Key Takeaways
- A woman with a freshly issued temporary protection order (TPO) was forced by police to leave her home so her ex‑partner could collect belongings, despite her repeated warnings that he was violating the order.
- Officers accepted the man’s explanation, doubted the authenticity of the TPO because it was not in their system, and characterised the woman as “hysterical” while describing the man as calm and compliant.
- The police issued a police safety order that removed the woman and her children for 24 hours, a decision later deemed unjustified by the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA).
- Two internal police reviews initially upheld the action, even suggesting the woman’s refusal to grant access could be viewed as psychological abuse.
- The IPCA found the officers’ actions violated family‑harm policy, failed to consider the welfare of the children, and involved a five‑day delay in serving the protection order.
- Police have apologised, corrected the woman’s records, and committed to updating policies and providing additional training after the watchdog’s recommendations.
Introduction and Overview
The incident occurred on 25 June last year at a residence in South Auckland’s Manukau, where a woman (referred to as Ms X) and her children were compelled by police to vacate the home so her former partner (Mr Y) could retrieve personal belongings. Although a family court had issued a temporary protection order (TPO) that same day expressly prohibiting Mr Y from contacting Ms X or the children, the officers on scene did not recognise the order’s validity. An Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) investigation later concluded that the police decision to issue a police safety order and evict the family was unjustified, contradicting two earlier internal reviews that had deemed the action appropriate.
Background of Protection Order
The TPO had been granted by a judge who expressed significant concerns for Ms X’s safety, citing evidence of harassment, threats, and ongoing abuse by Mr Y. Ms X presented the officers with a copy of the email from the Ministry of Justice and a screenshot of the court‑issued TPO on her phone, demonstrating that the order was legally active that day. The documentation clearly stated that Mr Y was barred from any contact with Ms X or their children, a fact that should have triggered immediate police protective measures under family‑harm protocols.
Initial Police Contact
Prior to the officers’ arrival, Ms X had telephoned police three times to warn them that Mr Y was approaching her residence in violation of the protection order. When the police finally arrived, they interviewed Ms X and Mr Y separately. Ms X showed the officers the electronic evidence of the TPO, while Mr Y offered a calm explanation for his presence, claiming he merely wanted to collect his belongings. The officers’ notes indicate they gave more weight to Mr Y’s demeanour than to the documented court order.
Officers’ Assessment and Bias
The IPCA report highlights a stark contrast in how the officers described the two parties: Ms X was labelled “hysterical,” “crying,” and “really panicked,” whereas Mr Y was characterised as “quite calm,” “reasonable to deal with,” and “compliant.” This disparity in perception influenced the officers’ judgement, leading them to doubt the legitimacy of the TPO despite the tangible proof presented. The report suggests that gendered stereotypes and a reluctance to accept a woman’s distress contributed to an erroneous assessment of risk.
Decision to Issue Police Safety Order
Based on their assessment, the attending officer and his superior concluded that issuing a police safety order was necessary to facilitate Mr Y’s entry into the house for the sake of “the man’s protection and ease.” Consequently, Ms X and her children were ordered to leave the family home for 24 hours, effectively displacing the victims of family harm to accommodate the alleged perpetrator. The safety order was executed without verifying the TPO’s existence in police systems, and the officers admitted they were “not sure if (the TPO) was real or not.”
Internal Police Reviews
Following Ms X’s complaint, the police conducted two internal reviews of the incident. Both reviews concluded that the officers’ actions were justified, with one review going so far as to suggest that Ms X’s refusal to grant Mr Y reasonable access could be interpreted as psychological abuse. These reviews appeared to overlook the protective intent of the TPO and the statutory duty police have to enforce court‑issued protection orders.
IPCA Findings
The IPCA disagreed unequivocally with the internal reviews. It determined that the decision to issue the police safety order was unjustified, violated family‑harm policy, and failed to consider critical factors such as the imminent risk to Ms X and her children, the existence of a valid TPO, and the welfare of the minors involved. The Authority also criticised the five‑day delay in serving the protection order to Mr Y, noting that policy requires service within four hours of issuance. The IPCA stressed that the officers’ reliance on subjective impressions over objective evidence constituted a serious procedural failure.
Impact on Woman and Children
The forced removal left Ms X and her children without shelter and exposed them to additional stress and uncertainty, directly contravening the protective purpose of the TPO. Although the police later apologised and amended Ms X’s records to reflect that the safety order had been issued in error, the incident highlighted gaps in how police respond to family‑harm situations, particularly when victims display visible distress. The watchdog’s recommendations emphasised the need for updated policies, mandatory training on recognising and enforcing protection orders, and a stronger focus on victim‑centred risk assessment.
Recommendations and Lessons Learned
In response to the IPCA’s findings, Relieving Counties Manukau District Commander Inspector Jared Pirret acknowledged that the officers did not make the right decision and that the initial police review had inadequately considered the full context. The Authority urged the police to revise their family‑harm response protocols, improve documentation checks for active protection orders, and implement scenario‑based training that addresses bias and the importance of believing victims’ accounts. By implementing these changes, police aim to prevent similar miscarriages of justice and ensure that protection orders are respected and enforced promptly, safeguarding victims and their children.