Former Deputy Police Commissioner Jevon McSkimming instructed changes to the firearms vetting process after an acquaintance's request. Photo / Getty Images
By Sam Sherwood of RNZ
Disgraced former Deputy Police Commissioner Jevon McSkimming instructed staff to make changes to the firearms vetting process, after he was contacted by an acquaintance who told him they would lose their firearms licence, if they got any more driving demerit points.
Police Commissioner Richard Chambers said he was of the view “better judgment could have been exercised and a more robust process followed” by McSkimming.
The Firearms Safety Authority has confirmed it is considering reversing the changes.
RNZ earlier revealed McSkimming was investigated over allegations he acted inappropriately in relation to the firearms licences vetting process.
The investigation found he had the appropriate delegation to instruct the changes, both as executive lead for the work of the Te Tari Pūreke Firearms Safety Authority and as the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
RNZ has since obtained a series of emails and documents under the Official Information Act relating to the changes.
The OIA includes an email McSkimming received on August 14 last year from an acquaintance.
The subject of the email reads: “A question from a friendly [the connection to the person is redacted].
“I just wanted to run a situation by you I currently find myself in, as I can’t get a straight answer from people I’ve asked,” the person said.
The person, who was a firearms licence holder, said they had “never been in trouble with police criminally”, but had driver licence demerit suspensions against their name.
“I have been put on notice that next I get disqualified [redacted] I will have my firearms licence revoked, under not fit and proper.”
The person said they originally did not get their firearms licence, because they had driving suspensions.
They then went to a police station, contested the decision and got it overturned.
“I then got an E Cat which I held till laws changed and more recently a 10 year renewal. But also few more suspensions for driving as well [sic].”
The person said someone else connected to them was a firearms licence holder and that they “get punished”, because once the person had their licence taken, they could not have firearms in the house.
“I don’t believe it to be fair to revoke one licence because I got disqualified on another. And clearly neither do the courts.”
The person said they were “extremely big on gun safety”.
“Is there anyone you can speak to, or put me on to someone to speak to. To try and stop what is more than likely a waste of police time, my time, the cost, and saving me having police turning up to my house removing guns [redacted].
“Anything you could do to help, I’m be very greatful [sic].”
Just over half an hour after the email was sent, McSkimming forwarded it to then-director of operations at the Firearms Safety Authority Richard Wilson.
McSkimming asked for his thoughts, indicating he found it hard to believe police took the approach outlined by the acquaintance.
The following morning, McSkimming emailed another person whose name was redacted, forwarding them the email he received and said he would speak to them.
The same day, a directive was drafted by staff in the Firearms Safety Authority team about the use of Police Infringement Bureau (PIB) data.
The bureau deals with traffic offences like speeding, not wearing a seatbelt or using a mobile phone while driving.
“With immediate effect there is to be no use of PIB information in relation to infringements for consideration of suspension/refusal/revocation of firearms licences or endorsements.”
The data from PIB was provided to police for Land Transport Act purposes, not for Arms Act matters, the email said.
“Whilst we all may have a view on this the direction regarding the use of PIBS, this direction is sanctioned by ELT [Executive Leadership Team] and therefore non-negotiable.”
The directive was then sent to a wider group of staff on August 19.
On August 29, Firearms Safety Authority executive director Angela Brazier emailed McSkimming and said she had “looped back with the team” regarding the use of PIB data, and they confirmed the process had ceased.
On September 5, a member of the Firearms Safety Authority team emailed the authority’s manager of regulatory services, Inspector Jason Greenhalgh, and said she’d had a question about whether police could still look at the driver history in police’s National Intelligence Application (NIA) and use infringement notice records, when reviewing an applicant and making a refusal recommendation.
Greenhalgh replied that, while the threshold of fit and proper needed to be high, it was felt – including from ELT – that using infringement information that determined a final outcome on a person’s ability to possess firearms was “perhaps a step to far and raises the bar too high unnecessarily [sic]”.
“The question is what are we wanting to achieve? It is not having perfect citizens but the risk they may present.”
Greenhalgh added that it was often not proven who the driver actually was, as the person registered may just pay the bill.
“If when reviewing a person we do not have sufficient to refuse and then look at the infringement notices to ‘get it over the line’ this I would suggest is the wrong approach.
“If we already have sufficient to satisfy a refusal then why review infringement notices.”
A clarification was sent to staff about the directive that had been issued to the resolutions team and said that driving-related convictions, charges and formal police warnings for driving incidents (not infringement notices) may be used when “relevant and appropriate” in relation to refusals.
Changes were also made to the Police Manual Chapter, reflecting that PIB data should not be used by Firearms Safety Authority staff.
In response to questions from RNZ, Chambers said he became aware of the matters in May.
He was not involved in the executive at the time the change was made, and said there was “no clear record of discussions and decisions on this”.
“As statutory Deputy Commissioner, Mr McSkimming did have the authority to instruct such a change.
“However, based on the information available, I am of the view better judgment could have been exercised and a more robust process followed.
“I believe it is warranted the Firearms Safety Authority review the policy, as it has opted to do.”
Brazier said they were currently reviewing the policy around the use of infringement data as part of the “fit and proper” assessment of licence holders.
“No final decisions have yet been made and, in the meantime, the status quo policy remains in place.”
RNZ approached McSkimming for comment through his lawyer last week, but did not receive a response.
In May, through his lawyer, McSkimming strongly denied any allegations he acted “in any way inappropriately in relation to the vetting process for firearms licences”.
“As the overall operational lead on firearms, at one time Mr McSkimming raised issues about how the vetting process was being applied.
“He took those concerns to the Executive Leadership Team and, following discussion at the ELT, the process was subsequently modified.”