IPCA satisfied with the conduct of two Police criminal investigations into Mr McSkimming
The Authority oversaw two Police criminal investigations into former Deputy Commissioner McSkimming. The first investigation arose out of the events described in our public report released on 11 November 2025, involving allegations of sexual offending against a former Police employee. That complaint was formally referred to us on 10 October 2024. In that report, we set out in detail our concerns with the initial stages of that investigation before it was referred to us. However, from November 2024 the investigation proceeded in accordance with Police adult sexual assault policy, with our close oversight. Ultimately on 3 September 2025 Police provided us with the final investigation report, as well as an external legal opinion and a legal peer review. That report found that the evidential test under the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines had not been met. We are satisfied that from November 2024 Police conducted an appropriate investigation and reached a view on prosecution that was reasonable.
As has been widely reported, during the course of the above investigation, Police identified that Mr McSkimming had on numerous occasions used his Police device to access objectionable images. We oversaw the ensuing Police investigation, which resulted in Mr McSkimming being charged, and pleading guilty, to offences under the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993. We have no concerns with the way Police conducted that investigation.
Mr McSkimming breached policy and the Police Code of Conduct when he stayed in taxpayer-funded accommodation with Ms Z
In addition to our oversight of these two criminal investigations, we also investigated Mr McSkimming’s decision to invite the complainant (‘Ms Z’) to stay with him in hotel accommodation paid for by Police, on numerous occasions, primarily in 2016.
Our investigation has been impaired by a lack of records of travel expenditure and credit card statements from the time, due to the nine to ten years that has elapsed since the spending occurred. We have therefore not been able to review his credit card expenditure, and rely on the evidence of the complainant, Mr McSkimming, his former executive assistant and one of his supervisors at the time, in order to establish the nature and frequency of his use of Wellington accommodation paid for by Police.
In 2016 and 2017 Mr McSkimming’s workplace was at Police National Headquarters in Wellington. He lived about 60-70 kms away. Both he and his executive assistant at the time explained to us that he was regularly required to attend functions or late meetings in Wellington or catch early morning flights. On those occasions, his executive assistant would book accommodation at a Wellington hotel, paid for by Police. The rationale for these bookings was explained to us as being to avoid a long drive home after a work event, or where he was required to attend a social function to ensure he was not having a drink and then driving.
We have reviewed the Police travel policy in force at the time, and it was vague and unhelpful in providing guidance on the extent to which the examples Mr McSkimming gave were acceptable. Beyond restatement of the principles applying to ‘sensitive expenditure’ as promulgated by the Office of the Auditor General, it did not provide any guidance on the use of hotel accommodation in circumstances such as Mr McSkimming’s, where the accommodation was in the same locality as the usual workplace.
While current Police travel policy does not provide any additional guidance on staying in hotels in the same locality as a workplace, there is now an updated sensitive expenditure policy, which sets out the principles to be applied when spending taxpayer’s money. The policy states that the expenditure:
“is expected to relate to the goals and objectives of the NZ Police, be reasonable, be able to withstand parliamentary and public scrutiny and be sufficiently documented should an independent review, either internal or external, be performed.”
In our view the current sensitive expenditure policy provides sufficient overarching guidance that should inform any detailed decisions relating to, for example, travel approvals.
Police travel policy at the time (and now), required that:
“The travel approving senior manager need only be informed where a partner, family member or friend accompanies a Police employee on travel at their own expense where they have made their own travel arrangement but intend to share travel facilities (eg accommodation…) that will be paid for by Police”.
Mr McSkimming told us, “I think [Ms Z] probably stayed with me eight or 10 times”. This is corroborated by Ms Z. Mr McSkimming breached policy by not informing his senior manager approving the travel that she would be staying with him. If he had done so, we consider it highly likely that approval would have been declined.
In any case, whether or not he informed his manager, he breached the Police Code of Conduct by staying in hotels at Police expense and inviting the woman with whom he was having a sexual relationship to join him. If he had paid for the hotels himself, that would have been a different matter. However, the fact that the hotels were paid for by Police gives rise to the perception that he was using taxpayer money to further a clandestine affair, thus bringing Police into disrepute.
IPCA: 24-21067