WEBVTT - Why a rape complainant who later had relationship with cop has gone public with her story

0:00:04.200 --> 0:00:07.240
<v Speaker 1>Kyota. I'm Richard Martin in for Chelsea Daniels and this

0:00:07.320 --> 0:00:10.320
<v Speaker 1>is the Front Page, a daily podcast presented by the

0:00:10.320 --> 0:00:17.920
<v Speaker 1>New Zealand Herald. A twenty four year old woman has

0:00:18.000 --> 0:00:21.320
<v Speaker 1>shared her identity in order to talk publicly about an

0:00:21.360 --> 0:00:25.000
<v Speaker 1>inappropriate relationship she was involved in with a police officer.

0:00:25.520 --> 0:00:29.200
<v Speaker 1>Alex MacPhail earlier spoke to The Herald anonymously about her

0:00:29.240 --> 0:00:33.640
<v Speaker 1>relationship with christ Church based detective Luke Fazakerlie, whom she

0:00:33.800 --> 0:00:36.560
<v Speaker 1>met when she was twenty two and reporting a rape

0:00:36.680 --> 0:00:39.720
<v Speaker 1>to the police. She complained about his behavior to the

0:00:39.760 --> 0:00:43.800
<v Speaker 1>Independent Police Conduct Authority, a complaint that has now been

0:00:43.920 --> 0:00:47.520
<v Speaker 1>reopened after the Herald. Reporting today on the Front Page,

0:00:47.640 --> 0:00:51.200
<v Speaker 1>NZ Herald reporter Katie Harris, who has covered Alex's case,

0:00:51.240 --> 0:00:54.320
<v Speaker 1>as with us to discuss why this particular case is

0:00:54.360 --> 0:00:57.360
<v Speaker 1>making waves on both sides of the Tasman and we'll

0:00:57.400 --> 0:01:00.400
<v Speaker 1>also hear from Alex in her own words about what

0:01:00.480 --> 0:01:10.200
<v Speaker 1>she experienced. Katie, can you tell us a bit about

0:01:10.240 --> 0:01:13.320
<v Speaker 1>Alex McPhail and how you two came to be in contact.

0:01:13.640 --> 0:01:16.440
<v Speaker 2>So Alex is a twenty four year old flight attendant

0:01:16.480 --> 0:01:20.000
<v Speaker 2>from christ Church. Now we actually first spoke. I think

0:01:20.040 --> 0:01:22.840
<v Speaker 2>it was a year or maybe two years ago, and

0:01:22.880 --> 0:01:26.080
<v Speaker 2>it was unrelated to the story that we're speaking about now,

0:01:26.120 --> 0:01:29.399
<v Speaker 2>but it was because Alex had a suspicion that a

0:01:29.440 --> 0:01:33.880
<v Speaker 2>person I had previously written about had also sexually assaulted her. Now,

0:01:33.959 --> 0:01:37.880
<v Speaker 2>I had interviewed a different girl about a serious sexual

0:01:38.000 --> 0:01:40.960
<v Speaker 2>soul allegation, and she believed she had been assaulted by

0:01:40.959 --> 0:01:43.120
<v Speaker 2>the same person. And so we did have a quick

0:01:43.160 --> 0:01:45.800
<v Speaker 2>call and we were able to work out that it

0:01:45.920 --> 0:01:48.680
<v Speaker 2>was the same person. But I didn't do anything at

0:01:48.680 --> 0:01:51.120
<v Speaker 2>that stage because she was interested in going down the

0:01:51.160 --> 0:01:55.840
<v Speaker 2>police route and I didn't want to impact that investigation process.

0:01:55.840 --> 0:01:58.960
<v Speaker 2>And police did eventually charge that person with sexual assault

0:01:58.960 --> 0:02:00.520
<v Speaker 2>in relation to alex case.

0:02:00.920 --> 0:02:03.880
<v Speaker 1>And then, so how did she bring up the case

0:02:03.920 --> 0:02:04.760
<v Speaker 1>that we are talking about.

0:02:04.800 --> 0:02:07.000
<v Speaker 2>We hadn't spoken in quite a while, but I got

0:02:07.040 --> 0:02:09.280
<v Speaker 2>an email from her out of the blow, just wanting

0:02:09.320 --> 0:02:12.120
<v Speaker 2>to chat about something that had happened since we last spoke.

