1
Memorandum
ACT 1982
To
Renee Smith, Group Manager Commissioning and Service
Item ref: TK-280277
Improvement (Acting)
Amy Bright, Team Manager Operations Support (Acting)
Cc
Andrea King, Acting General Manager Senior Courts
Holly Thomson, Senior Advisor Operations Support
Jacob Tapiata, Advisor Operations and Service Delivery
From
Eamonn Bolger, Principal Advisor Court Information
Date
24 April 2019
INFORMATION
Subject
North Shore District Court criminal: report on current state of
information management
For
Approval
Review Comment
Action
Noting
Introduction
1.
This work was initiated as part of the response to recommendations made in the  inquest report
into  the  death  of  Christie  Marceau  (‘inquest  report’)  published  on  5  March  2018.    The
recommendations were made with the purpose of preventing deaths in similar circumstances.
2.
Within scope of the inquest was ‘the administrative processes of the North Shore District Court in
relation  to  applications  and  granting  of  bail,  including  the  nature  and  adequacy  of  information
available to the presiding judge when making such determinations’1.
3.
The  following  is  a  current  state  analysis  of  information  management  practices,  procedures  and
systems at North Shore District Court (NSDC) criminal jurisdiction. This is a first step to responding
to  the  Coroners  recommendation  for  ‘an  in-depth  review  of  the  issues  relating  to  document
management at NSDC highlighted in these findings’ See appendix 1 for more information.
1 Coroner’s inquest into the death of Christie Alexis Marceau, 5 March 2018 paragraph 12 (a).
1
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL

1982
Methodology
ACT
4.
The following analysis uses information provided by the North Shore District Court (NSDC) Subject
Matter Expert Annette Penney (Registrar, NSDC Criminal) and relevant information management
guidance available on JET.
5.
A summary of key themes issues identified during the analysis is included to inform the next stage
of the project.


Scope
6.
The scope of this analysis includes:
•  assessment of current state including processes, systems and behaviours relating to the
INFORMATION
management of criminal information at NSDC
•  physical and electronic information management (apart from CMS data)
•  specific issues identified by the Coroner with management of bail application documentation
•  summarising themes resulting from the analysis to inform future project work.
7.
The scope of this analysis excludes:
•  management of CMS data (as CMS was not referenced in the inquest report)
•  implications of the modernisation programme (these will be considered in a later stage of the
project)
•  court information management outside of NSDC
OFFICIAL
•  processes outside of the Ministry’s responsibility such as other justice sector agencies
•  next steps including a gap analysis and recommendations.

THE
Consultation
8.
Annette  Penney  (Registrar,  NSDC  Criminal)  as  SME,  Holly  Thomson,  Senior  Advisor  Operations
Support and Jacob Tapiata, Advisor Operations and Service Delivery were sent draft versions of this
report for review.

UNDER
Key features of the current state of NSDC information management
9.
The  paper  case  file  contains  the  formal  record  of  proceeding  and  is  the  authoritative  record.
Therefore,  accessibility  of  key  information  is  dependent  on  the  completeness,  integrity  and
consistent management of the physical case file.
10.
Some electronic documents such as transcription notes are managed by a shared drive. The folder
structure for these documents differs from the case file structure for physical files.

2

RELEASED

1982
11.
There is no guidance for management of electronic documents or emails.
ACT
12.
While  guides  are  available  to  court  staff  for  criminal  paper  file  management2,  these  are  largely
obsolete and according to the Annette, NSDC staff are not aware of their existence. Inexperienced
staff learn how to manage information from semi experienced staff. As a result, there is no standard
approach  to  how  information  is  managed  including  critical  actions  such  as  preparing  files  for  a
Judge.
13.
Apart from CMS training, NSDC staff do not receive formal information management training. For
example, an Auckland District Court criminal staff member asked about whether she would know
how to prepare a sentencing file, explained that staff were trained about using CMS with only with
a brief reference file preparation. This was inadequate for such tasks as preparing a file for a Judge.
14.
In addition, at NSDC, relatively inexperienced staff are being buddied up with newly appointed staff
for  training.  This  is  not  optimal  as  these  ‘trainer’  staff  are  still  becoming  familiar  with  court
management processes and procedures.
INFORMATION
15.
Previously at NSDC, court takers were responsible for preparing their own files for the day but this
has changed to one staff member who does not do court taking to prepare all files. This has had the
consequence that most staff have lost the experience of file preparation.
16.
The lack of relevant records management training and guidance is exacerbated by the increasing
movement of staff into different registry roles with little guidance or formal training to assist them.
In  this  context,  inexperienced  staff  are  not  well  prepared  to  manage  specific  file  management
processes.

OFFICIAL
Current state approach to presenting a criminal file to a Judge
17.
A key issue identified in the inquest report concerned preparation of files for the Judge. District
Court criminal file management guidelines include instructions about how files should be prepared
for a judge3. This includes the following direction:
THE

‘When the judge receives a case file, it must be complete and the papers filed within their correct
divisions so that key documents can be quickly located.
If the case file presented to the judge is not complete and in good order, the judge may waste
valuable time trying to locate information.
If there are papers missing from the case file, the parties could be adversely affected by delays and
UNDER
missing information.’

2 There are two criminal file management guides available on JET, a guide for Jury Trial File Management and a
separate guide for Non-Jury File Management. The guides were updated during 2018 and if confirmed to be fit for
purpose, could be approved and implemented.
3 The Criminal Jury Trial File Management Guide is available on JET via https://jet.justice.govt.nz/how-do-i/rsd-pre-
september-2018/court-records/?tab=3

3

RELEASED

1982
18.
There  is  also  a  checklist  to  guide  staff  with  arranging  file  content  for  the  Judge.  As  indicated
previously however, this guide is not used by NSDC staff.
ACT
19.
The inquest report identified specific issues with the administration of bail applications at NSDC.
Commonly, the relevant documents for the Judge is prepared which includes a bail application. If
there  is opposition to  the application or  any other  information  that  the  Judge  needs  to  read,  it
should be noted at this point.
20.
Annette  double  checks  her  files  and  frequently  finds  documents  such  as  oppositions  to  bail  or
psychological reports that have not been removed from the file for submission to the Judge. Her
approach has been to bring this to the attention of the staff member who prepared the documents
and explain that they need to read the file to confirm previous appearances to ascertain where the
file is at before taking the appropriate documents to the Judge.
21.
Annette’s view is that the problem is that the person preparing the documents for the Judge does
not read the information’s to identify if a bail application has already been made and declined. It is
possible  that  staff  have  assumed  it  has  been  in  court  before  and  is  not  required  for  the  next
INFORMATION
appearance. This can be a false assumption.

