TEL +64 4 473 0111 FAX +64 4 494 1263
Level 11,1 Grey Street, PO Box 25620, Wel ington 6140
New Zealand

22 April 2024
Marie
[email address]
By email

Our ref: F34353

Dear Marie

Request for information regarding investigations
I refer to your request of 27 February 2023 via the FYI site for the following information:
Please provide the following:
1. How many prosecutions in the recreational sector by MNZ in the last 10 years.
2. Of those recreational prosecutions please outline the injuries and seriousness of
those injuries sustained including if ambulances were at the scene.
3. Maritime officers investigate and write a memorandum or other investigation
document whereby they recommend to the CIP if a person should be prosecuted.
In the last 10 years:
1. How many of those that Maritime Of icer recommended be prosecuted, the CIP
adopt the recommend to prosecute regardless of if the type of charges changes.
2. How many of those recommended prosecutions that CIP recommend on basis of
investigations report to the director are accepted and prosecution confirmed.
3. How many recommendations from the maritime officer to CIP to not prosecute
(regardless of other suggestions) are endorsed by CIP to not prosecute.
4. How many recommendations by CIP to not prosecute does the director endorse
instead therefore not prosecute.
5. In last 10 years, How many recreational prosecutions undertaken MTA s65 (1)
where the skipper was charged even though they were not driving the boat at the
time.
6. In last ten years How many recreational prosecutions under MTA s65(2) where by
the skipper is charged not the person driving the boat.
7. How many people charged in MTA s65(1) or (2) where they were not driving the
boat when it had an incident/accident and the person who was driving the boat was
not charged.
Please provide the following:
1. Example template of an investigation memo used to provide info to the CIP
2. Example template for all things relating to all things CIP ie the template for
recording the CIP decisions.
3. The process/policy document guide to review a prosecution and investigation.

4. The prosecution manual/policy book on how to conduct the prosecution
proceedings at each stage and conduct of those involved in the prosecution team.
5. How many complaints about MNZ have MNZ received in the last 5 years?
6. How many “independent inquiry’s” have MNZ commissioned in the last 5 years,
and why.  What is the policies to determine which solicitor will conduct the enquiry.
Response
1.  How many prosecutions in the recreational sector by MNZ in the last 10 years.
There have been 25 prosecutions in the recreational sector in the last 10 years.
2.  Of those recreational prosecutions please outline the injuries and seriousness of those
injuries sustained including if ambulances were at the scene.
Information regarding injuries is contained within the table below. We consider the description
of the injuries answers your question as to the seriousness of those injuries. We note that
there may be multiple prosecutions related to the same incident.
Fractured ribs, cracked vertebrae, a punctured and collapsed lung, and dissection of the
internal aorta wall. Significant swelling and bruising to lower back.
Unknown. No physical injuries reported.
Burns, broken ribs and cracked tailbone, eye injury, possible concussion and bruising.
Same as above.
Scalp lacerations and a head injury with concussion.
Fatality.
Bruising and strained muscles.
Serious lacerations to legs near her ankles.
Multiple rib fractures and a collapsed lung.
No victim injuries.
Contusion, abrasion, laceration, and hematoma. Concussion. Unknown injuries to
additional victim.
Same as above.
Rendered unconscious and laceration to head, and bruising.
Lacerations to head and broken arm.
No victims.
Described as minor injuries. Unable to find further detail.
Unspecified, but believed to include a dislocated hip, facial lacerations, and a broken arm.
No injuries.
Head injury, short-term memory loss, headaches and short attention span.
Serious injuries to arm, including shattering several centimetres of bone.
Minor injuries for other victims.
Same as above.
Unable to find detail of injuries to victims.
Fatality.
4 passengers taken to hospital by ambulance and 1 by Westpac Rescue Helicopter, unable
to find any further detail on injuries.
Two victims admitted to hospital overnight for their injuries, unable to find further detail on
their injuries. Abrasions and bruising, suffered from shock. Cuts, grazing to bruising neck
chest and thigh pain.
Victim rescued; no detail of injuries found.

Information regarding ambulances is not recorded in such a way as to enable a reasonable
search. It would mean reviewing every document within each file to find this information. This
part of your request is refused under section 18(f) of the Act, as the information requested
cannot be made without substantial collation or research.

