After announcing her retirement, Angela Brazier said she felt "targeted" by police leadership. Photo / RNZ, Anneke Smith
By Sam Sherwood of RNZ
The executive director of the Firearms Safety Authority has been cleared of misconduct following an employment investigation in relation to disgraced former Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming.
The investigation said that, given the knowledge Angela Brazier had when providing a reference check for McSkimming, it would have been “prudent” for her to disclose the fact he was receiving harassing emails and that there was a police investigation.
However, the investigation found there were “shortcomings” in terms of how the Public Service Commission (PSC) obtained the reference check and that Brazier’s conduct did not bring police into disrepute and therefore could not be considered to amount to misconduct.
Speaking to RNZ, Brazier said the investigation was “another waste of taxpayers’ money” and she wants police to publicly clear her name.
The Independent Police Conduct Authority’s report recommended employment investigations against three staff: former Assistant Commissioner Paul Basham, Detective Superintendent Chris Page, and Brazier.
Police Commissioner Richard Chambers engaged Kristy McDonald KC to lead the investigations.
The investigation into Brazier – who announced her retirement in January – related to a reference check she provided to the Public Service Commission when McSkimming was vying for the role of Interim Commissioner in 2024.
The IPCA said that when the Public Service Commission approached her for a reference check, she knew McSkimming had an affair, that he was being “harassed” with emails from the woman and that former Deputy Commissioner Tania Kura had informed McSkimming that she had to investigate him as part of the police response.
However, Brazier told the PSC she had nothing relevant to disclose. She told the IPCA she did not think her knowledge was relevant to PSC’s question.
“[Brazier’s] disclosure was inadequate in light of her knowledge at the time,” the IPCA said.
RNZ has obtained a copy of the McDonald’s investigation report, dated February 19.
In the report, McDonald said Brazier declined to be interviewed but did provide additional information she requested, including her response to the draft IPCA report.
McDonald said the reference obtained by the PSC on 8 October 2024 was part of what the PSC described as a “shortened version of their vetting process”.
“Following Commissioner Coster’s resignation in 2024, an interim Commissioner needed to be appointed. By convention the longest serving statutory Deputy Commissioner is appointed, which in this case would have been Mr McSkimming.”
She said McSkimming went through a “thorough vetting process” run by PSC when he was appointed statutory Deputy Commissioner in 2023. This included full reference and probity checks.
However, when considering McSkimming for interim Commissioner the PSC took a “shortened version”.
This was for several reasons including that McSkimming had been deputy commissioner for about 18 months and had already been interim Commissioner on several occasions and “by convention” was the person who was going to be appointed to the role.
“Mr McSkimming had recently been thoroughly vetted when appointed as a statutory Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, there was an anticipated inevitability of Mr McSkimming’s appointment which impacted the manner in which the probity checks were undertaken.
“As a result, the normal checks were not conducted in an in-depth way as would typically be done. For example, only three references were obtained and they were from people nominated by Mr McSkimming.”
McDonald said the PSC’s focus was whether anything had occurred in the 18-month period from when McSkimming had been vetted for his current role.
“This context coloured the approach PSC took to the appointment process, including the reference obtained from Ms Brazier.”
As part of her investigation, McDonald interviewed the PSC employee who took the reference check from Brazier. McDonald said she understood the employee was not interviewed by the IPCA.
The employee confirmed she called Brazier on October 8, 2024, and asked Brazier if she was able to provide a reference check for McSkimming. Brazier agreed and the interview was then carried out.
“As such, Ms Brazier did not have time to reflect on matters that she may have wished to discuss,” McDonald said.
The reference checking process took up to 7 minutes, McDonald estimated, finishing at 1.45pm.
The employee did not tell Brazier she should provide “full and frank answers” at the beginning of the interview.
“In response to the Integrity Question Ms Brazier stated: ‘Nothing that I am aware of that would impact [Mr McSkimming’s] ability to do the job or bring the agency or the NZ government into disrepute’.”