Scenario:
Joe Bloggs is arrested and brought to the court on 1 January 2019, a written opposition is
provided to the court by Police.
Joe Bloggs does not make a bail application on the 1 January 2019 and is remanded in custody
to 14 January 2019.
OFFICIAL
On the 14 January 2019 Joe Bloggs has no address to be bailed to no bail application is made.
He is remanded in custody to 20 January 2019.
On the 20 January 2019 Joe Bloggs makes a bail application.
THE
The  staff  member  preparing  the  file  should  have  taken  all  information  to  the  Judge  for  all
appearances as Joe Bloggs may have made a bail application on the 14 January 2019 and the 20
January  2019.  But  what  happens  is  that  the  staff member  preparing the  file  sees that  its  Joe
Bloggs 3rd appearance and does not check the charging doc to determine what has occurred on
the previous appearances and comes to a conclusion that either bail application has been made
and declined or for whatever reason the opposition to bail does  not need to be  taken to the
Judge.  UNDER

Themes arising from the analysis
22.
The following are key themes arising from the analysis which should be considered in the context
of work to come:

4

RELEASED

1982
(1)  A lack of information management training, guidance and support about most aspects of
information management has led to a proliferation of approaches to managing court records.
ACT

(2)  The absence of a standard approach to seemingly minor operational administrative tasks such as
preparing a file for a Judge increases the risk of serious unintended consequences including harm
to people.

(3)  The lack of staff knowledge about existing court information related guides and resources reflect
the challenge of implementing and sustaining national agreed standards. Success requires
significant resources and a continuing focus which is difficult to maintain in a high volume and
complex court environment.

(4)  Systems for managing electronic information (documents and emails in particular) are inadequate
for supporting consistent information management practices.

INFORMATION

OFFICIAL

THE

UNDER

5

RELEASED

1982
APPENDIX 1 Inquest report Marceau recommendations page 76
ACT
An in-depth review of the issues relating to document management at NSDC highlighted in these findings is
undertaken (including a review of the adequacy of electronic document management systems, particularly
in relation to access, accuracy and inoperability); and
The changes necessary to address the issues are implemented nationally (in particular, changes are
introduced to ensure that there is an accurate file on which it is clear what documents have been received
(by whatever means) and when, and what documents have been sought (e.g. transcribed notes of decisions
and reports by health assessors), and when.

INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER

6

RELEASED

2
Memorandum
To
Operational Leadership Team (OLT)
Item ref: TK-291344
ACT 1982
From
Eamonn Bolger (Principal Advisor Court Information) and Steve Sim
(Acting Director Data and Information)
CC
Tina Wakefield (Deputy Secretary ICT/CIO)
Andrea King (Acting Group Manager Senior Courts)
Date
24 May 2019
Subject
Improving court paper case file management
For
Approval
Review Comment
Action
Noting
INFORMATION
Purpose
1. To highlight impacts of current resourcing and support to the paper record keeping function, and to
provide recommendations to mitigate specific risks in the short to medium term.
Why should we care?
2. The following key expectations apply to the management of court paper files:
a) Consistent delivery of people-centred justice services to provide justice to all requires consistent and
safe access to current and historical court case files.
b) A lack of consistent and safe access to non-current court case files creates a reputational risk to public
and judicial confidence in processes supporting the court system.
c) The maintenance of court case files is a shared responsibility between the Secretary for Justice and
the Chief Justice; the Ministry is expected to ensure appropriate management of court files on behalf
of the judiciary. This expectation is also expressed in the Ministry’s Data and Information Policy
(Principle 6) which requires that information relating to the courts is well managed.
d) Court files are public records under the Public Records Act 2005 (PRA). The Ministry is required to
both create and maintain records to mandatory recordkeeping standards set by the Chief Archivist
(PRA s27). An independent recordkeeping audit of court records is expected within the next two
years.ED UNDER THE OFFICIAL
3. s9(2)(g)(i)
Out of scope
1
RELE

Christie Marceau inquest report recommendations
ACT 1982
The  inquest  report  released  in  March  2018  made  many  recommendations  with  the  aim  of
preventing deaths in similar circumstances.
Within scope of the inquest was ‘the administrative processes of the North Shore District Court in
relation  to  applications  and  granting  of  bail,  including  the  nature and  adequacy of  information
available  to  the  presiding  judge  when  making  such  determinations’1.  A  recommendation  was
included for an in-depth review of the issues relating to document management at North Shore
District Court which could then be implemented nationally.
A current state analysis (March 2019) of file management for North Shore District Court criminal
jurisdiction identified a lack of standard file management processes, training guidance and support
for staff managing case files which combined, contributed to the judge not receiving all relevant
information to inform his bail decision.
FORMATION
Out of scope

Out of scope
CIA

Archives New Zealand has a mandated responsibility for ensuring the appropriate
management of public records (including court paper case files) from creation to disposal.
Out of scope

HE O


The lack of file tracking creates persistent problems with the Ministry often unable to locate files
to support the judiciary, court staff or for wider purposes such as responding to the Commission
of Inquiry into Historical Abuse.

