Printed from https://fyi.org.nz/request/10241-information-about-a-vehicle-pursuit-and-firearms-discharged-by-police-officers?unfold=1 on December 04, 2024 21:29

Information about a vehicle pursuit and firearms discharged by Police officers

Hugh Davenport made this Official Information request to New Zealand Police

The request was refused by New Zealand Police.

From: Hugh Davenport

Dear New Zealand Police,

This is a repeat of my earlier request at https://fyi.org.nz/request/9614-informat.... I'm hoping that this is no longer under investigation and can be released.

I would like to request the following information about a car pursuit in Manurewa, South Auckland on 31st January, as displayed on media at https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic..., https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zeala..., and video shown at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_P0mVX...

The information requested is:

1) How many shots were fired by the Police
2) For each shot fired by the Police,
a) Who was the officer who fired (name and/or badge number),
b) Was that officer an armed offenders squad member,
c) What was the target of the shot fired
d) Was the target hit?
e) If the target was not hit, where did the shot go?
f) What hazards existed in the firing zone?
g) When was the firearm retrieved from the weapons safe
h) Which weapons safe was the firearm retrieved from
3) For each officer involved with the shooting
a) What was the outcome of any investigation
b) Was any stand-down period applied
4) Were any firearms retrieved after the suspect was detained
5) Were any firearms seen to leave the vehicle during the pursuit
6) Were any shots fired by the suspect during the pursuit, if so, then
a) How many were directed at Police
b) How many were directed at bystanders
c) How many shots hit any human and/or animal
7) When did the pursuit start, and when did each Police vehicle join and/or leave the pursuit?
8) When were the armed offenders squad called to the pursuit?
9) At any point during the pursuit, was there any risks identified that could have suggested calling off the pursuit? For example, high speed pursuit in a built up urban zone with a large number of bystanders, the use of spikes and/or firing shots at tyres in an attempt to cause the vehicle to skid during a high speed pursuit in a built up urban zone with a large number of bystanders, the use of firearms in a build up urban zone with large number of bystanders.

Yours faithfully,

Hugh Davenport

Link to this

New Zealand Police

Dear Hugh 
I acknowledge receipt of your Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) request
for the below 9 questions.
Your request is being actioned pursuant to the OIA. 
Kind regards
Ministerial Services
Police National Headquarters 

-----Hugh Davenport <[FOI #10241 email]>
wrote: -----
To: OIA/LGOIMA requests at New Zealand Police
<[New Zealand Police request email]>
From: Hugh Davenport <[FOI #10241 email]>
Date: 03/05/2019 01:30PM
Subject: Official Information request - Information about a vehicle
pursuit and firearms discharged by Police officers

Dear New Zealand Police,
This is a repeat of my earlier request at
[1]https://fyi.org.nz/request/9614-informat...
. I'm hoping that this is no longer under investigation and can be
released.
I would like to request the following information about a car pursuit in
Manurewa, South Auckland on 31st January, as displayed on media at
[2]https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic...
,
[3]https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zeala...
, and video shown at
[4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_P0mVX...
The information requested is:
1) How many shots were fired by the Police
2) For each shot fired by the Police,
a) Who was the officer who fired (name and/or badge number),
b) Was that officer an armed offenders squad member,
c) What was the target of the shot fired
d) Was the target hit?
e) If the target was not hit, where did the shot go?
f) What hazards existed in the firing zone?
g) When was the firearm retrieved from the weapons safe
h) Which weapons safe was the firearm retrieved from
3) For each officer involved with the shooting
a) What was the outcome of any investigation
b) Was any stand-down period applied
4) Were any firearms retrieved after the suspect was detained
5) Were any firearms seen to leave the vehicle during the pursuit
6) Were any shots fired by the suspect during the pursuit, if so, then
a) How many were directed at Police
b) How many were directed at bystanders
c) How many shots hit any human and/or animal
7) When did the pursuit start, and when did each Police vehicle join
and/or leave the pursuit?
8) When were the armed offenders squad called to the pursuit?
9) At any point during the pursuit, was there any risks identified that
could have suggested calling off the pursuit? For example, high speed
pursuit in a built up urban zone with a large number of bystanders, the
use of spikes and/or firing shots at tyres in an attempt to cause the
vehicle to skid during a high speed pursuit in a built up urban zone with
a large number of bystanders, the use of firearms in a build up urban zone
with large number of bystanders.
Yours faithfully,
Hugh Davenport
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #10241 email]
Is [New Zealand Police request email] the wrong address for Official
Information requests to New Zealand Police? If so, please contact us using
this form:
[5]https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[6]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