3.  Maritime officers investigate and write a memorandum or other investigation document
whereby they recommend to the CIP if a person should be prosecuted.
In the last 10 years:
1.   How many of those that Maritime Officer recommended be prosecuted, the CIP adopt the
recommend to prosecute regardless of if the type of charges changes.
Maritime Officers or Investigators can make recommendations in the investigation
memorandum, however this document predates the evidential sufficiency and therefore the
memorandum may not reflect the actual charges or the parties that could be charged. The
Maritime Officer or Investigators recommendations may change when attending CIP. In
addition, a large number of investigations go before CIP each year. To collate the information
requested would require Maritime NZ to locate and review the individual files which are stored
across a number different and older systems, and even locating the correct files would take a
significant amount of time. This information is therefore refused under section 18(f) of the Act,
as the information requested cannot be made available without substantial collation or
research.
2.   How many of those recommended prosecutions that CIP recommend on basis of
investigations report to the director are accepted and prosecution confirmed.
3.   How many recommendations from the maritime officer to CIP to not prosecute (regardless
of other suggestions) are endorsed by CIP to not prosecute.
4.   How many recommendations by CIP to not prosecute does the director endorse instead
therefore not prosecute.
Questions 2 to 4 of your request are refused under section 18(f) of the Act, as the information
requested cannot be made without substantial collation or research. To collate the information
requested would require Maritime NZ to check each and every file.
Please note that the CIP Tier 3 managers individually vote on their recommendation, so the
CIP recommendation could be unanimous or split when considering each party and each
offence that has met evidential sufficiency.
5.   In last 10 years, How many recreational prosecutions undertaken MTA s65 (1) where the
skipper was charged even though they were not driving the boat at the time.
6.   In last ten years How many recreational prosecutions under MTA s65(2) where by the
skipper is charged not the person driving the boat.
7.   How many people charged in MTA s65(1) or (2) where they were not driving the boat
when it had an incident/accident and the person who was driving the boat was not charged.
Maritime NZ does not record information such as whether the skipper was charged even
though they were not driving the boat. This question is therefore refused under section 18(e)
of the Act because the requested information does not exist.
Additionally, a s65 charge relates to dangerous activity involving ships or maritime products,
not just related to the activity of driving the boat.
For clarity, a recreational vessel is defined as a “pleasure craft” under the Maritime Transport
Act.
Please provide the following:
1.    Example template of an investigation memo used to provide info to the CIP
Please see attached the requested template.
2.    Example template for all things relating to all things CIP ie the template for recording the
CIP decisions.
Please see attached the requested template.
3.    The process/policy document guide to review a prosecution and investigation.

4.    The prosecution manual/policy book on how to conduct the prosecution proceedings at
each stage and conduct of those involved in the prosecution team.
Questions 3 and 4 above are refused under section 18(e) of the Act because the requested
information does not exist.
5.   How many complaints about MNZ have MNZ received in the last 5 years?
This type of data is not captured central y and cannot reasonably be searched for. This
question is therefore refused under section 18(f) of the Act because the requested information
cannot be extracted without substantial collation and research.
6.   How many “independent inquiry’s” have MNZ commissioned in the last 5 years, and why.
What is the policies to determine which solicitor will conduct the enquiry.
No independent inquiries were commissioned by Maritime NZ in the last five years (Duncan
Ferrier was engaged by Maritime NZ to conduct an independent review of Maritime NZ’s
investigation into the C-Works incident) and Maritime NZ does not have any policies in place
to determine which solicitor will conduct an inquiry/review.
Where we have refused certain questions under section 18 of the Act, we have considered
whether we would be able to respond to your request given extra time, or the ability to charge
for the information requested. We have concluded that, in either case, Maritime NZ’s ability to
undertake its other operations would still be prejudiced.
I trust this fulfils your information request. Under section 28(3) of the Act, you have the right to
ask the Ombudsman to review any decisions made under this request. The Ombudsman may
be contacted by email at: [email address] or by calling 0800 802 602.
If you wish to discuss this request, please do not hesitate to contact
[Maritime New Zealand request email]

Yours sincerely

Christine Ross
Manager, Communication and Ministerial Services

Memorandum
LEGALLY PRIVILEGED
TO
(XXXX Insert name)Deputy Chief Executive, Regulatory Operations,
Compliance Intervention Panel (CIP)
FROM
[Name], [Job Title]
MANAGER
[Name], [Job Title]
REVIEWED
COPIES
[Name], Senior Solicitor
DATE
[dd Month yyyy]
TOTAL PAGES  [XX]
Date of Incident [dd month yyyy]
(12 months statute of limitations)
SUBJECT
Investigation Memorandum  - [Investigation Number: VESSEL NAME – Company,
Master]
WARNING: May contain Graphic Content
This document may be subject to legal privilege - do not disclose without prior
consultation and approval from MNZ Legal
1  Executive Summary
This Memorandum has been prepared to assist Maritime New Zealand decision-makers and legal advisors
in the decision-making process around enforcement action. This includes the decision to prosecute or not
for offences under the Maritime Transport Act 1994, Maritime Rules, or the Health & Safety at Work Act
2015.
[Fol owed by a brief summary of what happened and why it happened.]
For example:
On the 10th of January 2020 commercial charter vessel “Nautalis” engaged the engine as the vessel neared
the rocks. Divers were in the water and diver, Jean Paul Gaultier was caught in the propellers  causing significant
injuries to his lower legs.
The incident happened approximately twenty miles south of the Greymouth River bar.  The victim, Gaultier had
to be medivac from the vessel and spent a month in hospital and wil  require significant rehabilitation to walk
unassisted.
Nautalis was being driven by Joseph Blogs who is an owner operator Trading under the name ‘Safe as Dives’.
under the Official Information Act 1982
Gaultier was on a dive holiday in New Zealand and is due to return to France in March 2020. His private insurance
covered his medical costs.
MNZ were advised of the incident by the RCC and via a s31 notification on the 10th of January 2020 and Andrew
Sceepers was assigned as the lead investigator.
This memo outlines the result of inquires conducted and is submitted with a view towards prosecution action.
Released