1 Coroner’s inquest into the death of Christie Alexis Marceau, 5 March 2018 paragraph 12 (a).

2
RELEASED UNDE

Out of scope

ACT 1982

TION

4.  Initiatives relating to Modernisation are out of scope of this report however if the recommendations
are adopted, they will support Modernisation by implementing consistent business processes for the
management  of  court  paper  case  files.  Note  that  paper  will  need  to  be  managed  as  part  of  our
environment for decades to come even when it is no longer part of our operating environment.
Next steps
5.  To maximise  and build on the  work previously  undertaken, we recommend  an initiative  to improve
INFORM
business processes to manage court case files.
Recommendations
6.  The  following  is  recommended  to  address  the  immediate  issues  for  paper  case  file  management
especially in response to the examples provided above;
7.  It is recommended that OLT:

1.
Approve resourcing in the form of senior oversight, business process  Yes / No
analysis,  court  subject  matter  expertise  and  information
management  expertise  (external)  for  an  initiative  to  improve  the
management of court case files in the following areas:

a)  The non-tracking of paper case file locations from creation
to  disposal  by  providing  options  to  improve  file  lifecycle
location management;
b)  Develop  an  approach  to  provide  guidance  and  training  to
staff  about  key  court  records  management  activities
identified  in  the  Coroners  recommendations  such  as
implementing a consistent approach to preparing case files
for the judiciary;
c)  In the context of a) and b) provide clarification of roles and
responsibilities for the management of paper court files.
2.
Note that oversight of the initiative should be provided by OSD.

3
RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL

1982
3.
Note that the cost of contracting specialist expertise for the above is
yet to be calculated but is expected to be in the range of $10,000-
ACT
$20,000 with the work likely be spread over about three months.

INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER

4
RELEASED

3
Memorandum
To
Operational Leadership Team (OLT)
Item ref: TK-316367
ACT 1982
From
Steve Sim (Acting Director Data and Information) and Eamonn
Bolger (Principal Advisor Court Information)
CC
Tina Wakefield (Deputy Secretary ICT/CIO)
Andrea King (Group Manager Senior Courts)
Courts and Tribunals Records Advisory Board
Date
29 August 2019
Subject
Improving District Court physical case file management
For
Approval
Review Comment
Action
Noting
INFORMATION
Purpose
1. To respond to the 29 May OLT meeting where it was requested that Eamonn Bolger and Steve Sim offer
some ideas to OLT about where work to improve District Court physical case file management could be
undertaken (action AP 178).
Background
2. Risks relating to the management of court paper files have been highlighted by the following factors:
a. Court file management recommendations included in the inquest report following the murder
of Christie Marceau. A key recommendation was for an in-depth review of the issues relating
to document management at North Shore District Court. Subsequent analysis identified a lack
of standard file management practices, training guidance and support for staff managing case
files  which contributed to the judge  not receiving all relevant information to inform his bail
decision1.
ER THE OFFICIAL
b. Out of scope
  Archives  NZ  has  a  mandated
responsibility  for  ensuring  the  appropriate  management  of  public  records  (including  court
paper case files) from creation to disposal.
U
Out of scope
1 Implementing the broad management recommendations in the inquest report is led by Renee Smith (Director
Waitangi Tribunal/Maori Land Court). In the context for courts, this work is mainly focussed on file preparation for
judges including the development and implementation of a bail checklist for District Court criminal. This was the most
high-risk issue identified in the review of information management practices at North Shore District Court and was a
specific issue identified in the inquest report. The broader recommendations for improving electronic document
management systems for courts however is not currently in scope for the work led by Renee Smith.
1
RELEASE

Out of scope
T 1982

3.  These issues informed a paper ‘Improving court paper case file management’ considered at the OLT
meeting of 29 May 2019. The decision resulting from the meeting is summarised in paragraph 1 Purpose
above.
How did we discover where to improve?
4.  Engagement was held on 4 July with the following staff via a workshop and a meeting to identify issues
with managing physical court case files and prioritise mitigation actions:
Fiona McDonald, Principal Advisor Senior Courts
Catherine Duffin, Senior Business Advisor Strategic Development
Leigh Nicholas, Information & Records Analyst Regional Service Delivery
Brett Mudgway, National Technical Advisor Regional Service Delivery
INFORMATION
Maria Andre, Senior Advisor Legacy Records Content & Library Services
Eamonn Bolger, Principal Advisor Court Information Senior Courts
Ash Aggarwal, Business Analyst Strategic Information (workshop facilitator)
Clare O’Brien, Senior Business Services Specialist (via a separate meeting)
Renee Smith
5.  Key priorities identified from engagement were compared to previously documented issues relating to
physical case file management as below.
6.  These priorities were also assessed to ensure consistency with the International Framework for Courts
Excellence Measure for Court File Integrity (Measure 6). This measures file management performance
by availability (how long it takes to find a file), accuracy and the completeness of the court file.
Next steps
7.  Following discussion with OLT, the draft 2019/20 Court Records work-plan will be refined.

Options
8.  Opportunities to improve physical file management have been identified below with each ranked in
descending priority order:

2 The extent of this problem is difficult to measure as unsuccessful as unsuccessful searches for court files is not
documented in Ministry systems such as CMS.

2

RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL

1982
Priority  Opportunity
Rationale
Level of OSD engagement
Financial
required
implications
ACT
Priority  Develop and implement
Identified as the top
Time estimate 200 hours
$5,000-$10,000 (if
1
comprehensive High
priority in the
excluding implementation
parts  of  the  work
Court and District Court
workshop
(e.g. attendance at training)  contracted out)
criminal and civil file
management guidance,
The lack of standard
training, support and
processes reduces the
monitoring to assist court
ability of courts to
managers and staff to
provide consistent
apply good information
services to the
management practices
judiciary and clients
from creation to disposal
Priority  Improve  location  tracking  Identified as the
Time estimate 50-100 hours  Dependent of
2
for
physical
files
to  second priority in the
during conceptual and
preferred option
support  more  consistent  workshop
options phase
but costs
INFORMATION
finding  of  files.  This  may
estimated
include  changes  to,  or  Time wasted searching
between $5,000-
new  fields  in  CMS  to  for files
$10,000
document file locations3
(contractor and
Disruption to court
external
proceedings if key
development
information not
costs)
available
Priority  Clarify information
Identified as the third
Time estimate 20-30 hours
None
(Ministry
OFFICIAL
3
management
priority in the
staff time only)
responsibilities for all
workshop
Significant work has been
managers and staff
already completed
responsible for court case
Some information
files (priority 3 in
responsibilities are not
workshop)
managed with
THE
implications ranging
from unnecessary
retention of low value
records through to
inconsistent file
auditing processes
Priority  Ensure case files stored in
Protect high value
Approximately 1,000 hours
Contractor costs
UNDER
4
eight courts are
records from damage
of OSD time and $5,000
estimate range
or destruction from
other costs if Ministry staff
$30,000-$50,000

