Buried in the IPCA report: the cops who showed moral courage

Wednesday, 12 November 2025

Despite damning findings in relation to many senior officers’ handling into allegations of sexual offending by then Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming, the police watchdog also acknowledged the efforts of officers who displayed “commendable integrity and moral courage”. Catrin Owen takes a look at those who stood up.

While many officers aren’t named in the 135-page report, Stuff understands those who spoke out and raised concerns are Detective Superintendent Kylie Schaare, Detective Inspector Nicola Reeves and Detective Superintendent Darryl Sweeney.

This is what they did.

Officer M - Detective Superintendent Kylie Schaare

Officer M, who Stuff understands is Detective Superintendent Kylie Schaare, became involved after she received a phone call from a senior officer about an anonymous post on the LinkedIn announcement of McSkimming and Tania Kura being announced as Deputy Commissioners.

Under the announcement, the anonymous poster alleged McSkimming “had sexually assaulted at least one Police employee on Police property” and threatened to destroy people.

Schaare, who was the Senior Professional Conduct Manager at the time, spoke directly to Kura and sent her an email.

Kura asked Officer M to contact the police media team to have the post removed. She then spoke to the Acting Director of Integrity and Conduct (Officer P) and said the issue needed to be raised with the IPCA.

The IPCA said, “it is conceivable that Ms Z’s complaint may never have been heard, and the IPCA may never have been made aware of the concerning developments during 2024”.

Officer M raised her concerns as high as then Commissioner Andrew Coster.

“When she felt her concerns were not being heeded, she sought out support in elevating the matter. We commend her moral courage.”

After Ms Z was arrested and charged under the Harmful Digital Communications Act, Officer M said Officer B called her.

(Officer B isn’t named in the report. But is a very senior police officer.)

“I asked [Officer B] what the scope of the… investigation was. I raised the concern with [Officer B] that it didn’t appear to me that anyone had treated [Ms Z] as a complainant and offered to take a statement of complaint from her, particularly given they knew who she was… I recall [Officer B] stating that the officers who arrested her asked if she wanted to make a complaint, my response was ‘why would she make a complaint to the officers who have just arrested her, of course she wouldn’t have trust to speak to them’. …

“It was clear to me that [Ms Z] had never been spoken to as a potential victim given the emails and the concerns she was mentioning….”

After this phone call, she called her supervisor, the Deputy Commissioner People, Leadership and Culture to express her concerns.

In the months following, Officer M forwarded an email from the IPCA to Deputy Commissioner People, Leadership and Culture.

She raised the fact the complaints had not been “progressed through the usual complaint process”.

“I am not aware that we have ever spoken to the complainant, as we would in the normal course of events of this nature, particularly given how long ago it has been that this information has come to light.”

Officer D - Detective Inspector Nicola Reeves

About a month after police charged Ms Z, Deputy Commissioner Tania Kura and an Assistant Commissioner decided to look into whether the allegations in the emails sent to McSkimming had any truth to them. Officer D was brought in.

Stuff understands Officer D is Detective Inspector Nicola Reeves - one of the most senior adult sexual assault investigators.

“Any number of those people who received those emails should have…we (the Police) should have been looking at it right from the beginning…she’s essentially just emailing into the abyss…people get desperate,” Officer D told the IPCA about those messages.

But the initial terms of reference for her investigation did not direct her to speak to Ms Z.

“I was essentially being asked to get a feel for the veracity of the complaint without actually speaking to the complainant. It just didn’t feel right.”

The unnamed Assistant Commissioner directed Reeves to report to him - something “unusual” in the context of a criminal investigation.

“…[I] really got the sense that [Assistant Commissioner A’s] focus was on getting this out of the way so [Deputy Commissioner McSkimming] could apply for the Commissioner’s role without this hanging over his head,” Officer D told the IPCA.

The IPCA asked, Officer V - who Stuff understands is Territorial Detective Superintendent Darryl Sweeney - about the terms of reference, he said it was “clear that Ms Z was a potential sexual assault complainant and should have been treated as such”.

Officer V said he was “so concerned” about what Officer D told him he went to two other territorial detective superintendents.

In September 2024, Ms Z was in direct contact with Officer D.

“Notwithstanding the progress in speaking directly with Ms Z, the enquiry led by Officer D was closed down by the Assistant Commissioner of Investigations (‘Assistant Commissioner A’) on 24 September 2024,” the IPCA said.

In its findings, the watchdog said Officer D “displayed moral courage” in pushing back and commended her courage in pushing to speak to Ms Z.

“She was also able to identify what many senior officers were not – that a traumatised victim who has been told she will not be listened to if she tries to approach Police, may not present as a regular victim ‘should’ and that the emails Ms Z was sending may have reflected the desperation of someone emailing into the ‘abyss’, having not been heard for several years prior.”

Officer O

In January 2024, Officer O was tasked with reviewing hundreds of emails that had been sent to McSkimming.

Officer O is not identified in the report but he was a detective in the Fixed Threats Assessment Centre. Stuff does not know this person’s identity.

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 that detective also 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,” he said to his supervisor.

The IPCA said it was “significant” that a detective was able to identify what no other police staff member who had seen the emails had been able to identify.

“Through his efforts, his supervisor, Officer N, was then able to brief senior officers, including Deputy Commissioner Kura and Officer B, on the need to look at the matter from two different perspectives – action to stop the emails, and an investigation into their veracity.

“Had FTAC’s advice been heeded in February, many of the issues raised in this report would have been avoided, and a more balanced consideration of the respective interests of Deputy Commissioner McSkimming and Ms Z may have been adopted,” the IPCA said.

Director of Police Legal Services

The actions of the director of Police Legal Services was also commended - specifically directly standing up to Commissioner Coster in late October/early November.

At meetings with Coster, Kura, Deputy Commissioner PLC and other officers - Coster is said to have talked at length about the issue of natural justice for McSkimming - “that he had already been the victim of harm caused by Ms Z’s harassment and, if the matter was not resolved quickly, that harm would be compounded by denying him the opportunity to apply for the Commissioner role”.

At that meeting the PLC director said, police could, and should, take Ms Z’s complaint in the usual manner and conduct a criminal investigation.

He also said it was not appropriate for Coster and Kura to be involved in any decision-making in regards to criminality given conflicts of interest.