References

Visible links
1. https://fyi.org.nz/request/9614-informat...
2. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic...
3. https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zeala...
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7_P0mVX...
5. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
6. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

hide quoted sections

Link to this

New Zealand Police

Attachment Response letter Hugh Davenport.pdf
74K Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Davenport,

Please see response to your request dated 3 May 2019 attached.
 
Regards,
 
Lauren MacMenigall
Sergeant LMZ919
Counties Manukau Records 

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

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

Hugh Davenport left an annotation ()

Hi Lauren,

Just saw your response to my OIA request about the firearms discharged in January.

To save Police time by making another OIA request for the same information, I was wondering if you could tell me how long a case such as that usually takes to be "investigated" fully, so I can make the request after that.

To be honest, I'm actually quite surprised it has taken 4 months and it is still under investigation. Police shot at innocent civilians, and it takes 4 months to investigate? Seems suspicious.

If you are unable to give a rough timeframe on when it might be completed, I'll continue to make the same request each month. My next request will also ask for a timeline of actions made as this has been refused multiple times now as it is under "active" investigation, which given other OIA responses I've seen from the Police using s6(c) I'm a bit dubious whether it is actually under "active" investigation at all, or the Police are using that clause to hide the information against the spirit of the OIA.

Cheers,

Hugh

Link to this

New Zealand Police

Attachment Response letter Hugh Davenport.pdf
74K Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Davenport,
 
The link provided in the request is not appearing to load for me but I am
assuming this request is the same as your request of 3 May 2019?
 
I have made enquiries and the matter is still under investigation and the
attached letter is still the reply at this stage.
 
Kind regards,
 
Lauren MacMenigall
Sergeant LMZ919
Counties Manukau Records,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

-----Forwarded by Lauren MacMenigall/POLICE/NZ on 07/31/2019 06:58AM -----
To: [FYI request #10241 email]
From: Counties Manukau Records/POLICE/NZ
Sent by: Lauren MacMenigall/POLICE/NZ
Date: 05/31/2019 09:29AM
Subject: Request for information RE- Pursuit Manurewa IR 01 19 12636

(See attached file: Response letter Hugh Davenport.pdf)

Dear Mr Davenport,

Please see response to your request dated 3 May 2019 attached.
 
Regards,
 
Lauren MacMenigall
Sergeant LMZ919
Counties Manukau Records 

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

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

hide quoted sections

Link to this

From: Hugh Davenport

Dear New Zealand Police,

Hi Lauren,

I actually asked for a timeline on when this case is expected to be completed (and how long similar cases usually take) to save Police time and resources by making the same request month after month. The email I sent directly to you on May 31 is below for your reference. The response to that email should have been sent by 29 May 2019. We are now in August. It has now been 7 months since the Police shot at innocent civilians and there has been no response from the Police on this.

To save Police time by making another OIA request for the same information, I was wondering if you could tell me how long a case such as that usually takes to be "investigated" fully, so I can make the request after that.

To be honest, I'm actually quite surprised it has taken 4 months and it is still under investigation. Police shot at innocent civilians, and it takes 4 months to investigate? Seems suspicious.