3 CMS contains a field to document the transfer of physical files between courts. However, this field does not provide
for other actions such as transferring records to TIMG, Archives NZ, or destruction. This initiative aims to provide
courts with a mechanism for recording file locations in CMS to assist staff to locate files. If successfully implemented,
further steps could include bar-coding and scanning file references to facilitate easier location management. Such an
initiative would require a separate funding bid and approval.

3

RELEASED

1982
transferred into
water, insect and
completed this work
and $2,000 a year
appropriate storage
other environmental
without contractors (not
storage costs
causes
recommended)
ACT
Priority  Improve  access  to  court  Increase accessibility
Require analysis of access
Uncertain but
5
records  stored  at  TIMG  of records by
issues for courts with
expected to be
(storage provider)
correcting poor quality  known access issues such as  $100,0004 + if
data in specific courts
Auckland District Court.
contracted out
such as Auckland
Given the large quantities
District Court.
of records held at TIMG,
remedial work is likely to be
Reduce staff time
substantial and
searching for
implementation work
information
would need to be
contracted out (see
More consistent
Financial implications
finding of files
column)
Priority  Review  disposal  authority  Will  make  DA  564  Time  estimate  20-30  hours  approx.  $10,000
INFORMATION
6
(DA  564)  which  covers  easier to use
to  review  work  but  OSD  do  for  consultant  to
most physical case files
not have technical capability  do the review
Supports consistent
to do the review
implementation
meaning that the right
records are retained
/destroyed

OFFICIAL
Recommendations
9.  Following discussion with OLT, the draft 2019/20 Court Records work-plan will be refined.
a.  Discuss each opportunity identified and choose which to progress.
THE
b.  Note that we will assess each nominated opportunity to identify detailed resource requirements.

UNDER

4 Problems with data quality for large quantities of Auckland, Manukau and several other smaller District Court
records transferred to TIMG during 2016/17. To size this work, a detailed analysis of the data quality would be
undertaken to estimate remediation costs.

4

RELEASED

4
Review of records management systems 1982
and practices at South Auckland District
ACT
Courts (Manukau, Papakura and
Pukekohe), specific to management of
court physical records
Prepared for
Shanann Carr, Principal Advisor, Court Information, Ministry of Justice
By Paddy Plunket, Information Specialist
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
8 Legs
Information
Management
UNDER
RELEASED

Context
Hard copy district court records are jointly managed by the Judiciary and the Ministry of Justice (the  1982
Ministry), with the custody and control of the records held by the Judiciary.
There had been reported issues relating to records management:
•  knowing where files are, particularly when they have been transferred from their
ACT
commercial storage location to the courts for use, or to Archives New Zealand (NZ) for
permanent retention
•  consistent application of retention periods and actions for court records
To resolve this issue, the Ministry initiated an investigation. The requirement was to provide a set of
recommended actions that can realistically be implemented to resolve the issues and improve the
operation of the courts as well as appropriate management of the records.

Method
The following activities were undertaken to complete the investigation and determine the
recommendations
INFORMATION
Definition of
review of legislation and documentation relating to the management of
requirements
the records, and interviews with Staff to determine the legal, business
and user requirements for the records
Systems review,
•  onsite assessment of systems, applications and storage used for
interviews and
managing and storing records
information gathering
•  interviews of Ministry staff involved in the management of court
physical records.
OFFICIAL
•  review of physical records storage at the three courts – Manukau,
Papakura and Pukekohe.
First cut assessment
analysis and preparation of a presentation of initial findings to enable
THE
discussion and feedback
Report preparation
preparation of the assessment report

UNDER
3
8 Legs IM - Review of Records Management Systems and Processes - South Auckland Physical Court
Records - December 2020

RELEASED

Executive Summary
District Court records have value. They provide:
1982
•  an input into Court processes
•  a record of proceedings, matters and decisions
•  a means of seeing that justice was done
•
ACT

evidence of how our court system operated
•  a view of events occurring in our society and communities over time
District Court records in South Auckland are managed in partnership by registry staff based at the
courts and information specialist staff based in National Office. Staff based in the Courts focus on
ensuring a well-run court. Both groups are accountable for ensuring that information is managed
over its entire lifecycle, in line with legal and business requirements.
Recordkeeping processes and activities show that the smooth running of the court is indeed
supported. But some key information legislation and business requirements are not being met,
particularly when the processes involved are less regular or frequent and/or need specialist
knowledge and/or experience. This compromises the value of the records.
Key gaps include:
•
INFORMATION
  disposal processes carried out without reference to authority to dispose and using non-
compliant process
•  monitoring and risk management not built into court recordkeeping routines
•  lack of a cohesive governance framework, particularly roles and responsibilities
•  no accurate guide to location of records
•  transfer to offsite storage not being carried out routinely
•  inadequate storage and shelving processes in Pukekohe
These issues are further compounded by the distance in the relationship between registry staff
OFFICIAL
based at the courts and staff based at National office, the lack of conversations between those
groups, and the factors that drive a focus on daily court activities.
To address gaps between requirements and practice a work package is recommended. The work
package aims to improve the relationship between Ministry of Justice and District Court teams,
THE
ensuring the governance framework is appropriate and comprehensive, and formally identifying and
managing risk. The creation of an accurate and comprehensive finding aid, and carrying out work
that will improve processes is also recommended.
An analysis of impact, effort and pre-requisites for success is provided. This informs a roadmap of
activities. The activities are designed as a set. Implemented together they will improve the
management of South Auckland District Court physical records, and to protect the value they hold.
UNDER