0:02:12.880 --> 0:02:18.360
<v Speaker 2>And from there that's when this inappropriate relationship that she

0:02:18.480 --> 0:02:21.320
<v Speaker 2>says really impacted her occurred.

0:02:21.760 --> 0:02:24.920
<v Speaker 1>And can you describe the relationship we're talking about.

0:02:25.080 --> 0:02:28.240
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, So, when Alex went to the police, an officer

0:02:28.280 --> 0:02:30.519
<v Speaker 2>brought her into a room and she was introduced to

0:02:30.600 --> 0:02:33.560
<v Speaker 2>a detective called Luke phy Ezacally and she was told

0:02:33.600 --> 0:02:37.120
<v Speaker 2>that Luke would be managing her case. And things between

0:02:37.120 --> 0:02:40.320
<v Speaker 2>her and Luke started off very professionally. He would text

0:02:40.320 --> 0:02:43.399
<v Speaker 2>her updates about the case, but as time went by,

0:02:43.560 --> 0:02:47.040
<v Speaker 2>she says, things became inappropriate. For example, there was one

0:02:47.160 --> 0:02:50.120
<v Speaker 2>text on New Year's Eve where she says she kind

0:02:50.120 --> 0:02:52.280
<v Speaker 2>of felt like that was something had changed, you know,

0:02:52.360 --> 0:02:56.119
<v Speaker 2>Normally a police officer wouldn't text happy New Year's Eve,

0:02:56.160 --> 0:02:58.840
<v Speaker 2>you know. And from their things developed, and she says

0:02:59.040 --> 0:03:01.160
<v Speaker 2>they sort of had a comp about how they had

0:03:01.200 --> 0:03:04.880
<v Speaker 2>feelings for each other, and she alleges that he encouraged

0:03:04.919 --> 0:03:07.400
<v Speaker 2>her to send him sort of weird text so that

0:03:07.440 --> 0:03:09.560
<v Speaker 2>he would get taken off the case. And then, she

0:03:09.600 --> 0:03:12.040
<v Speaker 2>alleges the same day he was taken off her case,

0:03:12.200 --> 0:03:12.880
<v Speaker 2>they had sex.

0:03:15.960 --> 0:03:19.760
<v Speaker 3>The text messages and the phone calls they started professional,

0:03:20.320 --> 0:03:25.160
<v Speaker 3>and then over time got more and more personal, more

0:03:25.200 --> 0:03:32.520
<v Speaker 3>and more inappropriate. Luke really painted himself as this hero.

0:03:34.200 --> 0:03:39.120
<v Speaker 3>He kind of said all the right things, and because

0:03:39.160 --> 0:03:42.640
<v Speaker 3>I hadn't told my friends and family what I was

0:03:42.680 --> 0:03:45.880
<v Speaker 3>going through, he was really my only support and he

0:03:46.040 --> 0:03:49.240
<v Speaker 3>encouraged me to lean on him and so through that

0:03:49.960 --> 0:03:56.160
<v Speaker 3>a intimate relationship developed. Now I can see that he

0:03:56.200 --> 0:03:59.000
<v Speaker 3>took advantage of me when I was in an extremely

0:03:59.120 --> 0:04:03.360
<v Speaker 3>vulnerable position, and that doesn't make it a relationship where

0:04:03.360 --> 0:04:05.800
<v Speaker 3>two adults decide to come.

0:04:05.640 --> 0:04:14.520
<v Speaker 1>Together, even before the messaging became flirtatious, or however you

0:04:14.560 --> 0:04:17.080
<v Speaker 1>want to describe it. Is that sort of texting back

0:04:17.080 --> 0:04:20.800
<v Speaker 1>and forth between an officer and a rape complainant normal.

