Police did not however check Forbes’ computers, which is where he would be storing his peeping-tom photos and recordings. The investigation appears to have not been thorough, leaving victims uninformed and an abuser without any real punishment. This isn’t just a procedural misstep, it’s a betrayal of public trust and a stark reminder of how the system often fails those it’s meant to protect, particularly when men in places of power are involved.
Today, RNZ reported:
In a statement to RNZ on Thursday evening, Wellington District Manager Criminal Investigations Detective Inspector John Van Den Heuvel said that, "on examining the phones, Police also found a number of photos and video of women in public spaces, and what appears to be women in private addresses, taken from a distance away.
"Police considered the available evidence and concluded it did not meet the requirements for criminality, and therefore charges could not be filed.
"The individual concerned voluntarily spoke with Police and admitted to taking the images and recordings. He was reminded of the inappropriateness of his behaviour and encouraged to seek help."
Forbes also deleted the images in the presence of Police.
Forbes recorded sex workers without consent and was caught by a suspicious madam last year. Under New Zealand law, specifically the Crimes Act 1961, non-consensual recording in private settings falls under section 216H, which prohibits people making intimate visual recordings without consent, carrying a potential penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment.
If Forbes’ alleged photography involved capturing someone in a private act without their consent, it could also breach this section.
216G Intimate visual recording defined
(1) In sections 216H to 216N, intimate visual recording means a visual recording (for example, a photograph, videotape, or digital image) that is made in any medium using any device without the knowledge or consent of the person who is the subject of the recording, and the recording is of—
(a) a person who is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and that person is—
(i) naked or has his or her genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breasts exposed, partially exposed, or clad solely in undergarments; or
(ii) engaged in an intimate sexual activity; or
(iii) engaged in showering, toileting, or other personal bodily activity that involves dressing or undressing; or
(b) a person’s naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breasts which is made—
(i) from beneath or under a person’s clothing; or
(ii) through a person’s outer clothing in circumstances where it is unreasonable to do so.
It doesn't matter, as the Police have argued, that Forbes was in a public place while taking some of these intimate photographs. People clearly should expect to have privacy in their own homes and workplaces.
Additionally, section 126 of the Crimes Act addresses voyeurism, criminalising observation of private acts with intent to derive sexual gratification, with a maximum penalty of two years.
Based on the reported behaviour, there’s a clear case for prosecution under these provisions. However, the police’s inaction suggests a troubling reluctance to pursue a high-profile figure. Worse yet, the Police have apparently allowed Forbes to delete evidence (which is technically recoverable), without properly ascertaining the severity of his offending.
Today, 1 News reported:
Police searched phones of former press secretary after complaint
Police have revealed the details of their investigation into a former media advisor for the Prime Minister who was accused of taking covert recordings of sex workers.
In the fresh disclosures, police said officers seized two phones and examined them before allowing the owner to delete the contents.
Today, police said any new information regarding the "serious" and "concerning" alleged behaviour of the press secretary working in the Prime Minister's Office would be "thoroughly considered".
Luxon's acting deputy chief press secretary, Michael Forbes, resigned yesterday after allegations emerged that he made non-consensual audio recordings of sessions with Wellington sex workers last July.
It was also alleged that the former journalist had images on his phone of women exercising at a gym, shopping, and of women getting dressed filmed through a window.
The police’s failure to notify the women whose privacy was violated is particularly egregious. Victims have a right to know when their personal boundaries have been breached, especially in cases involving intimate recordings. The Privacy Act 1993 mandates that individuals be informed of breaches that could cause harm, and the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 requires police to treat victims with respect and keep them updated.
By failing to inform the women involved, police have denied them agency, closure, and the opportunity to seek support or pursue civil remedies. This omission reeks of prioritising optics over justice, especially given Forbes’ proximity to power. The police’s failures undermine accountability and fuels suspicion of a cover-up.
The New Zealand Police executive’s apparent failure to inform Ministerial Services or the appropriate Ministers, including Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, Police Minister Mark Mitchell and Corrections Minister Louise Upston, about the complaint against Michael Forbes is a flagrant breach of the ‘No Surprises’ convention, which mandates that departments promptly brief Ministers on matters of significance, especially those likely to spark public controversy.
The Prime Minister has claimed that he wasn't aware of the allegations against Michael Forbes until contacted by Stuff on June 3, 2025. If true, this is particularly outrageous given Forbes’ previous role as press secretary to Prime Minister Luxon, making it unthinkable that such a sensitive investigation, involving non-consensual recordings and voyeurism, wouldn’t be flagged earlier.
Current Police Commissioner Richard Chambers has conveniently sidestepped responsibility, claiming he wasn’t in charge at the time, effectively dumping the blame on his predecessor, Andrew Coster, who is also claiming no knowledge until recently of the police investigation into Forbes. This finger-pointing does nothing to restore public trust, instead exposing a shameful lack of accountability within the police executive itself.
If Coster or Deputy Commissioner Jevon McSkimming, who resigned as the country's second most powerful cop last Monday amid a four-month investigation by the IPCA and police, knew and failed to act, it’s a scandal; if they didn’t, it’s a gross failure of oversight that also demands further investigation.
Somebody should tell the @nzpolice that gyms in New Zealand (private or council-run) aren't public spaces due to restricted access via memberships fees. #nzpol
— Jackal (@Jackalblog) June 6, 2025
'I’m sitting in the same gym this guy’s been taking photos of girls in.'https://t.co/OmsqR5emwk
This case demands further action. The police must prioritise investigating Forbes’ apparent criminal behaviour, ensure victims are informed and supported, and provide a public explanation for their operational failures and delays. Anything less erodes trust in the system and leaves vulnerable people without closure and open to further abuse.