If you are unable to give a rough timeframe on when it might be completed, I'll continue to make the same request each month. My next request will also ask for a timeline of actions made as this has been refused multiple times now as it is under "active" investigation, which given other OIA responses I've seen from the Police using s6(c) I'm a bit dubious whether it is actually under "active" investigation at all, or the Police are using that clause to hide the information against the spirit of the OIA.

Yours faithfully,

Hugh Davenport

Link to this

From: FOUNTAIN, Nicholas
New Zealand Police

Hello

 

I am currently working outside of New Zealand Police, please direct any
inquiries to [email address] in my absence.

 

Kind regards,

 

Nick Fountian

Ministerial Services Advisor

 

Link to this

From: Hugh Davenport

Dear New Zealand Police,

Hi Lauren,

On top of that email, it would be good if the Police can respond to the questions I asked MCMAHON, Teresa on April 3 2019 regarding the refusal under s6(c).

Before I go to the Ombudsman on this. Would I be able to get a bit of reasoning behind how this request in its entirety fits in with s6(c).

Releasing some of the information I requested should have no prejudice on any investigation the Police have, or any rights to a fair trial with the offender. I also don't see how releasing some data would prejudice any prevention or detection of offences.

Point 1, how many shots were fired. I can't see any way this would interfere with the investigation. Can you please explain how this might interfere?
Point 2, perhaps c, d, and e may interfere with the investigation, but still doesn't seem likely. Can you please explain why the public is not entitled to know that Police are handling firearms as per the firearms safety rules (https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firear...)
Point 3, this may still be ongoing, subpoint b should probably be known now, and shouldn't interfere with the investigation. Can you please explain how this may prejudice?
Point 4-6 I can see this interfering, and it is likely correct for the Police to refuse these points.
Point 7-8, similar information has been released quite happily by the Police for the Christchurch terrorist, but seem to be withheld here. https://twitter.com/nzpolice/status/1107.... Can you please explain why information regarding response times is available for release pre-trial for some situations, but not all?
Point 9. Again, I don't see how this might interfere with the investigation. Can you please explain how it is likely to prejudice?

I requested this information as in the past, Police have used firearms without checking their "firing zone" (which is a term from rule 5 of the 7 firearm safety rules available at https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firear...), which resulted in a death of an innocent bystander, and injury of another (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/807216/C... and https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/1...).

This also appears to break rule 2 of the firearm safety rules which is point only in a safe direction.
In this request, the video shows Police not appearing to check danger to the public around the area, breaching rules 2 and 5 of the firearms safety rules. This is mentioned by a witness in the news story (https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zeala...).

QUOTE
Witness Josiah Wallace captured the whole thing on camera, and he says the public was in danger.

"The officer gets out of his vehicle, and instantly with no thought about the public pulls his firearm and fires shots at the Holden."

Mr Wallace says things could have gone badly

"About a metre away there was a family who had just finished eating with their kids in the car," he told Newshub.

"[The kids] were crying and the guy got out of his car and yells 'I've got kids in here!'"

He says the officer just stared at the family before driving off after the Holden
ENDQUOTE

I think that there was a high chance that a shot from the Police could have injured or killed a member of the public if the shot fired was slightly different.

I think that it is of interest to the public that some information is released on this, to show that the Police correctly know how to handle firearms in a safe manner.

I would hope that given this explanation, you reconsider withholding this request in it's entirety, and release some or all of the information.

Yours faithfully,

Hugh Davenport

Link to this

From: Hugh Davenport

Dear New Zealand Police,

Attention Lauren MacMenigall

Hi Lauren,

I have a feeling that my latest two responses were not delivered to you. Would you be able to read through them and confirm that you have received them? You didn't actually respond to my request for a timeline. I've also added another overdue request that was sent to MCMAHON, Teresa on April 3 2019 which has also not been responded to.

I note that both of these requests are overdue, and the whole point of my latest request was to not burden the Police anymore, but given you have failed to respond correctly here we are.

https://fyi.org.nz/request/10241-informa...