4
8 Legs IM - Review of Records Management Systems and Processes - South Auckland Physical Court
Records - December 2020

RELEASED

Legal and business requirements for managing
South Auckland District Court Records
1982
This section lays out the key requirements for the management of court information.
Legal requirements come primarily from:
ACT
•  the Public Records Act 2005 which covers all public sector agencies
•  the Information and Records Standard – a mandatory standard issued under section 27 of
the Public Records Act 2005 by the Chief Archivist
•  the District Court Act
•  the current disposal authority that covers the records – DA564

Public Records Act 2005
Requirement
Detail
Court records need to be
Records of the business of the court, and information used in court
created and maintained for as
proceedings need to created and maintained for as long as needed.
long as they are needed
The length of time they are needed is defined by the retention
periods in relevant Disposal Authorities.
INFORMATION
It is useful to think of the value of the record in three phases:
1.  initial phase - when it is created and actively used as part of a
hearing or proceeding
2.  second phase - when it is available to be used by a party to the
proceedings for reference, in the case of an appeal or
subsequent charge, for reference or research purposes by
members of the public
3.  final phase for records that meet archival criteria - when the
OFFICIAL
only residual value is for reference or research, the parties being
deceased and the period for appeal has lapsed. Final phase for
non-archival value records is destruction
THE
Records need to be accessible
Authorised users need to be able to access records during all phases
(with the exception of destruction).
Records need to be protected
Causes of degradation and loss of physical records include poor
from degradation and loss
storage and handling, wilful damage and theft, environmental
conditions such as humidity and temperature fluctuations,
environmental events such as earthquakes, fire, flood, pests,
inadequate systems for identifying and tracking records.
UNDER

5
8 Legs IM - Review of Records Management Systems and Processes - South Auckland Physical Court
Records - December 2020

RELEASED

Records need to be protected
Unauthorised access includes members of the public who have not
from unauthorised access
been granted access through a request process.
1982
In general, records should be open by default within the agency that
holds them. If the records contain sensitive or personal information,
access needs to be restricted - only staff who work with records
should have access. Court records fall into the latter category.
ACT
Records need to be disposed
Records need to be disposed of at the end of their active life - the
second phase. At this point, they are either destroyed or transferred
to archival storage and management.
Disposal can only be carried out
To protect the value of our public sector records, disposal is only
with the authorisation of the
permitted when following a Disposal Authority that has been
Chief Archivist
available for submissions by interested parties, vetted by Archives
NZ and signed off by the Chief Archivist.

Information and Records Management Standard, July 2016
Requirement
Detail
INFORMATION
Information and records
An organisation-wide strategy on information and records management
management must be directed
must be developed and adopted.
by strategy and policy, and
reviewed and monitored
Strategy should include:
regularly
•  clear requirements for the creation, capture and management of
information and records
•  how information and records management requirements will be
met.
OFFICIAL
Roles and responsibilities for
Formally assigned roles for all aspects of managing records need to be
the management of records
assigned, executed and monitored. This includes day to day handling,
need to be assigned and
custodial oversight, and the management of extraordinary
THE
documented
requirements such as migrating or moving a large number of
documents.
Information and records
Information and records management must be monitored and
management must be
reviewed to ensure that it is accurately performed and meets business
monitored and reviewed
needs.
This includes the identification of risks to the ongoing accessibility and
UNDER  maintenance of the records.
Information and records are
Information and records must be routinely created and managed as
well managed.
part of normal business practice. Records management needs to ensure
that information and records are reliable and trustworthy.
Information and records are identifiable, retrievable, accessible and
usable for as long as they are required.
6
8 Legs IM - Review of Records Management Systems and Processes - South Auckland Physical Court
Records - December 2020

RELEASED

Information and records are protected from unauthorised or unlawful
access, alteration, loss, deletion and/or destruction.
1982
Access to, use of and sharing of information and records is managed
appropriately in line with legal and business requirements.
Information and records are systematically disposed of when
authorised and legally appropriate to do so.
ACT

District Court Act 2016
Requirement
Detail
District Court Registrar must
Outlined in s.64 of the District Court Act 2016
hold records of proceedings
Court information is defined by
Court information is described in Schedule One, Item One.
the District Court Act
Any person may have access to court information of the District Court
Any person can access Court
to the extent provided by, and in accordance with, rules of court, 236(1)
information under the rules of
INFORMATION
the Court.

Disposal Authority 564 (DA564) and accompanying appraisal report
This appraisal report and disposal schedule covers all hard-copy records of court proceedings and
case files, including records no longer current and records created by predecessor courts
Requirement
Detail
Court information needs to be
Some court information is of archival value and needs to be transferred
OFFICIAL
disposed of under this schedule
to Archives NZ.
There is a need to permanently
The DA564 appraisal report states that “significant aspect of this
retain some court information
schedule is that even if records are not considered to be of archival
THE
value, there may be a requirement to retain the records in the courts.
There may be a distinction between what is of permanent archival
value that will eventually be retained by Archives New Zealand and
what must be retained as a permanent (or formal) record by the
courts.”
Selected records from criminal,
There are a number of current disposal authorities that determine
civil and family proceedings
which records are to be transferred to Archives New Zealand.
UNDER
need to be transferred to
Archives NZ

7
8 Legs IM - Review of Records Management Systems and Processes - South Auckland Physical Court
Records - December 2020

RELEASED

Specific Requirements for South Auckland District Court Records
These requirements were identified through review of documentation, interviews and observation 1982
Requirement
Detail
Records need to be easily available to
Charge documents and case files need to be made up and
the court during the period that the
available in the court room on the day of the hearing or
case is active
proceeding that the file refers to.
ACT
Records need to be able to be easily
A straightforward process of identifying a file location and then
located in order to provide access
retrieving the file from that location needs to be in place for all
once the case is inactive or in the case
inactive court records held by the District Courts.
of an appeal

Storage of records needs to be
Storage of records needs to be managed in line with the storage
managed
capacity of the court buildings.
Storage in the courts is limited therefore offsite storage needs to
be properly used to meet physical records storage requirements.
Infrequently accessed records need to be sent to offsite storage.
Records in offsite storage need to meet the same requirement
INFORMATION
for accessibility as onsite records.

OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
8
8 Legs IM - Review of Records Management Systems and Processes - South Auckland Physical Court
Records - December 2020

RELEASED

Assessment of systems and processes used to
manage South Auckland District Court records  1982
This section describes how the records are being managed. Its purpose is to show where practice is meeting or
not meeting requirements
Systems and Technology
ACT
System
Description
Case Management
The case management system contains information referring to the details of
System - CMS
each charge document and information specific to each the court file.
Items in CMS are primarily organised by the Case Record Number or CRN.
CMS contains information on the location and the movement of files. In South
Auckland, this is updated by whoever handled the record last.
Onsite storage system
Storage rooms at the Courts hold the files.
Files are organised on the shelf by the primary CRN for the case. There may be
more than one CRN for each case.
The shelf location is also determined by the number of pages in the case. If
INFORMATION
there are not many pages the case file papers are folded over and held with a
rubber band. If there are too many to fold, files are rubber banded without
the fold (“flats”). If there are more papers than one rubber band can hold the
flats are boxed together.
Offsite storage system
Files transferred to TIMG can be requested by authorised users using the
TIMG SAFE system. Files that were most recently transferred have been re-
boxed by TIMG and are not necessarily in the same order that they were
when they were initially boxed by the courts.
OFFICIAL
One Source Daily and Jet
These provide written guidance on how to manage court records. Some South
Auckland District Court recordkeeping staff reported not being aware of its
existence and not using it to inform their processes.
THE
Court Records Email
Email to Ministry Content and Library Services staff for questions and advice
address
on records management issues. Particular expertise in off-siting to TIMG,
transfer to Archives New Zealand and locating older records.

Some South Auckland District Court recordkeeping staff were unaware of the
email address and reported not using it to resolve issues or inform their
UNDER practices.

9
8 Legs IM - Review of Records Management Systems and Processes - South Auckland Physical Court
Records - December 2020

RELEASED

Processes
Once the court record has been created, the key processes involve its movement, storage, use, and
ultimately, disposal
1982
On the whole, these processes are undocumented and do not conform to the procedures that can
be found on Jet and in Once Source Daily. Ministry staff in the Registries look to their colleagues to
guide their practice and are motivated primarily to ensure the court hearings and proceedings are
ACT
well run.
Process
Description
Using files within the
All staff are able to take files from the shelf and use them at their desk.
court
The temporary desk location is supposed to be recorded in CMS for Manukau
Family and Civil files. This is not always done. These courts insist on only one
box or file being at a team member’s desk at any one time, but this is often
breached.
Shelving of physical
In Manukau and Papakura, people have been employed to primarily carry out
records
the role of managing the storage and shelving of physical records. There are
no obvious shelving backlogs in these court houses.
In Pukekohe, shelving is carried out by the team once a year. In early
INFORMATION
December 2020, an area of about three metres square held the files. They
were not in any order, making it time consuming to find and retrieve a file
from this area. Files had fallen off the shelf in one of the storage areas and
had been left on the floor.
Transfer to another court
If a case needs to be transferred to another District Court or another
jurisdiction, then the court file also needs to be transferred. The file then
stays in the court it has been moved to. The process is that these movements
are recorded in CMS, evidence suggests this may not be consistent practice.
OFFICIAL
Transfer to offsite storage   Transfer to offsite is carried out infrequently. The last transfer was done in a
hurry and it appears to have resulted in files being difficult to retrieve from
TIMG.
THE
Retrieving requested files  Given the lack of complete location information in CMS, team members
reported some difficulty in finding non-current files. Trips to other courts
were sometimes required at short notice for the purpose of retrieving files.
Transfer to Archival
Not being carried out currently.
Management
UNDER
Disposal
The only court that was regularly carrying out disposal was Manukau Criminal.
This was done by securely destroying files older than ten years. This was
primarily a way to manage storage space. There is no sign off on records
disposal and no records kept about the disposal.

10
8 Legs IM - Review of Records Management Systems and Processes - South Auckland Physical Court
Records - December 2020

RELEASED

Governance Processes
Governance of records and information management is the formal framework of planning, policy, monitoring,
reporting and assigned roles and responsibilities
1982
Process
Description
Strategy and planning
Court information is NOT covered by the Ministry of Justice Information
Strategy.  There is currently no strategy for Court information management.
ACT
Policy and procedure
There is no policy for the management of Court information.
Procedures are documented and available on JET, but as stated elsewhere,
not used in South Auckland.
Monitoring
South Auckland District Court records and information management is not
routinely monitored.
Reporting
There is no regular formal reporting on South Auckland District Court records
and information management.
Roles and responsibilities
The document Principles observed by Judiciary and Ministry of Justice in the
Administration of the Courts covers the respective responsibilities of each
party. The document makes it clear that the judiciary maintains the custody
INFORMATION
and control of court records, selects and supervises the staff who manage
records within the courts, and has control of how information technology is
used. Other aspects, particularly how the Principles need to be
operationalised, are less clear.
On the whole, it appears that professional records and information
management expertise and motivation sits within the Ministry, and detailed
understanding of the court record and how it is used sits within the Courts. A
partnership approach established with some formality is required.
OFFICIAL

  THE
UNDER
11
8 Legs IM - Review of Records Management Systems and Processes - South Auckland Physical Court
Records - December 2020

RELEASED

Gap Analysis
This section analyses the key gaps between requirements and the current state. It forms the basis of 1982
a future focused action plan to ensure that requirements are met and the court record supports the
work of the court and other New Zealand communities in the future
Working well
ACT
Before we focus on the gaps, it is worth acknowledging that the record keeping systems and
processes in South Auckland District Courts work very well in the initial active phase. Ministry staff in
the Registries work hard to ensure case files are available to the courts when required and to
prevent records becoming inaccessible.  Team members, particularly those who focuses on handling
the records, demonstrate an air of dedicated energy and motivation for the job.
Key gaps between requirements and practice
Gap
Requirement(s) not met
Detail
Lack of a strategy,
Information and records must be
Important processes are falling
cohesive governance
well managed.
through the gaps between
framework, particularly
Registry staff based at the courts
roles and responsibilities
and information specialist staff
based in National Office.

