A supervising police officer’s behaviour towards a junior female colleague amounted to sexual harassment, the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) said today.
The IPCA was alerted to the junior police officer’s complaint in October 2023.
“Police notified us of a complaint made by a junior female officer (Officer B) about sustained inappropriate behaviour, including comments of a sexual nature towards her, by a senior male officer who was also her supervisor (Officer A),” the authority said in a summary report today.
“The inappropriate behaviour occurred throughout Officer B’s two-month secondment to Officer A’s section but intensified towards the end.
“While Officer A’s behaviour was verbal, the frequency and nature of it over the secondment created an increasingly uncomfortable atmosphere for Officer B, to the point where she believed the behaviour could escalate and become physical, and she felt unsafe working alongside Officer A.”
Once the secondment was over, Officer B formally complained. Police made its own inquiries and also advised the IPCA, which undertook an independent investigation.
The IPCA’s investigator interviewed Officer B, Officer A, four other officers and one former officer. They considered the law in relation to workplace sexual harassment, “police values and policies”, and an independent report from July 2022 commissioned by Police about the workplace culture within the relevant area.
“In respect of Officer B’s allegations, we concluded that:
- “Officer A became overly involved in his colleagues’ private lives and, as a result, his behaviour was at times inappropriate. His attitude and comments in relation to both female officers and female victims of crime lacked judgement and failed to maintain professional boundaries. In our assessment, as someone in a position of leadership, Officer A should have exercised better judgement and professionalism in his behaviour towards others (including Officer B).
- “Although it may not have been his intention, Officer A’s behaviour towards Officer B nonetheless falls within the definition of sexual harassment as defined by section 108(1)(b) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and therefore constituted a breach of section 62 of the Human Rights Act 1993. It was also a breach of police values, policies and code of conduct.
- “Officer A lacked insight into, and was not prepared to take responsibility for, his behaviour.”
The IPCA investigation also “raised concerns” with the way police carried out its own inquiries into Officer B’s behaviour.
“When a complaint of sexual harassment is received, employers must inquire into the facts and, if satisfied the behaviour occurred, prevent that behaviour happening again.
“We acknowledge that the method of inquiring into the facts is a matter for the employer to determine and, in this instance, police chose to move straight to a disciplinary meeting.
“Officers A and B both raised concerns about how police conducted the employment process.
“In particular they were both concerned about the limited and informal nature of the inquiry, the lack of communication around the process itself and possible outcomes.
“Officer A was also concerned there was an element of predetermination.”
After an extended period of leave and before the disciplinary meeting took place, Officer A resigned, the IPCA said.
He provided written responses to the allegations and police confirmed that, given his resignation, no further disciplinary action would be taken.
The IPCA said: “In respect of the process, we concluded that:
- “By failing to take formal accounts from Officers A and B, police did not properly inquire into the allegations of sexual harassment.
- “Police should have conducted a more formal employment investigation to ensure concerns about Officer A’s behaviour were comprehensively examined. Moving directly to a disciplinary meeting implied, or at least invited those involved to infer, that Officer B’s allegations had already been accepted.
- “The wording of the letter inviting Officer A to a disciplinary meeting also implied acceptance of the allegations.
- “Predetermination is contrary to natural justice or procedural fairness and police’s Employment Resolutions and Disciplinary Process, and inconsistent with an employer’s obligations to act in good faith.
- “Communication from police to both Officers A and B throughout the process was infrequent, informal and, at times, inaccurate. The lack of communication about the progress and likely outcomes of the employment process, together with a failure to provide adequate support to the officers involved, appears to be contrary to police’s Employment Resolutions and Disciplinary Policy and Guidelines as well as their Unacceptable behaviour – Kia Tū policy.
- “Police should have considered suspending, moving or making some other arrangement for Officer A for the duration of the employment process.
- “Because the matter potentially involved serious misconduct, police should have completed the employment process, despite Officer A’s resignation, and made a finding on the alleged conduct.”
Police “provided a contrary view” to some of the IPCA’s findings on their process, the summary report noted.
“We acknowledge the explanations police have provided but our position remains unchanged.”
Police respond
In a statement, a police spokesperson acknowledged the IPCA’s findings.
“We also acknowledge that both Officers A and B raised concerns about the process, some aspects of which police also agree could have been better.”
Wellington District Commander Superintendent Corrie Parnell said Officer A’s response to the allegations had been sought and support was offered to him, with communication maintained.
“We did consider making alternate arrangements such as suspending or moving Officer A for the duration of the process.
“We also maintain support was offered to Officer B through their new supervisor and another senior officer during the process, along with other welfare support,” Parnell said.
“Police believe that, from a process perspective, Officer A was not unfairly prejudiced by the decision to commence a disciplinary process and form preliminary views.
“In saying that, Police can always learn from situations like this, and we will continue to do so, to ensure our people are safe and feel safe at work, and are treated fairly.”