2  Options considered
Briefly discuss options that you have considered including safety bulletins warning Infringements
3. Recommendations: The decision maker is keen to hear from the investigator who has the most
knowledge on the file and so wants to consider your recommendations
Eg:  I recommend filing charges against the Master Joseph BLOGGS under s65 MTA and s XX HSWA .
4. Involved Parties
[Factual information about who the parties are that are allegedly involved]
PCBU / Organisations (state full legal name / trading name and PCBU representatives name)
Persons
Notes:  From now onwards refer to people by their name and correct title, such as Mr Smith or Captain Big.
It is natural for there to be inconsistencies between statements. Where the inconsistencies go beyond what
would be natural, and relate to a significant or relevant point then highlight these in the memo and weigh
them against other independent evidence that has been collected in the analysis section.
The Witness list is a separate document  that does not evidence but would include what exhibits they
produce or refer to in court. The witness list would also include contact detail in case they are required to
be summonsed to court so no need to include them in the body of this report
Witnesses
List witness full name  role and bullet point why they are relevant and what evidence they contribute  (ideally
be succinct and try to limit to no more than 6 bullet points.) Only include relevant  witnesses (ones that
have something of material value to add)   you can note a full list of witnesses  and exhibits is attached
Eg: Rachel Dianne SMITH (Deck Hand / holds CLM ) full statement transcript attached
•
Employed with Dive Charter for 2 years.
•
Outlines poor H&S practices including previous incidents where motors engaged while divers still
in the water. Raised concerns with PCBU previously via email - copies attached to file.
under the Official Information Act 1982
•
Saw divers in the water behind the vessel when master started the motor and shouted at him to
stop.
•
Helped recover injured diver from the water and administered First Aid till medevac.
Victim/s
Eg : Jean Paul Gaultier (diver taking charter trip with Nautilus) Statement and Medical records attached.
•
Qualified Padi diver but only 4th open water dive.
Released
2

•
Comments on poor safety briefing prior to dive.
•
Diving around rocks and was under vessel when engine started.
•
Fins and lower legs caught in propeller causing significant injuries.
Note: Returns to France March 2020.  French speaker requires interpreter.
Interpreter
Eg: Jaqui Chand (NZSTI Certified interpreter)  assisted with translation / interview of Gaultier
•
Copy of Certification attached.
Persons of interest
Eg: Joseph BLOGGS  (Master  ‘Safe as Dive’ Charter “Nautalis”) (statement taken under caution)
•
Qualified Skipper owner operator with 6 year experience
•
Vessel drifting towards rocks  in strong swell
•
Called out to deck hand Smith to confirm divers were clear and thought she said they were
•
Started engines to stay off the rocks  / heard screaming shut engine off
•
Assisted with First Aid for injured diver / called for medevac
•
2 previous near miss reports s 31
•
Denies that Smith ever raised H&S concerns
Technical Experts
[Include any technical assessments, testing or key findings of any technical experts engaged by MNZ or
any experts that would be required.]
  Eg: might comment on the design of the vessel as being suitable or otherwise for use as a dive platform
– ie no prop guards….
Investigator
Eg: Andrew Scheepers Investigator
•
Interviewed parties under caution (interviews recorded and transcribed)
•
Scene examination
•
Photographs and exhibits (chain of custody)
under the Official Information Act 1982
•
Propensity evidence near miss x 2 reported s31
5. The Vessel (refer to vessel name in Bold Italics)
Nautilus is an 18m Fiberglass vessel owned and operated by Big Fishing Company Ltd.   The company own
three other commercial tourist and dive platforms and generally operate out of the Greymouth area.  Barry Big is
the sole director of Big Fishing Company Ltd.
Released
3

