My experiences of the Police Professional Conduct Unit: the PPCU, not the IPCA, are the true villains
I knew immediately on the day of my arrest that there was something terribly wrong with police oversight and accountability structures in this country, and said as much in a Kiwiblog article at the time. The impunity with which the Police acted (e.g. not caring or reacting when I recorded their QID numbers, and the fact that they did not bother to delete footage from my phone recording my arrest) told me straightaway that they had got away with this kind of behaviour again and again and again.
I did not know where the problem lay
I had no experience of laying complaints about police however and did not know where the weak link in the chain lay, although I was certain there was one. Given the rumours flying around about the IPCA I initially suspected that was where the fault lay, but was eventually persuaded otherwise after observing the outstanding integrity of IPCA staff firsthand over a long period of time. I have also written about that previously on Kiwiblog.
The problem is with the PPCU
It is now obvious to me that the problem is neither with IPCA staff, nor with the IPCA judge, but with the Police Professional Conduct Unit (PPCU) which is a department within the New Zealand Police that investigates complaints of police misconduct. This, not the IPCA, is the body which actually investigates the overwhelming majority of complaints about police officers, despite the fact that the IPCA’s very existence acknowledges the PPCU’s inherent conflict of interest.
I was never contacted by the PPCU or interviewed
When I laid a complaint about the police officers who arrested me, the IPCA and the PPCU commenced separate investigations into the matter. Nobody from the PPCU ever even told me that the PPCU investigation was happening. Although the investigation concluded months ago, to this day I have never received a single email or call from the investigator who was running the case, and I was never interviewed for my side of the story.
Typographical errors are no excuse
I do add that when I enquired recently why I was never contacted for an interview, I was informed that one, singular email was sent to the FSU inviting me to be interviewed and that there was a typographical error in the email and it was never delivered. I find this a laughable excuse: the PPCU could have made more efforts to try and contact me if it was seriously interested in truth. According to the FSU the PPCU was never in any other contact with them whatsoever.
Daniel Maxwell was not interviewed either
I add also that Daniel Maxwell (who was arrested on the same day I was) was not interviewed by the PPCU either in relation to his case, but despite the fact that he was never even asked for his side of the story the Police were sufficiently certain of the facts to claim in the press release on 18 February 2025 that “the intent of the officers was to ensure the man’s safety.”
Officer Q was not interviewed
The PPCU arrived at its conclusions about my case in a report which it sent to the IPCA c. April – May 2024. At this point the most senior of the police officers who arrested me (old mate Officer Q) was not interviewed, despite the fact that he told the most serious lies about me e.g. that I was mentally ill and screaming at people. When I enquired recently why he was not interviewed, I was told that his notebook evidence was deemed sufficient.
Notebook entries are no substitute for an in-person interview
But a notebook entry making allegations about someone is no substitute for an in-person interview. The purpose of an interview is not just to passively receive a person’s side of the story, but to ask searching questions to determine whether what is being said is true. In my view, the reason that the PPCU did not interview Officer Q is that it exists to whitewash police conduct and does not care about the truth: it simply accepted the police narrative.
The IPCA told the PPCU to reconsider its conclusions
When the IPCA received the PPCU’s initial report in mid-2024, it told them they needed to review their conclusions in the light of a second piece of video footage which the IPCA had discovered which was taken by a member of the public. Despite this, over a year later in the police press release in response to the IPCA report which concluded that my arrest was illegal, the police claimed that my arrest was justified and reiterated facts which were debunked in the IPCA report, without providing any reason for rejecting the IPCA’s findings. The press release was based on the PPCU’s findings.
My OIA request was refused
I add in passing that I submitted an Official Information Act request enquiring a) what percentage of complainants who lay complaints about police officers are not asked for a statement and (b) what percentage of complaints against police officers are actually upheld. The Police refused to provide me with an answer to a). But I have been told by someone in a position to know that it is not uncommon for the PPCU not to even bother interviewing complainants.