0:04:21.200 --> 0:04:22.760
<v Speaker 2>I think for a lot of people they might be

0:04:22.800 --> 0:04:25.840
<v Speaker 2>surprised that a lot of these conversations do happen over text,

0:04:25.920 --> 0:04:28.680
<v Speaker 2>because this is just how we interact now, and so

0:04:28.720 --> 0:04:31.159
<v Speaker 2>it might be the police officer sending you your file

0:04:31.240 --> 0:04:34.960
<v Speaker 2>number saying this is the process, just an update we've

0:04:35.000 --> 0:04:39.520
<v Speaker 2>interviewed this person, or for example, we're busy with other

0:04:39.600 --> 0:04:41.400
<v Speaker 2>jobs right now, but as soon as we have time,

0:04:41.440 --> 0:04:43.560
<v Speaker 2>we'll get to the next stage of this investigation. So

0:04:43.640 --> 0:04:46.760
<v Speaker 2>it is quite common to be liaising in that way.

0:04:47.120 --> 0:04:51.440
<v Speaker 2>What's not common, though, what shouldn't be common, is things

0:04:51.480 --> 0:04:54.520
<v Speaker 2>progressing into an appropriate relationship.

0:04:54.800 --> 0:04:58.000
<v Speaker 1>So it might be worth clarifying what exactly it says

0:04:58.120 --> 0:05:02.160
<v Speaker 1>in the Code of Conduct about relationships like this. Because

0:05:02.160 --> 0:05:04.720
<v Speaker 1>he's not actually accused of anything criminal, is that right?

0:05:04.839 --> 0:05:08.160
<v Speaker 2>No, he's not accused of anything criminal whatsoever. But the

0:05:08.160 --> 0:05:10.800
<v Speaker 2>code of conduct is very clear and it states that

0:05:10.880 --> 0:05:14.640
<v Speaker 2>staff must not enter into a sexual or intimate relationship

0:05:14.800 --> 0:05:18.400
<v Speaker 2>with anyone they meet and a professional capacity if an

0:05:18.440 --> 0:05:21.560
<v Speaker 2>imbalance of power exists or if that person is vulnerable.

0:05:22.160 --> 0:05:25.000
<v Speaker 2>And I think in this case, it's quite clear that

0:05:25.320 --> 0:05:28.120
<v Speaker 2>she tacks those boxes and there is an inherent and

0:05:28.160 --> 0:05:31.200
<v Speaker 2>balance of power just in that dynamic. Not to mention

0:05:31.320 --> 0:05:32.880
<v Speaker 2>that she was in a vulnerable position.

0:05:33.160 --> 0:05:35.159
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, well, because I thought it was interesting that, like

0:05:35.200 --> 0:05:38.360
<v Speaker 1>the way their relationship started, she was describing him as

0:05:38.400 --> 0:05:39.920
<v Speaker 1>like a hero at one point.

0:05:39.680 --> 0:05:42.520
<v Speaker 2>Which is quite natural for a lot of people when

0:05:42.520 --> 0:05:45.400
<v Speaker 2>you have gone through something traumatic and someone comes along,

0:05:45.880 --> 0:05:48.599
<v Speaker 2>like a police officer or a police detective, it is

0:05:48.680 --> 0:05:50.920
<v Speaker 2>quite common to get quite close with people when you've

0:05:50.920 --> 0:05:53.200
<v Speaker 2>gone through something traumatic and they are there to help you.

0:05:53.440 --> 0:05:55.720
<v Speaker 2>In my view, it's on the detective or the person

0:05:55.760 --> 0:05:59.040
<v Speaker 2>in power to ensure that that relationship stays professional.

0:05:59.360 --> 0:06:02.400
<v Speaker 1>And so he was removed from the case. And then

0:06:02.600 --> 0:06:03.200
<v Speaker 1>what happened.

0:06:03.320 --> 0:06:05.279
<v Speaker 2>So he was removed from the case, and at some

0:06:05.440 --> 0:06:08.680
<v Speaker 2>point during the investigation, she says she told his superiors

0:06:09.120 --> 0:06:11.920
<v Speaker 2>that there was an intimate relationship going on between them,

0:06:11.960 --> 0:06:15.039
<v Speaker 2>but at the time she was like, please, this is

0:06:15.080 --> 0:06:18.400
<v Speaker 2>all my fault. I don't want him to get in trouble. Now,

0:06:18.440 --> 0:06:20.960
<v Speaker 2>sheerly Jesus is quite a big issue and they should

