A lawyer was the target of "unprofessional and inappropriate" remarks in a police group chat, including comments about a photo of him being put in a headlock by a police officer.
In response to the photo, one staff member said "a bit tighter & a bit longer please", and "cock your wrist more to the right too".
In a separate exchange, when discussing the fact the lawyer had a girlfriend, a staff member shared a photo of a pig. This was accompanied by "meat Mrs [lawyer's surname]".
Staff also called the lawyer an "idiot", "f….wit" and a "dick".
Police say an investigation found no basis for a criminal investigation, but further steps were taken in relation to a number of staff. Police have apologised to the lawyer and his partner for the "inappropriate and unprofessional" comments.
The lawyer, who RNZ has agreed not to name, made a request under the Privacy Act in March after discovering that a photo of him being put in a headlock by a police officer had been shared in a group chat involving Whangarei PPS [Police Prosecution Service] staff.
The lawyer says he consented to the headlock as a joke, but not to a photo being taken, or shared in the group chat.
He received a copy of the photo, as well as the names of the people who were party to the chat.
He later requested all commentary about him by Whangarei PPS staff.
Police recently provided the material, which includes messages dating from October 2022 to this year.
In March 2024, the photo of the lawyer being put in a headlock was shared in the group chat followed by a series of comments.
Someone in the group said "I hope he's been charged with assaulting police", while another message said "a bit tighter & a bit longer please".
"A bit of man love if ever I saw it with [redacted] being the dominant!" one staff member said.
Other messages in relation to the headlock included "cock your wrist more to the right too", "Judge [redacted] has assessed the matter and determined 'no offence there'", and "still more tighter and longer".
The final message said "no matter how tight or restrictive, still wouldn't have shut him up".
In December 2023, a member of the Whangarei PPS group chat said they had been told the lawyer was set to leave to work somewhere else due to his girlfriend's work.
"1st thing I questioned was [the lawyer] having a girlfriend".
A member then shared a photo of a pig and a message was sent saying "meat Mrs [lawyer's surname]".
Another message said "you can actually put lipstick on a pig."
In another message, dating back to 2022, a police officer refers to a matter in court involving the lawyer and said "oh my god that [lawyer] is a dick..".
In another exchange in April 2023, a staffer says "as you know [the lawyer] is an idiot" when discussing another court matter.
In February, this year, a staff member asked a colleague "how's f….wit, I mean [lawyer's surname] behaving?"
"I haven't seen the little [poo emoji] this morning," the staffer replies.
The Privacy Act response includes comments from Police's Executive Director of service victims and resolutions Rachael Bambery, who said the group chat was created to "facilitate work-related matters and has become a way for team members to informally chat with each other".
She said police acknowledged there were "unprofessional communications" in the group chat.
"The comments were made privately between colleagues, were not intended for a wider audience, and reflected the kind of coping mechanisms that can develop among Police staff working in a difficult and often confronting environment."
The lawyer told RNZ that the headlock came about after he had been threatened by a client, and the police officer offered to show him some restraint methods.
He said he agreed but did not know that a photo was taken.
The lawyer was "extremely distressed" when he read the comments about the photo.
"They are cold. They are serious. There is no LOL, no emojis. They are delivered in a sinister and serious manner," he said.
"Nobody calls out anybody for the behaviour in the group chat. It was obviously never reported ... and it is truly sad that no one had enough integrity to do something about it when they read those horrible messages."
The lawyer also told RNZ he believed the photo of a pig, shared alongside a message about his partner, had racist undertones as he had told some staff she was Polynesian.
"It's also concerning that people who are prosecuting other people for strangulation, serious violence, and threats of violence are behaving in the very behaviour that they prosecute and know and see the impact of on a daily basis in their work."
He wants the officers involved to be charged and "held accountable for their behaviour".
"If the shoe was on the other foot, and myself and other defense lawyers, or my clients, for example, gang members said the same things about their police staff in a group chat, they would almost invariably be charged with threatening behaviour," he said.
"Police should be held to a higher standard, given their requirements around integrity and conduct."
In response to questions from RNZ, police's chief of staff Cassandra Anderson said the code of conduct set "clear expectations for the behaviour of all police employees".
"Police acknowledges that a group of staff shared pictures and commentary about [the lawyer] in group chats that were unprofessional and inappropriate. This conduct did not meet the standards expected of police employees."
In relation to the photograph, Anderson said police staff described a request from the lawyer, during a break between court sessions, for staff to demonstrate a headlock on him.
"Believing this to be in good humour, at [the lawyer's] instigation, our staff obliged. Our staff described that the photo was taken with [the lawyer] knowledge and that he subsequently requested a copy of it.
"Regardless of the original purpose of the photo and regardless of who suggested the idea, Police reiterates its view that subsequent commentary in a closed group chat by our staff, was not appropriate and was unprofessional."
Police leadership became aware of the messaging when the lawyer raised concerns that he believed such material existed, Anderson said.
"This was then the subject of an investigation, which found no basis for a criminal investigation, but further steps were taken in respect of a number of Police staff.
"For privacy and employment reasons the detail of those steps cannot be shared. This matter was also reported to the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between Police and the IPCA."
Anderson said police had apologised to the lawyer.
"We reiterate that apology to him … and to his partner for any offence and upset the comments have caused them."
Police initially apologised in writing in June when they confirmed the existence of a photo and "unprofessional and inappropriate commentary" in the chat.
The director resolutions also apologised in person when they met with the lawyer in Hamilton two days later.
"Police subsequently agreed to a request to support [the lawyer] to access professional services to assist him with the impact this matter had on him."
Anderson said police apologised again in writing on October 16, when they responded to the lawyer's revived information request.
"On this occasion all the information contained in the various communications was provided to [the lawyer] so the full context of the apology was clear."
Anderson said she wanted to be clear that the commentary in the exchange was "inappropriate and unprofessional".
"While we cannot disclose the detail of steps taken in relation to individual staff, appropriate action has been taken and the expectations of staff regarding professional and appropriate communication have been reinforced."
