Senior detective used police access to escort convicted sex offender son from court
Saturday, 27 June 2026
Joshua Ford, a former soldier, appeared in the Christchurch District Court where he was sentenced to six months community detention after he groomed a 14-year-old girl and engaged in sexual activity with her.
The 22-year-old’s father is senior police officer Detective Inspector Michael Ford, who after the hearing used a police access card to scan his just convicted son out of the court building into an area off limits to the public, meaning he avoided media waiting outside to photograph him.
A well placed source says the senior detective’s actions are “not a good look” as officers can’t use their position to advantage family members.
Police say the matter has been referred to the Independent Police Conduct Authority, and a “confidential employment process is being undertaken”.
A senior detective used a police access card to scan his just convicted son out of a court building and into an area off limits to the public, meaning he avoided media waiting outside to photograph him.
A well-placed source says Detective Inspector Michael Ford’s actions are “not a good look” as officers can’t use their position to advantage family members.
Police say they have referred the matter to the Independent Police Conduct Authority and are undertaking a “confidential employment process”.
Separately, they have confirmed proper process around a potential conflict of interest was not initially followed during the investigation into Ford’s son, Joshua Ford.
However, this did not impact the outcome or service for the victim, they say.
On Wednesday, Joshua Ford, a former soldier, appeared in the Christchurch District Court where he was sentenced to six months’ community detention after he groomed a 14-year-old girl and engaged in sexual activity with her.
The 22-year-old was a private in the New Zealand Defence Force, but was kicked out after the offending came to light.
At the sentencing hearing, Ford’s lawyer Anne Stevens KC applied for a discharge without conviction on the two charges, arguing that convictions would put a stop to any ability he may have to re-apply for the defence force. Judge Quentin Hix declined the application and convicted him.
The hearing took place in a courtroom in the Christchurch Justice & Emergency Services Precinct, which is home to various government agencies and the city’s central police station.
After it concluded, Ford was issued his probation paperwork at the precinct’s bail counter, before his father used a police-issued access card to scan his wife and just convicted son through a door to an area off-limits to the public, which leads to the police station.
That meant media waiting outside were unable to photograph him.
Stuff asked police if Detective Inspector Ford’s actions were appropriate, given other criminals were not afforded the same liberty. We also asked if any action would be taken as a result.
Police initially said they were “working to understand the circumstances around this and have no further comment at this time”.
On Friday, Assistant Commissioner Jeanette Park said the matter had been referred to the IPCA, and a “confidential employment process is being undertaken”.
She declined to comment further.
An IPCA spokesperson confirmed “we have received a notification and we are assessing it”.
Minister of Justice deputy secretary corporate services Kelvin Watson told Stuff the agency had “clear policies in place to manage access to staff-only areas within courthouses, with the safety and integrity of court operations as the primary consideration”.
“Authorised access to non-public areas may be granted to certain individuals, including Police, where there is an operational need, and doing so does not compromise the safety of Ministry staff, court users, or the conduct of Court business,” Watson said.
“Access arrangements are not intended for general use, including escorting family members or other individuals without a clear operational requirement. Any use of access privileges is expected to align with these policies, and matters involving individual conduct may be subject to further review by the Ministry or relevant agency.”
When Stuff called Ford he said, “I’m not speaking to you,” then hung up.
According to the police code of conduct, a police officer must only use their position to fulfil professional responsibilities, “never for personal gain, or to advantage or disadvantage others”.
A well-placed source said what Ford had done seemed 'pretty unwise'. 'It's definitely not a good look.'
Ford worked for police in Canterbury for years and oversaw investigations into various serious crimes, most notably the 2015 murder of Christchurch infant Ihaka Stokes, before taking up a police liaison officer job in London in March 2022.
He returned to New Zealand earlier this year and is now based at the Royal New Zealand Police College in Porirua.
Separately, police have confirmed proper process wasn’t followed around a potential conflict of interest during the initial part of the investigation into Ford’s son.
“Initial enquiries in this investigation were undertaken by local staff. When the case was brought to the attention of a senior investigator within [Canterbury] District, they identified there was a risk of a conflict of interest arising and immediately notified District leadership,” Detective Superintendent Darryl Sweeney said in a statement.
“To mitigate the risk of a conflict of interest, or any perception of a conflict, especially around charging decisions, oversight of the investigation was moved out of the Canterbury District prior to any warrants being executed or charges being laid.
“This should have occurred at the very start of the investigation, but it did not affect the outcome for nor service to the victim.”
Sweeney said that while Ford no longer worked in Canterbury at the time, “the potential for a conflict of interest to arise should have been recognised”.
Subsequently, a detective superintendent and detective inspector from Auckland oversaw the investigation, and a Crown Solicitor outside Canterbury was engaged, he said.
“It is vital the public have trust and confidence in what we do, and we have reiterated our expectations around potential conflicts of interest to staff and reminded them of their responsibilities to recognise and declare any situation where a conflict of interest could arise.”
Since Wednesday’s sentencing, Stuff has obtained the summary of facts of Joshua Ford’s offending.
According to the document, he met the victim on the social media application Wizz. It works similarly to dating apps, where you can swipe through profiles that show a person’s photo, first name, age, location and interests.
Ford set his date of birth to show his age being 17, when he was 20 at the time.
The age in the app allows users to match others of the same or similar age.
Ford and the victim matched when she was 14.
They messaged and added each other on Snapchat. Through that app, Ford said he would purchase a vape for her in return for sexual favours, such as oral sex. He also sent a nude photograph of himself to the girl.
Around midnight on June 28, 2024, Ford picked the girl up in his car and drove her to a secluded red zone area in Burwood.
He then told her to perform oral sex on him for the vape pen. She was reluctant, but he insisted.
Ford also undressed himself and pulled the girl’s shoulders towards his penis.
“At this point the victim felt shocked and scared,” the summary records. She felt forced and complied.
Ford then asked the girl if she wanted to kiss. She said she did not really want to. He then grabbed her neck, digging his fingers into her, and began to kiss her. He would not allow the girl to use her cell phone during the encounter.
During the meeting, Ford also asked the girl if she wanted to have sex. She lied and said she had her period. He gave the vape pen to her as promised and drove her back to the pick-up location.
When questioned by police, Ford acknowledged setting his age to 17 on Wizz and that nude photographs were shared. He said the girl told him she was 17, but also admitted to police that it was likely he knew the victim was 14 when he was messaging her.
In a victim impact statement referred to by Judge Hix, the girl said the ordeal had ruined her trust in men, caused her to struggle emotionally and, “opened her eyes to the danger of the adult world”.
'[It] occurred in your car,' the judge told Ford. '[A] limited, confined space, in a location away from immediate help, in other words, there were no houses or people around for her to seek help.”
From a starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment, the judge allowed Ford discounts of 50 to 60% for his guilty pleas, rehabilitation, engaging in restorative justice, remorse, underlying conditions that were not specified, and a $2000 emotional harm payment Ford had offered to the victim.
He sentenced Ford to six months community detention, with 15 months of intensive supervision. The judge ordered the $2000 emotional harm offer be paid to the victim.