0:06:20.960 --> 0:06:23.919
<v Speaker 2>have intervened then, and he should have been fired or

0:06:24.200 --> 0:06:27.320
<v Speaker 2>lost his job then, in her view, because she believes

0:06:27.360 --> 0:06:30.040
<v Speaker 2>no police officer should have a sexual relationship with someone

0:06:30.040 --> 0:06:34.080
<v Speaker 2>whose case they have managed, a case like this, for example,

0:06:34.080 --> 0:06:37.559
<v Speaker 2>a rape case that didn't happen, and while he wasn't

0:06:37.600 --> 0:06:42.000
<v Speaker 2>her detective anymore, they were continuing this romantic relationship while

0:06:42.040 --> 0:06:45.839
<v Speaker 2>her sexual assault complaint was still being investigated, and it

0:06:45.880 --> 0:06:49.960
<v Speaker 2>was ongoing from there. The relationship eventually broke down and

0:06:50.000 --> 0:06:52.359
<v Speaker 2>she sought mental health support, and it was during that

0:06:52.520 --> 0:06:56.080
<v Speaker 2>process where a doctorate and some other medical professionals advised

0:06:56.080 --> 0:06:59.080
<v Speaker 2>her that this relationship, in their view, was not okay

0:06:59.200 --> 0:07:00.080
<v Speaker 2>and that she should.

0:07:00.680 --> 0:07:03.320
<v Speaker 1>What was the reaction from the superiors? Do we know?

0:07:03.600 --> 0:07:06.440
<v Speaker 2>We know that he wasn't removed from his job. We

0:07:06.520 --> 0:07:08.760
<v Speaker 2>know that he is still employed by New Zealand Police.

0:07:09.279 --> 0:07:12.600
<v Speaker 2>It's not clear if anything else has happened from their

0:07:12.640 --> 0:07:27.760
<v Speaker 2>Police haven't provided more context on what occurred after that report.

0:07:25.560 --> 0:07:30.400
<v Speaker 1>So in your discussions with Alex. What sort of motivated

0:07:30.440 --> 0:07:31.800
<v Speaker 1>her to go public with us?

0:07:32.120 --> 0:07:35.520
<v Speaker 2>She sort of has term motivations. On the one hand,

0:07:35.840 --> 0:07:38.200
<v Speaker 2>she wants to make sure this doesn't happen again, and

0:07:38.280 --> 0:07:41.960
<v Speaker 2>she felt really concerned that by staying quiet it could

0:07:41.960 --> 0:07:45.280
<v Speaker 2>happen again. On the other hand, she wanted to come

0:07:45.320 --> 0:07:48.720
<v Speaker 2>forward and speak up and be named now because when

0:07:48.760 --> 0:07:51.280
<v Speaker 2>she was a child, she says, she was sexually abused

0:07:51.680 --> 0:07:54.200
<v Speaker 2>and she did speak up then, but she was told

0:07:54.200 --> 0:07:56.440
<v Speaker 2>that she would have to endure it. She wanted to

0:07:56.440 --> 0:07:58.560
<v Speaker 2>speak up now for that little girl and to show

0:07:58.640 --> 0:08:00.440
<v Speaker 2>other women that they can speak up up and that

0:08:00.480 --> 0:08:01.640
<v Speaker 2>women should be believed.

0:08:05.720 --> 0:08:12.120
<v Speaker 3>The push to go public with this story came from

0:08:12.480 --> 0:08:17.760
<v Speaker 3>the realization that it wasn't just a personal problem between

0:08:18.840 --> 0:08:23.640
<v Speaker 3>Luke and I. It was actually a huge problem with

0:08:24.200 --> 0:08:28.520
<v Speaker 3>the New Zealand Police and how they hold their officers accountable,

0:08:29.200 --> 0:08:32.560
<v Speaker 3>the expectations that they have for the officers when working

0:08:32.600 --> 0:08:33.600
<v Speaker 3>with vulnerable people.

0:08:38.280 --> 0:08:41.000
<v Speaker 1>You've obviously reported on a lot of cases like this.

0:08:41.360 --> 0:08:45.480
<v Speaker 1>How rare is it for someone to actually go public

0:08:45.600 --> 0:08:46.959
<v Speaker 1>and name themselves.

