A woman and her children were forced to leave their home by police so her ex-partner could collect belongings, because they didn’t believe she had a protection order against him.<\/p>\n
An Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) investigation found the officers’ decision was unjustified, despite two internal police reviews which said it was ok.<\/p>\n
Police were called to the woman’s address in South Auckland’s Manukau on June 25 last year, when the man came to collect belongings despite a family court protection order issued that day.<\/p>\n
The woman had phoned police three times already, warning her ex-partner was coming to her home despite a protection order being in place due to family harm concerns which prevented him from contacting her or their children.<\/p>\n
When the police arrived, they spoke to the pair separately and accepted the man’s explanations for being at the property despite the woman showing evidence of a court order.<\/p>\n
“Ms X showed both officers a copy of the email she had received from the Ministry of Justice and attached information including a copy of the Court-issued TPO [temporary protection order] on her phone,” the IPCA report said.<\/p>\n
The report said the order showed the judge had significant concerns for the woman and her children with evidence of harassment, threats and abuse from the man.<\/p>\n
Officers looked in their system but found no record of the order and decided she was ” unnecessarily interfering” with her ex collecting his belongings from the home and they “weren’t sure if [the TPO] was real or not\u2026”<\/p>\n
The officers said the man was “quite calm”, “reasonable to deal with” and “compliant”, while the woman “hysterical”, “crying” and “really panicked”.<\/p>\n
For the man’s protection and ease getting into the house, the officer and his superior decided to issue the mother with a ‘police safety order’ which forced her and the children to leave the family home for 24 hours.<\/p>\n
The woman later complained to police about this treatment and investigations were done by the National Family Harm Team Prevention<\/p>\n
“Police conducted two reviews of this decision and determined in both instances that police were justified”<\/p>\n
“In one review, police determined that Ms X’s actions in not providing Mr Y with reasonable access to the property could be viewed as psychological abuse.”<\/p>\n
The IPCA disagreed with these findings and said it was unjust, it did not follow family harm policy, and failed to properly consider relevant factors.<\/p>\n
“Particularly when viewed in the context that she had been granted a TPO and recognised as a family harm victim by the court.”<\/p>\n
The watchdog said police should have served the man with the court-ordered protection order within four hours. It took them five days.<\/p>\n
It said both the severe delay and treatment of this woman were wrong, and didn’t take into account the welfare of the children.<\/p>\n
The authority recommended police update their policies and provide more training.<\/p>\n
The police have since apologised and have updated her records to show the safety order was issued in error.<\/p>\n
Relieving Counties Manukau District Commander, Inspector Jared Pirret, said the officers did not make the right decision.<\/p>\n
“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.”<\/p>\n