ob�����ӿ�

• A senior police officer was censured for using a belt to discipline his children. 
• The Independent Police Conduct Authority deemed the sanction “grossly inadequate” but no criminal charges were laid. 
• Oranga Tamariki assessed the children and concluded they were not likely to face further harm. 

A senior police officer has got off with a censure for serious misconduct after admitting he disciplined his children with a belt. 

The officer has admitted striking two daughters and a son - one a young teenager and the others under 10 years old - across the buttocks and legs with a webbing belt. 

He said he used the method to “reset” his children after other means of discipline did not work. 

The Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) says the sanction imposed on the officer by police after an employment investigation was “grossly inadequate”. 

No criminal prosecution of the officer was begun, because police believed there was insufficient evidence. 

“They then completed an employment process which resulted in the officer being censured for serious misconduct,” according to an IPCA summary report released on Thursday. 

“Inexplicably, one of the mitigating factors police took into account when considering the appropriate sanction was that they had not initiated criminal proceedings.” 

The police officer, identified only as Officer A in the IPCA summary, is an officer in charge at a North Island location. 

Police confirmed on Thursday he was still a member of the force. 

The IPCA said Officer A came to the attention of police and Oranga Tamariki when it was reported that he had physically disciplined his children using a belt. 

Police and Oranga Tamariki spoke to Officer A’s children, who said their father had used a belt to discipline them on three occasions. 

Oranga Tamariki ended their involvement when they completed a risk assessment and concluded that the children were not likely to face further harm. 

Officer A and his wife refused to give permission for their children to be interviewed by police for evidential purposes. 

Officer A elected not to make a statement to police. 

“This brought the criminal investigation to an end as there was insufficient admissible evidence to proceed further,” the IPCA said. 

The authority commenced an independent investigation and interviewed Officer A and his wife. 

“Pursuant to our legislation, no information gathered by us from a person is admissible in evidence in any court or other proceeding,” it said. 

Officer A admitted to us 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. 

This had occurred most recently in relation to two daughters because they had been fighting, including in church. 

About a year earlier, he disciplined a son under 10 as he had been “naughty”. 

“Officer A told us that he and his wife worked hard to be good parents, but, when other methods failed, he used his belt to ‘reset’ his children. 

“He also acknowledged to us that he was aware physically disciplining children was no longer protected by the law. 

“Our view is that the officer’s use of a belt to discipline his children constituted three offences of assault on a child,” the IPCA said. 

But the IPCA said the police had already completed criminal and employment processes so they made no recommendations to them. 

Police had insufficient evidence for a criminal charge. They then 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. 

“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.” 

In a statement, Assistant Commissioner Michael Johnson acknowledged the IPCA findings. 

“Police, alongside Oranga Tamariki, conducted a criminal investigation into these reports, as well as an employment process,” he said. 

“The use of violence to discipline children is a criminal offence, and where there is evidence to bring charges, police will not hesitate to do so. 

“In this case, our investigation found insufficient evidence to charge the officer. 

“The officer then underwent an employment process, which included the use of an independent decision-maker to avoid any conflict of interest, and was censured.” 

Johnson said police had the same obligations as any other employer, and for this reason could not provide further details. 

FAMILY VIOLENCE 

How to get help: If you're in danger now: 

• Phone the police on 111 or ask neighbours or friends to ring for you. 
• Run outside and head for where there are other people. Scream for help so your neighbours can hear you. 
• Take the children with you. Don't stop to get anything else. 
• If you are being abused, remember it's not your fault. Violence is never okay. 
Where to go for help or more information: 
Where to go for help or more information:
• : Crisis line - 0800 REFUGE or 0800 733 843 (available 24/7)
• : Helpline - 0508 744 633 (available 24/7)
• : Family violence information line - 0800 456 450
• : Specialist services for African, Asian and Middle Eastern women and children.
• Crisis line - 0800 742 584 (available 24/7)
• : For information on family violence
• : National Network of Family Violence Services
• : Aiming to eliminate men's violence towards women.

Ric Stevens spent many years working for the former New Zealand Press Association news agency, including as a political reporter at Parliament, before holding senior positions at various daily newspapers. He joined ob�����ӿ�’s Open Justice team in 2022 and is based in Hawke’s Bay. His writing in the crime and justice sphere is informed by four years of frontline experience as a probation officer.