0:08:47.280 --> 0:08:52.160
<v Speaker 2>It is real, it's so vulnerable, and so it's so

0:08:52.280 --> 0:08:55.560
<v Speaker 2>brave to come out and publicly name yourself in association

0:08:55.720 --> 0:09:00.240
<v Speaker 2>with something that historically was really stigmatized and really shamed. However,

0:09:00.360 --> 0:09:02.560
<v Speaker 2>I have noticed throughout my career that there has been

0:09:02.600 --> 0:09:06.360
<v Speaker 2>an increase in victims and survivors of sexual assault wanting

0:09:06.440 --> 0:09:09.280
<v Speaker 2>to be publicly named. I would say it would happen

0:09:09.320 --> 0:09:12.600
<v Speaker 2>once a year five years ago, whereas now I'm probably

0:09:12.600 --> 0:09:14.840
<v Speaker 2>doing this like two or three times at least a year.

0:09:15.400 --> 0:09:20.800
<v Speaker 1>So what actually happened initially with the employment process after

0:09:20.840 --> 0:09:23.440
<v Speaker 1>her complaint was made, because I know there was a

0:09:23.559 --> 0:09:24.920
<v Speaker 1>job in Queensland.

0:09:25.600 --> 0:09:28.720
<v Speaker 2>She said he'd already applied to work in Queensland and

0:09:28.760 --> 0:09:30.760
<v Speaker 2>so he had this job offer on the table. He

0:09:30.880 --> 0:09:32.920
<v Speaker 2>was due to start later in the year. And so

0:09:33.040 --> 0:09:35.679
<v Speaker 2>when I did go to Queensland Police for comment, they

0:09:35.720 --> 0:09:38.360
<v Speaker 2>responded and said that the job offer had been rescinded

0:09:38.480 --> 0:09:41.360
<v Speaker 2>while an investigation was occurring. Now they haven't been able

0:09:41.400 --> 0:09:43.640
<v Speaker 2>to update me on whether that investigation is done, or

0:09:43.640 --> 0:09:45.679
<v Speaker 2>whether he still has a job offer or if it's

0:09:45.679 --> 0:09:49.640
<v Speaker 2>still rescinded. But it is interesting how swiftly they acted

0:09:50.360 --> 0:09:54.080
<v Speaker 2>and in her view, in contrast with how New Zealand

0:09:54.120 --> 0:09:58.680
<v Speaker 2>Police have not undertaken. From her view, you know, swift

0:09:58.760 --> 0:10:00.000
<v Speaker 2>action in this case.

0:10:00.760 --> 0:10:04.520
<v Speaker 1>Has Luke responded adult to your reporting or the case

0:10:04.559 --> 0:10:05.360
<v Speaker 1>in anyway. No.

0:10:05.600 --> 0:10:07.760
<v Speaker 2>The only reaction I've had from Luke is when I

0:10:07.760 --> 0:10:10.679
<v Speaker 2>approached him for comment and he said that his superiors

0:10:10.679 --> 0:10:13.160
<v Speaker 2>had advised him that a media response had already been

0:10:13.200 --> 0:10:15.520
<v Speaker 2>prepared and he had nothing further to add.

0:10:16.040 --> 0:10:17.800
<v Speaker 1>And so do we know what the sort of next

0:10:17.840 --> 0:10:19.320
<v Speaker 1>steps in this case would be?

0:10:19.520 --> 0:10:22.840
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, So the IPCA has reopened the complaint against him

0:10:22.880 --> 0:10:25.920
<v Speaker 2>following our reporting, and I've given Alex a time frame

0:10:26.000 --> 0:10:28.120
<v Speaker 2>of about two to four weeks, which is what it

0:10:28.200 --> 0:10:31.440
<v Speaker 2>usually takes them to assess. So from there, hopefully the

0:10:31.480 --> 0:10:33.560
<v Speaker 2>result will be shared with Alex, since you'll learn what,

0:10:33.840 --> 0:10:35.320
<v Speaker 2>if any, action will be taken.

0:10:35.679 --> 0:10:38.640
<v Speaker 1>What's been sort of the response from the general public

0:10:39.160 --> 0:10:40.080
<v Speaker 1>to your reporting.

