his conduct[4] during the promotion process triggered a deeper investigation.
Evidence from the Independent Police Conduct Authority[5] shows those complaints of sexual misconduct were dismissed or minimised[6]. A young staff member who reported the alleged behaviour was undermined[7] and her motives questioned.
This was not just about one man. It reflected a failure of proper process and wrongful protection of power at the highest levels.
Complaints dismissed, trust eroded
The McSkimming case cannot be separated from the wider epidemic of violence against women in New Zealand.
OECD data shows the country has one of the highest[8] rates of intimate partner violence in the developed world, with around one in three women experiencing it in their lifetime.
Police figures reveal the scale of the crisis: officers respond to family harm incidents 400 times[9] every day. Nearly half of all homicides and reported violent crimes are linked to family violence.
Against this backdrop, the dismissal of complaints against McSkimming raised serious questions about public trust in the police. If senior police leaders are not held accountable, how can victims trust the system to protect them?
Whistleblower protection
The role of the staff member who raised concerns about McSkimming’s conduct remains complex. She has been described as a “vulnerable whistleblower[10]”, given her complaints helped trigger scrutiny of a senior officer tipped for the top job.
Yet her situation is complicated by ongoing criminal proceedings under the Harmful Digital Communications Act[11], where she is accused[12] of causing harm by posting digital communications. Because those proceedings are still before the courts, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about her conduct.
For some, the volume of her communications undermines her claim to whistleblower status; for others, it may reflect the desperation of someone trying to be heard in an institution unwilling to act, especially against powerful men. This ambiguity matters.
If she is a whistleblower, her prosecution highlights the fragility of New Zealand’s protections[13]. If she is not, the case still raises questions about how institutions respond to dissent by focusing on the complainant’s behaviour rather than the substance of the allegations.
Either way, the outcome is the same: the man she accused of sexual misconduct was protected for a very long time and her allegations were never properly investigated[14].
Independent inquiry needed
Ensuring accountability at the highest levels of policing is vital. Leadership sets the tone[15] for police culture. When those at the top are shielded from consequences, misconduct filters down and becomes normalised throughout the ranks.
The McSkimming case shows how misogynistic attitudes, loyalty to hierarchy and weak whistleblower protections combine to shield those in power. Accountability at the top is not symbolic; it is structural.
The Independent Police Conduct Authority has already investigated aspects of this case, but its mandate is narrow[16]: it examines police conduct, not the wider ecosystem of accountability.
It cannot compel testimony from political leaders, audit promotion processes, or recommend structural reforms beyond policing. Nor does it have the power to interrogate whether government oversight failed, or whether whistleblower protections meet international standards.
An independent public inquiry is therefore essential. It must go beyond operational misconduct to examine the culture that enabled McSkimming’s rise, assess compliance with the United Nations Convention Against Corruption[17] and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women[18], and measure police practices against global benchmarks.
The anti-corruption convention in particular requires states to protect whistleblowers, prevent corruption and ensure effective remedies. New Zealand has signed both treaties, but the McSkimming case shows how far reality falls short of those obligations.
Accountability at the highest levels
Beyond the specifics of the McSkimming case, New Zealand needs a national conversation about how to ensure accountability at the highest levels of its public institutions.
This should extend to all organisations where power is concentrated – government, military, corporate leadership and beyond.
New Zealand must also strengthen whistleblower protections in line with international law – creating robust independent reporting channels, criminalising retaliation and ensuring those who speak out are not punished.
Embedding the UN anti-corruption and anti-discrimination obligations in domestic law would hardwire accountability in the system, making it harder for institutions to bury complaints or silence victims.
Specifically, there needs to be an independent integrity body with much wider powers to audit police promotions and investigate misconduct. The McSkimming sentencing does not represent closure; it is an opportunity to make real progress.
References
- ^ considered a frontrunner (www.stuff.co.nz)
- ^ pleaded guilty to possessing (www.rnz.co.nz)
- ^ sentenced (www.nzherald.co.nz)
- ^ complaints about his conduct (www.stuff.co.nz)
- ^ Independent Police Conduct Authority (www.ipca.govt.nz)
- ^ dismissed or minimised (www.ipca.govt.nz)
- ^ undermined (www.1news.co.nz)
- ^ one of the highest (womensrefuge.org.nz)
- ^ 400 times (www.rnz.co.nz)
- ^ vulnerable whistleblower (www.scoop.co.nz)
- ^ Harmful Digital Communications Act (www.legislation.govt.nz)
- ^ accused (www.rnz.co.nz)
- ^ New Zealand’s protections (www.emerald.com)
- ^ never properly investigated (www.1news.co.nz)
- ^ sets the tone (www.tandfonline.com)
- ^ mandate is narrow (nzccl.org.nz)
- ^ United Nations Convention Against Corruption (www.unodc.org)
- ^ Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (www.ohchr.org)
Authors: Anna Marie Brennan, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Waikato
