“It’s not appropriate to share any more detail about that at this time.”
An IPCA spokesperson confirmed the authority was notified of a complaint made to police about an incident that occurred on May 23.
“We have written to the complainant with our decision.”
The IPCA declined to say what the complaint was, or what the authority’s decision was.
IPCA chairman Judge Kenneth Johnston, KC, released his findings in relation to Officer A in February.
Inquiries began on July 28, 2023, after Officer A, a senior police officer who was at the time the officer-in-charge at a North Island location, came to the attention of police and Oranga Tamariki when it was reported that he had physically disciplined his children using a belt.
Police advised the authority and initiated an investigation along with Oranga Tamariki.
Police and Oranga Tamariki spoke to the children in preliminary interviews, which cannot be used as evidence.
OT ended its involvement when it completed a risk assessment and concluded that the children were not likely to face further harm.
When asked by police, Officer A and his wife refused to give permission for their children to be interviewed for evidential purposes. After OT withdrew, police chose not to pursue other avenues to interview the children.
Later, Officer A elected not to make a statement to police. This brought the criminal investigation to an end as there was insufficient admissible evidence.
The IPCA commenced an independent investigation and interviewed Officer A and his wife.
No information gathered by the IPCA is admissible in court.
Officer A admitted to the IPCA that he “physically disciplined his children”.
“He said that on two different occasions he had used a webbing belt on them, striking their buttocks and upper legs.”
One occasion was on his two daughters (one was a young teenager and the other under 10 years old) because they had been fighting, including in church, and about a year earlier on his son (also under 10) as he had been “naughty”.
He said both he and his wife tried to be “good parents” but on occasion physical discipline was needed to “reset” the children. He acknowledged he was aware that physically disciplining children was no longer protected by the law.
The IPCA said the officer couldn’t rely on the defence in section 59 of the Crimes Act, which provides that reasonable force on a child may be justified in certain circumstances.
“Accordingly, our view is that the officer’s use of a belt to discipline his children constituted three offences of assault on a child.”
However, it did not make any recommendations to police because they had already concluded criminal and employment processes.
Police completed an employment process which resulted in the officer being censured for serious misconduct.
“Inexplicably, one of the mitigating factors police took into account when considering the appropriate sanction, was that they had not initiated criminal proceedings,” Johnston said.
“In our assessment, the sanction [which we accept was ultimately a matter for the decision maker] was grossly inadequate given the nature of the officer’s actions and the officer’s seniority, position and level of responsibility.”
- RNZ