Yours faithfully,

Hugh Davenport

Link to this

From: MACMENIGALL, Lauren
New Zealand Police

Attachment image001.png
8K Download

Good morning Mr Davenport,

 

My reply to you on the 8 June 2019:

 

No accurate indication can be given when the investigation will have
concluded unfortunately.

 

An IPCA investigation is in progress alongside the criminal police
investigation.

 

In response to your question surrounding how long similar cases usually
take, there is no specific timeframe and every investigation is different.
 

 

In relation to the reasons for withholding all information you have
requested the two previous responses stand at this point in time.

 

Sincerely,

 

Lauren MacMenigall

 

[1]cid:image002.png@01D1B71A.821015E0 Lauren MACMENIGALL

Sergeant LMZ919
FMC Supervisor  | File Management
Centre | Manukau | New Zealand
Police

P +211923473| Email
[2][email address]
Safer Communities Together

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: [email address]
[mailto:[email address]]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2019 2:44 p.m.
To: MACMENIGALL, Lauren <[email address]>
Subject: Fw: Re: Request for information RE- Pursuit Manurewa (New IR 01
19181088

 

Hi Lauren,

 

I may be doubling up but wanted to make sure the email below had reached
you for response.

 

Thanks,

Ministerial Services

-----Forwarded by Fiona MOFFITT2/POLICE/NZ on 06/08/2019 02:42PM -----

To: OIA/LGOIMA requests at New Zealand Police
<[3][New Zealand Police request email]>
From: Hugh Davenport <[4][FOI #10241 email]>
Date: 02/08/2019 11:18AM
Subject: Re: Request for information RE- Pursuit Manurewa (New IR 01
19181088

Dear New Zealand Police,
Hi Lauren,
I actually asked for a timeline on when this case is expected to be
completed (and how long similar cases usually take) to save Police time
and resources by making the same request month after month. The email I
sent directly to you on May 31 is below for your reference. The response
to that email should have been sent by 29 May 2019. We are now in August.
It has now been 7 months since the Police shot at innocent civilians and
there has been no response from the Police on this.
To save Police time by making another OIA request for the same
information, I was wondering if you could tell me how long a case such as
that usually takes to be "investigated" fully, so I can make the request
after that.
To be honest, I'm actually quite surprised it has taken 4 months and it is
still under investigation. Police shot at innocent civilians, and it takes
4 months to investigate? Seems suspicious.
If you are unable to give a rough timeframe on when it might be completed,
I'll continue to make the same request each month. My next request will
also ask for a timeline of actions made as this has been refused multiple
times now as it is under "active" investigation, which given other OIA
responses I've seen from the Police using s6(c) I'm a bit dubious whether
it is actually under "active" investigation at all, or the Police are
using that clause to hide the information against the spirit of the OIA.
Yours faithfully,
Hugh Davenport
-----Original Message-----
Dear Mr Davenport,

The link provided in the request is not appearing to load for me but I am
assuming this request is the same as your request of 3 May 2019?

I have made enquiries and the matter is still under investigation and the
attached letter is still the reply at this stage.

Kind regards,
Lauren MacMenigall
Sergeant LMZ919
Counties Manukau Records,

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[5][FOI #10241 email]
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[6]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

References

Visible links
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[New Zealand Police request email]
4. mailto:[FOI #10241 email]
5. mailto:[FOI #10241 email]
6. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

hide quoted sections

Link to this

From: Hugh Davenport

Dear MACMENIGALL, Lauren,

Would you be able to break down your response to my request for information on why it was refused please. I broke down into each point explaining why I think it should or shouldn't have been refused, and you seem to have ignored that and just done a blanket refusal. Please treat this as an OIA request (originally requested via MCMAHON, Teresa on April 3 2019). I would expect the response to reply to each of the points below and explain the Police's reasoning behind the refusal. As mentioned in my breakdown, there is quite a discrepancy between this case and the case investigating the Christchurch terror attacks. By releasing information about those attacks and not releasing the same information for this case implies that the Police do not care about prejudging the investigation on the Christchurch terror attacks.

