Search and Rescue chapter of Police Manual

Ross Browne made this Official Information request to New Zealand Police

The request was partially successful.

From: Ross Browne

The Commissioner of Police


Police National Headquarters


PO Box 3017


Wellington

Re: Official Information Act Request

Dear Sir

Please supply all submissions made by individual Police, members of the public, or other organisations made as part of the 2013 review of the Search and Rescue chapter of the Police Manual conducted by Inspector Joe Green while acting Manager of Emergency Manager, and his successors.

Yours faithfully,

Ross Browne

Link to this

From: Ross Browne

Dear New Zealand Police,

Re: OIA Request "Search and Rescue chapter of Police Manual" 20 August 2014

As the maximum allowed time period for a response to this request has expired, and no request for an extension has been received, I have referred this request to the Office of the Ombudsmen.

Yours faithfully,

Ross Browne

Link to this

From: THOMSON, Raewyn
New Zealand Police


Attachment browne ross 14 4937 1 signed reply.pdf
336K Download View as HTML

Attachment browne ross 14 4937 1 emails for release.pdf
10.3M Download View as HTML


 

 

From: THOMSON, Raewyn
Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2014 15:00
To: '[email address]'
Subject: Your Official Information Act request of 20 August 2014 refers
see attached reply plus further information for release

 

 

 

Raewyn Thomson

Ministerial Services

Police National Headquarters

 

 

===============================================================

WARNING

The information contained in this email message is intended for the
addressee only and may contain privileged information. It may also be
subject to the provisions of section 50 of the Policing Act 2008, which
creates an offence to have unlawful possession of Police property. If you
are not the intended recipient of this message or have received this
message in error, you must not peruse, use, distribute or copy this
message or any of its contents.

Also note, the views expressed in this message may not necessarily reflect
those of the New Zealand Police. If you have received this message in
error, please email or telephone the sender immediately

Link to this

From: GREEN, Joseph (Joe)
New Zealand Police

Dear Mr Browne,

 

I have been provided the alternate e mail address above.

 

On 29 August 2014 I sent an e mail to the address you originally provided
advising that I was collating the response and was seeking a legal review
of my draft.

 

I received an error message in response.

 

I have collated the material. It will be scanned and provided to our
Ministerial Services later today.

 

I apologise for any delay in this response.

 

Yours

 

 

Joe Green

Inspector

B.A. (Hons)., Dip. Bus. Stud., Dip. Outdoor Leadership

Coordinator Operations (Emergency Management)

 

Response and Operations

Police National HQ

 

===============================================================

WARNING

The information contained in this email message is intended for the
addressee only and may contain privileged information. It may also be
subject to the provisions of section 50 of the Policing Act 2008, which
creates an offence to have unlawful possession of Police property. If you
are not the intended recipient of this message or have received this
message in error, you must not peruse, use, distribute or copy this
message or any of its contents.

Also note, the views expressed in this message may not necessarily reflect
those of the New Zealand Police. If you have received this message in
error, please email or telephone the sender immediately

Link to this

Ross Browne left an annotation ()

Complaint lodged with the Ombudsman

--------------
Office of the Ombudsman
By email

17/10/2014

Dear Sir
Re: Complaint ref: 389555
1. Status of Requests

1.1. Further to my email dated 15 October, I advise that Police have responded to one of my two requests. Their reply is posted at https://www.fyi.org.nz/request/1932-sear...

1.2. No response has been received to my request “Helicopter Use,” which remains substantially overdue.

1.3. I am complaining to you about the response referred to above. The basis for the complaint is set out below.

2. Redaction of names from documents

2.1. Individual names were redacted from some materials supplied under Section 9(2)(a)

2.2. Section 9(2)(a) of the OIA provides good reason for withholding information about natural persons if, and only if, the withholding of the information is necessary to:

“[p]rotect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons."

2.3. I note that in your Opinion dated 14 December 2012, you state:

“Ombudsmen have taken the view that, while the disclosure … does involve the release of details about identifiable individuals, this does not constitute a significant infringement of their privacy interests for the purposes of the OIA.

I consider that as a general principle the public have the right to know the provenance of public policy decisions. This will generally include the content of the submission and the identity of those who elected to contribute.”

2.4. I am therefore appealing the decision to redact the names of individuals who made submission, on the following basis:

a) Withholding the identify of person does not constitute a significant infringement of their privacy interests for the purposes of the OIA

b) The public have a right to know the provenance of public policy decisions, including the content of submissions and identify of those who elected to contribute.

3. Partial refusal under 18(f)

3.1. Parts of the request were refused under 18(f).

3.2. I note that in your publication ISSN 1173-5376 you state:

Section 18(f) is primarily focussed on the administrative task of identifying what information falls within the scope of a particular request and assembling it for consideration as to release.
In assessing whether section 18(f) applies in a particular case, the following factors have been identified as being relevant:

(i) the amount of work involved in determining what information falls within the scope of the request;

(ii) the difficulty involved in locating, researching or collating the information;

(iii) the amount of documentation to be looked at;

(iv) the work time involved;

(v) the nature of the resources and the personnel available to process requests for information;
and

(vi) the effect on other operations of the diversion of resources to meet the request.

3.3. I also note various scholarly articles that state that 18(f) refusals should only be used as a last resort and departments and agencies should take all reasonable measures to comply with the Act invoking relying on 18(f)

3.4. The response from Police appears to rely on an email search of Inspector Green’s email records. Given a specific request for comment via email was made to other Police staff by Inspector Green, it is a reasonable assumption that information relevant to the requested could be obtained from the wider Police email system, specifically from the email records of the limited number of recipients of his request.

3.5. Presumably the Police email system complies with the Public Records Act 2005, and documents in it are stored within “an accessible form so as to be able to be used for subsequent reference. [Public Records Act 2005 17 (2)]” The amount of time required to collate the material should therefore be insignificant in the context of the Official Information Act.

3.6. The released material appears to be almost exclusively relating to third-party comments on the review referenced in the request. In effect, this means that little to no information relating to submissions made by Police has been released.

3.7. It is inconceivable that no electronic records relating to the material in question were generated by the approximately 120 Police staff involved in search and rescue matters part-time, two full-time staff at Police National Headquarters, and one full-time equivalent in at least seven Police districts. I therefore believe that Police have failed to substantially address the request in the spirit of the Act. I note that in one email released, Inspector Green encouraged responses to his draft document by email.

4. Destruction of meeting notes

4.1. I ask you to investigate the destruction of meeting records referenced in the Police response to the request. I submit that these consultation records were “Public Records” under the Public Records Act 2005, and destruction of the records constitutes an offence under the Public Records Act.

4.2. 3.1 may relate to compliance with the Official Information Act, or it may fall within the review of administrative decisions remit of the Independent Police Conduct Authority. I seek your advice on how to best progress this issue.

Your assistance with this matter would be appreciated.

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
New Zealand Police only: