OIA response re 'anti-courtsiding'.
Kilian O'Gorman made this Official Information request to New Zealand Police
The request was partially successful.
From: Kilian O'Gorman
Dear New Zealand Police, you are already aware of my eligibility to request information under the OIA, so I won't be providing it again. If you want to check it- consult your own records.
On the matter of timewasting........
In a recently released OIA response ( 29-May, 2015) - Superintendent Sandra Manderson declined to provide :
"All information relating to courtsiders, including training material, what social media accounts of keywords were monitored, and all communications to and from the police about it..."
on the basis that under Section 6(c) of OIA, stating this would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences.
Given that S. Manderson conceded in that same response that 'courtsiding is not a crime under New Zealand law', can you please provide the following:
1.Given that 'courtsiding' is not an offence, please list which laws (the maintenance of which) are 'likely' to be prejudiced by revealing information about police activity relating to this perfectly legal practice.
2.Given that 'courtsiding' is not an offence, please list which offences - ( the provision of information relating to courtsiding) - is 'likely' to prejudice by preventing the detection, investigation or prevention of.
3. In reference to S.Manderson's reply to item three in her May 29th response: please provide ANY OFFICIAL INFORMATION you may hold relating to surveillance of courtsiders, including copies of ANY communications to or from the police about it which is UNLIKELY to prejudice the maintenance of the law. You'll note the use of the term ANY as opposed to ALL. Because surely there must be SOMETHING official which can be released.
4.
In relation to the following piece in the NZ Herald-
NZ Herald
Cricket World Cup: Expert questions police role in removing court-siders from venues
5:00 AM Wednesday Feb 18, 2015
On Saturday Superintendent Sandy Manderson, the officer in charge of the police's World Cup operation, said police had "several" officers - including plain-clothed police - in and around the grounds looking for court-siders.
A police spokesman said it was their role in the tournament to ensure safety and security, to ensure it was a success and to assist security and the partner agencies to the best of their ability.
"Part of that mandate is to ensure the terms and conditions of tickets are maintained. Court-siding fits into that in the same way that someone who might be intoxicated on a bank drinking fits into that."
---
Please provide an account of S.Mandersons full statement to the press, from which the term "several" has been quoted.
Please confirm that the following quotes
"Part of that mandate is to ensure the terms and conditions of tickets are maintained. Court-siding fits into that in the same way that someone who might be intoxicated on a bank drinking fits into that." (NZH)
"We know what to look for," the New Zealand Police's officer in charge of the World Cup, Superintendent Sandy Manderson said in a statement. (Otago Daily Times)
"We're aware that people are attempting to operate at venues and they will be detected, evicted and trespassed from all venues." (Otago Daily Times)
a) accurately reflect the words of a NZ Police spokesman
and if so:
b) accurately reflect the law enforcement policies of NZ Police
and if so:
c) how do the legal activities of 'courtsiding' fit within the 'mandate' the NZ Police appear to have developed in the area of 'ensuring the terms and conditions of tickets are maintained.'
And lastly:
5.
a)Can you please confirm that some elements of the NZ Police are not simply making it up as they go along, and think that if someone who sounds important tells them to watch for dodgy betting at a tennis tournament they have to do it- even though its not even an offence.
b) Can you please confirm if it is accepted practice when answering OIAs relating to Police making things up as they go along, to use section 6 (c) to divert attention away by pretending that there are bigger things involving bad people going on and that if they tell us anything the baddies might get away?
c) In anticipation of your delay in answering, can you please provide me with a date convenient to you that I can send my complaint to the Ombudsman?
Yours faithfully,
Kilian O'Gorman
From: THOMSON, Raewyn
New Zealand Police
Dear Mr O’Gorman
I refer to your Official Information Act request of 2 June 2015. You
requested information about courtsiding.
Pursuant to section 15A of the Official Information Act 1982, I advise you
of the requirement to extend the time limit to respond to your requests.
The period of the extension is until 30 July 2015.
The reason for the extension is that the time required to research and
collate the requested information and for the consultations necessary to
make a decision on the request are such that a proper response cannot
reasonably be made within the original time limit.
You have the right, under section 28(3) of the Official Information Act
1982, to ask the Ombudsman to investigate and review my decision to extend
the time limit for deciding upon your request.
Yours sincerely
Raewyn Thomson
Ministerial Services
===============================================================
WARNING
The information contained in this email message is intended for the
addressee only and may contain privileged information. It may also be
subject to the provisions of section 50 of the Policing Act 2008, which
creates an offence to have unlawful possession of Police property. If you
are not the intended recipient of this message or have received this
message in error, you must not peruse, use, distribute or copy this
message or any of its contents.
Also note, the views expressed in this message may not necessarily reflect
those of the New Zealand Police. If you have received this message in
error, please email or telephone the sender immediately
From: THOMSON, Raewyn
New Zealand Police
===============================================================
WARNING
The information contained in this email message is intended for the
addressee only and may contain privileged information. It may also be
subject to the provisions of section 50 of the Policing Act 2008, which
creates an offence to have unlawful possession of Police property. If you
are not the intended recipient of this message or have received this
message in error, you must not peruse, use, distribute or copy this
message or any of its contents.
Also note, the views expressed in this message may not necessarily reflect
those of the New Zealand Police. If you have received this message in
error, please email or telephone the sender immediately
Kilian O'Gorman left an annotation ()
That's exactly right- which was the whole point of my OIA- the NZP seemed to have no issues giving a lengthy and in-depth interview to the media- but suddenly clam up when their own statements are read back to them. Using Sec 6 as a blanket protection from transparent accountability was just to be expected.
Its a bit like saying on national TV - "we are arresting anyone with a red-scarf, because that's a sign of gang related activity" and when questioned about the approach- claiming privilege and saying- "we can't tell you ANYTHING because that would help the real criminals- and we can't tell you what laws they are breaking-and we can't tell you anything else- oh and by the way- none of this has been documented at any level at all".
Combine this with the fact that the person charged with completing the OIA was the same person in charge of the 'operation', indeed the same person who initially gave substantial information to the media- is a little worrying.
The NZP may think "damned if we do, and damned if we don't"- and there may be some truth in that, but they were the ones who volunteered the information that 'upholding ticket conditions at sports venues is part of the NZP mandate'.
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this request
T left an annotation ()
The response states (at 1. on page 2) that it is withholding information pursuant to section 6(c) of the OIA because "[r]evealing how Police conduct surveillance or monitor social media in the public arena may allow those who seek to carry out illegal activity in New Zealand to adapt their counter surveillance techniques".
This is an incorrect interpretation of section 6(c) (and section 6 generally). Section 6(c) permits - it does not require - information to be withheld only where making the information available would be "likely ... to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences, and the right to a fair trial." Importantly, section 6 does not permit information to be withheld merely because this "may" be detrimental to one of the interests protected in this section (here, maintenance of the law). See, for example, the Ombudsman's guidance, itself quoting from the Court of Appeal (http://www.ombudsman.parliament.nz/syste...):
'The phrase "would be likely" requires more than mere possibility that disclosure may have a prejudicial effect. The Court of Appeal has interpreted the phrase "would be likely" to mean "a serious or real and substantial risk to a protected interest, a risk that might well eventuate”. This is a lower standard than that required by the reasons for refusal in section 9 of the Act, where information can be withheld "if, and only if, the withholding is necessary" to avoid prejudice to one of the interests identified as requiring protection.'
Link to this