Point 1, how many shots were fired. I can't see any way this would interfere with the investigation. Can you please explain how this might interfere?
Point 2, perhaps c, d, and e may interfere with the investigation, but still doesn't seem likely. Can you please explain why the public is not entitled to know that Police are handling firearms as per the firearms safety rules (https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firear...)
Point 3, this may still be ongoing, subpoint b should probably be known now, and shouldn't interfere with the investigation. Can you please explain how this may prejudice?
Point 4-6 I can see this interfering, and it is likely correct for the Police to refuse these points.
Point 7-8, similar information has been released quite happily by the Police for the Christchurch terrorist, but seem to be withheld here. https://twitter.com/nzpolice/status/1107.... Can you please explain why information regarding response times is available for release pre-trial for some situations, but not all?
Point 9. Again, I don't see how this might interfere with the investigation. Can you please explain how it is likely to prejudice?

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Link to this

From: MACMENIGALL, Lauren
New Zealand Police

Good morning Mr Davenport,

In regard to the questions asking for justification , information is not released to the public in situations where an investigation might result in charges being laid - that is in relation to Police or members of the public. This means that if the police officer or member of the public is investigated and charged then releasing information before it is tested in Court may interfere with both the investigation and the individual's right to a fair trial.

The withholding ground is the same for all of your questions as the investigation is ongoing.

The Christchurch terror attacks was streamed to the internet and therefore the information was in the public domain from the offset making the situation different.

You have the right to ask the Ombudsman to review my decision if you are not satisfied with Police's response to your request.

Sincerely,

Lauren MACMENIGALL
Sergeant LMZ919
FMC Supervisor | File Management Centre | Manukau | New Zealand Police
P +211923473| Email [email address]
Safer Communities Together

-----Original Message-----
From: Hugh Davenport [mailto:[FOI #10241 email]]
Sent: Wednesday, 7 August 2019 11:21 a.m.
To: MACMENIGALL, Lauren <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Re: Request for information RE- Pursuit Manurewa (New IR 01 19181088

Dear MACMENIGALL, Lauren,

Would you be able to break down your response to my request for information on why it was refused please. I broke down into each point explaining why I think it should or shouldn't have been refused, and you seem to have ignored that and just done a blanket refusal. Please treat this as an OIA request (originally requested via MCMAHON, Teresa on April 3 2019). I would expect the response to reply to each of the points below and explain the Police's reasoning behind the refusal. As mentioned in my breakdown, there is quite a discrepancy between this case and the case investigating the Christchurch terror attacks. By releasing information about those attacks and not releasing the same information for this case implies that the Police do not care about prejudging the investigation on the Christchurch terror attacks.

Point 1, how many shots were fired. I can't see any way this would interfere with the investigation. Can you please explain how this might interfere?
Point 2, perhaps c, d, and e may interfere with the investigation, but still doesn't seem likely. Can you please explain why the public is not entitled to know that Police are handling firearms as per the firearms safety rules (https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firear...)
Point 3, this may still be ongoing, subpoint b should probably be known now, and shouldn't interfere with the investigation. Can you please explain how this may prejudice?
Point 4-6 I can see this interfering, and it is likely correct for the Police to refuse these points.
Point 7-8, similar information has been released quite happily by the Police for the Christchurch terrorist, but seem to be withheld here. https://twitter.com/nzpolice/status/1107.... Can you please explain why information regarding response times is available for release pre-trial for some situations, but not all?
Point 9. Again, I don't see how this might interfere with the investigation. Can you please explain how it is likely to prejudice?

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

-----Original Message-----

Good morning Mr Davenport,

 

My reply to you on the 8 June 2019:

 

No accurate indication can be given when the investigation will have concluded unfortunately.

