Evidence tampering by Police

Amanda Murtagh made this Official Information request to New Zealand Police

Response to this request is long overdue. By law New Zealand Police should have responded by now (details and exceptions). The requester can complain to the Ombudsman.

From: Amanda Murtagh

Dear New Zealand Police,

This OIA is not a PIR because it is a matter that is in the public interest. All supporting information provided will have personal information redacted.

This OIA is in reference to 111 phone calls made to Police, in particular the ECLI recording of phone calls made from mobile devices:

1. With ECLI, how is it possible that two 111 phone calls are made from the same location using a mobile device that Police claim never to have received these calls?

2. Did the Police operative obtain the mobile device in point one above, in an attempt to destroy proof of evidence of these two phone calls?

2. How does a third phone call made from the same location using a different mobile device, have the Police 111 call operator classify the caller as a ‘regular caller’ (inconsistent with strictly monitored protocols in place for the call centre and the National Recording Standards for data integrity) in the so-called first ever chronology of 111 calls, when Police professed there were no prior calls as described in point one above?

3. Why and by whom was the decision made to deliberately deceive and mislead a member of the public, the IPCA and Privacy Commissioner, regarding the existence of the first two phone calls (despite ECLI assurances that protect people in New Zealand)?

4. Below are links to the Police letter claiming that Police do not have the first two 111 phone calls and a call chronology of the third call (that police claim is the first call received) showing the labelling of the caller as a ‘regular caller’:



Yours faithfully,

Amanda Murtagh

Link to this

Things to do with this request

New Zealand Police only: