Behind the Beehive’s handling of the Jevon McSkimming scandal: who knew what when?
Friday, 20 February 2026
On July 18, 2025, National’s chief of staff Cameron Burrows texted one of the police ministers’ ministerial advisers.
“We’re not saying anything re Jevon, right?”
“That’s right, no comment,”the advisor replied.
Disgraced former deputy police commissioner Jevon McSkimming had just won an interim injunction preventing the media from reporting what had been found on his work computer. It was later revealed to be objectionable material, including child sexual exploitation and bestiality images.
Read More:
By then, the Beehive, police and the public service had been in damage-control mode for months. McSkimming had been arrested, and the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) was investigating sexual assault complaints made by a woman he had once worked with.
Nearly 300 pages of communications released to The Post by Police Minister Mark Mitchell’s office under the Official Information Act - sent about 6pm on Friday - show how ministers, officials and police worked to manage the political, legal and reputational fallout.
The first media pressure
The pressure began publicly in December, when a Stuff journalist contacted Mitchell seeking comment on why McSkimming was on leave while under investigation.
The journalist noted McSkimming had recently missed out on the Police Commissioner role to Richard Chambers and that it was understood he was under scrutiny over his conduct towards a female, non-sworn employee many years his junior.
The email was sent almost a year before court suppressions were lifted and the facts could be reported.
Internally, however, the issue was already well known.
On November 6, then-Police Commissioner Andrew Coster briefed Mitchell that the IPCA was investigating McSkimming and the relationship that had “soured”.
Four days later, on November 10, Mitchell was advised there was an outstanding IPCA report into McSkimming.
On November 14, Mitchell wrote to Acting Police Commissioner Tania Kura, saying that while he did not know the details of the allegations, he wanted assurance the investigations would allow him and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to determine whether McSkimming remained a fit and proper person to hold office.
Kura replied that McSkimming had agreed to take a “period of leave” and had “helpfully agreed to be available to support me”.
When media questions arrived in December, officials focused on limiting what was said.
Deputy Public Service Commissioner Tania Ott provided Mitchell’s office with a statement that contained no detail. She also advised the Prime Minister’s Office had requested a holding line:
“I am aware an investigation is underway. It would be inappropriate to comment further.”
Behind the scenes, officials were already moving towards more serious action.
On December 12, advice was provided about suspending McSkimming’s statutory warrant. The following day, Deputy Public Service Commissioner Heather Baggott informed him it was the minister’s intention to proceed.
Lawyers intervene
On December 17, McSkimming’s lawyer Linda Clark ‒ who said she was assisting Michael Heron KC ‒ emailed Mitchell about the proposed suspension.
Clark asked that something be brought to the Prime Minister’s attention “without delay”, but the substance of the request is redacted.
A month later, on January 14, Ott sent Mitchell’s office “reactive messages that the Minister may wish to use in response to media queries … they have been agreed with Mr McSkimming (via counsel) and been past Crown Law”.
Those messages are also redacted.
The resignation plan
Communications fell quiet until May, when the case reached a turning point.
An urgent message from the Public Service Commission’s chief legal officer, Fran Hook, said officials were “urgently confirming the steps required to inform the Governor-General”.
Once finalised, the statement would be provided to McSkimming’s legal team in advance.
The agreed line was that McSkimming had resigned with immediate effect before he could be dismissed.
“The Policing Act is very clear,” Mitchell said.
“A Deputy Commissioner of Police must be a ‘fit and proper person’.”
Officials then began drafting a detailed timeline that could be agreed by the Minister, Police and the Public Service. One email noted that more detail was preferable, with the option to pare it back later if necessary.
A slow-burn crisis
Correspondence through June, July and August is largely routine ‒ polite, procedural, or heavily redacted.
But the focus soon shifted to the IPCA’s findings.
On August 29, the Public Service Minister’s office circulated a draft of the watchdog’s report into McSkimming’s conduct. Ministers were required to meet with the authority so it could discuss its processes before the report was finalised.
An email from the IPCA on October 24 said the report had been provided to a “very limited audience” but would not be publicly released because of ongoing court matters.
That audience included the Ministers of Police, Public Service and Justice, along with officials from the Public Service Commission, the Ministry of Justice and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
Those court matters were later revealed to relate to charges against the complainant, known as Ms Z, over alleged abusive emails.
Planning the Government response
As the report moved closer to release, attention turned to how the Government should respond.
On October 28, Burrows emailed DPMC chief executive Ben King seeking advice, saying there would be multiple strands to any response.
He asked for guidance on:
IPCA recommendations within the Police Commissioner’s control
Any further options for ministers
Whether a review or inquiry ‒ such as into vetting processes ‒ might be needed.
The mood inside ministerial offices was grim.
When an adviser to Associate Police Minister Casey Costello was told the IPCA report was coming, Mitchell’s office added a warning:
“It’s grim.”
The reply was a grim-faced emoji.
On November 3, Burrows circulated a briefing to ministers outlining the Government’s response. Eleven pages of that advice were redacted.
Two days later, officials discussed communications planning, noting the Public Service Commission would not comment further because it had “limited comms resource (among other things)”.
Court delays and fallout
On November 6, McSkimming pleaded guilty to possessing objectionable material.
But suppression issues continued to complicate the Government’s response.
The following day, the IPCA advised DPMC that despite McSkimming no longer seeking name suppression, he still intended to seek suppression of the content of the emails that formed the basis of the charges.
The watchdog had argued in court that some suppression orders should be lifted so it could publish its findings on Police conduct.
On November 10, the Police Commissioner recommended McSkimming’s long-service medal and clasps be cancelled, saying his “disgraceful actions” made it untenable for him to retain them.
The IPCA report was released the following day.
A new controversy: withheld emails
The release triggered fresh questions from journalists about why Mitchell and the Prime Minister had not acted on emails Ms Z said she had sent to their offices.
Mitchell’s media team was ready.
Before the report’s release, they prepared a statement saying police staff seconded to the minister’s office had been instructed by Coster not to pass the correspondence on.
On the morning of the release, the manager of ministerial services at police confirmed the arrangement in writing.
“We were asked to treat the correspondence in confidence and not circulate it to others in the Minister’s office or police generally.”
Instead, the emails were referred to a senior official in the Commissioner’s office, which was overseen by Deputy Commissioner Tania Kura.
Cleaning up the process
In the fallout, Mitchell’s office sought assurances from Commissioner Richard Chambers that the practice had stopped and that future correspondence would be handled transparently.
Officials warned the arrangement “has resulted in employees being put in highly uncomfortable positions and that is not fair and should not be allowed to continue”.
Chambers replied he had been unaware of the process and described it as “obviously” a departure from expected practice. He said it was disappointing.
Mitchell also asked staff to search for any emails from Ms Z sent to his electorate office. Seventeen were found and forwarded to the ministerial office for action.
Managing the aftermath
Following the report’s release, staff prepared template responses for the ongoing stream of correspondence.
One draft line read: “I was as frustrated as you that the process that Ministers ought to be able to rely on … was deliberately circumnavigated.”
Another version instructed: “I do not accept your personal attacks or assessments of the staff in my office. Individuals seconded to me by police remain police employees and were put in an impossible and unbelievable situation by their employer.”
The human impact of the controversy is visible in the final exchanges.
A text from a ministerial adviser reassured a police staffer caught up in the issue that they had been “an asset and an integral part of our team” and that they had simply been “doing what you were told”.
The staffer replied with thanks.
“I appreciate the care taken to use private secretaries, we are very lucky to have a Ministerial office that has trust and care.”