14 September 2021
Ref: IR-01-21-25831
Ms Amanda Murtagh
[email address]
Official Information Request: Voice of the People
Dear Ms Murtagh,
On the 18 August 2021, you sent an email under the Official Information Act 1982
(OIA) requesting the following:
1.
Who investigates the criminal actions of Police?
2.
When do Police investigate the criminal actions of government?
3.
When criminal actions of Police are reported to Police and Police
manipulate evidence, harass, and intimidate complainant’s and this is
brought to the attention of the IPCA and Police provide false information
to the IPCA, who should the complainant report this to for effective and
efficient policing and the holding of Police to account, when the fact is the
IPCA has failed in its role to hold Police to account and Police themselves
have failed to hold themselves to account?
4.
When Police tamper with evidence to cover up their falsehoods and the
Privacy Commissioner does not help, saying “if police say they don’t have
it, they don’t have it” – when the Police do obviously have it, because it
relates to 111 calls, what should a person do about it for effective and
efficient policing and the holding of Police to account?
5.
When a Director of a New Zealand registered company writes to and
visits the Police in person because of health and safety concerns caused
by the actions of Police to the mental stability and health of staff, with the
written complaint and a non-sworn Police employee refuses to organise a
face-to-face meeting to have the evidence tabled against Police but
instead seeks to “corroborate” evidence, what should the company
Director do to comply with health and safety by holding Police to account
for effective and efficient policing?
6.
When the SIS is advised of the Police activity and the SIS says they can
neither confirm nor deny they are aware of the activity because to answer
may prejudice a future legal trial s53 (c)of the Privacy Act, what should
the people of New Zealand do to hold police to account to ensure there is
efficient and effective policing?
7.
When the Commissioner of Police is written to directly (minister copied)
seeking the Police to Police themselves and to keep this matter from
becoming public, asking for a face to face meeting to allow evidence to be
tabled, the Commissioner has a sergeant write in a letter, exacerbating
the intimidation and harassment by again refusing to grant a face-to-face
meeting to table the evidence of the crimes, what should the people of
New Zealand do?
8.
When multiple Government security breaches regarding privacy, including
ACC sensitive claim files, IRD, WINMZ, Bank accounts and several
private company systems are compromised, resulting in further
intimidation and harassment, which points toward evidence against the
police refuse to grant a face to face meeting, what should the people of
New Zealand do?
9.
When an employee and their employer have had threats on their lives
because they were in discussions with persons claiming to represent the
police on a supplier deal, what should they do?
10.
When an employee and their employer are victims of attempted murder
because they were in discussions with persons claiming to represent the
police on a supplier deal, what should they do?
11.
When Police tell victim support to not provide support when the evidence
at hand indicates clearly that the crime is perpetrated by police
themselves, what should the people of New Zealand do?
12.
When Amnesty International were advised of the evidence, they confirm
this behaviour happens in NZ and that we are lucky to not be in another
country as we would already be dead, what should the people of New
Zealand do?
13.
Why would Police not see an employer to take a statement of the crimes
being perpetrated by our Police against their employee?
14.
Who Polices the Police in New Zealand? 15.
How do ordinary New Zealand citizens get protection from the Police and
support from their government?
16.
Who protects New Zealand citizens from crimes by the Police and/or
government?
My response to your request is as follows.
In response to question 1, Police officers have powers granted under the law, but
they are not above the law. Allegations of criminal behaviour by Police officers will
be considered for investigation by Police. The Independent Police Conduct
Authority (IPCA) is available to consider complaints of Police misconduct or neglect
of duty, Police practices, policies, and procedures.
In response to question 2, Police investigates complaints of alleged criminal activity
regardless of political nature. Police staff must remain politically neutral in their
policing work, and not act in ways which might be construed as politically
motivated. The Police Manual chapter that provides guidance to Police employees
on
matters
of
a
political
nature
is
publicly
available
here:
https://www.police.govt.nz/about-us/publication/elections-and-political-matters-
policy.
In response to question 3, if an individual is not satisfied with an IPCA decision
they have a right to contact the IPCA to discuss further, or they could seek
independent legal advice.
I must refuse the remainder of your request under section 18(g) of the OIA because
any information required to answer your questions is not held by Police and would
require the creation new information. However, I can say that if people have
concerns about their safety or believe they are a victim of a crime, they should
contact Police in the first instance.
As noted previously, the IPCA is available to consider complaints of Police
misconduct or neglect of duty, Police practices, policies, and procedures. The
IPCA is an independent body set up by Parliament to keep watch over the Police.
You have the right, under s 28(3) of the OIA, to ask the Ombudsman to review my
decision if you are not satisfied with the way I have responded to your request.
Regards,
Superintendent Jason Guthrie
Director: Integrity and Conduct
