A police constable was accused of trying to pass off the more expensive nougat for a cheaper pick and mix selection.

A police officer's career is in tatters after he was accused of stealing a few dollars' worth of pick and mix lollies from a supermarket where his former mother-in-law works – even though a criminal probe found no evidence to support the allegations.

Constable Chris Hickie was alleged to have tried to pass off nougat as a cheaper pick and mix selection at the Matamata New World.

The allegations, which he strenuously denies, saw him trespassed from the supermarket, subjected to a criminal and employement investigation, and stood down on full pay for months. Hickie's lawyer claims police set out to "crucify" him, while his fiance says she is "disgusted" at the way he'd been treated.

The "scanner scammer" saga began in September when police received a trespass request from the owner of the local New World, Matthew Hart, who claimed Hickie had incorrectly labelled nougat.

Nougat is priced at $2.69 per 100 grams, while pick and mix lollies are $1.49.

A criminal investigation was started and Hickie was trespassed from the store. No charges were laid but an employment investigation went ahead, with Hickie granted permission to return to limited duties at the Auckland Central station.

A Waikato senior sergeant investigated the allegations and found little evidence to back them up.

According to his report, one checkout supervisor claimed she had seen Hickie eat an entire bag of the more expensive nougat while leaning on his car outside the supermarket.

"She was sure that it was nougat and stated that it was 'absolutely, no doubt nougat'."

But when CCTV footage was reviewed, it showed Hickie filling his bag from the pick and mix bin. The nougat was located on the left, an area Hickie never approached.

Several operators then alleged they had questioned Hickie on other occasions when he had incorrectly labelled bulk lollies and he had become "pissed off".

Hickie denied the incidents ever occurred and said he had been overseas on the date of one of the claims.

The internal police enquiry noted Hickie's mother-in-law, who worked at the supermarket, had made an "uninvited and over the top" approach to the investigating senior sergeant. The woman declined to comment when contacted.

The Senior Sergeant found there was no evidence to support the allegations and recommended no disciplinary action.

But Waikato District Commander Superintendent Bruce Bird was not satisfied and ordered the investigation to be reviewed by a professional conduct manager.

This review found in favour of the witnesses on the "balance of probabilities", stating there was no good reason for them to lie and Hickie's claims of a conspiracy "lacked credibility".

Inspector Phillips recommended a charge of serious misconduct, but after reviewing both reports Bird decided on a lesser charge of misconduct. There was no proof of the attempted theft, but being trespassed by the supermarket had brought the police into disrepute.

Hickie declined to comment, but his fiance Justine Chevin said she had been shocked by the police's approach to the claims.

"As a member of the public I'm disgusted, they've not once, not even for five seconds, said maybe we should listen to Chris first. They've just assumed he was wrong."

While Hickie had not lost his income during the period it had been touch and go several times and she had been forced to give up her consultancy business for a more secure paycheck.

Her fiancée was also upset his privacy had been breached, after police contacted Immigration New Zealand without his permission.

The whole process had been extremely stressful, she said.

"[The police] shoot from the hip...they don't care about Chris' welfare whatsoever."

Hickie's lawyer Greg Bennett said despite a lack of evidence it appeared the police were trying to "crucify" his client.

"Certainly the police have spent a lot of resources on this, and for what? A written warning that's being challenged in the Authority."

In a written statement, Bird said he could not comment on Hickie's case but the police held its staff to very high standards and any allegations were taken seriously.

"As with any workplace, there are already appropriate and well established processes in place to manage complaints or allegations against staff and we are committed to following this process fairly and thoroughly.

"This includes consideration of all relevant information, not speculation or comment based on partial information.

THE ALLEGATIONS

Dishonestly obtained nougat on 28 August 2014

A check-out supervisor claimed to have seen Hickie walk out of the supermarket and eat an entire bag of nougat while standing by his car. It was "absolutely, no doubt, nougat". A till receipt and CCTV footage showed it was actually the cheaper pick and mix lollies Hickie bought.

Dishonestly attempted to obtain nougat at a lower price in June-July 2014

A second check-out supervisor claimed Hickie presented a bag containing mixed value items while accompanied by a woman she did not know. Hickie denied the claim and his partner, Justine Chevin, said she would have been the only woman accompanying Hickie at the supermarket and she has no recollection of such an incident. "There is no evidence to corroborate [the supervisor's] allegation and although the test is only that of balance of probabilities I don't think it meets that level," the investigating senior sergeant said.

Dishonestly attempted to obtain nougat at a lower price in June-July 2014

On a third occasion a checkout supervisor approaches another staff member after alleging Hickie has mixed items in a bulk bag. Hickie claims he was overseas at the time so it can't be true, while the staff member cannot remember a specific date.

Q&A EVIDENCE:

HR advisor: Has there ever been a time in the supermarket where you have…

Chris Hickie: No.

HR advisor: Accidentally mixed…

Chris Hickie: No.

HR advisor: Never?

Chris Hickie: No, no, and I have given my reasons why I think they have concocted this story and I have given categorical defences to each of the allegations which can not now be ignored as fact.