PAINT IT BLACK

Dark December days of New Zealand Judgery

On 16 December 2025, District Court Judge Tim Black sentenced ex-Deputy Police Commissioner Jevon McSkimming for Jevon’s serial criminal viewing of child pornography and bestiality, on his work computer. Judge Black sentenced McSkimming to nine months home detention.

Be under no illusion; Home D does not typically confine the criminal to his or her home. The criminal’s probation officer can, and usually does, allow the criminal to go shopping and to roam away from home for other approved purposes. And after three quarters of McSkimming’s nine month sentence, the law will expressly allow him to leave home, as of right, for four hours a day, for any reason. Home detention is therefore not much of a punishment, especially for someone like McSkimming who is lucky enough to inhabit a humdinger house. I’ve previous commented on The McSkimming Mischief.

Which begs the question – how did Judge Black come to let McSkimming off so lightly? I’m relying here entirely on media reports of McSkimming’s sentencing. There appear to be no publicly available sentencing notes or transcripts of Judge Black’s sentencing decision.

Black’s notional starting point was 3 years in prison, before he went berserk with his Courtly carving knife.

Black chopped off 25% for McSkimming’s guilty plea. Which was decidedly odd, because a guilty plea should only be a discounting factor if there’s genuine doubt about whether the defendant is in fact guilty. McSkimming’s electronic trail of perverse, criminal viewing was incontrovertible.

Black then sliced off 15% more for McSkimming’s supposed rehabilitative efforts (talking to shrinks and Godly-types, and allegedly installing household controls to stop himself viewing yet more child porn and bestiality). In other words, a discount for nothing more than convenient virtue signalling.

Far from done, the Blackster then lopped off 10% for remorse and prior good character. Now I’m no student of body language, but Jevon doesn’t come across as racked with remorse. He looks like a guy who remains mightily pleased with himself, and whose only regret is that he got caught. As for good character, what’s the character of a man who cheats on his wife (and mother of his children) with a much younger woman whom he sneaks into a cushy Police gig, all the while watching kiddie porn and bestiality on his work computer? Can a man be much more stupid, arrogant and self-centered? McSkimming is manifestly not a man of good character.

And then, still not done, Black Meister then abandoned any pretense of applying established sentencing principles and, for no reason other than that he’d apparently become a McSkimming devotee, he reduced the 18 month prison sentence that would have resulted from the above to 9 months of home detention. (According to media reports, Black possibly hung this further lax leniency on McSkimming’s supposed good community standing (seriously? Stand with whom? Coster?) And the notion that his senior role in the police (and his perverse predilection for kids and animals) increased his risk of getting harmed in prison (so what? – there are whole wings of prisons dedicated to kiddie fiddlers and watchers).

So there we have it. McSkimming has successfully played his ‘GET OUT OF JAIL FREE’ CARD (remarkable - bus shelter art imitates a sentence!).

So a bad, corrupt, pedophiliac, zoophilous, unrepentant “top” cop gets to relax at home for a few months, on the back of his lavish Police pension. I’m not a lock-‘em-up-&-throw-away-the-key kind of guy – but this appears beyond the pale. In a New Zealand in which confidence in public institutions has plummeted over the last decade, Black’s sentencing of McSkimming brings the Courts and the Police into further disrepute.

The day after McSkimming was sentenced for his obsession with sexualised children and animals, Justice Michele Wilkinson‑Smith (on 17 December 2025) decided to put the kibosh on the New Zealand Government’s ban on the use of puberty blockers (gonadotropin‑releasing hormone analogues) for young people who say they think they’re the opposite sex (so-called “gender dysphoria”). The regulations to enforce the ban were due to take effect on 19 December 2025, but M W-S wasn’t having a bar of that prospect and banned the Government from enforcing the ban, pending a full “judicial review” of the Government’s decision.

It’s not clear to me from M W-S’s decision exactly what the judicial review will involve. But it appears that a future Court will examine whether the decision to ban puberty blockers was properly made, in the following senses:

• Was the decision made by the appropriate person (Minister of Health, Simeon Brown)?

• Was proper consultation carried out?

• Did the decision reflect credible medical advice?

• Was the prospect of the puberty blocker ban properly notified to interested parties, including to the Trans activist organisation, The Professional Association for Transgender Health Aotearoa Incorporated (PATHA).

What is clear is that Justice Wilkinson-Smith treated PATHA as absolutely authoritative and credulously swallowed every morsel of Trans activist ideology that PATHA threw at her. Her judgment contains a plethora of uncritical PATHA promotion and Trans buzzwords and phrases:

“I agree that PATHA is an organisation well placed to advocate for both health practitioners practising in this area and transgender young people and their families.”

“Dr A says there has always been a small but real cohort of children and young people who experience a sense of their gender identity and expression that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth.” [Sex is not “assigned at birth”. It’s determined at conception]

“Jennifer Shields is the president of PATHA and provided an affidavit on behalf of PATHA…Ms Shields…”

Jennifer Shields is a biological male who worships the deceased French post-modernist child rapist, Michel Foucault.

Justice W-S’s judgment also misses important realities. She puts much store on the fact that puberty blockers have been used to delay puberty in youngsters who would otherwise go through puberty too early in life. W-S’s argument is that, if puberty blockers are good for delaying so-called “precocious puberty”, then the drugs must necessarily be okay (and harmless) for gender dysphoric youths.

But the crucial point that W-S unfortunately misses is that at least three-quarters (75%) of gender dysphoric youths who are dosed with puberty blockers then go on “gender affirming” hormones (testosterone for females/oestrogen for males) and therefore do not go through any normal puberty at all, and are therefore all rendered practically infertile. Puberty blockers are therefore gateway drugs to infertility.

Justice W-S also accepts that children under 16 years of age can “consent” to puberty blockers without parental approval:

Dr A’s affidavit says that parent/guardian consent is required alongside a child’s consent or assent to access puberty blockers but only if the young person is not considered to have Gillick competency.

I take that to mean that some young people under sixteen, and those aged over sixteen, could access puberty blockers without parental consent.

It’s unfortunate that we don’t know, and can’t find out, the identities or medical credentials of “Dr A” or “Dr B”, because Justice W-S granted them name suppression.

Justice W-S uncritically asserts (twice) “Puberty blockers are reversible”. Whereas the burgeoning scientific evidence is that puberty blocking drugs irreversibly affect bone density and adult height. Boys given puberty blockers end up shorter. Girls end up taller.

I could go on. You can read comprehensive criticisms of Justice Michelle Wilkinson-Smith’s judgment, from conservative advocacy group Family First NZ, right here [familyfirst.org.nz]

The spotlight will remain firmly on New Zealand’s Courts in 2026.

Concerned citizens eagerly await the decision of Justice Melanie Harland on the Ngāi Tahu tribe’s claim to veto rights over all South Island water, with the 8 week hearing having concluded in April 2025 and still no judgment forthcoming. This judgment, especially if it hands control of South Island water to Ngāi Tahu, could prove the political powder keg of 2026. Perhaps Melanie is consulting with Maori activist Supreme Court judges, Glazebrook and Williams. Who knows?