 

An IPCA investigation is in progress alongside the criminal police investigation.

 

In response to your question surrounding how long similar cases usually take, there is no specific timeframe and every investigation is different.
 

 

In relation to the reasons for withholding all information you have requested the two previous responses stand at this point in time.

 

Sincerely,

 

Lauren MacMenigall

 

[1]cid:image002.png@01D1B71A.821015E0 Lauren MACMENIGALL

Sergeant LMZ919
FMC Supervisor  | File Management
Centre | Manukau | New Zealand
Police

P +211923473| Email
[2][email address]
Safer Communities Together

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: [email address]
[mailto:[email address]]
Sent: Tuesday, 6 August 2019 2:44 p.m.
To: MACMENIGALL, Lauren <[email address]>
Subject: Fw: Re: Request for information RE- Pursuit Manurewa (New IR 01
19181088

 

Hi Lauren,

 

I may be doubling up but wanted to make sure the email below had reached you for response.

 

Thanks,

Ministerial Services

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #10241 email]

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers

If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

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

hide quoted sections

Link to this

From: Hugh Davenport

Dear MACMENIGALL, Lauren,

Thanks for your reply.

Lets drill down on a specific. Point 7-8, I asked when the pursuit started, and when the AOS was called to the pursuit. I mentioned that for the Christchurch attack that this was released by the Police quite quickly, as seen by this tweet from the official NZ Police account (https://twitter.com/nzpolice/status/1107...). This provided information about the timeline of the response for the Christchurch attacker (1:41pm first 111 call, 1:47pm first Police on scene, 2:41pm AOS on scene). This information is strikingly similar to points 7-8 that I have requested, which is why I'm so confused why the Police are refusing to release this information for the incident in January.

Your response was that this information could prejudge an investigation against the offender or the Police staff, and you used s6(c) to make this refusal. I noted that the same information was provided quite happily by the Police without months and months of delay for the Christchurch terror attacks, which seems to imply that the Police do not care about prejudging any investigation against the Christchurch terrorist. You responded saying that the attacks were streamed on the internet so the information was already public domain.

However, the information the Police released in that tweet regarding response times, was not to my knowledge streamed to the internet, and therefor was not in the public domain until 11:09pm, 16 March 2019, over a day after the live stream. So, I repeat again, why is my request for the response time being refused under s6(c) while the Christchurch terror attacks response time was not refused? Is it that the Police do not care about prejudging the investigation against the Christchurch terrorist? I am hoping it is not, but I'm sure you can see a massive discrepancy here and that you probably should not be refusing all of this request. I would hope that you go back through my previous list of points and work out which of those points you want to refuse under s6(c) and which you are required to release under the OIA.

Look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Link to this

From: MACMENIGALL, Lauren
New Zealand Police

Dear Mr Davenport,

Thank you for you correspondence on this matter. As it is clear you are not satisfied with the response I would suggest that you follow the suggested appeal process. The New Zealand police have provided you with the answer and that answer will remain until the investigation is over.