0:10:40.400 --> 0:10:42.679
<v Speaker 2>The response that I have seen on social media has

0:10:42.720 --> 0:10:46.120
<v Speaker 2>been real shock, because I think most people assumed that

0:10:47.000 --> 0:10:49.880
<v Speaker 2>if a cop had breached the Code of conduct, which

0:10:51.200 --> 0:10:54.720
<v Speaker 2>Alex obviously feels that he has, and according to the

0:10:54.760 --> 0:10:57.800
<v Speaker 2>Code of Conduct this does seem like quite a clear breach,

0:10:58.520 --> 0:11:01.480
<v Speaker 2>people believe that they should no longer be working, and

0:11:01.559 --> 0:11:04.319
<v Speaker 2>so almost all of the public reaction I've seen has

0:11:04.360 --> 0:11:07.240
<v Speaker 2>just been real shock. At New Zealand police, but also

0:11:07.400 --> 0:11:10.440
<v Speaker 2>support of Alex, and that was part of the reason

0:11:10.440 --> 0:11:13.680
<v Speaker 2>why she also felt safe enough to come forward, was

0:11:13.720 --> 0:11:16.240
<v Speaker 2>because she had seen the response to that first story

0:11:16.280 --> 0:11:19.840
<v Speaker 2>and felt, I guess less nervous about fully being named

0:11:19.840 --> 0:11:21.960
<v Speaker 2>and photographed in relation to this case.

0:11:24.960 --> 0:11:29.760
<v Speaker 3>I think what I needed when I was twelve and

0:11:29.920 --> 0:11:35.400
<v Speaker 3>experiencing that I needed someone to speak up for me.

0:11:36.240 --> 0:11:43.160
<v Speaker 3>I needed someone to care to go back and tell

0:11:43.200 --> 0:11:47.800
<v Speaker 3>her that I'm that person for her, that she becomes

0:11:47.840 --> 0:11:52.959
<v Speaker 3>that person for herself. I wish I could tell her that.

0:11:56.200 --> 0:11:59.160
<v Speaker 1>And what has Alex said about like the response to

0:11:59.200 --> 0:11:59.640
<v Speaker 1>the story.

0:11:59.760 --> 0:12:02.200
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, well, the second one's only just come out, and

0:12:02.240 --> 0:12:05.080
<v Speaker 2>she's just, you know, obviously taking it all in and

0:12:05.559 --> 0:12:08.040
<v Speaker 2>just quite shocked. I think she's also quite proud of herself,

0:12:08.080 --> 0:12:11.640
<v Speaker 2>and she did a really good job articulating her thoughts

0:12:11.720 --> 0:12:14.720
<v Speaker 2>and feelings, especially over a video. But after that first

0:12:14.760 --> 0:12:17.080
<v Speaker 2>story came out, she sent me a message, and this

0:12:17.160 --> 0:12:19.360
<v Speaker 2>is quite a common message that I get because I

0:12:19.400 --> 0:12:21.560
<v Speaker 2>do this type of reporting a lot, and she said,

0:12:22.120 --> 0:12:24.199
<v Speaker 2>I feel like I have found my voice again, or

0:12:24.280 --> 0:12:27.600
<v Speaker 2>have my voice back. That sort of makes doing this

0:12:27.760 --> 0:12:29.199
<v Speaker 2>tough job worth it sometimes.

0:12:29.400 --> 0:12:30.480
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for joining us, Katie.

0:12:30.480 --> 0:12:30.880
<v Speaker 2>Thank you.

0:12:34.520 --> 0:12:37.120
<v Speaker 1>That's it for this episode of the Front Page. You

0:12:37.120 --> 0:12:40.320
<v Speaker 1>can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage

0:12:40.360 --> 0:12:44.600
<v Speaker 1>at zidherld dot co dot nz. The Front Page is

0:12:44.600 --> 0:12:49.720
<v Speaker 1>produced by Ethan Sills. I'm Richard Martin. Subscribe to the

0:12:49.720 --> 0:12:53.240
<v Speaker 1>Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you get your podcasts,

0:12:53.360 --> 0:12:56.719
<v Speaker 1>and tune in tomorrow for another look behind the headlines.