Introduction
New Zealand has long prided itself on being one of the least corrupt countries in the world. But over the past decade, a pattern has emerged that should alarm every New Zealander. It is not about one bad apple. It is not about a few isolated incidents. It is about a system that protects its own, from the beat cop on the street to the highest levels of police leadership.
This is not an opinion. It is a pattern documented by the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA), the courts, and journalists who have fought for years to bring the truth to light.
The McSkimming Scandal: A Case Study in Systemic Failure
In November 2025, the IPCA released a 135-page report that should have shocked the nation. It documented how senior police leaders, including the then-Commissioner, two Deputy Commissioners, and an Assistant Commissioner, engaged in serious misconduct to protect one of their own.
The case involved Jevon McSkimming, a Deputy Police Commissioner who had been accused of serious sexual offending by a young woman. She was 21. He was 40. The allegations included sexual interaction without consent, threats to use an intimate visual recording, and misuse of a police credit card.
Here is what the system did:
It protected the predator. Senior officers accepted McSkimming's narrative "without question". No effective action was taken to investigate the initial complaints. When a joint Police/Health report in February 2024 identified the allegations as serious and recommended referral to the National Integrity Unit, senior officers took no action.
It targeted the victim. Instead of investigating McSkimming, the only investigation launched focused on potential offences by the woman under the Harmful Digital Communications Act. She was prosecuted for speaking out. Her lawyer, Steven Lack, said: "Instead of being heard, she was dismissed and ultimately prosecuted for speaking out and raising her concerns".
It attempted to bury the truth. When Police finally referred the matter to the IPCA in October 2024, then-Commissioner Andrew Coster attempted to influence the nature and extent of the investigation and "bring it to a rapid and premature conclusion" so it wouldn't jeopardise McSkimming's chances of being appointed Commissioner.
It used the courts to silence her. The woman was charged with causing harm by posting digital communication, over 300 emails she had sent. The charge was only withdrawn because McSkimming did not wish to give evidence. But she still faces charges today.
The consequences were minimal. Some of those heavily criticised in the report are still employed by police. One officer who wrongly labelled the allegations as "false" still works for police, just no longer handling evidence or interacting with victims. McSkimming himself pleaded guilty to viewing child sexual abuse material at work. He was suspended on full pay, then resigned.
Police Commissioner Richard Chambers called it "appalling reading" that showed "a total lack of leadership and integrity at the highest levels of Police". He acknowledged that "the usual integrity checks and balances were bypassed, there was interference from the highest levels, and the ambitions of a senior police officer were put above the interests of a vulnerable woman".
The IPCA found that the actions of these senior officers "undermined the integrity of the organisation as a whole".
The Pattern Is Not New
The McSkimming scandal is not an isolated incident. It is the latest example of a pattern that has been documented for decades.
The 2007 Bazley Commission exposed the same "code of silence" and the same dismissive attitudes towards women who came forward. Whistleblower Louise Nicholas was not believed as a teenager accusing officers of rape; her complaints were buried. It took decades for the policeman handling her case to be found guilty of obstructing justice.
As Newsroom national affairs editor Sam Sachdeva told RNZ: "This goes to the fundamental heart of trust... As a country, can we trust our police, the people who are meant to ensure the law and hold law-breakers to account? If they can't be trusted to follow the law themselves, or [follow] due process, then how can we trust them?"
"Insufficient Evidence": The Magic Words
Across New Zealand, a pattern emerges when civilians complain about police misconduct. Complaints are investigated by police, who then conclude there is "insufficient evidence." This happens even when there are eyewitnesses, video footage, and a victim in hospital.
The IPCA itself has documented cases where:
Police assaulted a person during a neighbour dispute in Canterbury. The assault charge was dismissed when no evidence was offered. The Authority found no misconduct.
An off-duty Police employee was accused of starting a fight. The investigation found "insufficient evidence to charge".
A victim complained about excessive force. Police found "insufficient evidence to support a charge of assault against the officer".
An off-duty officer was accused of family harm. Police found "insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges" against the officer, but sufficient evidence to charge the complainant with assault.
In one case documented by the NZ Herald, an officer who stomped on a man was not prosecuted because it was not "in the public interest".
The Code of Silence
The IPCA report into McSkimming revealed a culture that has been described as a "code of silence". Lobby for Good, a community group, said: "Whistleblowers pushed out. Complaints buried. The same silence. The same protection of insiders".
Commissioner Chambers acknowledged the problem: "The processes for complaints against senior Police leaders were too easily ignored or bypassed here, despite attempts by some staff to ensure they were adhered to".
He described what happened as "group-think and self interest".
The Courts Are Part of the System
The problem does not stop at the police station. It extends into the courts.
