Ex-partner let into woman's home by police despite protection order against him

In a recent case that has sparked widespread concern over the handling of domestic violence situations by law enforcement, a woman and her children were forced to vacate their home by police officers in order to allow her ex-partner to retrieve personal items. This occurred despite a temporary protection order (TPO) issued by a family court, which explicitly barred the man from contacting the woman or their children. The incident took place in South Auckland’s Manukau area on 25 June of last year.

The woman had previously contacted the police three times before the incident, warning that her ex-partner intended to visit their home despite the legal restrictions. During the police response, both the woman and her former partner were spoken to individually. While the woman presented evidence of the TPO via an email from the Ministry of Justice and a copy stored on her phone, the officers reportedly did not find a record of the order in their systems. As a result, they questioned whether the TPO was genuine. The woman was described by the officers as “hysterical,” “crying,” and “panicked,” whereas the ex-partner was characterized as “calm” and “compliant.”

Based on these interactions, the officers concluded that the woman was unnecessarily obstructing her ex-partner from accessing the home. They issued a ‘police safety order,’ compelling the woman and her children to leave the residence for 24 hours. This decision was made under the rationale of ensuring the man’s safety and facilitating his retrieval of belongings. However, the woman later raised concerns about how she was treated during the incident, prompting two internal police reviews. Both reviews initially upheld the officers’ decision, suggesting that the woman’s refusal to grant her ex-partner access might constitute psychological abuse.

Following further scrutiny, the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) launched an investigation into the matter. Their findings revealed that the police action was unjustified and did not align with established family harm policies. The IPCA emphasized that the woman had been recognized by the court as a victim of family harm, with documented evidence of harassment, threats, and abuse from the ex-partner. The authority criticized the police for failing to serve the TPO within the required four-hour window, noting that it took them five days to process the order. Additionally, the IPCA pointed out that the police did not adequately consider the well-being of the children involved.

In response to the IPCA’s findings, the police acknowledged their mistake and have since corrected the woman’s records to reflect that the safety order was issued erroneously. Inspector Jared Pirret, the relieving Counties Manukau District Commander, admitted that the officers did not make the correct decision and noted that the initial internal reviews had not fully considered the broader context of the situation. Mira Taitz from Shine, a local organization specializing in family violence support, highlighted the importance of identifying the primary victim and the predominant aggressor in such cases. She stressed that a police safety order is meant to safeguard individuals at risk of family violence, not to facilitate property retrieval for the alleged aggressor.

This incident underscores the need for improved training and clearer protocols among law enforcement regarding domestic violence scenarios. The IPCA has recommended updates to police policies to ensure that future responses are more aligned with protecting victims rather than inadvertently enabling perpetrators. The outcome of this case serves as a critical reminder of the complexities involved in domestic violence situations and the necessity for law enforcement to approach each case with heightened sensitivity and adherence to legal protections.