You are not permitted to download, save or email this image. Visit image gallery to purchase the image.
Disgraced former top officer Jevon McSkimming breached police’s code of conduct by staying in hotels at its expense and inviting a woman he was having an affair with to join him up to 10 times, a police watchdog says.
The revelation comes following the release of another report by the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA).
In November last year, the IPCA released a damning report into the Police’s response to allegations of sexual offending by McSkimming, a former Deputy Police Commissioner.
The allegations arose from an affair between McSkimming and a woman who was a non-sworn police employee at the time.
The report found serious misconduct at the highest levels of police, including former Commissioner Andrew Coster, who resigned from his role at the government’s Social Investment Agency.
The IPCA said at the time its investigation had three components. A report in November last year related to the first component.
The watchdog was also investigating whether the subsequent Police investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct since October 2024 had been robust and appropriate; and the final part was whether the Police investigation into the possession of objectionable images by McSkimming had been adequate.
The IPCA released a summary of a second report into McSkimming today, saying it oversaw two criminal investigations.
The first arose from the report in November last year in relation to allegations of sexual offending.
“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.”
In September 2025, police provided the IPCA 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.”
The IPCA also oversaw the investigation into objectionable material.
“We have no concerns with the way Police conducted that investigation.”
The IPCA also investigated 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 10 years that has elapsed since the spending occurred.”
The watchdog had not been able to review his credit card expenditure, and relied on the evidence of the complainant, McSkimming, his former executive assistant and one of his supervisors at the time.
“In 2016 and 2017 Mr McSkimming’s workplace was at Police National Headquarters in Wellington. He lived about 60-70 kms away.”
McSkimming and his executive assistant at the time told the IPCA 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.”
The IPCA said the Police travel policy at the time 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.”
There was now an updated sensitive expenditure policy, which sets out the principles to be applied when spending taxpayers’ money.
Police travel policy at the time, and still, requires “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”.
McSkimming told the IPCA he thought Ms Z stayed with him eight to 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.”
Police Commissioner Richard Chambers said he welcomed the IPCA’s conclusions that the investigation into allegations of sexual offending was conducted with appropriate oversight and in accordance with Police protocols for adult sexual assault investigations post November 2024.
“The IPCA was also satisfied the decision not to lay charges was reasonable.
“The IPCA was also satisfied with the investigation which resulted in Mr McSkimming being charged and pleading guilty to offences of possessing objectionable material.”
He thanked the staff who conducted those investigations for their “thorough work in what were sometimes challenging circumstances”.
“I was very concerned to learn of Mr McSkimming’s use of hotels in Wellington and agree with the findings of the IPCA. This showed a disregard for taxpayers’ money and Police expenditure policy.
“I intend to write to Mr McSkimming seeking reimbursement of the costs of these hotel stays.”
Chambers said as the IPCA report states, the Police policy for sensitive expenditure requires spending to be reasonable and able to withstand parliamentary and public scrutiny.
“It is my view that unless there are exceptional work-related circumstances, staff should not require hotel accommodation in the same centre as their normal place of work.”
Read more on Otago Daily Times Online News
