Key Takeaways
- Charlie Terry Simonsen‑Kemp, a 20‑year‑old from Waikato, repeatedly posed as a police detective or inspector to manipulate and intimidate young women.
- He used fabricated credentials—fake ID cards, forged documents, and stolen relatives’ licences—to gain access to jobs, authority, and personal information.
- Simonsen‑Kemp sent a 15‑year‑old sexually explicit material and used his false police identity to coerce a 17‑year‑old Snapchat acquaintance into a relationship.
- His deception extended to posing as an emergency responder for the NZ Transport Agency, obtaining a Class 2 machinery licence via his grandfather’s driver’s licence, and claiming to work for Hamilton City Council.
- Police uncovered his fraud after a search warrant revealed forged documents, the fake ID, and evidence of his online offending.
- He pleaded guilty to multiple charges, including forgery, personating a police officer, altering documents, using a forged document, drink‑driving, and exposing a minor to indecent material; sentencing is pending.
Early Life and the Police‑Impersonation Obsession
Charlie Terry Simonsen‑Kemp grew up in the Waikato region and, from an early age, displayed a fixation with law‑enforcement authority. Rather than pursuing a legitimate career in policing, he chose to fabricate the role, telling acquaintances he was a “Detective” or “Detective Inspector.” This self‑appointed title became the cornerstone of his social interactions, allowing him to project confidence and control over those he met.
The Snapchat Relationship with a 17‑Year‑Old
In December 2024, Simonsen‑Kemp added a 17‑year‑old girl on Snapchat, initiating what he described as a casual relationship. During their first exchanges he identified himself as a cop, assuring her it was safe for him to pick her up and visit Kmart. When she questioned how someone so young could be an officer, he claimed prior work with the NZ Transport Agency, participation in a youth police programme at age 15, and extensive training that supposedly prepared him for police college. He reinforced the story by showing her a white police identification card kept in a clear plastic wallet, often clipped to his hip but never allowed to be touched, citing fingerprint concerns. He also shared a laptop program he said was the police database for traffic‑crash reports, further cementing the illusion.
Escalation of Deception in Early 2025
Throughout January and February 2025, Simonsen‑Kemp continued to feed the girl fabricated police details. He texted her updates such as “ill lyk [let you know] when I leave the station xx” and later supplied his alleged rank, badge number, and station location in Ngāruawāhia. When the age gap began to bother him, he sent a breakup message claiming the difference affected his job and public perception. A week later he attempted to manipulate her further by forwarding a screenshot of a bogus text from a fake officer warning her about potential repercussions if she continued seeing him. The following day he sent a photo of a patrol car at the Waikato police highway patrol base accompanied by the vulgar caption, “c*** took my car park,” followed by “BRUCE TOOK MY PARKING SPOT,” revealing both his fixation on petty grievances and his willingness to use vulgar language to intimidate.
Interaction with the Girl’s Mother and the VTNZ Connection
The girl’s mother, who worked for VTNZ, asked Simonsen‑Kemp to return a booklet to the police. In response he claimed the item belonged to “Shaun’s car,” noted coffee stains, and said he would either inform central command or retrieve it later via their DLDR system. He promised to make calls and later told her he would need to document the loss as a minor incident, framing the situation as a serious procedural matter despite its trivial nature. This exchange illustrated his ability to spin bureaucratic jargon to maintain credibility.
Encounter at Hamilton Central Police Station
On 17 February 2025, Simonsen‑Kemp walked into Hamilton Central Police Station asking whether his Eftpos card had been turned in. He presented himself as a detective based in Ngāruawāhia and displayed the white police ID card. The front‑counter employee, skeptical, asked if he knew a particular officer in Huntly; Simonsen‑Kemp affirmed familiarity and used the officer’s nickname. When the employee checked his QID number in the system, it returned no record, exposing the falsity of his claim. He left the station without further confrontation, but the incident highlighted how easily his bluff could pass cursory scrutiny.
The June 2024 Emergency‑Responder Ruse
Earlier, in June 2024, Simonsen‑Kemp told a female associate that he worked for the NZ Transport Agency as an emergency responder to crashes. After she reported an assault in February 2025, he arrived at the medical centre, declared he could take a statement, and offered to discuss any law‑related matters. He proceeded to ask detailed questions about the incident, claimed he would seek CCTV footage, and said he needed to return to work on a sexual‑assault case. The charade continued for roughly 24 hours before the woman grew suspicious. When questioned by police, Simonsen‑Kemp admitted he pretended to be an officer simply to gain approval and be liked by others.
Police Search Warrant and Discovery of Evidence
Acting on the accumulating complaints, police obtained a search warrant for Simonsen‑Kemp’s residence. The forensic examination of his phone uncovered a trove of incriminating material: the fabricated recruitment‑agency documents, scans of his grandfather’s driver’s licence used to obtain a Class 2 licence, the sexually explicit videos and photo sent to the 15‑year‑old, and records of his offending at Temple View. Notably, a charge of forgery stemmed from a counterfeit Hamilton City Council “permit” he produced after being approached by a security officer while shooting possums at the Taitua Arboretum on 2 May 2024. He confessed he created the document to avoid trouble.
Court Appearance, Guilty Pleas, and Sentencing Outlook
Simonsen‑Kemp appeared via audiovisual link in the Hamilton District Court on Tuesday, where he pleaded guilty to a litany of offences: forgery, personating a police officer, altering a document, using a forged document, driving with excess breath alcohol, and exposing a young person to indecent material. Judge Swaran Singh convicted him on all counts and remanded him in custody pending sentencing later this month. The case underscores how a combination of low‑level deception, exploitation of trust, and a craving for social validation can escalate into serious criminal conduct, prompting both legal consequences and a broader discussion about safeguarding vulnerable individuals from impostors.