IPCA survey: a senior police officer left his job due to sexual harassment of a female officer

A senior police officer who sexually harassed a junior officer subordinated to him resigned from the force before disciplinary action could be taken.

The police watchdog found that the officer’s inappropriate conduct amounted to serious misconduct.

An investigation by the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) found that the officer was excessively involved in the private lives of his colleagues and that his behavior was at times inappropriate.

The authority’s presiding judge, Justice Kenneth Johnston KC, said in a summary report that his attitude and comments towards both female officers and crime victims lacked judgment and failed to respect professional boundaries.

The junior officer complained of persistent inappropriate behavior from her supervisor, which included comments of a sexual nature. The behavior continued throughout the woman’s two-month posting to the senior officers’ section and escalated towards the end.

Although his behavior was verbal, its frequency and nature escalated, creating an increasingly uncomfortable environment for the woman.

It got to the point where she believed it could escalate and become physical and it wasn’t safe to work with him.

After her secondment ended in October 2023, she made a formal complaint to the police, who convened a disciplinary meeting.

Both officers expressed concerns about the process, the limited and informal nature of the investigation, and the lack of communication about the process and possible outcomes.

The senior officer took extended leave and resigned ahead of the disciplinary hearing.

He subsequently provided police with written responses to the allegations, and police later confirmed that, given the resignation, they would take no further disciplinary action.

Authorities found the officer lacked insight and was not prepared to take responsibility for his behavior.

It was concluded that as a person in a management position she should have exercised better judgment and professionalism in her behavior towards others.

Although this may not have been his intention, his behavior fell within the definition of sexual harassment under the Industrial Relations Act 2000.

The IPCA stated:

• The police should have conducted a more formal employment inquiry
• The lack of a formal statement from both officers meant they did not properly investigate the allegation of sexual harassment
• That the letter sent to the senior officer suggested that he had accepted the allegations
• Communication between both officers about the disciplinary proceedings was infrequent, informal and at times inaccurate
• That they should have considered suspending or transferring the senior officer during the hiring process
• As this concerned potentially serious conduct, the disciplinary proceedings should have been terminated despite the officer’s resignation

Wellington District Commander, Chief Superintendent Corrie Parnell, said both officers had raised concerns about how allegations of inappropriate behavior were handled, and police agreed that some aspects of the disciplinary process could have been handled better.

He said both officers had been offered support during the trial and police were considering alternative solutions, such as suspending or transferring the senior officer while the trial was ongoing.

The police do not believe that the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings and form preliminary views caused the senior officer to suffer unfair prejudice.

“That said, there are always lessons the police can learn from situations like this, and we will continue to do so to ensure our employees feel safe and secure at work and are treated fairly.”

Parnell said anyone working for the police deserves to feel safe at work and to be supported and fully informed when involved in workplace allegations and/or a disciplinary process.