Kia ora Ms Van Wey Lovatt
I acknowledge receipt of your OIA request to New Zealand Police, below.
I an confirm that your previous request, IR-01-21-3628, is in the final
stages of our internal review process and you will received this response
in advance of the due date of 5 March 2021. This request is for the same
information that will be provided to you in that response, therefore I am
closing this request as a duplicate.
Ngā mihi
Sarah 
Ministerial Services
PNHQ

To: "OIA/LGOIMA requests at New Zealand Police"
<[New Zealand Police request email]>
From: "AS Van Wey" <[FYI request #14711 email]>
Date: 18/02/2021 08:00AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Official Information request - Definition of "intended
recipient"

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
the content is safe.

Dear New Zealand Police,
I am a NZ citizen. I am writing to make an OIA request for documents held
by the NZ Police which inform the NZ Police as to the meaning of "intended
recipient" in the context of private, personal communications.
To help clarify, sections 216A-B of the Crimes Act 1961 describe the
unlawful interception of private communications as having been intercepted
by a third party without the consent of the sender or the intended
recipient. Both the sender and intended recipient may forward or share
private, personal communications (e.g. email) to a third party, which may
be a breach of privacy, a breach of corporates regulations, or a breach of
confidence (not very nice), but not the same as an offence under section
216B of the Crimes Act 1961.
It is my understanding that NZ uses a common understanding approach to
interpretation of statutes. A common understanding would be that the
"intended recipient" would be the individual to whom the communication was
addressed. For instance, if there is a unique identifier, such as a
specified email address < Phil.Bell [at] police.govt. nz>, a badge number
(if it were a constable), or a salutation which identifies a particular
individual (e.g., Dear Sgt Phil Bell), the "intended recipient" would
be identified by their name, unique email address, or other unique
identifier (e.g. badge number). However, in this case, where I have sent a
communication to a general inbox, the "intended recipient" would be the
person with the expertise and authority to provide me with the
information. This interpretation appears to be consistent with every court
case I found in NZILL.
Again, I request the documents which inform the NZ Police as to the
definition of "intended recipient" in the context of personal, private
communications. I hope the explanation above provides the context for the
types of documents I am requesting.
To clarify: I am not seeking any legal help or legal interpretation. I am
only seeking documents the NZ Police use to inform their understanding.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Kind Regards,
AS Van Wey
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FYI request #14711 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:
[1]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:
[2]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.

show quoted sections