This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Official Information request 'DHB reported incidents of "Impersonation of a Doctor" by member of the public'.



























 
 
14 July 2020 
 
Amy S Van Wey Lovatt 
 
REF: IR-01-20-19114 
Dear Amy, 
I refer to your Official Information Act (OIA) request dated 1 July 2020 in which 
you requested the following:  
Request 1: 
The number of reports to police by District Health Boards in which there has been 
an al egation that a member of the public had impersonated a physician, between 
1 January 2018 and 30 June 2020, inclusive. 
 
Request 2: 

The number of reports to police by District Health Boards in which there has been 
an al egation that a member of the public had impersonated or claimed to be a 
physician, and in so doing gained access to restricted areas of hospitals, 
including surgical theaters and medical laboratories, between 1 January 2018 
and 30 June 2020, inclusive. 
 
Request 3: 

The number of reports to police by District Health Boards in which there has been 
an al egation that a member of the public had gained access to restricted areas of 
hospitals, including surgical theaters and medical laboratories, between 1 
January 2018 and 30 June 2020, inclusive, while not impersonating or posing as 
a physician or DHB employee. 
 
Request 4. 

In the event that the number of incidents in which a member of the public 
impersonated a physician is more than zero, during the specified time frame, I 
request the following for each incident: 
(a) The name of the DHB; 
(b) The date and time of the alleged offence; 
(c) The Gender of the al eged offender; 
(d) The age of the al eged offender; 
(e) A description of the evidence to support the al egation; 
(f) The status or outcome of the investigation, and where 
applicable, the District or High Court case reference details 
(e.g. Police v Jane Doe [2018] NZDC XXXX). 
 
Request 5. 

Page 1 of 3 
In the event that the number of incidents in which a member of the public 
impersonated a physician and gained access to restricted areas of a hospital is 
 

more than zero, during the specified time frame, I request the following for each 
incident: 
(a) The name of the DHB; 
(b) The date and time of the alleged offence; 
(c) The Gender of the al eged offender; 
(d) The age of the al eged offender; 
(e) A description of the evidence to support the al egation; 
(f) The status or outcome of the investigation, and where 
applicable, the District or High Court case reference details. 
 
Request 6. 

In the event that the number of incidents in which a member of the public gained 
access to restricted areas of a hospital is more than zero while not impersonating 
or posing as a physician or DHB employee, during the specified time frame, I 
request the following for each incident: 
(a) The name of the DHB; 
(b) The date and time of the alleged offence; 
(c) The Gender of the al eged offender; 
(d) The age of the al eged offender; 
(e) A description of the evidence to support the al egation; 
(f) The status or outcome of the investigation, and where applicable, the District 
or High Court case reference details. 
 
Breaches under Sec. 7 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 
2003 are undertaken by the Ministry of Health. Therefore, your request is refused 
under section 18(g) of the OIA as the information is not held. 
Please note that we transferred this request to the Ministry of Health but they 
have also refused the request under section 18(g) of the OIA as they do not hold 
the information. 
I regret that on this occasion it has not been possible to provide the information 
you have requested. 
You have the right to ask the Ombudsman to review my decision if you are not 
satisfied with Police‚Äôs response to your request. 
Yours sincerely 
 
Dr Sheree de Malmanche 
Chief Data Scientist 
Evidence Based Policing Centre 
New Zealand Police