Former Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii
There is a particular onus on police to meet the highest standards of professional conduct, an employment lawyer says, as police appoint a Kings Counsel to begin employment investigations into three active duty employees taken to task in a damning report.
The Independent Police Conduct Authority report, released on Tuesday, found serious misconduct at the highest levels over police handling of accusations of sexual offending by former Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming.
Some of those heavily criticised in the report are still employed by police, while others have resigned.
Former Police Commissioner Andrew Coster has been placed on leave from his role as chief executive of the Social Investment Agency following the release.
The IPCA's recommendations included instigating employment proceedings against individuals known as Assistant Commissioner A, Ms G, and Officer B for breaching the police code of conduct by bringing police into disrepute.
Police Commissioner Richard Chambers confirmed three people taken to task in the report remained on active duty. He told Checkpoint on Wednesday he had appointed a King's Counsel to oversee the employment process.
"They are still on active duty and we've worked through that process to make sure that's the right decision.
"There's a process to follow, and we need to let it take its course."
Christchurch lawyer Katherine Dalziel said employment investigations could be detailed and difficult processes for all parties.
"At the end of the day the job is for a decision maker to find out whether an event has happened, whether it is misconduct or serious misconduct and whether it warrants a consequence, like a warning or dismissal."
Investigations delved into breaches of policy and procedures in the workplace and frequently focused on codes of conduct, which could be fairly generic, but encompassed behaviour that reflected integrity or organisational values.
Katherine Dalziel. Photo: Supplied / Katherine Dalziel
In the case of police, there was an even higher threshold to meet, Dalziel said.
"There is a specific onus on the police - they set high standards of integrity and they need to model it. At the end of the day they are judging the behaviour of people to a criminal standard and they need to be ... not quite above the law, but at least within the law.
"Their codes of conduct set very high standards, so the police really need to take these processes seriously."
The IPCA report found officers had used "questionable rationalisations" to justify their inaction.
It said the strict police hierarchy exacerbated a "failure to challenge poor decisions; a tolerance of unethical behaviour; and a tendency to overlook alternative responses to problems due to pressure to conform or fear of ostracism".
"...many of those we interviewed justified their own poor decision-making by saying that they were merely doing what they were told and that it was for their superior officer to determine what else should be done," the report stated.
But Dalziel said there was no defence in the argument that employees were just following orders.
"Every person signs up to an employment agreement, even if it's a collective agreement, they have their part to play in it. So if their behaviour - even if they've been directed to do it - is wrong, that's something they can face personal consequences for."
There were protections in law to deal with people who were being directed to do something that was against their employment obligations, she said.
"That's why we have the Protected Disclosures Act - if somebody is asking you to engage in something that would create serious misconduct then you can make a protected disclosure about it."
High levels of media and public scrutiny should not affect the process, Dalziel said.
"While the investigation is behind closed doors, not in a public forum, the fact that the story is there or that there may even be evidence out in the media doesn't change or alter the process that needs to go on, which must be fair and reasonable, and must meet natural justice."
A new workplace could investigate and discipline or dismiss an employee for something that happened at a previous job, she said.
"If they were concerned about the reputational impact of having somebody who has breached their employment agreement at a previous job that's become public, they might say it's a reputational issue - they're not actually addessing the behaviour itself but just saying the reputational impact of... your behaviour in the past is affecting our business and we need to hear from you about that."
There was no universal rule on whether employees were stood down, suspended or required to take leave with or without pay, which was up to individual employers and situations.
"Generally you would only suspend an employee if there was a risk they would interfere with the investigation or a risk they would continue the behaviour you're trying to stop."
While investigations could be conducted by external or internal investigators, given the seriousness of the matter, it was appropriate for police to bring in an external investigator, Dalziel said.
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