McDonald said all of Brazier’s answers were brief, and that the employee did not ask any follow-up questions “to try to elicit more information from Ms Brazier”.
McDonald said it was “clear that there were shortcomings in terms of the way the reference was obtained from Ms Brazier”.
This included that the employee did not read the PSC script that interviewers typically read out at the beginning of reference interviews.
The script used by the employee did not include any statements designed to encourage Brazier to provide “fulsome responses”.
Asked why this was, the employee told McDonald she believed the interview with Brazier was “an open and closed reference check”.
“The PSC Employee stated that: given that Mr McSkimming was the longest serving Deputy Commissioner he was the obvious candidate for the interim Commissioner role; that she did not think that there was anything wrong with Mr McSkimming; and that her job was to see if Mr McSkimming still met the fit and proper person test – having been found to satisfy this requirement in 2023.”
The employee also said that the then Assistant Commissioner at PSC had already spoken to Coster before Brazier was contacted to provide a reference. Coster had told the PSC about McSkimming’s affair, and that the woman was being prosecuted for harassment of McSkimming, McDonald said.
McDonald said a manager at PSC said that if this information was known by the employee, then they ought to have asked further questions of Brazier given her “short but caveated response to the integrity question”.
McDonald said in response to her draft findings, the PSC said the employee could not have known that information at the time she called Brazier. This was because the PSC said Coster was interviewed only shortly before Brazier was spoken to. Following her final report, McDonald issued an addendum which said, while additional documents provided by the PSC showed when the interview with Coster began, it did not say when it ended.
“Given the above and the fact that when I interviewed the PSC Employee she repeatedly stated that she already knew, at a high level, about the disclosures made by Commissioner Coster prior to her interviewing Ms Brazier, it is possible that [a manager at PSC] had already spoken to the PSC Employee about those disclosures before the PSC Employee interviewed Ms Brazier.”
Regardless of whether or not the PSC employee knew about the discussion before calling Brazier, it did not “materially alter” her findings in relation to Brazier’s conduct.
McDonald said the employee had only recently started conducting reference interviews and had done about 15 previously which were “for very different roles”.
“The PSC has now changed the manner in which it obtains references, including how it asks integrity questions and has provided additional training to interviewers. The PSC Employee confirmed that the manner in which she conducts reference interviews now is significantly different to the way she approached Ms Brazier’s interview.”
McDonald concluded that given the knowledge Brazier had when providing the reference it would have been “prudent” for her to disclose the fact that McSkimming was receiving harassing emails and that there was a police investigation into those emails – even if she believed that investigation looked at him as a complainant.
“Such information was still relevant contextual information. Given Ms Brazier’s work experience, having worked in senior positions for the Police for over twenty years, she ought to have understood the relevance of such information.
“I have considered, in light of the factual findings I have made, whether Ms Brazier’s conduct could be viewed as amounting to a breach of the Police Code of Conduct by bringing Police into disrepute. My recommendation is that it does not.”
McDonald said while Brazier “could have been more forthcoming”, there were several “highly relevant” factors.
This included that the PSC employee did not advise Brazier of the expectation to provide full disclosure of any relevant information she may have at the start of the interview, and that they did not do any follow up questions.
“Ms Brazier was not given advanced warning of the interview and it is likely that she did not have time to prepare or reflect on matters that she may wish to discuss.”
McDonald also noted that the IPCA did not interview the PSC employee as part of their investigation.
“And, therefore, did not take account of the manner in which the interview was conducted before making its findings against Ms Brazier.”
On February 27, Brazier received a letter from police confirming that Deputy Commissioner Mike Pannett had accepted McDonald’s recommendation that Brazier’s conduct did not amount to a breach of the Police Code of Conduct and was not misconduct. He also agreed no further action was required.
Brazier told RNZ the investigation was a “waste of taxpayers’ money”, but was “pleased” when she read that the report cleared her of any misconduct but was not surprised as she did not think she had done anything wrong.
