New Zealand Police declined to charge their own staff 13 times in the past three years after the Independent Police Conduct Authority recommended charges be laid, according to Ministry of Justice analysis released on Thursday and reported by RNZ.
The figures come from the advice behind a new law that would scrap the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) and replace it with a stronger watchdog, an inspector-general of police. The bill was introduced to Parliament on Tuesday. It has not had its first reading, and it will not get one until after the election because Parliament adjourned the following day.
The disagreements ran both ways. In 13 cases the authority said charges should be laid and police decided not to lay them. In four more cases police laid charges when the authority had not recommended any. That makes 17 cases over three years in which the watchdog and the police it oversees reached different conclusions about whether an officer or staff member should face a criminal court.
Under the current system police have the final say. The ministry’s analysis said that arrangement “suffers from at least the appearance of a conflict of interest”, because the organisation whose employees are under investigation is the one deciding whether they are prosecuted.
The analysis also looked at what happens once police staff do end up in court. Over the three years police completed 272 criminal investigations into their own people, and 86 of those led to charges. The ministry described that charging rate as broadly comparable with similar countries. But about 75 per cent of police staff who were charged were acquitted, compared with about 20 per cent of defendants in other criminal cases.
The ministry identified four weaknesses in the present model. The authority mostly reacts to complaints and serious incidents rather than looking for problems itself. Its authority is unclear when it disagrees with police about employment outcomes for staff. It cannot make the final call on charges. And the arrangement carries that appearance of a conflict of interest.
The proposed fix is to give the new inspector-general the ability to go over the head of police when the two disagree about charges. Instead of the police decision standing, the inspector-general would refer the case to the Solicitor-General, the Government’s chief legal adviser, whose legal decision police would then have to follow. The inspector-general could also refer a case where it considered an independent review would be in the public interest. The ministry estimated about 20 per cent of cases would end up going to the Solicitor-General.
The inspector-general would be an independent Crown entity governed by a board of two to four members, including up to two deputies. Board members would need expertise in law, the justice system or policing, and nobody who had worked for police in the previous 10 years could be appointed.
Its other proposed powers go well beyond what the authority can do now. The inspector-general would be able to report possible integrity concerns about senior police staff, oversee a wider range of matters, get direct access to police records and enter police premises after giving written notice. It could share information for use in employment proceedings, and police would have to consult it on employment outcomes.
The push for a stronger watchdog grew out of the scandal surrounding former deputy police commissioner Jevon McSkimming. In November 2025 the authority released a damning report that found serious misconduct by a significant number of very senior officers in how complaints about Mr McSkimming were handled. It named former commissioner Andrew Coster among them, alongside a deputy commissioner, two assistant commissioners and a detective superintendent.
The authority found police focused on investigating the complainant’s emails rather than the alleged misconduct by the deputy commissioner, and that senior officers had tried to influence the investigation at a time when Mr McSkimming was in line for the top job. The report also called for the authority’s own powers to be expanded. Ministers accepted all 13 of its recommendations in principle and said an inspector-general would strengthen oversight and help rebuild public confidence in police.
The new figures give that promise a sharper edge. Thirteen rejected recommendations over three years is not a large number set against hundreds of investigations, but each one is a case where the independent body tasked with watching police concluded a crime may have been committed by someone in uniform, and police decided the matter would go no further.
The acquittal gap cuts the other way, and it is likely to be argued over. A 75 per cent acquittal rate could suggest police staff are sometimes charged on weak cases, or that juries and judges give officers the benefit of the doubt, or that the kinds of incidents that lead to charges, such as use of force during an arrest, are harder to prove than ordinary offending. The ministry’s analysis did not settle which explanation is right, and the new system would not change the courts. What it would change is who decides whether a case reaches them.
For now the bill sits on the order paper. With Parliament risen and the term over, whether an inspector-general of police is created, and in what form, will be up to the next government. More than 60 bills were left unfinished when the House rose, and the police oversight bill joins that queue. Until it passes, the Independent Police Conduct Authority carries on with its existing powers, and the final word on charging police staff stays with police.
Should police still decide whether their own staff are charged, or should that call belong to someone independent? Tell us what you think in the comments below.
This article was written by AI, briefed to report the facts, hopefully without some of the bias people bring to the job π
Leave a Reply