Four things to know from the damning IPCA report on Jevon McSkimming
Tuesday, 11 November 2025
Very senior officers, including then Commissioner Andrew Coster, have been slammed for their handling of serious complaints made against now disgraced cop Jevon McSkimming. Catrin Owen picks through the report to find some key details.
On Tuesday evening, a 135-page report was released by the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) into the way senior police responded to serious complaints made against McSkimming in 2023 and early 2024.
The report deals with a sexual relationship developed between a woman, named in the report as Ms Z, who was 21 at the time and McSkimming who was 40. This relationship started in 2016.
After the relationship ended, sometime after 2018, Ms Z began sending emails to McSkimming and others, alleging serious sexual conduct, threats to use an intimate recording and the misuse of police credit card and property. Anonymous comments were also posted on LinkedIn including after he was appointed Deputy Commissioner and online reports made to 105.
The report is damning for police, but it should be noted the IPCA’s role was not to establish what McSkimming allegedly did, but rather how police responded to it.
Here are some of the key details from the report.
Spending on the police credit card
“Yea should be really proud of Jevon McSkimming who cheats on his wife for years using taxpayer funded hotels and police property to do it in a way that makes him feel “safe”, has sexually assaulted at least one Police employee on Police property, threatens to destroy and ruin people when he is concerned about his behaviour being known… He has also taken images of someone without their consent and threatened to use the images to destroy them,“ the anonymous post on LinkedIn said.
In January 2024, Officer O had been tasked with reviewing 237 emails that had been provided by McSkimming’s PA as part of a investigation. Some officer named are protected, hence the tag Officer O.
Officer O said to his supervisor that only a couple of accusations could have crossed the line legally such as taking unsolicited pictures and threatening to release them.
But Officer O raised “multiple other accusations” that would “definitely not fit” the Police Code of Conduct.
“Based on what we know directly some of these accusations are certainly plausible and are in line with the information that we already have, examples of these are; it happening during work hours, at hotels paid for by work and occurring at police college accommodation. There are many other accusations also included within her emails.”
This was emailed to his supervisor in January 2024 with a draft response for Deputy Commissioner Kura.
The IPCA said it was “significant” that a detective was able to identify that some of the behaviour alleged in the emails was plausible, consistent with information already known by Police (in the context of knowledge of the relationship), and potentially criminal and/or contrary to the Police Code of Conduct and should be flagged with the Police Integrity and Conduct and/or the IPCA.
But despite the FTAC (Fixated Threat Assessment Centre) report identifying this, Kura took no action. The only investigation that was launched focused on the potential offences by Ms Z - this lead to her prosecution.
McSkimming treated as victim
As police began to investigate the allegations, the IPCA report found senior officers who were acting as decision makers held an “entrenched view” that he was the victim rather than the offender.
The IPCA went on to say they were “unduly preoccupied” with ensuring he was not being “unfairly disadvantaged” in the then upcoming process for the new Commissioner appointment - something they knew he would be applying for.
‘False’ allegations
Once Ms Z was charged under the Harmful Digital Communications Act, a summary of facts was prepared containing “some concerning elements”. (Those charges were dropped on Tuesday by the way. You can see the reporting here.)
“The Summary of Facts stated, among other things, that emails alleging that the victim has committed sexual assault or groomed young females, and have called the victim a sexual predator, were false.”
The IPCA said it was “inappropriate and misleading” by a police officer dubbed acting Assistant Commissioner of Investigations Officer B to include the word “false”.
When it got to court, Officer B accepted McSkimming’s demand that any diversion offered to Ms Z, must, as a prerequisite, include her admission that the allegations were false. She refused. And the charges have now been withdrawn.
Coster’s attempt to influence
In early October 2024, Coster “inappropriately” tried to influence the National Integrity Unit’s investigation into Ms Z’s complaint.
Later that month after the police referred the matter to the IPCA, he again attempted to influence the nature and extent of the investigation and the timeframe for it to finish.
He wrote to IPCA chair, Judge Johnston KC, expressing his concern in the IPCA’s investigations “at such a critical point in the Commissioner appointment process”.
“He appeared to be expressing the view that because the subject officer was a victim of an offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act, the investigation into whether he was guilty of sexual offending should be truncated,” the IPCA said.
Coster’s approach was largely driven by the unquestioning acceptance of the narrative McSkimmming had given over the years. He didn’t properly consider if there was truth to Ms Z’s allegations, the IPCA said.
“He sought to bring a serious criminal investigation to an unduly rapid conclusion so that it did not impact on a job application process.”