Nautalis  was constructed in 1995 and is powered by a 328kw engine, with twin propellers. The vessel is
surveyed by XX Ltd and holds a current SSM certificate, which was issued on 10 November 2010.
6. Site Information
[Factual information about the site that’s relevant, including any weather reports] Might include a map of
scene here if relevant or refer to map in file which is preferred.]
7. Loss, Harm, Injuries or Fatalities
[Comment on the loss, harm and injuries or fatalities that has occurred, including ongoing issues with
physical and mental health including victim impact]
For example:
Gaultier:
•
Severe lacerations to lower legs requiring 300 stitches (photos attached)
•
1 month in hospital
•
Ongoing rehab and physio to be able to walk again and still using canes to assist walking
•
Significant depression and seeing a physiologist on medication for depression.
Smith:  Ongoing trauma counselling and has not been back to work in the Charter since. Her counselling
costs for 6 sessions at $300 per hour are not covered by ACC.
The MNZ Victim Support Officer has been providing support to the victims. (Full Victim Impact statements
will be sought if the matter proceeds to prosecution)
8. Investigation
[A factual account of the investigation detailing any evidence obtained during the investigation, Law and
Powers used,  including a list of the inquiries made and those yet to be completed where relevant.
Notes:  All the primary documents relied on in completing this summary should be included in the
investigation file. It would assist if footnotes were used to identify which documents have been relied upon.
Refer to the Exhibit Schedule for reference and attach the Exhibit Schedule as an Appendix.
under the Official Information Act 1982
9. Scene Examination
[Relay pertinent points / information from the scene examination. Note:  limit photos]
10. Documentation
[Factual information about any maritime documents, ships documents, operating H&S procedures etc that
is relevant to the investigation and state why the document is relevant to this investigation]
Released
4

11. Analysis
[Draw together your conclusions based on the information above. Analysis of the above evidence written
in objective language, without any subjective inferences, including any safety issues.  Base analysis on the
facts you have alluded to in your report to date. Explain how you know what you know drawing together
logical conclusions based on evidence – you may use headings or a diagram to assist]
Notes:
To ensure statements are supported by evidence,  refer  to  the documents containing the evidence in
footnotes, it would be helpful to include the document number that it’s referred to in the exhibit table.
Where you find yourself including a personal opinion or personal view of a technical matter, then consider
referencing an expert to provide evidence to support that opinion.
Be Professional and fact based - Colourful or emotive should also be avoided.
Then after you have laid out your analysis add comments under the below if relevant
•
Extent of risk / harm
•
Conduct (deliberate reckless serious departure from the law or policy procedures)
•
Attitude to compliance – did they go out of their way to comply with the law
•
Public interest (deter others  clarify the law respect to victims)
•
Aggravating Factors (recidivist /propensity evidence / level of harm caused)
•
Mitigating factors willingness to engage / change behaviour
•
Note any potential issues
In my view, this incident is at the higher/lower end of the scale
12. Evidence  Considerations
[Refer to the provision that the possible offending may have occurred under. Complete this analysis for
both the Master and the Company where relevant under different headings.]
Notes:  Use this as an opportunity to discuss the charges that are available and the levels of culpability
attached to these.
Where it is recommended that a particular person or company are charged ensure you clearly explain:
under the Official Information Act 1982
Evidence Test
Who they are (Where a company is involved ensure you have the full and correct company name).
•
The relevant law
•
The offences they may have committed
•
The evidence supporting the proposed charges
Released
5

[When Drafting your memo ensure consultation and discussion with legal to agree the appropriate charge
and to set out any legal issues or considerations]
The incident took place on [date], therefore this matter is within the limitation period.
Public interest Test
•
Public interest factors such as:
•
The level of culpability
•
Their personal circumstances
•
Any special circumstances
•
Any relevant previous history with MNZ or Police (If known)
•
Their explanation for the al eged offending
Given the Evidence Test has been met, the following Compliance tools are available :
•  Prosecution
•  Non-Compliance Letter
•  Infringement Notice
•  Improvement Notice (HSWA only)
•  Prohibition Notice (HSWA only)
•  Safety recommendations such as manufacturer agrees to make change to a product
•  Educational campaign
•  Operational steps (e.g. increase the risk rating for the vessel to increase audits)
•  [Other compliance tools]
OR
Given the Evidence Test has not been met, the only Compliance tools available are:
•  Safety recommendations such as manufacturer agrees to make change to a product
•  Educational campaign
•  Operational steps (e.g. increase the risk rating for the vessel to increase audits)
•  [Other compliance tools]
Notes:
under the Official Information Act 1982
You only need to talk about the suitable options that you recommend, not every option available.
When considered against the Compliance Intervention framework and compliance intervention options
indicate the appropriate option is…
Released
6

[Name]
[Title]
under the Official Information Act 1982
Released
7

1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released

Document Outline