Key Takeaways
- Former Deputy Police Commissioner Jevon McSkimming used police‑funded hotel rooms to host a woman with whom he was having an affair, breaching NZ Police expenditure and conduct policies.
- The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) found that he stayed with the woman in Wellington hotels on 8‑10 occasions in 2016‑2017, without informing the approving senior manager.
- Police Commissioner Richard Chambers first asked McSkimming to repay the misused funds in early March 2024, issuing a second reminder with a firm 8 May deadline.
- McSkimming ultimately reimbursed $500, an amount he calculated himself, prompting Chambers to declare the matter closed while stressing the need for transparent, scrutinised spending.
- The episode underscores the importance of adhering to sensitive‑expenditure rules, maintaining public trust, and ensuring that any misuse of taxpayer money is promptly rectified, regardless of the amount involved.
Background on Jevon McSkimming and the scandal
Jevon McSkimming, once a deputy police commissioner, became the focus of a misconduct investigation after it emerged that he had invited a woman—referred to as “Ms Z”—with whom he was conducting a sexual relationship to stay with him in police‑paid hotel accommodation. The revelations surfaced through media reports and were subsequently examined by the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA). The affair raised serious questions about the appropriate use of public funds and the expectations placed on senior police officers to exemplify integrity and fiscal responsibility.
Details of the hotel stays and policy breach
According to the IPCA’s summary, McSkimming’s workplace was at Police National Headquarters in Wellington, while he resided roughly 60‑70 kilometres away. His executive assistant routinely booked hotel rooms for him after late meetings or early‑morning flights, citing the need to avoid long drives after work functions or to prevent drinking and driving. McSkimming told the IPCA that Ms Z stayed with him on eight to ten separate occasions, a claim corroborated by her. Crucially, he failed to inform the senior manager who approved the travel that Ms Z would be joining him, a omission that likely would have led to denial of the request. By allowing the woman to occupy a police‑funded room, McSkimming violated both the Police Code of Conduct and the NZ Police policy on sensitive expenditure, which requires spending to be reasonable and able to withstand parliamentary and public scrutiny.
Police Commissioner Richard Chambers’ initial request for reimbursement
On 4 March 2024, Commissioner Richard Chambers wrote to McSkimming outlining the IPCA’s adverse finding and requesting repayment for the hotel stays. Chambers emphasized that NZ Police is obligated to ensure public funds are spent carefully and within policy limits. He noted that where policies are breached, steps must be taken to rectify the matter and recover the money, both to reassure staff that standards are upheld and to preserve public trust. The letter set a clear expectation that McSkimming should reimburse the police promptly, referencing his knowledge of the hotels used and the approximate costs at the time.
Follow‑up letter and deadline
When McSkimming did not respond to the first request, Chambers sent a second letter, releasing a copy to RNZ. In this follow‑up, he expressed disappointment at the lack of reply and warned that if no reimbursement was received within four weeks—by 8 May 2024—he would “consider other options to secure reimbursement.” Chambers reiterated that any action taken must avoid creating further expense to the taxpayer, underscoring his commitment to resolve the matter efficiently while protecting public funds.
McSkimming’s repayment and Chambers’ response
McSkimming eventually transferred $500 to the police, an amount he himself calculated based on the hotel stays. In a statement to RNZ on the Monday following the payment, Chambers said he was pleased that a contribution had been made and now regarded the matter as closed. He restated that police policy demands that spending be reasonable and able to withstand scrutiny, and that unless exceptional work‑related circumstances exist, staff should not require hotel accommodation in the same centre as their normal residence and place of work. Chambers’ remarks signaled a desire to move past the incident while reinforcing the expectation of compliance with financial policies.
Reactions and broader implications for police accountability
The case attracted public and media attention, highlighting concerns about the misuse of taxpayer‑funded resources by senior officials. Chambers’ insistence on repayment, regardless of the sum, sent a message that accountability applies uniformly across the ranks. Observers noted that the episode could erode confidence in the police force if not addressed transparently, but also viewed the swift resolution as a positive step toward restoring trust. The incident prompted internal discussions about reinforcing training on sensitive‑expenditure policies and ensuring that approving officers verify the legitimacy of travel claims, especially when personal relationships could pose a conflict of interest.
Methodology of the IPCA investigation
The IPCA’s inquiry relied heavily on testimonial evidence rather than direct financial records, as it was unable to review McSkimming’s credit‑card statements. Investigators interviewed the complainant, McSkimming himself, his former executive assistant, and one of his supervisors at the time. This dependence on witness testimony meant that the findings were based on the consistency and credibility of the accounts provided. Despite the lack of documentary evidence, the converging statements from multiple sources allowed the authority to establish that the hotel stays occurred and that McSkimming had breached policy by not disclosing Ms Z’s presence.
Lessons learned and recommendations for future conduct
The affair underscores several key lessons for NZ Police and similar organisations. First, clear communication between employees and approving managers is essential when personal circumstances could influence official travel arrangements. Second, robust auditing mechanisms—such as periodic spot‑checks of hotel bookings linked to travel claims—can deter misuse before it occurs. Third, regular refresher training on the Police Code of Conduct and sensitive‑expenditure policies helps embed a culture of integrity. Finally, establishing a confidential channel for staff to report concerns about potential policy breaches without fear of retaliation can aid early detection and resolution.
Conclusion and ongoing vigilance
The resolution of Jevon McSkimming’s case—marked by a $500 repayment and the commissioner’s declaration that the matter is closed—serves as a reminder that even senior officials are subject to the same financial and ethical standards as all police employees. While the amount involved was modest, the principle at stake is significant: public money must be spent prudently, transparently, and in a manner that survives both parliamentary and public scrutiny. Moving forward, the police force must continue to uphold these standards, learn from this episode, and reinforce the systems that prevent similar lapses, thereby safeguarding both institutional credibility and the trust of the communities they serve.