The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) is reviewing the legality of its investigation process after a victims advocate complained it unfairly favours police over complainants.
The IPCA, the Crown entity tasked with investigating complaints about the conduct of police officers, is completely independent and doesn't answer to police, the Government or anyone else about its findings.
But Shannon Parker - the founder and president of the NZ Police Conduct Association (NZPCA), which provides support and advocacy for victims of police misconduct - says the authority fails to fulfil its obligations under its own legislation.
That's because while police are given weeks to challenge or clarify the contents of the report, complainants aren't - even though the law says anyone the IPCA makes negative statements should be given the chance to respond.
Parker has filed an official complaint with IPCA Chair Judge Colin Doherty, and the authority has responded by saying it is "reviewing the legal position" on how it interprets the law.
'The process is flawed and no one cares'
Parker's complaint relates to Section 31 of the IPCA Act 1988, which states that the authority shall not "make any comment that is adverse to any person unless that person has been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard".
IPCA reports - which give an account of the incident and explain the authority's findings - almost always include comments that would be deemed "adverse", as the people involved have generally been accused of misconduct, negligence or misbehaviour.
To fulfil its obligations under the law, the IPCA sends the police officers involved and Police Commissioner Andrew Coster draft copies of its reports several weeks ahead of their public release to give them "a reasonable opportunity to be heard".
This enables the officers to respond to the contents of the report, and the IPCA will sometimes make revisions based on their responses.
But the same opportunity isn't given to complainants, says Parker, who has advocated for dozens of complainants in her years as NZPCA President.
"The entire complaints process is flawed - and no one involved in the process seems to care," she told Newshub.
"They never get a copy [of the report]. I do not know one person in the entire time I've been doing this that has ever seen a copy in advance.
"They do get it the day in advance, but it's not to comment on; it's just that you just keep your copy before it's made public."
That's despite IPCA reports often including unsavoury details about complainants that most would consider "adverse" - about how they acted during their interaction with police, for instance, or their drug history, or previous run-ins with the authorities.
While the reports don't normally mention the complainants by name, media organisations are often able to identify them if it's a high-profile case, and can share some of the adverse comments made about them in the report.
'It's a breach of the legislation'
One such example of this was during the IPCA investigation into an incident involving Whakaari Peri Edmonds, a Northland teen who police fired a Taser at, then pepper-sprayed and verbally abused, in May 2019.
While the IPCA report found police were unjustified in their actions and had used excessive force, it also included allegations that Peri had pushed and tackled an officer and tried to escape police custody. Peri wasn't identified in the report, but was in subsequent news coverage.
Parker says the comments made about him were 'adverse' and argues Peri should've been notified weeks beforehand, just as the officers involved were, so he could challenge what was written about him.
"The whole process favours police," she said.
"The legislation is very clear that it's 'any person' you're making an adverse comment about... I have tried to think of all the reasons that the IPCA doesn't consider the complainant as 'any person', and I just can't think of one that makes sense.
"In my mind, it's quite simple: either solely make your report about the police officer involved and leave every bit of background and context out, or start being fair and reasonable.
"I believe the legislation is clear and they should be doing it anyway. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from giving the complainant the same courtesy they give police. I would argue it's a breach of the legislation."
IPCA and Justice Minister respond
Parker first raised this matter with the IPCA in 2020. At the time, general manager Warren Young told her the IPCA stood by its interpretation of the law.
However following another letter of complaint from Parker last month, Young told her she had "raised an important issue" and would look into it again when the authority's Chair, Judge Colin Doherty, had returned from leave.
A spokesperson for the IPCA wouldn't give any indication of what it planned to do, but confirmed to Newshub the authority had received a letter of complaint from Parker and would review it.
The spokesperson wouldn't say when this review would be completed.
Justice Minister Kris Faafoi said while the IPCA is accountable to him, only the court has the power to decide whether the authority is interpreting the Act correctly.
"However, I understand a process is underway within the IPCA to look into the matter and this needs to run its course," he told Newshub.
Faafoi explained it would be inappropriate for him to comment further on how the Crown entity interprets the IPCA Act, as under law its operational independence needs to be safeguarded.
He said because of this, he has no power to direct the IPCA to come to a particular conclusion on the issue raised by Parker.
