The Independent Police Conduct Authority has found officers were unjustified in allowing a man to enter a woman's Manukau home to collect belongings, despite a protection order prohibiting contact.
The Family Court had issued a temporary protection order on 25 June preventing the man from contacting the woman or their children. The woman phoned police 3 times warning her ex-partner was coming to the property, and showed officers an email from the Ministry of Justice containing the court order on her phone.
The order revealed the judge held serious concerns for the woman and children, informed by evidence the man had harassed, threatened and abused them. Officers searched their database but did not find the order recorded, and decided the woman was unnecessarily interfering with her ex-partner's right to collect belongings and questioned whether the protection order was genuine.
Officers described the man as calm, reasonable and compliant while characterising the woman as hysterical, crying and panicked. Police then directed the woman and her children to leave the family home for 24 hours under a police safety order.
The IPCA determined the officers' approach did not comply with family harm policy and they failed to weigh relevant factors properly. Police were required to serve the man with the court protection order within 4 hours but took 5 days. The authority said the delay and treatment of the woman were wrong and did not consider the welfare of the children.
Two internal police reviews had initially found the officers' decision was justified, with one review determining the woman's actions could be viewed as psychological abuse.
Inspector Jared Pirret, relieving Counties Manukau District Commander, acknowledged the officers did not make the right decision. "We also acknowledge the initial police review of this decision did not properly consider the full context of the entire situation and consequently came to an incorrect decision," he said.
Police have apologised and updated the woman's records to show the safety order was issued in error. The IPCA has recommended police update their policies and provide additional training.
Mira Taitz, DVFREE Lead and Shine RESPOND Senior Trainer, said it is important for services including police to identify the primary victim and predominant aggressor, noting a primary victim may appear angry, upset and fearful. She said a police safety order is intended to protect someone at risk of family violence, not to enable property collection.