INFORMATION
Planning and reporting absent for
court records from the Registry
staff point of view.
Disposal processes
Records need to be disposed
It is not clear that records that
carried out without
regularly.
need to be retained are retained,
reference to DAs or
that records of disposal are kept,
Disposal can only be carried out
compliant process
or that there is an internal sign-
with the authorisation of the
off process.
Chief Archivist.
OFFICIAL  Only one court has a regular
disposal process.
Audit and monitoring not  Information and records
Non-compliance and information
THE
built into BAU court
management must be monitored
risk not addressed within the
recordkeeping routines
and reviewed.
courts. Opportunities for
continuous improvement missed.
Team learn to live with niggles
and difficulties rather than
resolving them.
UNDER
No accurate guide to
Records need to be able to be
Extra effort and time taken to
location of records
easily located in order to provide
locate files. Files may not be
access once the case is inactive,
found in time to be used, or at all.
or if it is reactivated.
Transfer to offsite not
Storage of records needs to be
Manukau and Papakura Courts
being carried out
managed in line with the storage
storage is near capacity. Transfer
routinely
capacity of the court buildings.
to offsite is not undertaken
12
8 Legs IM - Review of Records Management Systems and Processes - South Auckland Physical Court
Records - December 2020

RELEASED

because time and specialist
oversight are not seen as
available.
1982
Inadequate storage and
Maintain records in an accessible
Manukau and Papakura Courts
shelving processes in
form so they can be used for
storage is near capacity. Transfer
Pukekohe
subsequent reference.
to offsite is not undertaken
ACT
because time and specialist

oversight are not seen as
available.

INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
13
8 Legs IM - Review of Records Management Systems and Processes - South Auckland Physical Court
Records - December 2020

RELEASED

Barriers, blockers and hassles
The problem addressed by this report - missing records and unauthorised disposal of records - exists 1982
within a complex system of relationships, norms, expectations, hierarchies and rules, as well as the
“nuts and bolts” of the record keeping system. Knowledge management colossus David Snowden
bases his approach to change within complex systems on the premise that it is impossible to predict
the impact of changes. As soon as a component of the system changes, there are likely to be
ACT
unexpected and unintended effects.
If we focus solely on a programme of work targeted at addressing the issues, we may find that new
issues arise, or that the status quo is surprisingly resilient, and quickly reasserts itself. Snowden’s
approach to complex systems change is to use a narrative approach that exposes underlying stories
and beliefs of actors within the system. These include beliefs about what is possible, the personal
cost of doing things differently, the role of hierarchies and how work and workplace relationships
should be conducted. Exposing and shifting narrative structures that constrain or allow behaviour
can support other changes to be more effective.
This report and the discovery tasks that informed it were not designed to uncover all of those
narratives. Analysis of likely causes of the key gaps between the information management required
and the information management that is delivered was included in the brief however. Those issues
are covered in this section – barriers, blockers and hassles.
INFORMATION
Issue
Description
Impact
Distance between staff
Registry staff charged with
Harder to identify root causes of
with recordkeeping
recordkeeping responsibilities
risk and identify and implement
responsibilities in Court
and National Office records
solutions.
Registries and National
support operate in separate
Out of the ordinary practices
Office recordkeeping
spheres with little overlap.
carried out without an
oversight and guidance
National Office expects processes  awareness of record keeping
OFFICIAL
to be observed. Registries expect

frameworks.
support to manage records.
There is an absence of actively
Lack of a clear and
working together.
comprehensive approach to
managing records.
THE
Effort put into creating guidance
and support doesn’t have the
necessary impact.
Registry staff based at
The limited amount of time, the
Disposal, transfer, single
the courts are focussed
pressure to support court work,
sequence shelf order and an
on their daily processes.
the background and training of
accurate finding guide are not
UNDER
These allow little time or
the team, and the focus of other
addressed adequately.
focus for other work.
team members means that there
Planning for, reviewing,
is not much attention paid to
monitoring and reporting on
meeting information
records and information
management requirements
management outside of the daily
beyond the needs of the court on  court context is not being done.
the day.
14
8 Legs IM - Review of Records Management Systems and Processes - South Auckland Physical Court
Records - December 2020

RELEASED

Communication channels  Current asynchronous channels
Norms for registry-based record
between National Office
are information rich, but there is
keeping staff are established by  1982
and District Court
no social compulsion to use these  their colleagues in the court.
registries are under
currently, and the advice they
Because there is a lack of
utilised
contain goes unheeded.
frequent contact between
registry staff and records support

in National Office, it is harder for
ACT
Information Advisors at National
Office to have influence.

INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
15
8 Legs IM - Review of Records Management Systems and Processes - South Auckland Physical Court
Records - December 2020

RELEASED

Work Package for Improvement
The streams of work and actions in this work package are designed to improve records and
1982
information management at the South Auckland District Courts to better meet requirements and
overcome the barriers, blockers and hassles.
Workstream
Key Components
ACT
Develop Strategy
Develop and adopt strategy for the management of hard copy court

records, using this review as a foundation.

Build the Relationship  Create a more unified recordkeeping environment by taking actions
Foundation
that minimise the impact of physical distance, barriers between
courts and other parts of the Ministry, and the different cultures and
imperatives at play for records management practice.

