Ms Z’s lawyer has applied to dismiss charges over her emails to another cop
Thursday, 13 November 2025
The lawyer for the woman at the centre of the downfall of former Deputy Police Commissioner Jevon McSkimming, applied to withdraw the active charges against her before the damning IPCA report was released.
The woman, known as Ms Z in the scathing Independent Police Complaints Authority (IPCA) report released on Tuesday, had sent numerous emails attempting to report allegations of sexual offending by McSkimming.
On Thursday it was revealed that despite the charges against Ms Z being withdrawn in relation to emails she’d sent to McSkimming, she was still facing active charges in relation to emails she’s allegedly sent to a different police detective and their wife.
Stuff has not seen the emails, but according to charging documents she was charged in June and August, also under the Harmful Digital Communications Act, with allegedly sending emails with intent to cause harm and causing serious emotional distress.
Back in October, Ms Z’s lawyer, Steven Lack, filed a formal application to dismiss the charges on the grounds that they arise from the initial prosecution which he said was an abuse of process.
Lack said he won’t comment while the case is still before the courts. But he said in a statement earlier this week after the IPCA report was released, that the police had failed his client.
On Wednesday, Stuff asked police why, given Police Commissioner Richard Chambers had publicly apologised to Ms Z over the way police handled her complaints - a prosecution was still being pursued.
Chambers said on Thursday it was inappropriate to comment given it was still before the courts.
“However, what I have done and what I can say is, that I have assured myself that proper process has been followed in bringing this case.”
Under the Prosecution Guidelines is states that “prosecutors should keep the decision to prosecute under review throughout the life of the case to ensure that it remains appropriate to continue with it and that the charges are correct”.
It goes on to say that prosecutors should revisit the Test for Prosecution where further information or evidence has come to light which either “contradicts some of the evidence to be relied upon or otherwise weakens the prosecution case”.
Or “where further material information is received, or there is a material change in circumstances, relevant to the factors considered as part of the Public Interest Test”.
Assistant Commissioner Mike Johnson said he also couldn’t comment on the prosecution, including the public interest.
Stuff asked questions to Judith Collins in her capacity as Attorney General about whether she was comfortable with the prosecution continuing and whether the public interest and evidential threshold tests were met. A spokesperson for her office said she too would not be commenting given the matter is still before the courts.
Retired District Court Judge David Harvey said the fact police have decided to instruct independent counsel gives the process integrity.
“Should the prosecution continue? I don’t know. But some issues need to be raised around the integrity of the rule of law and the circumstances so unique to this case whether it justifies withdrawing the charges,” he said.
…
What is the Harmful Digital Communications Act?
In 2015 the law was passed by the National led government to try and discourage, prevent and mitigate harm caused to individuals by digital communications and to provide victims with quick and efficient means of redress.
What is a digital communication?
This can defined as emails, texts, voice mail messages and social media content such as blogs, posts, comments, images and videos.
The act has 10 principles that say a digital communication should not:
Disclose sensitive personal facts about a person
Be threatening, intimidating or menacing
Be grossly offensive
Be obscene or indecent
Be used to harass a person
Make a false allegation
Break confidences
Incite or encourage anyone to send a deliberately harmful message
Incite or encourage a person to harm themselves or commit suicide
Denigrate a person’s colour, race, ethnic or national origins, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability
How is it dealt with?
While Netsafe receives most complaints about digital communications and can resolve complaints, if they can’t - the person can apply for court orders. And police can also file criminal charges under section 22 of the HDCA.
For a prosecution to prove a charge under section 22 of the Act it must prove that the accused posted a digital communication, that the digital communication was posted with intent to cause harm and did the communication cause harm such as serious and emotional distress.
Other factors can also be taken into account. And if found guilty - the maximum penalty is 2 years’ imprisonment or a maximum $50,000 fine.
Anything else?
The HDCA is somewhat controversial as it seeks to police speech online and critics say some of the principles can be viewed subjectively. It has also been used to try and silence journalism. Earlier this year a judge dismissed an application by an Auckland parking warden who tried to gag a journalist who was asking questions for a story.
Morgan Zhihong Xiao makes political comments online and is a failed local body politician. He made three applications under the HDCA against The Post reporter Justin Wong.
But Judge Kate Davenport dismissed the applications and said - “no party can use the act to muzzle genuine comment and different views”.
Wong had reposted an article by another journalist, Portia Mao. Mao worked on the Stuff Circuit documentary the Long Game, published about Chinese Political influence in New Zealand. She was also subject to HDCA proceedings which were later dismissed.
Earlier this year, The Post reported that Stuff receives complaints in the “double digits” each year under the HDCA.