Regards,

Lauren Macmenigall

Sent from my iPhone

> On 12/08/2019, at 10:43 AM, Hugh Davenport <[FOI #10241 email]> wrote:
>
> Dear MACMENIGALL, Lauren,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> Lets drill down on a specific. Point 7-8, I asked when the pursuit started, and when the AOS was called to the pursuit. I mentioned that for the Christchurch attack that this was released by the Police quite quickly, as seen by this tweet from the official NZ Police account (https://twitter.com/nzpolice/status/1107...). This provided information about the timeline of the response for the Christchurch attacker (1:41pm first 111 call, 1:47pm first Police on scene, 2:41pm AOS on scene). This information is strikingly similar to points 7-8 that I have requested, which is why I'm so confused why the Police are refusing to release this information for the incident in January.
>
> Your response was that this information could prejudge an investigation against the offender or the Police staff, and you used s6(c) to make this refusal. I noted that the same information was provided quite happily by the Police without months and months of delay for the Christchurch terror attacks, which seems to imply that the Police do not care about prejudging any investigation against the Christchurch terrorist. You responded saying that the attacks were streamed on the internet so the information was already public domain.
>
> However, the information the Police released in that tweet regarding response times, was not to my knowledge streamed to the internet, and therefor was not in the public domain until 11:09pm, 16 March 2019, over a day after the live stream. So, I repeat again, why is my request for the response time being refused under s6(c) while the Christchurch terror attacks response time was not refused? Is it that the Police do not care about prejudging the investigation against the Christchurch terrorist? I am hoping it is not, but I'm sure you can see a massive discrepancy here and that you probably should not be refusing all of this request. I would hope that you go back through my previous list of points and work out which of those points you want to refuse under s6(c) and which you are required to release under the OIA.
>
> Look forward to your response.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Hugh Davenport
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Good morning Mr Davenport,
>
> In regard to the questions asking for justification , information is not released to the public in situations where an investigation might result in charges being laid - that is in relation to Police or members of the public. This means that if the police officer or member of the public is investigated and charged then releasing information before it is tested in Court may interfere with both the investigation and the individual's right to a fair trial.
>
> The withholding ground is the same for all of your questions as the investigation is ongoing.
>
> The Christchurch terror attacks was streamed to the internet and therefore the information was in the public domain from the offset making the situation different.
>
> You have the right to ask the Ombudsman to review my decision if you are not satisfied with Police's response to your request.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Lauren MACMENIGALL
> Sergeant LMZ919
> FMC Supervisor | File Management Centre | Manukau | New Zealand Police
> P +211923473| Email [email address]
> Safer Communities Together
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
> [FOI #10241 email]
>
> Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
> https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
>
> If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

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

hide quoted sections

Link to this

From: Hugh Davenport

Dear MACMENIGALL, Lauren,

Ok, thanks for being so difficult. I was merely pointing out a discrepancy with releases of official information. If you are continuing to choose to have that discrepancy rather than work out why there is a discrepancy that is fine, I will report this to the Ombudsman. I note that your refusal to even come to the discussion is just making more work for the NZ Police than what could have been required if you were more cooperative.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Link to this

Hugh Davenport left an annotation ()

Sent to the Ombudsman:

https://fyi.org.nz/request/10241-informa...

I had made a complaint about the Police's response previously, but had since made a follow up request to see if they would release the data. I'm appalled of the Police's refusal and non cooperation on upholding the values of the OIA. I would like to make a formal complaint about the Police's handling of this OIA request and the previous refusals of the same information.

This request was refused under s6(c) as it is an ongoing investigation. I asked the Police to give reasoning for each point on why it was refused and how it is likely to prejudge an investigation. I also gave examples of when they released similar information.

Point 1, I do not see how the number of shots fired would prejudge an investigation and the information was likely known by the Police on the day.
Point 2, a) and b) I do not see how this would prejudge the investigation. c) onwards perhaps this is correct to be refused, but it would be benefitial for the public to be aware of whether the Police handle their firearms as per the firearms safety rules (https://www.police.govt.nz/advice/firear...)
Point 3, a) is unlikely not known due to the investigation. I would expect this to be refused as not known. b) is likely known and is unlikely to prejudge the investigation against the officer.
Point 4-6, this is likely correct to be refused
Points 7-8, similar information was released proactively for the Christchurch attacks which implies that the Police do not care that it prejudges the investigation into those attacks, or they are illegally refusing this information under s6(c) in this request.
Point 9. I do not see how this can prejudge the investigation.

I attempted to drill down into points 7-8 with the NZ Police to determine why there was a discrepancy between two similar pieces of official information, or whether they were not concerned about the prejudice of the investigation into the Christchurch terror attacks. The Police were not willing to assist clarifying this discrepancy.

Cheers,

Hugh

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
New Zealand Police only: