David Seymour’s letter to police advocating for Philip Polkinghorne – the full text and the questions the NZ Herald put to the Act leader
“I write on behalf of a constituent, Philip Polkinghorne, whose wife died just over one year ago. I am sure you will be aware of the case. In short, Mr Polkinghorne has had a harrowing and traumatic experience but feels he has been treated like a suspect rather than a traumatised member of the public.
“Philip has, over the past year, had the following experiences at the hands of the police.
“On the day he discovered his wife dead, Mr Polkinghorne immediately rang 111 and received assistance from the police. A number of officers arrived promptly, and Mr Polkinghorne gave a statement to a police officer. The officer treated Mr Polkinghorne with respect and sympathy.
“Mr Polkinghorne was then asked if he would accompany the police officers to a nearby station, and have the statement typed, and then to sign that document. Mr Polkinghorne agreed to that course of action.
“Bear in mind, he had not showered, nor had anything that morning to drink or eat and was in a very distressed state. Mr Polkinghorne was directed to a police vehicle and was escorted into the back seat. He was then left alone in that vehicle for perhaps 15 minutes. He discovered he was then “trapped”, as he described, unable to get out of the vehicle, presumably because of the locking mechanism.
“At the police station, Mr Polkinghorne was asked what he thought was to be some supplementary questions, but this evolved into a prolonged interview lasting some 4 hours.
“This interrogation was made without cautioning Mr Polkinghorne and his rights were also not explained to him. There was no advice made to Mr Polkinghorne that he could or should seek legal advice. I understand this negates the usefulness of this document in any subsequent legal action.
“A transcript of that interview was provided to Mr Polkinghorne’s legal representatives in July 2021 and is, as I understand, is in excess of 160 pages. The transcript also includes a telephone conversation, initiated by Mr Polkinghorne’s legal counsel Mr Tony Bouchier towards the end of the interview. This must be a gross breach of Mr Polkinghorne’s privacy.
Within a few weeks of his wife’s death, Mr Polkinghorne sought assistance from a registered psychologist. The police were not informed of this private matter; however, the psychologist was contacted via email by a police officer requesting Mr Polkinghorne’s diagnosis and what future appointments were to be made. Again, this is highly inappropriate I would have thought and quite invasive to Mr Polkinghorne’s privacy and welfare.
“During the investigation of the death of Mr Polkinghorne’s wife, the police conducted an extensive scene examination of the house where Mrs Polkinghorne was found. Coinciding with that scene investigation, the NZ press reported that the police had found illegal substances on the premises, and that a private investigator was in the likely employ of Mrs Polkinghorne.
“Added to this prejudicial information being released, the police informed directors of Auckland Eye where Mr Polkinghorne was employed, on at least two separate occasions, they had evidence that Mr Polkinghorne was involved in money laundering. The officers in their briefing stated some $2,000,000 had been passed by Mr Polkinghorne to a [Doctor X] *. Both Drs Polkinghorne and [Doctor X] strenuously deny that allegation which has never been tested in court and as it stands appears to breach the Bill of Rights.
“The Police have also informed the Medical Council of New Zealand, in mid-2021, that illicit drugs were found during the scene examination and made it plain these substances must have belonged to Dr Polkinghorne because they were found under the bed on the side he slept on. In this documentation I am informed there are inconsistencies in the alleged quantity of drugs found at the premises and to date the ownership of these drugs has not been established.
“More recently the Police have requested the outcome of the investigation into Mrs Polkinghorne’s work-load at Counties Manukau District Health Board be withheld from the family. While this application is being reviewed by the Office of the Ombudsman it seems to the family, the interference of the Police into this area of concern to the family is neither appropriate nor reasonable. There is as I understand no suggestion the review by Counties Manukau is criminal in nature, meaning the police are interfering without just cause.
“The NZ Police have also denied access to the family of the results of the post-mortem and toxicology studies performed on Mrs Polkinghorne’s body. The outcome of these investigations should of course be viewed as a matter of fact and cannot be contested in principle so the family feel bewildered by this approach, when transparency should be respected.
“Approximately one month ago, Dr Polkinghorne accompanied his son to Australia. On arrival in Sydney Dr Polkinghorne was detained by immigration officials. The reason given was that he had not declared his “criminal record”. In fact, he has none, but this misinformation was obviously passed to the Australian authorities, by person(s) unknown. This too is the subject of an Official Information enquiry, but it is fair to bring this matter to your attention seeing it is highly likely this misinformation emanated from the NZ Police.
“One can understand the Police investigating an unexplained death with due diligence and Mr Polkinghorne, being Ms Hanna’s husband, was obviously close to the events. It’s understandable that Police would regard him as a person of interest. But in this instance, the Police appear to have gone beyond that brief. While acknowledging the difficult balance Police must strike, Mr Polkinghorne feels that he has been subject to prejudice from the police in the above actions.
“I am very aware and supportive over the constitutional separation between Members of Parliament and Police operations. However, Mr Polkinghorne has approached me feeling he has no other avenues to pursue. I hope you can take this letter in the spirit it’s intended and consider how Police deal with Mr Polkinghorne at what continues to be a very difficult time for him.
“Yours sincerely,
David Seymour MP for Epsom”
The Herald’s questions to Seymour
“Hi, David,
“Happy New Year! Further to our phone conversation I am writing a story about a letter you sent to police raising concerns about their investigation into Pauline Hanna’s death in 2021. Please find questions that need responses by Wednesday 3pm.
– When did you meet Philip Polkinghorne?
– Why did you meet?
– Why did you write a letter on his behalf criticising the police investigation into his wife’s death?
– By your own admission you wrote you support the constitutional separation between members of Parliament and police operations – why did you intervene, and what was your intent, given the breach of that separation?
– When did you send the letter?
– What was the police response to your letter?
– How appropriate was it to write a letter on behalf of a murder suspect?
– Have you ever written letters of support for others who have been charged? What is your response?
– During the police investigation Philip Polkinghorne engaged with three KCs – what difference did you think you would make?
– Do you regret getting involved? What is your response?
– How much money has Philip Polkinghorne donated to the Act Party?
– How much money did Polkinghorne donate to the Act party after the letter was sent to the police?
– Do you think it would have been more prudent to send a letter to the police after they finished their investigation into Hanna’s death? What is your response?
– Did you write a character reference for Philip Polkinghorne? What is your response? Can you please confirm and clarify?
– Did police contact you as part of their investigation into the death of Pauline Hanna? What is your response, can you please confirm and clarify?
Many thanks for your help, I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Warm regards.
Caro”
David Seymour’s response, via his press secretary
“Hi Carolyne,
“Thanks for chatting earlier. As discussed, here is a statement from David:
“An electorate MP’s job is to serve their constituents. I had a constituent contact me with concerns over the way they felt they had been treated by Police. As is made clear in the letter, the intention was to pass on the constituent’s concerns to Police. Police responded assuring good practice was being followed and there was no further correspondence on the matter.
“This all took place before any charges were being pursued or reporting on the case had taken place” **
“In regard to meeting Mr Polkinghorne, David believes he had met him when he previously attended community events that David organises for all residents, for instance, next month he is hosting the Japanese ambassador.
Cheers, Simon”
* The Herald has removed the doctor’s name for privacy reasons
** This statement from Seymour was incorrect. Philip Polkinghorne first described himself as a police “person of suspect” in the Herald three days after his wife’s death. We reminded David Seymour’s office of this and they amended their statement.