As soon as possible initiate a regular virtual meeting of registry staff
based at the courts that focus on records management and
information specialist staff based in National Office. Initial agenda
will be to create a shared programme of work.
INFORMATION
Develop governance model, including a policy and roles and
responsibilities.
Establish regional information management support roles.
Focus activity where the connection between registry staff based at
the courts and information specialist staff based in National Office is
synchronous and the impact on the management of the records can
be seen and measured.

OFFICIAL
Strengthen processes  Provide awareness training on key success factors and risks in
transfer, off-siting and disposal.
Develop and implement processes that minimise records loss,

retrieval difficulties and unauthorised disposal.
THE
Establish formal audit  Agree on risk and issue monitoring processes and systems.
and monitoring for
records
Implement, monitor and continuously improve.

UNDER

Improve location
Create a searchable and comprehensive location guide/finding aid
information and
for non-active court records.
findability
Develop processes for maximising the use and value of the aid and
for ensuring its ongoing maintenance.

16
8 Legs IM - Review of Records Management Systems and Processes - South Auckland Physical Court
Records - December 2020

RELEASED

1982
Impact, Resourcing, and Prerequisites
This section supports the prioritisation of remedial actions to enable the highest possible impact early, and to continue achieving improvements over time.
ACT

Key Components
Impact
Resourcing Notes
Prerequisites

Develop Strategy
The Strategy will provide
This report can provide a
Agreement with the judiciary on the

staff with clarity on the
foundation for the physical
terms of reference and how they will

purpose of physical records
records strategy. Other aspects
provide input and take ownership of the

management activities, their
will need more work, for
outcome.
relative importance, and the
example what and how court
desired future state for
data is managed, the move to
records management.
electronic systems, and the
management of multimedia -
A short and succinct strategy
INFORMATION
security footage and data
of 4 or 5 paragraphs,
captured during video
available as an A3 graphic is
proceedings for example.
more likely to be of use than
a long report.
Based on the author’s
experience, developing a
strategy takes around 160
OFFICIAL
hours.
This is a one-off process,
although the strategy should be
THE  regularly reviewed and revised.

UNDER
17
8 Legs IM - Review of Records Management Systems and Processes - South Auckland Physical Court Records - December 2020

RELEASED

1982

Activities that build the
Although roles may be tweaked
Commitment from the South Auckland

relationship will have the
and revised to ensure all
registry staff and National Office records

most impact on
requirements are met, it is likely  support to undertake this work and
ACT

improvement. The stronger
this stream can be achieved
achieve the outcomes.

the relationship, the easier
with current resourcing.
Build the
Buy-in and understanding of senior
and more effective other
Relationship
The exception is the regional co- leadership in both the registries and
activities will be.
Foundation
ordinator role suggested. This is  National Office.
Create a unified recordkeeping
Focusing activity to where
a position that does not
Capability to develop and implement
environment
the impact is observable and  currently exist.
information and records governance.
Focus Ministry activity
measurable frees up
resources to do more
Capability to lead and participate in
Impact – Very High
impactful work
collaborative cross-agency work. This
includes emotional intelligence –
INFORMATION  assertiveness, empathy, clear
communication, negotiation, active
listening.
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
18
8 Legs IM - Review of Records Management Systems and Processes - South Auckland Physical Court Records - December 2020

RELEASED

1982

Easier location of records
This work would need to be
Availability of project resource to do the
will mean more efficient
done as a project, with the right  work.
retrieval. It is important to
project governance in place. A
Availa
ACT  bility of a usable platform.
note that currently most
pilot would determine
records can be found within
reasonably accurate timeframes  Registry based staff available to assist.

the required timeframe
and resource requirements.
An inventory of the totality of District
Improve location information
without this upfront
Court records held.
and findability
investment.
Create a searchable and
An electronic finding aid will
comprehensive location
be essential once current
guide/finding aid for non-active
records are only kept in
court records.
digital format. Knowledge of
the physical records system
INFORMATION
Develop processes for use,
will start to deteriorate from
updating and improving
that point.
Impact – Medium

OFFICIAL

These are the processes that  These tasks are likely to sit with
Understanding of how Court records are
enable many of the records
National Office records support,  currently used and managed, as well as
management legal
rather than the Registries, once
the success criteria and processes for the

THE
requirements to be met and
roles and responsibilities have
processes.
Strengthen processes
the ones that currently carry
been re-set. Additional
Staff based in Registries committed to
Provide awareness training on
risk.
resources (for example the
supporting process changes.
regional co-ordinator) may be
transfer, off-siting and disposal
required.
Develop and implement new
UNDER
Awareness training would
processes
require a resource to design and
Impact – High
run the training.
19
8 Legs IM - Review of Records Management Systems and Processes - South Auckland Physical Court Records - December 2020

RELEASED

1982

Addressing the highest
Assessment of risk should be
Established and healthy partnership of
impact and most likely risks
carried out once every quarter.
Courts and Ministry information and
one by one will reduce those  Risks can be identified and
records management.
ACT
risks and improve the record
managed outside of this
Capability to establish a risk

keeping system.
process. A monthly review of
management framework and processes.
Establish formal audit and
risks and mitigating actions, and
monitoring for records
a management report circulated  Openness and willingness to overcome
to stakeholders supports
defensiveness about the presence of
Agree on risk and issue monitoring
ongoing meaningful risk
risk.
processes and systems
management activity.
Implement, monitor and
The assessment and monthly
continuously improve
activity are likely to take 80
INFORMATION
Impact –
hours per year.
High
Ownership of this activity

should sit with the courts.

Ministry of Justice information
management staff need to be
involved. The internal audit or
risk management function of
OFFICIAL
Justice may be able to assist.

THE
UNDER
20
8 Legs IM - Review of Records Management Systems and Processes - South Auckland Physical Court Records - December 2020

RELEASED

1982
Indicative Roadmap
ACT
INFORMATION
OFFICIAL
THE
UNDER
21
8 Legs IM - Review of Records Management Systems and Processes - South Auckland Physical Court Records - December 2020

RELEASED

Document Outline