In one case, a man charged with a 4-year-max offence insisted on his right to a jury trial. He refused to plead guilty to a lie. Six months later, with no new evidence, the charges were reduced to a 1-year-max offence, removing his right to a jury trial. He now faces a judge-alone trial, where the judge sits with the same police and Crown prosecutors every day.
This is not an accident. The government is currently considering raising the jury trial threshold even higher, to three, five, or even seven years. This would mean even more defendants would face judge-alone trials, removing the one layer of accountability that ordinary citizens provide.
The IPCA Chairman himself has said New Zealand has a "blindingly obvious" problem with how police officers are prosecuted. Every other comparable country ensures prosecution decisions against police are made independently. In New Zealand, police decide when to prosecute their fellow officers.
Police and Gangs: An Uncomfortable Truth
Some officers have been caught actively protecting gang members rather than upholding the law.
A former police officer was convicted of corruption after sharing sensitive intelligence with a gang member, including information Police held about the gang member himself. He pleaded guilty to corrupt use of official information, accessing a computer system for dishonest purpose, and possessing cocaine.
An officer conducted more than 38,500 database searches over 21 months, including searches of gang members throughout New Zealand. He had no legitimate reason to be investigating them. He continued the searches even after being told he was under investigation. Police declined to carry out a criminal investigation.
A Police employee in Tauranga accessed the police database up to 51 times for personal reasons, updating information about themselves and family members. Police did not follow the agreed consultation process with the IPCA.
From the Cities to the Regions
This pattern is not confined to Wellington or Auckland. It is happening in every part of New Zealand.
In Tauranga:
An officer was found to have unlawfully arrested a man who was urinating on a roller door; all subsequent uses of force were declared unlawful.
An officer tasered a mentally ill man three times in court cells. CCTV footage showed no evidence of the man attacking first.
In Hamilton:
A father named Panapa was arrested outside a nightclub. Video footage appears to show an officer punching him in the head twice. He was charged with possessing a weapon, cannabis, and resisting arrest, charges he denies. His partner alleges she was shoved into a brick wall while filming.
Everywhere:
A Tauranga case where a police officer assaulted a man during an unlawful arrest.
An officer who used the Police database to obtain information about someone he had a driving incident with.
Multiple cases where officers recorded fake breath tests.
The Psychology of Predators: Why "One Bad Apple" Is a Lie
There is a reason the "bad apple" metaphor is misleading. The full saying is "one bad apple spoils the barrel", meaning the environment corrupts the rest.
Predators surround themselves with people who support their behaviour. When leaders like McSkimming and Coster occupy the top jobs for years, they promote people who will keep their secrets. They push out anyone who might expose them.
Look at Donald Trump and the people he selected for his administration. Few had the background experience for the job. That was the point, they were chosen for loyalty, not competence. The same principle applies to police leadership. Predators don't want people who will challenge them. They want people who will protect them.
This is why the system does not self-correct. The people who would fix it are pushed out or silenced. The people who stay are the ones who learned to keep their mouths shut.
When a predator sits at the top for a decade, the entire barrel is spoiled. The culture becomes one of silence, of protection, of looking the other way. Is it any surprise that criminality flourishes in an environment like that?
What This Means for New Zealanders
The findings in the McSkimming report "graphically demonstrate that the settings in place to protect and enhance integrity are still not sufficiently robust to enable the public to have confidence that Police will do their job without fear or favour".
The Government has promised to appoint an Inspector-General of Police, the strongest statutory oversight mechanism available. But the problem is bigger than any one reform.
New Zealand faces a choice. We can continue to trust a system that has proven itself unworthy of that trust. Or we can demand real accountability.
We need:
Independent prosecution of police officers. The police should not decide whether to prosecute their colleagues.
Real consequences for misconduct. Not just reassignment, not just early retirement with full pay. Demotion. Dismissal. Prosecution.
Protection for whistleblowers. Those who speak up should be protected, not pushed out.
Transparency. The public should be able to see what their police are doing, and the system should be designed to be transparent, not to hide misconduct.
Jury trials for all serious charges. The right to be judged by your peers is a fundamental protection against a system that protects its own.
Conclusion
This is not about a few bad apples. This is about a tree that is rotten to its core.
The evidence is overwhelming. The McSkimming scandal. The code of silence. The "insufficient evidence" magic words. The police who protect gangsters. The courts that enable the cover-up. The officers who still work for police despite being found to have engaged in serious misconduct.
New Zealanders deserve better. We deserve police who enforce the law, not break it. We deserve a justice system that protects victims, not predators. We deserve the truth.
The system does not fear breaking the law because it knows it will be protected. It is time to change that. It is time to hold the system accountable, not because we hate the police, but because we love justice.
Related Paper
Psychological Traits and Profile of Individuals Who Engage with Abusive Content
A Fractured Covenant: Examining Duty, Apathy, and the Human Cost in the Aftermath