The Authority oversaw a Police investigation in Auckland District after a sergeant located a large cardboard box in the Police station’s recycling bin that contained a Police officer’s wallet. The box also contained used syringes, a vial, and various envelopes addressed to another officer from the station. The sergeant reviewed CCTV footage and identified the officer named on the envelopes placing the cardboard box into the recycling bin.
Police conducted a preliminary investigation and confirmed the officer who owned the wallet had lost it earlier in the year. On the night the officer had lost his wallet, he had been in a Police patrol car with the officer who had disposed of the cardboard box (as well as a third officer).
The officer disposing of the cardboard box stated he did not know the other officer’s wallet was in the box. He had left the box on the roadside for rubbish collection, however after it was not collected, he disposed of it at the Police station. He explained the syringes and vial were used for a non-prescription oral medication.
Police concluded there was a possibility that the wallet had been placed in the box by another person when it was left on the roadside and found insufficient to support a charge of theft. Police also found no evidence to suggest the syringes and vial contained an illegal substance and took no further action in a criminal or employment context.
The investigation did not follow usual process. The Authority was not provided sufficient time to review the draft preliminary investigation report before it went to the decision-maker. Further, we were not given an opportunity to provide comment for the decision-makers’ consideration regarding a potential employment process. These deviances from the agreed process limited our ability to perform our oversight function.
Police did not conduct a full criminal investigation as the Authority had recommended at the start of the process. The Authority considers the preliminary investigation itself was inadequate as, in our view, the officer involved was not interviewed appropriately. The substance in the vial was not tested, and it remains unclear why syringes were required for an oral medication.
The Authority disagreed with Police’s conclusion about the available evidence, considering there was sufficient evidence to consider charging the officer with theft. However, we accepted it would not be in the public interest to do so.
Police conducted an employment process. The Authority disagreed that it was adequate.
IPCA: 24-24031