What is the Privacy Commissioners policy on fraud and corruption ?
The request was partially successful.
From: John Creser
Dear Privacy Commissioner,
The Ministry of Justice has prepared guidelines (which I've forwarded to your office) to assist public and private sector organisations to develop and improve their fraud and corruption policy and procedures.
Please advise me of the policy you've adopted to ensure that fraudulent records are not promulgated by government departments in accordance with Justice Department guidelines.
Tçnâ koe John Creser
Please find attached the Privacy Commissioner’s response to your official
information request along with one of our office’s policies.
Executive Assistant (Legal) | Kaiwhakahaere Matua, Taha Ture
Office of the Privacy Commissioner Te Mana Mâtâpono Matatapu
PO Box 10094, The Terrace, Wellington 6143
Privacy is about protecting personal information, yours and others. To
find out how, and to stay informed, subscribe to our newsletter
or follow us online. Description: Description: Description: Small
facebook icon Description: twitter-bird-blue-on-whiteHave a privacy
Caution: If you have received this message in error please notify the
sender immediately and delete this message along with any attachments.
Please treat the contents of this message as private and confidential.
From: John Creser
Tara Reynolds, Acting Manager
Investigations & Dispute Resolution Team
Office of the Privacy Commissioner
FRAUD UPON THE COURT
Thanks for your email confirming that the Privacy Commissioner believes the concealment and material alteration of a Court document is considered a judicial function of a registrar.
I will make a complaint to the Ombudsman, however I'm still awaiting an answer to the following question. Ms Warburton said "our office cannot provide guidance on which one of the two decisions/orders are correct" This is providing legal advice rather than guidance under the Privacy Act. You should seek independent legal advice on this matter. . I note the answer to this question is actually the key to determining the complaint you've been asked to consider. There can only be one correct decision of the Court, I have to accept that decision, as does the Justice Department as do you. Do you accept that the attached 8 October 2003 decision is correct or not?
I've provided your office with this precedent: "An exception to registrars acting under judicial function is considered, in Seatrans (Fiji) Ltd v Attorney-General  2 NZLR 240, Hillyer J held that the failure of a court registrar to give effect to a court order to pay money into an interest-bearing account could be the subject of proceedings. No judicial element or indeed execution, was involved. This is an application of the general principle that a patently unlawful order is no defense. The protective legislation contains an express limitation to the effect that if the official knew or ought to have known that the court issuing the order had no authority, the protection does not apply."
My information has been used in the commission of a crime and its somewhat disingenuous for you to suggest that the act of a registrar concealing a document and allowing a solicitor to act for both sides in a proceeding relates to the judicial function of the courts. In this case the registrar has signed a document which effectively overrules a decision of the Court of Appeal.
Section 258 of the Crimes Act 1961 provides that altering, concealing, or reproducing documents with the intent to deceive is an offence and this is precisely what has occurred here If you remain unable to decide which of the two decisions represents an exercise of a judicial function, please forward this email to the Privacy Commissioner for reply.
I do accept that your office has refused to investigate, however I'm still entitled to request a qualified answer to my correspondence and an accurate record of what it is you're refusing to do.
Ka pū te ruha, ka hao te rangatahi .