Conclusion
The police investigating complaints of misconduct against their own officers is a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse. In my opinion resources need to be transferred from the PPCU to the IPCA in order that investigations into police misconduct are not performed by people with a conflict of interest.
I had no experience of laying complaints about police however and did not know where the weak link in the chain lay, although I was certain there was one. Given the rumours flying around about the IPCA I initially suspected that was where the fault lay, but was eventually persuaded otherwise after observing the outstanding integrity of IPCA staff firsthand over a long period of time. I have also written about that previously on Kiwiblog.
The problem is with the PPCU
It is now obvious to me that the problem is neither with IPCA staff, nor with the IPCA judge, but with the Police Professional Conduct Unit (PPCU) which is a department within the New Zealand Police that investigates complaints of police misconduct. This, not the IPCA, is the body which actually investigates the overwhelming majority of complaints about police officers, despite the fact that the IPCA’s very existence acknowledges the PPCU’s inherent conflict of interest.
I was never contacted by the PPCU or interviewed
When I laid a complaint about the police officers who arrested me, the IPCA and the PPCU commenced separate investigations into the matter. Nobody from the PPCU ever even told me that the PPCU investigation was happening. Although the investigation concluded months ago, to this day I have never received a single email or call from the investigator who was running the case, and I was never interviewed for my side of the story.
Typographical errors are no excuse
I do add that when I enquired recently why I was never contacted for an interview, I was informed that one, singular email was sent to the FSU inviting me to be interviewed and that there was a typographical error in the email and it was never delivered. I find this a laughable excuse: the PPCU could have made more efforts to try and contact me if it was seriously interested in truth. According to the FSU the PPCU was never in any other contact with them whatsoever.
Daniel Maxwell was not interviewed either
I add also that Daniel Maxwell (who was arrested on the same day I was) was not interviewed by the PPCU either in relation to his case, but despite the fact that he was never even asked for his side of the story the Police were sufficiently certain of the facts to claim in the press release on 18 February 2025 that “the intent of the officers was to ensure the man’s safety.”
Officer Q was not interviewed
The PPCU arrived at its conclusions about my case in a report which it sent to the IPCA c. April – May 2024. At this point the most senior of the police officers who arrested me (old mate Officer Q) was not interviewed, despite the fact that he told the most serious lies about me e.g. that I was mentally ill and screaming at people. When I enquired recently why he was not interviewed, I was told that his notebook evidence was deemed sufficient.
Notebook entries are no substitute for an in-person interview
But a notebook entry making allegations about someone is no substitute for an in-person interview. The purpose of an interview is not just to passively receive a person’s side of the story, but to ask searching questions to determine whether what is being said is true. In my view, the reason that the PPCU did not interview Officer Q is that it exists to whitewash police conduct and does not care about the truth: it simply accepted the police narrative.
The IPCA told the PPCU to reconsider its conclusions
When the IPCA received the PPCU’s initial report in mid-2024, it told them they needed to review their conclusions in the light of a second piece of video footage which the IPCA had discovered which was taken by a member of the public. Despite this, over a year later in the police press release in response to the IPCA report which concluded that my arrest was illegal, the police claimed that my arrest was justified and reiterated facts which were debunked in the IPCA report, without providing any reason for rejecting the IPCA’s findings. The press release was based on the PPCU’s findings.
My OIA request was refused
I add in passing that I submitted an Official Information Act request enquiring a) what percentage of complainants who lay complaints about police officers are not asked for a statement and (b) what percentage of complaints against police officers are actually upheld. The Police refused to provide me with an answer to a). But I have been told by someone in a position to know that it is not uncommon for the PPCU not to even bother interviewing complainants.
Conclusion
The police investigating complaints of misconduct against their own officers is a classic case of the fox guarding the henhouse. In my opinion resources need to be transferred from the PPCU to the IPCA in order that investigations into police misconduct are not performed by people with a conflict of interest.
1 comment:
Oh Dear, how sad, never mind
Post a Comment