IR-01-25-21262
13 August 2025
Kitty
[FYI request #31227 email]
Kia ora Kitty,
Request for information
Thank you for your Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) request of 6 June 2025, in which
you requested information related to Michael Forbes.
Please find below a response to each of your questions.
- The release of any and all files, previously or currently, stored on any
government-issued device which Forbes used as it pertains to this case. I
understand there may be individual privacy concerns, so please provide objective
written descriptions of the nature of the content involved, for each piece of
content which was stored on a government device.
In accordance with section 16(1)(e) of the OIA, I am providing you a summary of the
investigation rather than the ful investigation file, and a timeline of key events. Please
find this enclosed.
Some information has been withheld under the following sections of the OIA:
•
9(2)(a): to protect the privacy of natural persons,
• 9(2)(g)(i): to al ow the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank
expression of opinions, or
•
The information is out of scope of your request.
- A breakdown of the meaning of 'criminal threshold', both in general and such as
it pertains to the legality of the acts al eged to have taken place. Including but not
limited to: taking secret photos of women's breasts in private residences without
their consent, taking secret photos of women's behinds in public without their
consent, making audio recordings of sex acts without consent. I believe it is in the
public interest to understand how/when/the basis on which police expects to
determine such acts are legal vs illegal.
Please refer to the Solicitor General’s Prosecution Guidelines that can be found here:
https://www.crownlaw.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Prosecution-
Guidelines/ProsecutionGuidelines2013.pdf
- Details as to how the phrase "would be highly offensive to a reasonable person"
has historically been interpreted by Police as it relates to one-party audio
recordings of intimate material, as wel as in currently in this case.
- Details as to the circumstances under which government workers are permitted
to delete files of interest from government issued phones during the execution of
a search warrant.
Under the OIA, agencies are not required to form opinions or create new information in
order to respond to a request. The OIA distinguishes between:
•
Requests for official information already held by the agency, and
•
Requests that would require the agency to generate explanations or opinions,
which is not required under the legislation.
Information must exist and be held by the agency at the time the request is made. The
OIA does not compel agencies to engage in debate or justify decisions on matters of
interest to the requester.
Police does not hold this information and has no reason to believe it is held by another
agency. Accordingly, this part of your request is therefore refused pursuant to section
18(g)(i) of the OIA, as the information is not held.
You have the right to ask the Ombudsman to review my decision if you are not satisfied
with the response to your request. Information about how to make a complaint is available
at: www.ombudsman.parliament.nz.
Yours sincerely
Superintendent Corrie Parnell
District Commander Wellington
New Zealand Police
Investigation Summary – Michael Forbes
Report Date: 31/07/2025
On 12 July 2024, Wellington Police received a complaint that Michael Forbes had covertly made an
audio recording the previous day, while engaging the services of a sex worker. This report is a
summary of the investigation.
It was alleged the incident occurred in a Wellington brothel. The informant advised Police that they
had taken two mobile phones from Mr Forbes, one believed to be a personal phone, the other a work
device. The informant also reported finding other audio files, images, and videos, that caused concern.
The informant was subsequently spoken to by attending officers and both phones were recovered
from them.
Once it was established that Mr Forbes was a senior press secretary at Parliament, procedural
escalation notifications were made that evening. The Wellington District Command Centre was
advised, as was the duty Inspector.
On 13 July 2024, a detective obtained search warrants to examine the two cell phones. The suspected
offence was making an intimate visual recording, being an offence against section 216H of the Crimes
Act 1961.
On 15 July 2024, a detective visited Mr Forbes and advised him of the Police investigation. During that
visit Mr Forbes provided access codes for the phones.
On 18 July 2024, a detective manual y examined the phones. Located within both phones were
numerous videos, screen shots and photos of unidentified females, some in various state of undress,
and exposed breasts were visible in multiple videos.
It was apparent to detectives that some images were taken in, and from, public places, including a
gym.
Some images were also taken through street facing windows of unidentified women, dressing
(undressing) themselves, and who were visible from the waist up.
The examination of the phones did not identify evidence of criminal offending.
On 18 July 2024 Mr Forbes met with a detective and the phones were returned to him. He was also
provided copies of the search warrants that had been obtained.
During the meeting it was suggested that Mr Forbes should delete some of the images on his phones,
and he began doing so.
Police also stressed the onus was on him to inform his employer.
On 19 July 2024 Police provided an update to the complainant. On 6 August 2024, Police also provided
an update to another staff member at the brothel. They expressed frustration and disappointment
with the outcome.
Page
1 of
3
Timeline of Key Events and Executive Notifications
Date & Time
Event
Details
11 July 2024, 1900hrs
Incident occurs
Forbes records audio during a sexual
encounter at a Wellington brothel.
Phones seized by manager.
12 July 2024, 17:40hrs
Police Comms notified
Informant contacts Police. Event
P059327922 created.
12 July 2024, 17:49hrs
National Command and
Notification sent from Comms to NCCC.
Coordination Centre (NCCC)
alerted
12 July 2024, 17:53hrs
NCCC acknowledges
Shift Commander S/Sgt Duncan
Goldsmith logs the event.
12 July 2024, 18:22hrs
District Command Centre
District Command Centre notified.
(DCC) advised
12 July 2024, 18:29hrs
Duty Inspector notified
Inspector Brad Al en advised.
12 July 2024, 18:15–
NCCC sends Sit Rep 1
Wide distribution list including senior
18:20hrs
leaders across Police.
12 July 2024, 18:25hrs
D/Supt Darryl Sweeney
Sitrep sent to D/Insp John van den
forwards Sit Rep
Heuvel, AC Paul Basham, and Supt Corrie
Parnell.
12 July 2024, 18:30–
AC Basham added to
Confirmed by NCCC staff.
19:00hrs
escalation list
12 July 2024, 19:00–
DC Tania Kura briefed
Confirmed by Supt Parnell.
19:20hrs
12 July 2024, 18.37hrs
Recal attempt initiated
NCCC attempts to recall Sit Rep 1.
13 July 2024
Search warrants obtained
For both phones under suspicion of
intimate visual recording.
15 July 2024
Forbes visited by Police
Provided PIN codes for phones.
18 July 2024
Prevention conversation
Phones returned, no charges laid.
held
Page
2 of
3
Date & Time
Event
Details
19 July 2024
Informant advised of
Informant updated by Police.
outcome
Page
3 of
3