“I was annoyed that the IPCA hadn’t interviewed the person that did the reference check with me … they basically made their decision without any facts about what the referee process was.”
She said the IPCA report and the subsequent fallout had a significant impact on her.
“It impacted on the way I felt about the organisation, it impacted on my health and wellbeing, because it was publicised and my name was in the media, and that would have made it very difficult for me to find another job in the public sector whilst I had an under investigation against my name, even though there was nothing to it.
“It also meant that my team will have been questioning what my involvement was. It had wide-reaching impact, unfairly.”
After announcing her retirement, Brazier told RNZ she felt “targeted” by police leadership. She said this week she stood by those comments.
“It’s been completely unfair. I’m not the only person that’s been targeted. If you were to look at the number of people that have left, kind of under a cloud, I guess, over the last 18 months, then, yeah, a lot of people who have worked very hard and have been very credible and trustworthy individuals have left.”
Brazier said her reference check was done “very quickly with no prior notice”.
“It was not a thorough interview in terms of a reference checking process for a senior role. So I think that they should have owned that from the outset, but instead they try and point the finger at me.”
She said that when she was interviewed by the PSC there was nothing she thought that would or could prevent McSkimming doing the job at the time.
“If they had asked me if he had had an affair, I would have been very clear, because my choice then would have been tell the truth or tell a lie, and I would have told the truth without question of a doubt.
“But it wasn’t. It was never tabled in that way. So I didn’t feel that it was, it was an important element of his ability to do the job, because he had been a statutory deputy for a number of years and had regularly covered for the commissioner, so he had no issues with doing the job, in my mind, even though he’d had an affair, but it was so long ago.”
In a statement to RNZ on questions about the investigation into Brazier, Deputy Commissioner Mike Pannett said police had the same privacy obligations as any other employer and therefore could not provide any information or comment.
“As previously announced, Ms Brazier is retiring from her position at the New Zealand Firearms Safety Authority in April.”
Police said two of the investigations being carried out by McDonald remained in progress.
“Police will not be commenting on the findings.”
Brazier is “unhappy” police won’t publicly confirm she was cleared of misconduct.
“They could have said there was no finding of misconduct or no breach of the Code of Conduct about me … I’m happy for them to say that, because it’s my privacy that apparently they’re trying to protect. So I don’t see why they couldn’t say that … they’re choosing not to.”
She believes police have not given thought to her being a “loyal, hardworking, trustworthy employee”.
“They have just gone about carte blanche doing an investigation on this and on that, without actually considering me as a senior member of police for over 20 years with no history of ever having any sorts of issues, they just went straight to investigation.”
A Public Service Commission spokesperson told RNZ the matter was “thoroughly and independently examined by the IPCA”.
“The IPCA found that disclosures made to the Public Service Commission during the 2024 interim Commissioner appointment process were inadequate and fell well short of what would reasonably be expected in a process of that significance.
“Separately, inquiries made by the Public Service Commission to the IPCA confirmed that a complaint was under active consideration at the time. As a result, Mr McSkimming was not recommended for appointment to the interim role.”
The PSC also commissioned an independent review by Miriam Dean KC into its reference checks and probity processes for senior Police appointments such as the Police Commissioner and Deputy Police Commissioners.
“The Commission accepted the findings of the Dean Review in full and has implemented improvements to strengthen its appointment processes and disclosure requirements.
“Ms McDonald carried out a confidential employment investigation for Police into the conduct of one of their former employees. Any findings or actions are therefore a matter for Police.”
An IPCA spokesperson told RNZ that in drafting their report, they relied on the file note of PSC’s reference check with Brazier.
“We also had access to Miriam Dean KC’s report, which had considered the way PSC conducted reference checks. Further, we relied on the evidence of Ms Brazier, including her submissions during our natural justice process. She did not deny the non-disclosure.”
The spokesperson also referred to paragraphs of the report in which Brazier “provided us with reasons for why she did not disclose relevant information”.
“We have not seen the employment investigation report.”