Dear New Zealand Police,

I am a NZ Citizen.

I am writing to request a copy of the Police Manual chapters about Electronic interception, whether interception is by Police with a lawful warrant, or the unlawful interception by a known or unknown person/entity. I refer to section 216B of the Crimes Act 1961.

If, for some reason, the Police decline to provide me with a copy of the Police manual chapter because it may reveal secrets that would hinder their jobs, then I restrict my request to only the sections which provide definitions. I do not need to know the details of how the police intercept communications, or any other person, as that information is easy obtained online and in books.

I also request information as to the general steps which must be taken by the Police when a person makes a formal complaint to the Police (e.g., documentation of complaint in the police system, general steps of an investigation, general steps for obtaining evidence, etc.).

Last, I request policies which inform the decision making for bringing charges and prosecution.

Thank you for your assistance.

AS Van Wey

Dear New Zealand Police,

I understand that under the law, the failure to respond within the legislative timeframe is considered a deemed decision of refusal, without justification. This is unlawful under the OIA. Thus, I would like to provide the police with an opportunity to rectify the error and comply with their legislative duty to provide the requested information.

I trust that the Police will not require an additional 20 days to provide the requested information, as the as the police manual is kept electronically and must be readily accessible to all police employees. I would think that 5 working days would be reasonable; however, if the Police think they need more time, I trust that within the next 5 working days I will be provided a letter to inform me of the extension and an explanation of why the delay is necessary.

Regards,

AS Van Wey

Dear NZ Police,

I am quite confused as to why terms and definitions were redacted. Would you please provide a reason for why having knowledge of key terms and definitions of terms would "prejudice the maintenance of the law including the prevention, investigation and detection of offences and the right to a fair trial"? Wouldn't a fair trial, prevention, and detection of offences require a common understanding of terms and the definition of those terms? How would a person know if they were committing an offence if they are never told what the offence is or how it is defined?

I note that the document you provide me is about the Police use of interception of private communications, which is unlawful unless they have obtained a warrant from a judge and the judge has been given accurate, truthful information.

I request the Police manual on the investigation into the criminal act of interception of private communications (see section 216B of the Crimes Act) and use of a computer for dishonest purpose (see section 249 of the Crimes Act). Again, I request that all terminology and definitions NOT be redacted, as definitions are necessary for understanding by the police and the public. An example of this would be investigating the criminal offenders who hacked Waikato DHB and obtained private communications and personal health information. Or Le Roy v New Zealand Police HC WN CRI 2008 485 38 [25 August 2008], where Le Roy unlawfully accessed email communications sent by his ex-girlfriend when working for a telecommunications company. I hope this clarifies matters. You may want to forward my request to the commanding officer who is in charge of investigating cyber crimes.

Yours sincerely,

AS Van Wey

Dear Ministerial Services,
The manual I received from the police regarding interception is only that of the use of interception devices by the police, and not the manual on investigating unlawful interception, as defined under section 216B of the Crimes Act, or unlawful access using a computer, as defined under section 249 of the Crimes Act. Would you please send me these parts of your police manual?

I also require an explanation as to why providing definitions would compromise the police's ability to do their jobs. How is transparency in use of language something that would hinder the police's ability to do their job or compromise any investigations? These are definitions, like one would find in a dictionary.

Yours sincerely,

AS Van Wey

Dear New Zealand Police,

Each time I make a request from the Police about how they investigate the criminal act of interception of personal communications (s 216B of the Crimes Act) or other crimes using computers (s 249) of the crimes act, I'm not provided with the information I request.

Thus, please tell me who has been delegated by the Commissioner of Police to investigate crimes of privacy and crimes involving computers (ss 216B and 249 of the Crimes Act), where their office is located, and how one can reach them directly to request the information from them so that I may receive the correct information.

Yours faithfully,

AS Van Wey