Former top cop Jevon McSkimming. Photo / RNZ, Mark Papalii
By Sam Sherwood of RNZ
A night’s accommodation at a Wellington hotel a five-minute walk from Police National Headquarters and an excess baggage payment are among a series of expenses by disgraced former Deputy Police Commissioner Jevon McSkimming.
Last week, the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) released a summary of its investigation into McSkimming’s decision to invite a woman he was having an affair with – Ms Z – to stay with him in hotel accommodation paid for by police, on numerous occasions, primarily in 2016.
The affair took place between 2016 and 2018.
The IPCA said its investigation was “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”.
RNZ earlier requested a copy of all expenses made by McSkimming under the Official Information Act (OIA), covering the time of his affair.
The police responded with a screenshot of an expenses claim from 2017 and credit card statements for McSkimming covering the 2018 calendar year.
“New Zealand banks retain credit card statements for seven years, after which records are no longer available. No additional expenses have been identified beyond those attached and credit card records for 2016 and 2017 are no longer held as they fall outside the seven-year timeframe. Therefore, any additional credit card statements are unavailable, and police has [sic] no reason to believe these records are held by any other agency.”
McSkimming’s work credit card had a $2000 limit. The 2018 credit card statements reveal he spent some time in Canada and the United States early in the year.
On April 6, McSkimming stayed at the Thorndon Hotel, about a five-minute walk from Police National Headquarters. The accommodation cost $121.
A significant number of expenses relate to purchases at Wellington International Airport.
In November 2018, there were some expenses at SkyCity Hotel in Auckland and a $229 payment for Audioblocks, as well as an $80 excess baggage payment in Wellington. There was also an $80 transaction at Queenstown Airport.
He also spent $112 at Millbrook Resort in Arrowtown.
In December, there was a $147 payment at Wellington International Airport, followed by a $98 payment later that month.
RNZ asked Police Commissioner Richard Chambers for comment on the expenses detailed in the OIA.
“This happened a number of years ago and without detailed records of the reasons for this expenditure, I cannot say whether it was appropriate,” Chambers said.
“However, these expenses would have been considered against the travel policy at the time and were approved by a supervisor.”
Chambers said it was appropriate for police policy to provide for reasonable expenses for executive travel.
“Those expenses can include the use of hotels, parking, petrol and transport such as taxis. Such expenses should only be for work-related purposes, reasonable and able to withstand public scrutiny.
“Last week, I sought reimbursement from Mr McSkimming for those hotel expenses for which he was found to breach the Police Code of Conduct, as set out in recent IPCA findings. As yet, there has been no response.”
Police Minister Mark Mitchell said the appropriateness of staff expenditure was a matter for the police.
“My expectation is that policies involving use of taxpayer money should be clear, robust and able to stand up to public scrutiny.”
The IPCA had not been able to review McSkimming’s credit card expenditure and relied on the evidence of the complainant, McSkimming, his former executive assistant and one of his supervisors at the time.
The IPCA said in 2016 and 2017, McSkimming’s workplace was at Police National Headquarters in Wellington and he lived about 60-70km 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.”
Chambers earlier said he was “very concerned” to learn of McSkimming’s use of hotels in Wellington and agreed 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.
Mitchell earlier said he welcomed the IPCA report and its findings, which showed the investigations conducted by the police were appropriate and adequate.
“Any misuse of taxpayer money is, under all circumstances, unacceptable. I support the commissioner in his efforts to recoup these expenses.”
“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.”