An internal New Zealand Police review has found that a 2011 sexual assault investigation led by former Detective Senior Sergeant Darren Folau was “poor,” resulting in a complainant being “not listened to and not believed” while a young man’s sporting career was prioritized, according to an RNZ report published in 2025. Territorial Superintendent Ross McKay confirmed that police reopened the historical case dating back to 2010 after a 2025 review uncovered concerning management of the original file.
Background of the 2010 Complaint and 2011 Police Investigation
In 2011, a 16-year-old woman went to the Christchurch Police Station to report a sexual violation that allegedly occurred in June 2010 when she was 15, according to the source material. The complainant stated she attended a party with friends and woke up the next morning without clothes next to a 20-year-old man. The following day, a sportsman who was nearly 20 at the time contacted her to suggest she take an emergency contraceptive pill because they had sex the previous night, though she could not recall the encounter. No charges resulted from the original inquiry.
Detective Inspector Scott Anderson reviewed the file in June 2025 at the complainant’s request and stated that the original inquiry conducted by Folau “cannot be considered a quality investigation.” Anderson noted that Folau spoke to the sportsman at his home on June 22, 2011, before the complainant’s evidential video interview on June 30. Folau’s five-page report concluded he did not believe sexual activity occurred with the 20-year-old man, and that he had reliable grounds to believe the sportsman reasonably thought the complainant was 16 because she was his sister’s best friend. Folau recommended no prosecution, noting the sportsman had received a professional sporting contract offer and that alcohol had impaired everyone’s judgment.
Findings of the 2025 Police Review and Independent Oversight
The 2025 review by Detective Inspector Anderson concluded that the sportsman did not have a valid defense and was culpable of sexual conduct with a person under 16 years old. Anderson pointed out a critical “red flag”: the complainant and the sportsman’s sister were both 15 on the evening of the party, meaning the sportsman would have known his sister was 15 and could not have reasonably believed the complainant was 16. Anderson stated that Folau formed an early view against prosecution and prioritized the sportsman’s career over the complainant.
The complainant also lodged a complaint with the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) regarding a distressing meeting at the Wellington Police Station. Correspondence from the IPCA confirmed that police acknowledged the original investigation was poor, apologized to the complainant, and noted that Canterbury Police are investigating Darren Folau’s conduct regarding potential attempts to pervert the course of justice. A conflict of interest was subsequently identified between the sportsman and Folau. The sportsman, whose identity is suppressed via a court injunction obtained after being approached by RNZ, issued a brief statement expressing complete trust in the police. Darren Folau declined to make detailed commentary when approached by RNZ, stating his recommendations were evidence-based.
Reinvestigation Status and Potential Next Steps
An independent investigation team from a separate police district is leading the active reinvestigation into the historical claims alongside a review of the original handling, according to Territorial Superintendent Ross McKay. For the complainant, potential next steps outlined in the review include awaiting the outcome of the reinvestigation or pursuing other avenues. However, any future prosecution would need to meet the Solicitor General Prosecution Guidelines, which could require a legal opinion given the historical nature of the case and the disputed 2011 police warning. The review emphasizes that there is no guarantee a prosecution will be commenced or that a conviction would result if charges are ultimately laid.